HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 09/20/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers
Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
September 20, 2011
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring September 17 through 23, 2011 as Constitution Week.
B. Proclamation Declaring September 23, 2011 as Global Be(er) Responsible Day.
C. Proclamation Declaring September 29 and 30, 2011, as the USDA Agricultural Research Service
Water Management Research Centennial Celebration.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (limited to 30 minutes)
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 20. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar
and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Item No. 26, Pulled Consent Items. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 23, 2011, Adjourned Meeting and the
August 31, 2011, Special Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to
the Compensation of Councilmembers.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, repeals the City Code
provision relating to Council compensation. This section is unnecessary because the method for
adjusting compensation is set out in the City Charter, and such adjustment is accomplished through
administrative action of the City Manager.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! State your name and address for the record.
! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed
! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk
Page 3
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated
Revenue in Various City Funds.
The purpose of this annual “clean-up” Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that
need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not
anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2011 budget. The unanticipated revenue is primarily
from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset
specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being appropriated for unanticipated operation
expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance, adopted on First
Reading on September 6, 2011, by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Horak) appropriates prior year reserves and
unanticipated revenue in various City funds.
9. Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City Code.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of the City
Code Pertaining to Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2011, Adding a Section to Article IV of Chapter 17
of the City Code Pertaining to the Violation of Court Orders.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2011, Amending Articles VII and VIII of Chapter 17
of the City Code Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct, Harassment and Public Indecency.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2011, Adding a New Section in Article VII of Chapter
17 of the City Code Pertaining to Graffiti Crimes.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City
Code Pertaining to Loitering.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2011, Adding a New Section to Article VII of Chapter
17 of the City Code Pertaining to Staying on Medians Prohibited.
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2011, Amending Article III of Chapter 17 of the City
Code Pertaining to Jurisdictional Amount of Various Criminal Offenses.
To maintain continuity with federal law, the revised statutes for the State of Colorado, and the needs
of citizens of Fort Collins, the Fort Collins City Code must be regularly updated through amendments,
deletions, and the creation of new ordinances. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on September 6, 2011, will allow law enforcement to more effectively and efficiently protect
and serve the citizens of Fort Collins.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2011 Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins Traffic
Code.
The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative session relating
to state traffic laws. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011,
ensures that the Fort Collins Traffic Code is consistent with state traffic laws.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, makes various
changes, additions and clarifications in the 2011 annual update of the Land Use Code.
Page 4
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a Tract of
Stormwater Utility Property to Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey.
In 1992, the final plat of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing dedicated Tract E to the City of Fort Collins for the
purposes of storm drainage, flood plain management and Department of Parks and Recreation use.
The intended purpose of the Parks and Recreation use was for a bike trail. In 1998, the location of
the bike trail was changed to be adjacent to Shields Street. To accommodate this change, the City
acquired Tracts A, B, and D of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing for the bike trail that has been constructed
and is now in use. Due to the City’s change of use for Tract E, the adjacent property owners, Kevin
and Julia Caffrey, have expressed an interest to obtain the portion of Tract E that abuts their property
at 5424 Hilldale Court. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6,
2011, authorizes the conveyance to the Caffreys of two small triangular areas in Tract E, totaling 547
square feet in area, that are outside the erosion buffer limits, the City’s floodway, and therefore are
not required for flood plain management or for storm drainage by the City.
13. Items Relating to the Upgrade of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail
Management System.
A. Resolution 2011-085 Approving an Exemption to the Use of a Competitive Process for a
Contract with Tiburon, Inc. For System Upgrades to the Computer Aided Dispatch, Records
Management and Jail Management System.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer
Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade.
This Resolution authorizes Fort Collins Police Services to upgrade the current Computer Aided,
Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System (CAD/RMS/JMS) systems (software,
hardware and project manager costs) through Tiburon, Inc. which will allow the CRISP (Combined
Regional Information Sharing Project) agencies to bring the current CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to-
date. The current version of CAD/RMS/JMS is outdated and does not operate in the latest Windows
or Internet Explorer environments. The Ordinance authorizes the appropriation of funds needed to
complete this project.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the
Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City
Attorney.
The Ordinance expands the financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected
City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the
person making disclosure or the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the
purpose of resale and profit, as currently required.
15. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City
Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City
Code Regarding Resource Conservation.
In an effort to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide options for
Fort Collins residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass, these Code amendments allow
certain grass types to be exempt from the current six inch height limit. The grass types that would
be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalograss, and they would have a height limit of twelve inches.
Page 5
16. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code
Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Adding a Section in Article IV of Chapter 20 of the
City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weed and
Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
The amendments to Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code will allow staff to make payment plan
arrangements with defendants for the amount due for civil infractions, and to extend a defendant’s
timeframe within which to satisfy judgment after a final hearing to a reasonable period of time beyond
thirty days.
The amendments to Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code will provide the option of an appeal
process for weed and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the Director of Community Development
& Neighborhood Services (CDNS) or with the Municipal Court Referee which is consistent with the
appeal process for sidewalk snow removal abatements.
17. Resolution 2011-086 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within
the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and the Territory of the Windsor-Severance
Fire Protection District.
This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to
exclude properties annexed into the City in 2010 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and
the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District in accordance with state law and to allow for the
provision of fire protection services to such properties by the Poudre Fire Authority.
18. Resolution 2011-087 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the
Leistikow Annexation.
The applicants, Wayne B. and Janice E. Leistikow, the property owners, have submitted a written
petition requesting annexation of 18.035 acres located on the east side of South Timberline North
Road, and on the south side of Trilby Road. The property contains a single family detached home
approved in Larimer County under FA-1 zoning as part of the Leistikow Minor Residential Division
approved in 1992. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The parcel to the
north is the Westchase P.U.D., zoned L-M-N and U-E and annexed into the City of Fort Collins in
2001. The properties to the east, south and west are currently zoned FA-1 and located in Larimer
County.
19. Resolution 2011-088 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the
Courtney Annexation.
The applicants, C. Scott and Nancy E. Courtney, the property owners, have submitted a written
petition requesting annexation of 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East
Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court,
which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie
Lane are included in the annexation boundary. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming
District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The
surrounding properties are currently zoned FA1 – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, east
and south; and, UE – Urban Estate in the City to the west.
Page 6
20. Resolution 2011-089 Extending the Deadline for the City and Town of Windsor to Take Certain
Actions Required by the 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 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 the City and Windsor will take certain actions to implement the IGA by
March 31, 2011. On March 15, 2011, Council extended the deadline for all actions to be taken under
Section 4.2.2, 4.3.1 and 4.3.8 of the IGA to June 7, 2011.
On May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-041, extending the deadline for staff of
both municipalities to complete their studies and public outreach until September 20, 2011. The staff
of both municipalities recommend that the September 20, 2011, deadline be further extended to
December 6, 2011, in order to allow additional time to complete their studies and public outreach and
make their recommendations.
END CONSENT
21. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
22. Staff Reports.
23. Councilmember Reports.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
Page 7
24. Resolution 2011-090 Documenting and Presenting the City Council’s Comments on the North I-25
Final Environmental Impact Statement. (staff: Kathleen Bracke; 10 minute staff presentation; 45
minute discussion)
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 staff has been developing the North
I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for several years. Work on the EIS began in 2001. The
purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern
Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans
for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor.
CDOT published the Final EIS document on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments
through October 3. Staff has reviewed the Final EIS document and provided technical comments to
share with City Council and CDOT as part of this public review period. The September 20 regular
session action represents the City’s opportunity to share staff, Council, and other potential community
concerns with CDOT as part of the formal comment period on the Final EIS document.
25. Resolution 2011-091 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council
Meetings. (staff: Steve Roy; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
This Resolution would amend the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council meetings
with regard to citizen comment during the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings. The 30-
minute time limit that currently exists for the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings would be
eliminated and certain topics would be specified as not being appropriate for comment during that
portion of the meeting: matters on the discussion agenda for the meeting and quasi-judicial matters.
26. Pulled Consent Items.
27. Other Business.
28. Adjournment.
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced
before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by
majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items
of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council
meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered
by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion
agenda for such meeting.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, it is the privilege and duty of the American people to commemorate the
anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America with appropriate
ceremonies; and
WHEREAS, September 17, 2011 marks the two hundred and twenty-fourth anniversary of
the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention;
and
WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to officially recognize this magnificent document and
the anniversary of its creation; and
WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to officially recognize the patriotic celebrations which
will commemorate the occasion; and
WHEREAS, Public Law No. 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the
President of the United States of America, designating September 17 through 23 as Constitution
Week.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim September 17 through 23, 2011 to be
CONSTITUTION WEEK
in Fort Collins, and ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals the framers of the Constitution had in
1787.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Anheuser-Busch and its local wholesaler, American Eagle Distributing, are
proud members of the Fort Collins community, with a long-standing commitment to ensure that its
products are enjoyed responsibly and has promoted responsible drinking since 1982 with an
investment of over $875 million; and
WHEREAS, Anheuser-Busch is opposed to drunk driving and believes it is 100 percent
preventable, and believes the beer industry should play a role in promoting alcohol responsibility
because no company benefits from the misuse of its products and promotes the use of designated
drivers; and
WHEREAS, parents, educators, retailers, law enforcement, elected officials and citizens all
play an important role when it comes to alcohol responsibility in our communities; and
WHEREAS, many people in Fort Collins are passionate about promoting alcohol
responsibility and will participate in Global Be(er) Responsible Day on Sept. 23, taking pledges to
be designated drivers and encouraging their friends and family to remember to always use a
designated driver if they choose to drink.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim September 23, 2011, as:
BE(ER) RESPONSIBLE DAY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture initiated the Irrigation Investigations Unit
in Fort Collins in 1911 through a cooperative agreement with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment
Station; and
WHEREAS, USDA irrigation water management research has continued in Fort Collins in
collaboration with Colorado State University for 100 years; and
WHEREAS, irrigation water management innovations developed by the USDA in Fort
Collins have been adopted across Colorado, the west, and the world; and
WHEREAS, over 300 CSU students of irrigation engineering and agricultural water
management have received internships, graduate advising, or employment from the USDA; and
WHEREAS, federal research laboratories located in Fort Collins, such as the USDA-
Agricultural Research Service, employ over 750 and contribute nearly $100,000,000 to the Larimer
County economy each year; and
WHEREAS, the USDA Agricultural Research Service Water Management Research Unit
will be celebrating its100 year anniversary on September 29 and 30, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkanut, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim September 29 and 30, 2011, as
USDA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
WATER MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the August 23, 2011 Adjourned Meeting and the August 31, 2011 Special
Meeting.
August 23, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 5:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 23,
2011, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak,
and Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
City Attorney Roy explained that objections to statements made during the appeal hearings should
be made at the time an issue arises; however, each party will have the opportunity to address its
opinion with regard to objections during the 10 minute period discussing procedural issues. The
types of objections allowed will have to do with whether or not the speaker is introducing new
evidence.
Councilmember Troxell stated he has explored the potential for his having a conflict of interest
given his employment at CSU and his relationship with petition circulators and the appellants. He
stated his decisions on this matter will be impartial.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the first 10 minutes for each party will be devoted to discussing procedural
issues.
Rick Zier, 322 East Oak Street, attorney representing the appellants, stated the appellants support
objections occurring as issues arise. He asked if the balance of any leftover time from the initial
presentation could be applied to one’s rebuttal time. He asked if the PDP hearing will proceed
should the ODP approval be overturned.
Lucia Liley, 300 South Howes Street, attorney representing the applicant, stated the Planning and
Zoning Board, City staff, and the applicant, were deprived from any meaningful opportunity to
review and consider the large number of documents, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, submitted at the
Planning and Zoning Board hearing by the appellants. Because of the timing of the submittal of the
documents, the applicant had no opportunity to formally respond until this appeal hearing. She
stated her specific objections to the process are that the written materials came in without any
opportunity for Board or applicant review, no written response to the documents was permitted, and
that the only opportunity for the applicant to respond will come this evening in verbal form. Ms.
Liley asked that objections be discussed following presentations rather than halting presentations.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested objections should be discussed briefly as they arise.
Councilmember Kottwitz disagreed, stating the interruptions could be disruptive.
464
August 23, 2011
Councilmember Manvel agreed with Mayor Weitkunat.
Councilmember Horak asked if the objectors will be limited to one per side rather than involve the
entire audience. Mr. Zier and Ms. Liley agreed to be the sole objectors for each side.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested the initially proposed timeframes will remain in place with no
additional time allotted for rebuttal should the entire presentation time not be used.
City Attorney Roy suggested the PDP appeal hearing be considered, or at least introduced, following
the decision on the ODP hearing.
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes
HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail
Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to
approve the Amended CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development
Plan, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
proposed Amended CSURF Center for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan (ODP).
The Board considered testimony from the applicant, the public and staff. The Amended ODP was
approved. Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA and Hillpond on Spring Creek have appealed the
Board’s decisions. The allegations are that the Planning and Zoning Board did not properly
interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and Charter.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is an appeal of the decision for a request for an Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced
Technology, Overall Development Plan. The purpose of the Amended ODP is to realign the
proposed future Rolland Moore Drive street connection through Parcel C between Centre Avenue
and South Shields Street; and, to eliminate the proposed future Northerland Drive street connection
from Parcel C to Gilgalad Way in the Windtrail on Spring Creek PUD to the north. The properties
contained on the ODP are, cumulatively, 116.7 acres in size. They are located in the MMN -
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and E - Employment Zoning Districts.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
1. At its June 16, 2011 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following
findings of fact and conclusions as stated on page 6 of the Staff Report for the Amended
CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan:
A. The ODP complies with the applicable standards as stated in Section 2.3.2(D)(1 -
8).
465
August 23, 2011
B. The re-alignment of Rolland Moore Drive is in compliance with the intent of the
Master Street Plan and preserves existing wetlands.
C. The elimination of the connection between Northerland Drive and Rolland Moore
Drive will not impact this neighborhood in a detrimental way because ample existing
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connections are provided via the local street
network and trails in the area; and wetlands are preserved by the elimination of this
connection.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staff and voted
to approve the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced Technology, Overall Development Plan.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On June 30, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk’s Office from the Windtrail on
Spring Creek HOA (c/o Kevin Barrier, President of the HOA, 1999 Northerland Drive, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80526); and, Hillpond on Spring Creek (c/o Gail Dethloff, Board President of the HOA,
1937 Wallenberg Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526).
The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board's approval of the Amended ODP failed
to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code.
Allegations:
a. Improper interpretation of LUC Sections 2.3.2(H)(7), 4.27(D)(2) and 5.1.2 in relation to
allocation of allowable secondary use in the Employment District.
Part I-A of the Resident Report discusses how the Amended ODP provides the means for increasing
the proportion of Employment District in the Centre for Advanced Technology developed for non-
employment, secondary uses beyond the limits set by the Land Use Code. Section 2.3.2(H)(7)
requires mix of uses to be applied to the entire overall development plan, which allows any future
PDP to exceed the 25% limit on secondary use in the Employment District by borrowing secondary
use acreage from other parcels. The Board misinterpreted Section 2.3.2(H)(7) in that it did not
require an accounting of previous secondary uses within the Centre for Advanced Technology be
included in the Amended ODP to indicate how much secondary use has been used in this manner
since establishment of the Employment District zone. The 18.1 acre Horticulture Center and the 1.5
acre CSU Ropes Course used approximately 14.6 more acres of Employment District for secondary
uses than would have been allowed by Section 4.27(D)(2). There may be several other instances of
secondary use in the Employment District of the Centre for Advanced Technology since the
establishment of zoning after the 1999 ODP.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 5.1.2 with regard to the status of the Ropes Course as a community
facility; it is publicly owned and intended to serve recreational, educational, cultural and
entertainment needs of the community as a whole. It is a secured, fee-for-use public facility. It is not
open recreational space. It is an Employment District secondary use in Parcel D of the Amended
ODP.
466
August 23, 2011
The Board misinterpreted Section 4.27(D)(2) as it applies to an overall development plan by
allowing Note 2 of the Amended ODP to set a condition whereby any development in Parcels D and
E, which are in the Employment Zone and the FEMA floodway, will not be counted against the 25%
secondary use allowance provided by their 52.3 acres (a total of 13.07 acres). Future secondary
uses in Parcels D and E would never be debited against that allowance, which could result in 13.07
acres more than 25% of the Amended ODP Employment District being developed for secondary,
non-employment uses. Note 2 should be struck from the Amended ODP and language from Note 2
of the 2003 ODP should not be carried forward.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 5.1.2 with regard to the meaning of "development plan" in Section
4.27(D)(2) by deciding that issues related to the 25% limit on secondary use in the Employment
District are not applicable to an overall development plan. Section 4.27(D)(2) applies to a
"development plan", which Section 5.1.2 defines as an overall development plan, a project
development plan and/or a final development plan. When considering an ODP in relation to
4.27.(D)(2), the "development plan" is the ODP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The total amount of area on both the CSURFCentre for Advanced Technology ODP (approved by
the Planning & Zoning Board on 2/20/2003 and recorded) and the Amended CSURF Centre for
Advanced Technology ODP (approved by the P&Z Board on 6/16/2011) is 116.7 acres. The amount
of area within the E, Employment District on both ODP’s is 96.5 acres. The amount of area within
the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District on both ODP’s, completely within
Parcel C, is 20.2 acres. The Gardens on Spring Creek facility is not included within the boundaries
of either ODP containing Parcels A thru F. Therefore, it is not counted against the allowable land
uses on the ODP’s. During its development review process in 2003 the CSU Ropes Course (Parcel
D) was, in fact, determined to be a Community Facility in the E District. Community facilities are
Secondary Uses in that district. The total amount of secondary uses in the E District currently
existing or proposed is 18.5 acres (9.1 acres in Parcel C and 9.4 acres in Parcel D), which is 19.2%
of the total of 96.5 acres in the E District.
b. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 5.1.2 regarding Floor Area Ratio.
The Amended ODP deletes Note 5 from the 2003 ODP which states, "Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(building square footage divided by land area square footage) for all parcels not to exceed .37."
LUC Section 5.1.2 defines Floor Area Ratio as the gross floor area of all principal buildings on a
lot or block by the total area of such lot, or the block size. This definition does not mention parcels
and is clearly intended to be applied to lots and blocks at the detailed level of a PDP. The FAR note
in the 2003 ODP was intended to apply a maximum Floor Area Ratio to the lots and blocks of any
future PDP that might have been proposed for any parcel within the ODP. The Board misinterpreted
both Note 5 and Section 5.1.2 when it accepted the Applicant's FAR calculation using the total area
of buildings in the PDP divided by the total parcel square footage.
(The Resident Report contains a typographical error on page 1-7, where the LUC citation is written
as Section 5.2. Definitions are in Section 5.1.2.)
467
August 23, 2011
The Board misinterpreted the general purpose and intent of the LUC when it decided that since FAR
is not used as a planning tool in the LUC, it was not part of the LUC and therefore could simply be
removed during amendment of the Centre of Advanced Technology ODP. The FAR note was
attached to and approved with the 2003 ODP. This made it the standard for the development of the
Centre for Advanced Technology in accordance with the LUC. FAR is defined in the LUC 5.1.2. and
therefore is indeed part of the LUC. FAR is not regulated by LUC, but that is irrelevant to upholding
this limitation that was instituted by the 2003 ODP. There should be a very compelling reason to
remove prior protections that presumably were placed as an approved condition and promise to the
community for how future development would take place.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff’s response to Planning & Zoning Board’s questions at the public hearing was that Floor Area
Ratio is not a criterion that must be applied or complied with for evaluation of an Overall
Development Plan, per Section 2.3.2(H) of the Land Use Code. However, at the Board Public
Hearing on June 16, 2011 the Applicant agreed not to remove the FAR-related note as shown on
the February 20, 2003 ODP.
c. Improper interpretation of LUC 1.2.2(E) regarding land uses in the Spring Creek lOO-
year floodplain.
The 2003 Centre for Advanced Technology ODP did not allow secondary uses in an Employment
District in the floodplain, but the Amended ODP does allow such development. Note 3 of the 2003
ODP states: "Land uses proposed within the Spring Creek 100-year floodplain shall not be
considered secondary uses." As noted on page 1-8 of the Resident Report, City Staff determined in
2009 that this note does not allow residential construction in the floodplain. The Amended ODP
allows such development by the simple expedient of deleting this note. Prohibition of residential
construction as a secondary use in the Employment District in the Spring Creek floodplain reduces
risk to the lives and property of neighboring landowners, potential tenants and first responders.
When approving the Amended ODP, the Board misinterpreted LUC 1.2.2(E) regarding the
protection of life and property in the matter of floodwaters by allowing removal of the protection
afforded by Note 3 of the 2003 ODP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
At the Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing on June 16, 2011 the Applicant agreed to retain
General Notes 2 & 3 as shown on the February 20, 2003 ODP, this in lieu of the proposed new
General Note 2 on the Amended ODP. This note relates to allowance or prohibition of potential
Secondary Uses in the floodway or floodplain, primarily in Parcels D and E of the ODP.
d. Improper interpretation of LUC 2.3.2(H)(1) regarding the basis for classification and
granting of administrative variances for the design of Rolland Moore Drive as a Minor
Collector.
When approving the ODP, the Board accepted administrative variances that downgraded the street
design of Rolland Moore Drive relative to its classification. In doing so, the Board misinterpreted
468
August 23, 2011
LUC 2.3.2(H)(1) regarding the permitted uses and standards for zoned districts in overall
development plans. Commercial offices and shops are permitted use in the MMN District according
to LUC 4.6(B)(3)(c)(2). The June 2002 Transportation Impact Study for Parcel C of the Centre for
Advanced Technology found that commercial office use of the MMN area of Parcel C, along with
similar permitted uses in the Employment District would generate 5,735 daily trips, thereby causing
Rolland Moore Drive to be classified as a Collector. The Board improperly assumed that since
residential uses are permitted in the MMN District, residential levels of traffic could be used to
calculate daily trips for the classification and design of Rolland Moore Drive. However, the
Amended ODP does not rezone or limit development of any permitted use in the MMN District in
Parcel C. As noted on page 1-11 of the Resident Report, the Amended ODP must be able to stand
on its own merit for the maximum allowable development. Rolland Moore Drive should meet the
standards for a Collector street capable of handling the number of daily trips identified for the
complete complement of permitted uses.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The basis for a street classification is determined from how the street may function, what volume
of traffic is expected to use the roadway, safety considerations and context-sensitive design to
support the surrounding neighborhoods. Rolland Moore Drive continues to be designated as a
collector street on the Master Street Plan and staff expects it to function as a Collector street as the
surrounding land is developed. The Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) does
allow the City Engineer to approve variances to the street design standards. Several variances have
been approved related to the street geometry (i.e., centerline radii and minimum tangent between
curves) and reducing the travel lane width from 11 feet to 10 feet. The variances are viewed as
acceptable with the planned posted speed limit of 25 mph which is also viewed as commensurate
with the developing residential land use in the area. City staff from Engineering, Traffic Operations,
Transportation Planning, and Community Development and Neighborhood Services reviewed and
support the variances.
The approved variances do not change the collector-level classification or street cross-section of
Rolland Moore Drive. City staff has determined that the variances ensure that the design of Rolland
Moore Drive will match the context of the surrounding land uses. Rolland Moore Drive as planned
and designed is expected to accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes based on adjacent
zoning, as well as provide needed connectivity for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
e. Improper interpretation of LUC 2.3.2{H)(1) by approval of a conceptual alignment for
Rolland Moore Drive that does not comply in general with LCUASS standards for its
classification.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 2.3.2{H}{1} regarding the general development standards that can
be applied at the level of detail required for an overall development plan. The conceptual alignment
in the 2003 ODP was selected as the most compliant option consistent with LCUASS standards for
a Collector Street. The conceptual alignment in the Amended ODP appears to be generally out of
compliance with LCUASS. The alignment shows curve radii and arc lengths that would be
substandard for the street classification according LCUASS for a Minor Collector Street, let alone
for a Collector Street. The intersection with Centre Avenue would not comply with LCUASS even
469
August 23, 2011
for less stringent Connector Local criteria. Previous City considerations for Rolland Moore Drive
placed safety first, as quoted on page 1-10 of the Resident Report. Conceptual roadway alignments
should be generally in compliance with LCUASS standards so that any future PDP roadways can
be developed within the detailed traffic safety standards.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City staff interpretation of LUC 2.3.2{H}{1} is that it would not apply to a street alignment shown
on an ODP. However, LUC 2.3.2{H}{3} states that an ODP must conform to the Master Street Plan
(MSP), not the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Rolland Moore Drive was added to
the Master Street Plan in 2000 to serve as a vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian connection from Shields
Street to Center Avenue. The goal is to provide connectivity to and from surrounding
neighborhoods and employment centers. The MSP is a planning-level document and does not
include engineering design.
In 2006, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) updated the flood maps for this area.
The 2000 alignment would now be located in a FEMA floodplain and flood fringe, as well as impact
wetlands. City staff supported the request to relocate Rolland Moore Drive to the location shown
on the amended ODP to remove the environmental impacts. This included removing a planned
connection to Northerland Drive.
City staff considered possible alternative alignments, including removing the connection from the
MSP. The preferred alternative will maintain Rolland Moore Drive as a collector street and utilize
the existing Natural Resources Research Council (NRRC) driveway intersection with Center Avenue
to avoid multiple off-set intersections along this corridor that could impact safety. Additionally, this
intersection will become an important entrance to the Colorado State University Veterinary
Medicine Campus in the future. The amended alignment will still conform to the MSP as it meets
the original intent to provide a collector-level connection between Shields Street and Center Avenue.
f. Improper interpretation of LUC 3.6.2{A} regarding relationship of streets to topography
The general alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP is shown crossing topography
with a very steep cross slope. This will force any future PDP to implement unwarranted engineered
cuts into the hillside below the Larimer Canal No. 2 that would otherwise not be necessary if the
roadway bore a logical relationship to the existing topography.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
LUC 3.6.2{A} requires streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat to conform to the
Master Street Plan, to be aligned to join with planned or existing streets, and be designed to bear
a logical relationship to the topography of the land. This standard would not apply to an ODP.
The amended Rolland Moore Drive alignment complies with the Master Street Plan and provides
connections to adjacent streets, with the exception of Northerland Drive. City staff has not
supported street or trail crossings of the Larimer Canal No. 2 or the extension of Northerland Drive
due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors, existing drainage ways, wetlands, and
470
August 23, 2011
the availability of alternative routes. City staff from Community Development and Neighborhood
Services, Environmental Planning, Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning
reviewed the Alternative Development Plan and found that it accomplishes the purposes of LUC
3.6.3{F} equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard. The Alternative
Development Plan submitted provides enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to adjacent
trails, sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes vehicle traffic without exceeding level of
service standards, and eliminates impacts to the designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer
Canal No. 2.
g. LUC 1.2.2{E) protecting life, safety and reducing flood damage, and LUC 3.3.3 regarding
water hazards
The Amended ODP shows Rolland Moore Drive in an alignment that requires deep cuts into the
hillside below Larimer Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a
storm/flood event. The Board set as a Condition of Approval that the canal be relocated, but only
by withholding the Final Certificate of Occupancy after construction. By allowing excavation of the
hillside before relocation of the canal, the Board misinterpreted the purpose and intent of LUC
1.2.2{E} and LUC 3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the slope below the canal prior to
relocation unnecessarily increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill residents and
properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer for The Grove at Fort Collins will not be doing any cut and fill to the north-facing
slope of the existing Larimer Canal No. 2 while there is water running through that ditch, which
occurs 2 months of the year. This mitigates the potential for risk to life, health and safety of
properties and residents downhill from the ditch.
h. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 3.6.3{F) regarding connectivity
As a practical matter, the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP precludes
development of connectivity to existing services south of Parcel C. It is set so close to Larimer Canal
No.2 that any street or alternative transportation way would need extensive grading and
construction to cross the Canal easement, which would have a substantial impact on its function as
a wildlife corridor. Other feasible alignments not presented in the Amended ODP, but sketched in
the illustrations following page 1-10 of the Resident Report, could reduce the disruption needed to
build connections to the south. Examples of streets, bikeways and trails coexist with canals and
wildlife corridors throughout the City. The Board misinterpreted LUC Section 3.6.3{F} which
requires Alternative Compliance for connectivity to be equal or better than compliance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City staff has not supported street or trail crossings of the Larimer Canal No. 2 or the extension of
Northerland Drive due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors, existing drainage
ways, wetlands, and the availability of alternative routes. City staff from Community Development
and Neighborhood Services, Environmental Planning, Engineering, Traffic Operations, and
471
August 23, 2011
Transportation Planning reviewed the Alternative Development Plan and found that it accomplishes
the purposes of LUC 3.6.3{F} equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard. The
Alternative Development Plan submitted provides enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to
adjacent trails, sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes vehicle traffic without exceeding
level of service standards, and eliminates impacts to the designated wildlife corridor along the
Larimer Canal No. 2.
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL
Did the Planning & Zoning Board properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and
Charter?
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.2.2 Purpose of the Land Use Code
The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and
welfare by:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land
Use Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including but not limited to the
Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub-area plans.
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation
infrastructure, and other public facilities and services.
(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such
as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water,
wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open
space, recreation, and public parks.
(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate
drainage and reduction of flood damage.
(F )encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel
and encourage trip consolidation.
(G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other
alternative modes of transportation.
(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.
(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.
472
August 23, 2011
(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.
(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and
industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all.
(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas.
(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing
neighborhoods.
(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features.
2. Section 2.3.2(H)(1) & (7) Overall Development Plan Review Procedures
An overall development plan shall be processed according to, in compliance with and
subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common
Development Review Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive) as follows:
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. An overall development plan shall comply with the
following criteria:
(1) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the permitted uses and
applicable zone district standards (Article 4) of all zone districts contained within
the boundaries of the overall development plan. The plan shall also be consistent
with any zone district standards (Article 4) and general development standards
(Article 3) that can be applied at the level of detail required for an overall
development plan submittal. If the overall development plan contains any land within
the M-M-N, C-C and/or N-C Districts, the plan shall be consistent with the block size
requirements for those districts.
(7) Any standards relating to housing density and mix of uses will be applied over the
entire overall development plan, not on each individual project development plan
review.
3. Section 3.3.3 Water Hazards
(A) Lands which are subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainageway shall
not be approved for development or redevelopment unless the following conditions
are met:
(1) the project development plan complies with the Basin Master Drainageway Plan as
applicable.
(2) the project development plan complies with City Stormwater Design Criteria and
Construction Standards.
473
August 23, 2011
(3) the project development plan complies with the floodplain regulations as established
in Chapter 10 of the City Code.
(4) all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to
flooding or drainageways have been approved by the Water Utilities General
Manager.
(B) If a project includes a water hazard such as an irrigation canal, water body or other
water channel, necessary design precautions shall be taken to minimize any hazard
to life or property, and additional measures such as fencing, water depth indicators
and erection of warning signs shall be taken, to the extent reasonably feasible.
(C) Any lands that are subject to high groundwater (meaning groundwater at an
elevation such that basement flooding is reasonably anticipated by the City Engineer
to occur) shall not be platted for building lots with basements unless adequate
provisions to prevent groundwater from entering basements have been designed and
approved by the City Engineer.
4. Section 3.6.2(A) Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys and Easements
(A) Streets on a project development plan or subdivision plat shall conform to the
Master Street Plan where applicable. All streets shall be aligned to join with planned
or existing streets. All streets shall be designed to bear a logical relationship to the
topography of the land. Intersections of streets shall be at right angles unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
5. Section 3.6.3(F) Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards
(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent
Developments and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate
and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan
by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development
plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable
parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six
hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts
potentially developable or redevelopable land.
6. Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and
appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes
primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative review or Planning
and Zoning Board review as required for such use in Section 4.27(B). The following
permitted uses shall be considered secondary uses in this zone district and together
474
August 23, 2011
shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the
development plan.
(a) Veterinary facilities and small animal clinics.
(b) Clubs and lodges.
(c) Child care centers.
(d) Residential uses (except mixed-use dwellings when the residential units are
stacked above a primary use which occupies the ground floor).
(e) Standard and fast food restaurants.
(f) Lodging establishments.
(g) Bed and breakfast establishments.
(h) Funeral homes.
(i) Health and membership clubs.
(j) Convenience shopping centers.
(k) Convention and conference center.
(l) Food catering.
(m) Public facilities.
(n) Community facilities.
(o) Bars and taverns.
(p) Plant nurseries and greenhouses.
(q) Dog day-care facilities.
(r) Print shops.
(s) Workshops and custom small industry uses.
(t) Artisan and photography studios and galleries.
(u) Limited indoor recreation establishments.
(v) Enclosed mini-storage facilities.
(w) Places of worship or assembly.
(x) Personal and business service shops.
7. Section 5.1.2 Definitions
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the city for approval of a
permitted use which depicts the details of a proposed development. Development plan
includes an overall development plan, a project development plan and/or a final plan.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) shall mean the amount of gross floor area of all principal buildings
on a lot or block, as the case may be, divided by the total area of such lot, or the block size,
respectively, on which such buildings are located. For mixed-use blocks, the residential
square footage shall be added to the commercial development for a total block FAR.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter, and after consideration, either:
1. Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or
475
August 23, 2011
2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board’s decision; or
3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.”
Steve Olt, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the project. The amended CSURF Center for
Advanced Technology Overall Development Plan was predicated in 2009 based on a development
proposal to realign Rolland Moore Drive. Additionally, a ditch realignment and allocation of
secondary uses in the E-Employment zone district for the 96 acres of land in that zone district will
need to occur.
Mayor Weitkunat asked Councilmembers Horak and Troxell and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson to discuss
pertinent findings relating to a site visit. Councilmember Horak replied the site visit revealed
various locations and relationships of features on the property.
Overall Development Plan Appeal Presentation – Appellants
Mr. Zier stated he did not draft the appeal but has been asked to represent the appellants at this
hearing. He stated the Overall Development Plan (ODP) establishes the maximum parameters of
what can occur on the property. Changing the allowable uses in the E – Employment zone will
result in the loss of the 75% minimum primary employment use. The appellants believe the
applicant and staff are interpreting the ODP incorrectly. If the approved amendment to the ODP is
not overturned on this basis, the appellants requests that it not be approved without a modification
making clear the secondary use allotment will be with every Project Development Plan (PDP) that
develops out of this ODP. The Land Use Code directs that all secondary uses shall be integrated
both in function and appearance into a larger Employment district development plan that emphasizes
primary uses. The Land Use Code provision that any standards relating to housing density and mix
of uses will be applied over the entire Overall Development Plan, not on each individual Project
Development Plan review, conflicts with the more specific requirement in the E zone. Where two
Code provisions conflict, the appellant argues the more specific one should control. If one standard
is found not to be more specific, then the more stringent one should control; a fact which is also
supported in the Land Use Code. With regard to the Planning and Zoning Board motion and its
reference to retaining the floor area ratio note, it appears staff and the applicant are going to interpret
the floor area ratio as being something that is applied within the confines of the PDP. That makes
a critical difference in massing, intensity, and scale of use as floor area ratio is typically used to limit
number of stories or number of buildings that can have multiple stories. The Land Use Code defines
floor area ratio as the amount of gross floor area of all principal buildings on a lot or block, not a
parcel or PDP, divided by the total area of such lot or block on which such buildings are located.
Should this ODP be approved, the appellants ask that the interpretation of floor area ratio be in
accordance with the Land Use Code. The appellants argue that the proposed realignment of Rolland
Moore Drive has certain safety issues relating to design standard changes. The appellants are also
arguing that the Board improperly assumed that since residential uses are permitted in the MMN –
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district, residential levels of traffic could also be
used to calculate the number of trips for the classification of Rolland Moore Drive; however, the
amended ODP does not rezone or limit development of any permitted use in the MMN district in
parcel C. The amended ODP must be able to stand on its own merit for the maximum allowable
development and Rolland Moore Drive should meet the standards for a collector street capable of
476
August 23, 2011
handling the number of daily trips identified for the complete compliment of permitted uses.
Downgrading a street designation typically requires Council approval, but that did not occur in this
case. The appellants would like to make clear that the interpretation of the note regarding the
floodplain is that there is a limitation on residential development in the floodplain of the E zone.
The ODP should be overturned because of these zoning and safety issues. If it is not overturned,
the appellants would like Council to modify or clarify that secondary uses in the E zone will not be
fluidly abused over the entire ODP, that the primary uses will not be lessened over time, that any
PDP will be subject to the E zone limitation and not the general administrative provision, that no
residential dwelling in the E zone be permitted in the floodplain, and that the alignment of Rolland
Moore Drive be modified so that it complies with all of the Codes.
Overall Development Plan Appeal Presentation - Applicant
Stu MacMillan, Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF), stated this site has been
planned for multi-family development for over 25 years. Any adopted ODP will require the
realignment of Rolland Moore Drive.
Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Inc., representing Campus Crest Development, stated CSURF began
planning development of this property in the mid-1980s. The site where The Grove project is
proposed has always been designated as a transitional area between the neighborhood to the north
and west and the commercial areas located to the south and east. Ms. Ripley discussed the history
of the site and reasoning for the current situation. The Land Use Code makes no distinction between
multi-family housing for students or any other population group. This site does work well to
provide much needed student housing as it is near campus and separated from the neighborhood by
wide drainage. The applicant proposed to amend the ODP primarily due to the alignment of Rolland
Moore Drive as the former alignment no longer works because the current alignment would go
through existing wetlands and would impact the FEMA floodway and further constrict an already
problematic drainageway. The new proposed alignment avoids the wetlands and allows for an
average 100 foot buffer between the wetlands and proposed development, and is separated from the
wildlife corridor associated with the Larimer Canal. The new alignment would also keep higher
traffic volumes further away from the neighborhood. This project proposed to plant 55 new trees
along the canal to mitigate the loss of mature trees over time and to enhance the wildlife habitat
value. Ms. Ripley replied to a Council question about the difference between the ODP presented
to Council last December and the one being presented this evening. The amended ODP addressed
the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive and the elimination of Northerland Drive. Changing the
alignment of Rolland Moore Drive would be necessary for the future of Parcel C regardless of the
future of The Grove project. The only note changes that occurred were specifically requested by
City staff to update the notes to reflect current City regulations.
Josie Plout, CSU Institute for the Built Environment, stated the site is located within the existing
urban fabric, thus reducing the need for additional infrastructure, decreasing potential vehicle miles
traveled, and helping to minimize urban sprawl. High density urban infill is a key component of
sustainable site selection and smart urban growth. Its proximity to the Spring Creek Trail gives this
site excellent bicycle and pedestrian access to campus. Campus Crest has agreed to provide bicycle
parking in significant excess of the requirement as well as a bicycle kiosk. Additionally, this site
has access to public transportation.
477
August 23, 2011
Ms. Liley discussed the appeal allegations. She stated approval of The Grove project does not
exceed the secondary use standard as it does not exceed 25% of the total gross area being devoted
to secondary uses. The employment potential has been realized on the site. The appellants have
alleged that the Board erred in removing the floor area ratio note and in its interpretation of the note.
However, the Board never removed the note and it remains in its 2003 form. The Board did not
make an interpretation of the note with its ODP approval. Rather, it attached a condition to be
applied with the PDP so there would not be a conflict when the Board ultimately made its
interpretation of that note. There is no legal floor area ratio requirement for this project. The note
regarding secondary uses relates to what counts as a secondary use, not whether secondary uses are
permitted in the floodplain. Rolland Moore Drive remains a collector on the Master Street Plan and
on the ODP. The Board could not accept engineering variances at the ODP level because they are
only granted with PDP engineering information and are not subject to Board review. There are no
ODP submittal or review requirements for engineering at all. The final three appeal allegations
share the assertion that the realigned Rolland Moore Drive would cause deep cuts in the hillside
below the canal. The applicant and staff analyzed many alternative routes and the indicated route
completely avoids the floodway and the wetlands and respects the wetland buffer. It has approval
from every City reviewing department as safe and appropriate. Grading plans are not required as
part of an ODP therefore cut and fill requirements cannot be determined until the PDP level. The
topography shows a separation between the Rolland Moore alignment and the very steep slopes of
the canal. The existing steep slopes of the canal would require the cut and fill, not the Rolland
Moore alignment. Staff would not support street or trail crossings of the canal because of the
potential impact to the significant wildlife corridor. The south access of Rolland Moore provides
minimal benefit and is not needed for safe, efficient and convenient access. Should Council decide
it is not an issue to cross the canal, a bicycle/pedestrian crossing can easily be added.
Greg McMaster, 1409 Skyline Drive, stated the Air Quality Advisory Board members were initially
concerned about the potential environmental energy impacts of the project. However, the project
not only provides much-needed student housing in an appropriate housing, but it does so in an
environmentally-positive manner by working toward LEED certification and sustainable practices,
reducing the need for car travel and promoting bicycle use, and reducing the impact on wetlands.
Paul Anderson, Fort Collins resident and Housing Committee member for the University-City
Connections project, stated CSU housing is at capacity. The committee’s recommended action plan
is critical in that much of it has become a model for what happened with the joint CSU – Grove
project to help preserve traditional neighborhoods through a collaborative effort by CSU, the City,
and private sector development to fill the need for student housing. The Grove project makes sense
economically, environmentally, and for the greater good of the entire City.
Donna Fairbank, Fort Collins resident and Avery Park Neighborhood Association and Neighbors
and Students United member, stated Avery Park neighbors adjusted to the change of Ram Village
being built and it is now time for another neighborhood to do the same.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Governmental Affairs, stated this project meets many common
goals for all represented in Neighbors and Students United.
478
August 23, 2011
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence, Neighbors and Students United member, stated he and Lloyd
Walker, 1756 Concord Drive, are in support of the project. He questioned whether the appellants
understand the implications of The Grove project not becoming a reality.
Overall Development Plan Rebuttal - Appellants
Mr. Zier stated the history of the E zoned portion of Parcel C has steadily decreased in size from 24
acres to the current 12.9 acres. Should this ODP be approved, the primary use portion of E-
Employment zoning in all of Parcel C will be down to about 3.8 acres. Each PDP should be required
to respect the 75%-25% Employment zoning requirement. The appellants also request that the Land
Use Code definition of floor area ratio be respected and observed.
Overall Development Plan Rebuttal - Applicant
Ms. Liley suggested a Land Use Code change would be needed in order to require each PDP to
adhere to the 75%-25% Employment zoning requirement. The “larger Employment district
development plan” referenced in the Land Use Code is the Overall Development Plan. Additionally,
any standard related to mix of uses applies to the entire ODP, not to any individual PDP. There is
no justification for imposing a Land Use Code definition relating to floor area ratio when floor area
ratio is not a Land Use Code requirement. Not approving this ODP would result in an alignment
of Rolland Moore drive which is not as safe, economical, or efficient.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council must decide whether or not the Planning and Zoning Board
properly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Land Use Code and City Charter to the
allegations of the appeal. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general
planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases with
multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in later
submittals. She asked that concerns be discussed per allegation, the first of which deals with the
Board improperly interpreting the allocation of allowable secondary uses in the E- Employment
district as it relates to the mix of land uses in the Overall Development Plan.
Councilmember Manvel noted at least 75 acres of the parcel should be Employment uses, based on
the 75%-25% rule. He asked about the fact that there are many floodplain and other uses on the site
which will never be primary use acres. Olt replied there are limitations to permitted primary uses
in the floodway.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmember Poppaw agreed with the concern regarding the lack of
primary uses in floodway acreage. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, replied zoning does not recognize
floodways, streams, buffers, or topography.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the 75% - 25% primary use rule should be discussed at the ODP
level. Olt replied staff has historically interpreted the rule at the ODP level.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if it would still be appropriate to add a note if the Planning and
Zoning Board decision is upheld. City Attorney Roy replied Council has the ability to modify the
Planning and Zoning Board decision.
479
August 23, 2011
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern the employment area is being depleted. He asked why
a rezoning was not considered. Shepard replied it was considered; however, the Land Use Code
provides the flexibility to look at ODPs on an individual basis.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next allegation relates to floor area ratio.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted that if floor area ratio is a lot and block issue, it will be appropriate
for discussion at the PDP level. Olt replied the discussion does not apply to the ODP, and perhaps
not with the PDP as there is no reference to floor area ratio in either the E or MMN zone district.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next allegation is regarding the basis for classification and granting of
administrative variances for the design of Rolland Moore Drive as a minor collector.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Council should be reviewing street classification changes. Matt
Wempe, Transportation Planning, replied Rolland Moore Drive is still viewed as a collector as
indicated on the Master Street Plan. The variances that were granted were more technical in nature.
Should the street be downgraded, various boards would be consulted and Council would have the
final decision.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next allegation is regarding safety and reducing flood damage
associated with water hazards with concern to the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive requiring deep
cuts into the hillside below Larimer Canal No. 2 which decreases the potential for breach of the
canal during flood events.
Councilmember Manvel asked if there is a commitment to relocate the ditch. Olt replied the ditch
company is proposing ditch realignment regardless of the project.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the amended CSURF Overall Development
Plan No. MJA 110001 because the Board properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Land
Use Code.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated some issues may need to be addressed procedurally; however, most
questions have been answered relating to the Board properly interpreting the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Manvel stated the floor area ratio issue presents a bit of a concern and the 75% -
25% rule is also a concern. Secondary uses are supposed to be integrated in function and appearance
with primary uses; as there is no proposal for a primary use, that integration is difficult to picture.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated most issues were addressed adequately by staff and project
proponents; however, he will not support the motion due to the 75% - 25% primary and secondary
use issue.
480
August 23, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat noted the keys for an ODP are generalization and flexibility. Judgment regarding
the employment issue is not part of the ODP discussion.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would support the motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Horak, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays:
Manvel, Ohlson, and Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal by Windtrail on Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes
HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium HOA and Windtrail
Townhomes HOA of the June 16, 2011 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to
approve The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld with two Conditions Added
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 16, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
proposed The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan (PDP). The Board considered
testimony from the applicant, the public and staff. The PDP was approved. Windtrail on Spring
Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond Condominium
HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA have appealed the Board’s decision. The allegation is that
the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code
and Charter.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This is an appeal of the decision for a request for a private multi-family residential project known
as The Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan. It is a proposed student housing project
containing 210 dwelling units in 11 residential buildings plus 8 dwelling units in a mixed-use
dwelling (clubhouse) building. The site is located at the southwest corner of Centre Avenue and
existing Rolland Moore Drive, directly south of the Gardens on Spring Creek, in the Centre for
Advanced Technology. Rolland Moore Drive would be realigned onto the southerly portion of the
subject property and extended east, from the existing terminus approximately 800 feet east of South
Shields Street, to connect with Centre Avenue just to the north of the Larimer Canal No. 2.
There would be 403 parking spaces on-site and 96 parallel parking spaces on the proposed Public
Local Street. Additionally, there would be 128 parallel parking spaces on Rolland Moore Drive and
the proposed Public Commercial Street within the property. The property is 27.5 gross acres in
size. It is located in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and E, Employment
Zoning Districts.
481
August 23, 2011
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
1. At its June 16, 2011, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following
findings of fact and conclusions as stated on pages 21, 22 and 23 of the Staff Report for The
Grove at Fort Collins, Project Development Plan:
A. The PDP is in conformance with the Amended CSURF Centre for Advanced
Technology, ODP.
B. The proposed land use is permitted in the MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood District.
C. The proposed land use is permitted in the E, Employment District as a Secondary
use.
D. The proposal complies with the requirement set forth in Section 3.3.3(A)(4) in that
all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards related to
flooding or drainageways have been reviewed and approved by the Water Utilities
General Manager.
E. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable General Development
Standards, with the following exception:
- Section 3.6.3(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street
Connections to and From Adjacent Developments and Developable Parcels.
This section requires that development plans provide for future public street
connections to adjacent developable or redevelopable lands at intervals not
to exceed 660 feet.
The applicant submitted an Alternative Compliance Plan request that does not include street
connections to adjacent properties to the north or the south due to existing wetlands and the Larimer
Canal No. 2 posing obstacles to possible connections. The request is to be considered by the
Planning & Zoning Board based on criteria set forth in Section 3.6.3(H) Alternative Compliance.
Staff finds that the Alternative Development Plan accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.6.3(F)
equally well or better than a plan that would meet the standard and that any reduction in access and
circulation for vehicles maintains facilities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit, to the maximum
extent feasible for the following reasons:
• The Alternative Development Plan will provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity within the Amended ODP. The pedestrian and bicyclist will be able to access
parks, recreational opportunities, schools, commercial uses, and employment uses within
the mile section.
• The streets that are being proposed in the Alternative Development Plan will distribute
traffic without exceeding Level of Service (LOS) standards.
• Lastly, the Alternative Development Plan eliminates negative impacts to high quality
wetlands, avoids constricting an important drainage way, eliminates impacts to the FEMA
482
August 23, 2011
floodway and avoids negative impacts to natural habitats and features associated with the
designated wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2.
F. The Project Development Plan satisfies Section 3.8.16(E)(2) in that the applicable criteria
of the Land Use Code have been satisfied and that the project provides adequate open space
and recreational opportunities with a large clubhouse facility, pool complex, basketball
court, volleyball court, parking areas and public facilities as necessary to support the
proposed 18 4-bedroom units and protect the occupants of the development and the adjacent
neighborhoods.
G. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4,
Division 4.6 MMN, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District of the Land Use
Code.
• It is infeasible for the structure of potential Blocks 1 and 3 to be defined by features
set forth in Section 4.6(E)(1)(a) of the LUC because of existing development.
H. The Project Development Plan complies with applicable district standards of Article 4,
Division 4.27 E, Employment District of the Land Use Code.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On June 30, 2011, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk’s Office from the Windtrail on
Spring Creek HOA, Sundering Townhomes HOA, Hill Pond on Spring Creek HOA, Hill Pond
Condominium HOA and Windtrail Townhomes HOA: c/o Kevin Barrier, President of the Windtrail
on Spring Creek HOA, 1999 Northerland Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526.
Allegations:
a. Improper interpretation of LUC Sections 4.27(D)(2) and 5.1.2 with regard to integration
of secondary uses into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes
primary uses.
The Grove PDP includes no primary uses in the Employment District, a violation of the first
sentence of LUC 4.27(D)(2). When considering whether or not The Grove PDP integrated
secondary uses into a larger employment district development plan (Resident Report, page ll-12),
the Board misinterpreted "development plan" in Section 4.27(D)(2) as applicable only to the
Amended ODP, and not to The Grove PDP. A "development plan" as defined in LUC Section 5.1.2
includes an overall development plan, a project development plan and/or a final plan. When a PDP
is under consideration, the "development plan" referenced in 4.27(D)(2) is the PDP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The first sentence in Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses of the E, Employment District reads as
such:
483
August 23, 2011
“All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a
larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses”.
Approximately 9 acres of the total of 27.5 gross acres on The Grove at Fort Collins PDP are in the
E District. The development is almost entirely multi-family residential, with 20 – 25 of the total of
218 dwelling units being in the E District. There remains about 4 acres in Parcel C within the E
District that may still be developed for primary, non-residential uses.
b. Improper interpretation of LUC Section 4.6.(D)(2)(a) with regard to mix of housing types
in the MMN District.
The Grove PDP provides only one housing type in the MMN District. The Board misinterpreted
Section 4.6.(D)(2)(a) by considering the swimming pool pavilion a second housing type. The
pavilion is a small accessory building associated with the outdoor recreational facilities near the
Clubhouse, which, as described on page 11-13 of the Resident Report, is a mixed-use residence
located in the Employment District at a considerable distance (beyond 50 feet) across the boundary
of the MMN District.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011:
“The development plan satisfies Section 4.6(D)(2)(a) Mix of Housing Types in that
there are to be 2 housing types (multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwellings) in
The Grove at Fort Collins, PDP.”
Staff considers the clubhouse building to be a mixed-use dwelling unit, which is identified as a
housing type as set forth in Section 4.6(D)(2)(c). There is no mention of the swimming pool pavilion
being considered a second housing type. Common practice for City staff is to consider the entirety
of a development plan in determining the mix of housing types.
c. Improper interpretation of Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) for
a Minor Collector.
The Board misinterpreted the LCUASS standards which would be applicable to Rolland Moore
Drive as designed in The Grove PDP. Multiple instances of noncompliance with LCUASS were cited
during the June 16, 2011 hearing from a letter from James R. Loonan, a qualified professional
engineer, including insufficient centerline curve radii; undersized arc lengths; lack of horizontal
tangent and sight distance easement at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue;
and insufficient corner sight distance at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and the Local
Public Street. The technical details can be found in Mr. Loonan's letter which follows page 1-11 of
the Resident Report. City Staff granted a variance request to use a 30 mph Connector Local design
criteria for the centerline radii, minimum tangent between curves, and posted speed of 25 mph
versus a 40 mph Collector design. The minimum tangent length for a 30 mph Connector street is 100
feet, but there is zero tangent at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and Centre Avenue. The
484
August 23, 2011
design of Rolland Moore Drive does not meet LCUASS Section 8.2.4.A for a 30 mph Connector
street nor does it meet the approved variances.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The appellants cited a letter from James R. Loonan which was presented at the Planning and Zoning
Board Hearing. The majority of Mr. Loonan’s letter focuses on the design for Rolland Moore Drive
and how aspects of the design Rolland Moore Drive do not meet collector standards. Variances to
several Collector Street design parameters have been granted to bring the geometry of the design
of Rolland Moore Drive closer to a connector than a collector.
City staff (which included staff from Traffic Operations, Transportation Planning, Engineering, and
Community Development and Neighborhood Services) discussed the proposed variance requests and
viewed that the roadway geometry design for Rolland Moore Drive proposed by Northern
Engineering would be acceptable. This was documented in the variance request response letter from
Sheri Langenberger dated January 28, 2011 to Nick Haws with Northern Engineering Services.
Beyond Mr. Loonan’s letter, the appellants more specifically cite both a sight distance easement
requirement and the lack of a tangent at the intersection of Rolland Moore Drive and Centre
Avenue. With regards to a requirement for a sight distance easement, this reflects an evaluation at
to whether a view corridor needs to be preserved when stopped on eastbound Rolland Moore Drive
at the Centre Avenue intersection looking south along Centre Avenue. There is a potential that a
sight distance easement would be required to preserve a view corridor, though final determination
of the amount of impact (if any) cannot be assessed until additional vertical design information is
provided commensurate with a final plan submittal. As CSURF is the underlying owner of both The
Grove at Fort Collins and the offsite property that would be impacted by a sight distance easement,
CSURF has indicated that they would not object to a sight distance easement on the offsite property
should it be determined that it is required during the course of a final plan review. CSURF’s
indication of no objection to the granting of a sight distance easement satisfies the “Letters of
Intent” requirement as part of the City’s “Submittal Requirements: Project Development Plan
(PDP)”, step 3 of 8 in the Development Review Guide.
The lack of a tangent at a public street intersection is not necessarily viewed as being non-compliant
with LCUASS. A curve rather than a tangent can be brought to an intersection provided that the
resultant angle that the curve intersects that intersection is still within 80 to 100 degrees
(intersections do not necessarily need to intersect at 90 degrees or with a straight line, per 8.2.3 of
LCUASS). An existing example of where a curve meets an intersection with the resultant angle still
falls within the criteria of 8.2.3 of LCUASS is northbound Lady Moon Drive as it intersects with
Harmony Road.
d. Further improper interpretations of Land Use Code with regard to multiple issues, as
listed below. Some issues that are of lesser scope than others are easily overlooked, but
when considered as a whole, the preponderance of evidence reveals a general pattern of
noncompliance with the purpose and intent of the Land Use Code.
485
August 23, 2011
I. LUC 3.5.1 Compatibility. with regard to (A) Purpose. (B) Architectural Character.
(C) Building Size. Height. Bulk. Mass. Scale. (E) Building Materials. (F) Color. (H)
Transitions and (J) Operational/Physical Compatibility)
The Board misinterpreted multiple provisions of LUC 3.5.1 with regard to compatibility of The
Grove PDP with existing neighboring development. The architectural character, size, bulk and scale
of the buildings bear little contextual relationship to existing adjacent neighborhoods. Structural
transitions are not provided, and although they are at a modest distance across a natural area, very
large three-story buildings nearly 200 feet long are situated on a hillside that rises above the
neighboring one- and two-story townhouses and homes. Incompatibility of The Grove PDP with
existing development is discussed pages 11-1 through 11-6 of the Resident Report and illustrated
by contrasting views of the Applicant's computer model and recent photographs of the neighborhood
context.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011, the development
plan satisfies the criteria set forth in Section 3.5.1 by ensuring that the architectural character of
the surrounding area is maintained by using a site and building design that is compatible with the
multi-family residential developments to the west (Windtrail Park and Care Housing at Windtrail
Park) and the Natural Resources Research Center to the east. The Grove at Fort Collins, PDP
contains buildings of no more than 3 stories in height clustered around a common, amenity area.
The proposed building materials consist of brick masonry and horizontal and vertical vinyl siding.
With the exception of vinyl siding the materials can be found on existing buildings in the area.
ii. LUC 3.8.16(E)(2) Increasing the Occupancy Limit
The Board misinterpreted the provisions that allow the occupancy limit to be increased above three
unrelated occupants. As explained on page 11-7 of the Resident Report, The Grove PDP includes
18 four-bedroom apartments. The Grove PDP provides limited open space, some recreational areas,
parking and public facilities for its tenants. The quantity, quality and distribution do not meet the
requirement that such facilities be additional and adequate to serve the occupants and protect the
adjacent neighborhoods from the impact of increased occupancy.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code permits exceeding the occupancy limit if the applicant has provided additional
open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately
serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood.
iii. LUC 1.2.2(E) protecting life, safety and reducing flood damage, and LUC 3.3.3
regarding water hazards
The Board misinterpreted the provisions of the LUC regarding protection of life and property by
avoiding inappropriate development and reducing flood damage. City goals for appropriate
development of flood-prone areas are noted pages 11-10 to 11-11 of the Resident report. The Grove
486
August 23, 2011
PDP fills in a portion of the floodplain for two buildings and a public street. The proposed fill
narrows the floodplain at a critical location and will cause a rise that threatens low-lying
established neighborhoods.
As discussed in the Resident Report, pages 11-15 and 16, The Grove PDP grading plan calls for
deep cuts near Larimer Canal #2, increasing the potential for breach of the canal during a
storm/flood event. The Board set as a Condition of Approval that the canal be relocated, but only
by withholding the Final Certificate of Occupancy after construction. By allowing excavation of the
hillside before relocation of the canal, the Board misinterpreted the purpose and intent of LUC
1.2.2(E) and LUC 3.3.3 to mitigate such hazards. Cutting the slope below the canal prior to
relocation unnecessarily increases risk to the life, health and safety of downhill residents and
properties.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Some of The Grove property is in a FEMA 100-year floodway and flood fringe. The applicant does
not plan to modify the floodway. The applicant has the legal right through Chapter 10 of the
Municipal Code to fill the flood fringe without analyzing how it might impact neighbors. This may
push water onto existing neighbors, but is legally permissible by City Code and Federal Code as
an "allowable rise." As stated by Brian Varrella, Floodplain Administrator for the City:
"Chapter 10 of City Code allows any party to develop in the Spring Creek flood
fringe and create up to 6 inches of rise in the base flood elevation. The net result of
this allowable rise by development is to force flood water onto adjacent and
upstream properties. City Code does not require any party developing in the Spring
Creek flood fringe to quantify their impact on others. "
The Spring Creek FEMA map will be revised late in the Spring of 2012. Much of the neighborhood
to the south and west of The Grove will be removed from the map of the 100-year floodway and
flood fringe after that time. All affected neighbors will be notified directly of changes to flood
mapping on their property when FEMA gives the green light. The green light should be given 6
months before the effective date and mailers will go out to everyone. Neighbors will have 4 to 5
months to plan for new maps and benefits anticipated from the process. Fort Collins has
administered a 0.5-ft rise floodway since 1979. This is a wider floodway than the current Federal
minimum standard, but is the same floodway required by the State of Colorado. Fort Collins is no
more restrictive than the rest of the state in how floodplain boundaries are drawn.
The developer for The Grove at Fort Collins will not be doing any cut and fill to the north-facing
slope of the existing Larimer Canal No. 2 while there is water running through that ditch, which
occurs 2 months of the year. This mitigates the potential for risk to life, health and safety of
properties and residents downhill from the ditch.
iv. LUC 3.4.1 Natural habitats
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.4.1(F)(2) which requires preservation of natural connections
between natural habitats and LUC 3.4.1(C) requiring integration of wildlife within the developed
487
August 23, 2011
landscape. At present, wildlife travel freely through the site between the Larimer Canal corridor and
the Wetlands corridor, and through the adjacent neighborhoods to and from the Spring Creek
corridor. As discussed on page 11-17 of the Resident Report, The Grove PDP includes a long iron
fence to protect the wetlands from impact by the development. This fence, in addition to a high
retaining wall below the Larimer Canal will disrupt these connections. No other residential
development in the vicinity requires a fence to protect natural areas from the impact of intense use
by residents.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.4.1(1)(1) and (2) requiring the design of projects in large natural
habitats such as the Spring Creek natural corridor to complement the visual context of the natural
habitat and minimize the degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the
site and the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural features within the site.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Site Context.
The Grove project site contains an array of natural habitats and features, including the Larimer
Canal No. 2 and significant trees on the south side of the parcel, 4.97 acres of wetlands on the north
side of the parcel, and 14 fox dens, as of the most recent ecological survey of the parcel. According
to the project’s Ecological Characterization Study and staff observations, the species utilizing this
corridor are predominately urbanized species (accustomed to human disturbances and including,
but not limited to, fox, deer, raccoons, songbirds, etc.).
Wildlife Movement and the Fence.
In a site with abundant natural features, tradeoffs are often required to ensure sensitive habitats are
protected while still allowing for urban-adapted species to move across a site. In this project, a
fence has been required to protect the wetlands from human encroachment, trash blowing into the
site, and from pets trampling in the wetlands. Examples of similar-scale projects where fences have
been installed include North College Marketplace and Caribou Apartments; in these sites, no
evidence of human traffic, e.g., social trails, can be seen in the wetland area. However, in other
areas where fencing has not been required, e.g., Huntington Hills, social trails are evident adjacent
to and even within wetlands in some areas. In this project, given the allowance of pets within the
apartments and varying buffer distances around the wetlands, staff believes that a fence at the site
will protect the wetlands from social trails, trash blowing into the site, and domesticated animal use
that otherwise might occur.
However, in May, discussions among staff, the applicant, and the neighbors brought to light
concerns about how the fence, while it would serve to protect the wetlands from encroachment,
might also prohibit wildlife movement from the northern ends of the parcel to the southern ends (and
vice versa). Thus, staff met with wildlife biologists, including representatives from the Division of
Wildlife, the Natural Areas Department, and private consultants, to assess how the fence could be
modified to still allow for wildlife movement across the site. While several experts believed wildlife
will simply adapt to the development, e.g., go around it, others felt that some modifications to the
488
August 23, 2011
project design would increase wildlife movement across the site. Thus, the following design
modifications were requested of the applicant (and subsequently applied in the design):
• Modify the metal-picket fencing style proposed through the project by varying the height
from 3’ to 6’ along several key locations;
• Leave a 1’ gap in the pickets below the lower, horizontal cross brace approximately every
100’ to allow for fox to move under the fence in compliance with Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(b) and
Section 3.4.1(E)(1)(I) of the Land Use Code;
• Roughen the surface of the retaining wall on the south side of the project to allow fox to
more easily scramble up the retaining wall.
Each of these adjustments is intended to balance the need for internal and external site connections
for wildlife and humans, while limiting human and domesticated animal access into the Natural
Habitat Buffer Zones and providing increased, functional protection for wildlife species.
Visual Character.
A total of 7.16 acres of the project site is proposed to be dedicated as a Natural Habitat Buffer Zone,
including approximately 1,450 native trees, shrub, grass, and perennial species proposed. During
the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, Board Members commented on the improvements in
architectural styles and green standards made in the current submittal. The several design iterations
that the applicant has worked with staff on has removed the need for any wetland mitigation on the
project and is protecting all but three significant trees (two which are in the roadway design for
Rolland Moore Drive and one of which has been deemed hazardous by the City Forester).
In regards to views, exterior, scenic views into the Spring Creek corridor are currently blocked by
the site’s natural topography and vegetation and the three subdivisions to the north of the project.
Visibility into the Spring Creek corridor is best provided on the northeast portion of the site through
the Gardens on Spring Creek. In addition, all buildings on the project are, at a minimum, over 600’
from Spring Creek.
From an internal viewing perspective, the site’s natural features, including the wetlands, Larimer
Canal No. 2, and significant trees, will be viewable from the project’s pedestrian paths and dwelling
units. To protect the surrounding neighbors from headlights, the parking lots in the project are
surrounded by a solid wood fence, which would be one area where the project obstructs internal
views into the site’s natural features. However, from concerns expressed by the neighbors and good
site design principles, staff finds this is an acceptable tradeoff.
v. Municipal Code 7.5 – Fees
It is long-standing City policy that development should pay its own way. The Appellants believe the
Board misinterpreted Municipal Code Chapter 7.5 with regard to development fees. Fee values for
The Grove PDP that were provided by City staff upon inquiry prior to the Planning and Zoning
hearing appear to be substantially underestimated compared to rates published by the City of Fort
Collins. The Appellants do not understand why this should be so and appeal to Council for
clarification.
489
August 23, 2011
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The developer / applicant has paid the required, full amount of development review fees with each
submittal to the City of Fort Collins, both for ODP’s and PDP’s. There were no Planning or
Transportation Development Review Fee reductions given for the project.
vi. LUC 1.2.2 protection of life safety (use of vinyl siding)
The Board misinterpreted the life safety provisions of the LUC with regard to vinyl siding, which
can contribute to combustion and produces extremely toxic smoke in a fire event. Page 11-18 of the
Resident Report notes this problem has led at least one town to ban the use of vinyl siding in
multifamily housing. Fires may not be common in student-oriented housing, but they are not
unlikely. The fire sprinklers in the buildings of The Grove PDP do not offer protection from this
external fire hazard. Other sustainable siding products are available that do not contribute to
combustion or produce smoke of such extreme toxicity.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code does not expressly address or prohibit the use of vinyl siding on buildings.
vii. LUC 1.2.2(H) energy conservation
The Board misinterpreted Section 1.2.2(H) requiring reduction of energy consumption and demand.
The Applicant originally intended to use air-source electric heat pumps to heat the 218 dwelling
units of The Grove PDP. Air-source electric heat pumps do not perform well in Colorado and
require supplemental resistance heat when temperatures drop below 32 degrees Fahrenheit. As
noted on page 11-20 of the Resident Report, use of electricity for space heating in this PDP has been
of long-standing concern. Although the insulation performance of its model building has apparently
been improved, the Applicant did not commit to any other specific, more efficient heating system,
and The Grove PDP utility plan has no gas lines.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code does not expressly prohibit the use of electric heat in a project. Also, at the
Planning & Zoning Board public hearing on June 16, 2011 the developers and their consultants
indicated that they were still considering alternative sources of heating for the project.
viii. LUC 3.2.2(C)(5)(a) Sidewalk directness and connectivity
The Board misinterpreted this provision that requires walkways to connect areas of pedestrian
origin and destination directly, rather than aligning them according to the shape of a parking lot,
as specifically prohibited in 3.2.2(C)(5)(a). The logical direct paths from the entrances of Buildings
8, 10 and 11 to the clubhouse, pool and central lawn are directly across the two largest parking lots
in The Grove PDP. There are no walkways through the parking lots and islands do not line up to
provide direct access. (Resident Report, page 111-2)
490
August 23, 2011
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Grove at Fort Collins development plan provides good pedestrian connectivity to the front and
rear entries to the clubhouse, amenity area and central green on the west side of the clubhouse from
Buildings 8, 10 and 11. From Buildings 8 and 11 there are direct sidewalk connections to the east
side (main entry) of the clubhouse, having only to cross one driveway entry into a parking lot in
each case.
ix. LUC 3.2.2(D)(3)(b) Guest parking
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring proportional distribution of guest parking off-
street and located within 200 feet of the dwelling unit. There are no off-street parking spaces, let
alone guest parking spaces, within 200 feet of Buildings 4, 5 and much of Building 6. (Resident
Report, page 111-2)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Grove at Fort Collins Project Development Plan contains 69 more parking spaces than
required by the Land Use Code, not counting the 128 parallel parking spaces along Rolland Moore
Drive and the Public Commercial Street. The code does not specify a maximum distance from
dwelling units for off-street parking spaces intended for residents of the development. There are 4
– 6 parking spaces in the parking lot directly east of Building 6 that are within 200 feet of the 2
entries to that building. Regarding Buildings 4 and 5, there are 14 parallel parking spaces in a
recessed parking area along Rolland Moore Drive, directly in front of the buildings, that could be
identified and signed as guest parking.
x. LUC 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling, distance from buildings and proximity to sidewalks.
The Board misinterpreted LUC 3.2.5{B) requiring adequate capacity, number and distribution of
trash collection. Some residents of The Grove will have to carry trash 300 feet to reach the nearest
enclosure. The Board also misinterpreted LUC 3.2.5(I)(1) requiring trash collection areas to be no
closer than twenty (20) feet from any public street or sidewalk. Two locations near Buildings 8 and
3 are closer than 20' to the sidewalk. Correction by providing additional collection sites may reduce
the number of parking spaces. (Resident Report, page 111-2 through 4)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
As stated in the Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 16, 2011, there are 6 trash
collection / recycling enclosures that will be distributed throughout the development site. The
proposed locations satisfy the intent of Section 3.2.5 by providing the enclosures near Buildings 1,
3, 6, 7, 8 and 10. The trash enclosures nearest Buildings 3 and 8 are set back 10 feet to 13 feet from
the street right-of-way; however, they can be moved to a 20 foot setback distance with the Final
Plan, prior to approval and recording, by eliminating one parking space in each case.
xi. LUC 3.S.2(C)(2) Street Facing Facades
491
August 23, 2011
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring at least one building entry or doorway facing any
non-arterial street with on-street parking. The east side of the Clubhouse faces the Public
Commercial Street, but its elevation has no doorway. (Resident Report, page 111-4)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Sheet 5 of the Site Plan set (dated 06.01.11) shows the main entry for the Clubhouse (w/Residential
Above) building to be on the east side, facing the proposed Public Commercial Street. The entry
door would be 32 feet from the public sidewalk along the street. The Front Elevation for the
clubhouse, shown on Sheet 18 of the Clubhouse Elevations (dated 06.01.11), contains an Aluminum
Storefront Entry System (containing doors).
xii. LUC 3.2.2(K)(S)(b) Location of parking for disabled tenants
The Board misinterpreted this provision requiring handicap parking spaces to be located as close
as possible to the nearest accessible building entrance, using the shortest possible accessible route
of travel. As noted in James R. Loonan's letter following page 11-23 of the Resident Report, the
accessible routes to Buildings 4 and 5 from the closest dedicated parking for disabled tenants are
310 feet and 400 feet respectively.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
There are 15 identified and designed handicap parking spaces in The Grove at Fort Collins PDP.
They are distributed throughout the development. Only 9 handicap spaces are required in the lots
containing a total of 403 spaces. There are identified handicap parking spaces in lots that are a
distance of 200 feet from Building 4 and 350 feet from Building 5.
xiii. LUC Section 3.6.3(F) Connectivity
As a practical matter, the alignment of Rolland Moore Drive in the Amended ODP precludes
development of connectivity to existing services south of Parcel C. It is set so close to Larimer Canal
No.2 that any street or alternative transportation way would need extensive grading and
construction to cross the Canal easement, which would have a substantial impact on its function as
a wildlife corridor. Other, better alignments are feasible that could reduce the disruption needed
to build connections to the south. Streets, bikeways and trails coexist with canals and wildlife
corridors throughout the City. The Board misinterpreted LUC Section 3.6.3(F) which requires
Alternative Compliance for connectivity to be equal or better than compliance.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Land Use Code includes provisions for Alternative Compliance to provide connectivity to the
south across Larimer Canal No. 2 due to the potential impacts to wildlife and natural corridors,
existing drainage ways, wetlands, and the availability of alternative routes. City staff from
Community Development and Neighborhood Services, Environmental Planning, Engineering,
Traffic Operations, and Transportation Planning reviewed the Alternative Development Plan and
found that it accomplishes the purposes of LUC 3.6.3{F} equally well or better than a plan that
492
August 23, 2011
would meet the standard. The Alternative Development Plan submitted provides enhanced bicycle
and pedestrian connectivity to adjacent trails, sidewalks and on-street bicycle routes, distributes
vehicle traffic without exceeding level of service standards, and eliminates impacts to the designated
wildlife corridor along the Larimer Canal No. 2. The Planning & Zoning Board approved this
Alternative Compliance.
xiv. Deficiencies in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
The Board misinterpreted the LCUASS guidelines for traffic studies in accepting conclusions drawn
from deficient assumptions in the TIS. Although the problematic intersection of Centre and Prospect
will be the most heavily used intersection by students bicycling to and from campus, only Shields
and Rolland Moore Drive was studied for bicycle level of service. The TIS also failed to examine
major arterial intersections that occupants of The Grove PDP will need to use for commuting and
routine errands such as grocery shopping.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The development is proposed to be housing primarily for college students. As such, most of the trips
expected to be generated during the rush hours will be to and from the CSU campus. The
expectation is also that those trips will mostly be made by means other than motorized vehicles.
Even with that expectation the Traffic Impact Study evaluated the project with most of the peak hour
trips being performed by motor vehicles (75% motor vehicle, 25% alternative modes).
The intersection that is expected to experience the most consistent, reoccurring and measurable
traffic (motor vehicle, pedestrian or bicycling) from the development is the Centre Avenue and West
Prospect Road intersection. All other surrounding major arterial intersections are not expected to
receive significant enough volumes of traffic from the development during the peak traffic hours to
discern from the daily background traffic. That is due to being low in volume and as traffic moves
further from its origin it becomes more dispersed.
The trips outside the rush hours, when more of the random travel for personal needs and services
(groceries, entertainment, etc.) is conducted, are typically random and sporadic in nature and the
surrounding street system and intersections have the capacity to handle those trips without
measureable impact.
The City’s bicycle level of service standards do not specifically require the analysis of intersections
similar to the vehicular traffic study. Instead, the bicycle LOS standards require a development to
directly connect to the greater Fort Collins bicycle grid and all priority locations within a quarter
mile of a site. City staff reviewed the submitted bicycle LOS analysis and found that it complies with
LCUASS standards.
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL
Did the Planning & Zoning Board properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the Code and
Charter?
493
August 23, 2011
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.2.2 Purpose of the Land Use Code
The purpose of this Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare
by:
(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Land
Use Code, City Plan and its adopted components, including but not limited to the
Structure Plan, Principles and Policies and associated sub-area plans.
(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.
(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation
infrastructure, and other public facilities and services.
(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such
as transportation (streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks and mass transit), water,
wastewater, storm drainage, fire and emergency services, police, electricity, open
space, recreation, and public parks.
(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate
drainage and reduction of flood damage.
(F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and
encourage trip consolidation.
(G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other
alternative modes of transportation.
(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.
(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.
(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.
(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and
industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all.
(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas.
(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing
neighborhoods.
(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features.
494
August 23, 2011
2. Section 3.2.2 Access, Circulation and Parking
(C) Development Standards. All developments shall meet the following standards:
(5) Walkways.
(a) Directness and continuity. Walkways within the site shall be located and
aligned to directly and continuously connect areas or points of pedestrian
origin and destination, and shall not be located and aligned solely based on
the outline of a parking lot configuration that does not provide such direct
pedestrian access. Walkways shall link street sidewalks with building entries
through parking lots. Such walkways shall be raised or enhanced with a
paved surface not less than six (6) feet in width. Drive aisles leading to main
entrances shall have walkways on both sides of the drive aisle.
(D) Access and Parking Lot Requirements. All vehicular use areas in any proposed
development shall be designed to be safe, efficient, convenient and attractive,
considering use by all modes of transportation that will use the system, (including,
without limitation, cars, trucks, buses, bicycles and emergency vehicles).
(3) Location. Only off-street parking areas provided to serve uses permitted in
a zone district predominated by residential uses will be allowed in such
district.
(b) Guest Parking. Off-street guest parking spaces in multi-family
developments shall be distributed proportionally to the dwelling unit
locations that they are intended to serve. Such parking shall not be
located more than two hundred (200) feet from any dwelling unit that
is intended to be served.
(K) Parking Lots - Required Number of Off-Street Spaces for Type of Use.
(5) Handicap Parking.
(b) Location. Handicap parking spaces shall be located as close as
possible to the nearest accessible building entrance, using the
shortest possible accessible route of travel. When practical, the
accessible route of travel shall not cross lanes for vehicular traffic.
When crossing vehicle traffic lanes is necessary, the route of travel
shall be designated and marked as a crosswalk.
3. Section 3.2.5 Trash and Recycling Enclosures
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure the provision of areas, compatible
with surrounding land uses, for the collection, separation, storage, loading and
pickup of recyclable materials by requiring that adequate, convenient space is
495
August 23, 2011
functionally located at multi-family residential, commercial and industrial land use
sites.
(B) Regulations. The following regulations shall be applied to the extent reasonably
feasible:
(1) All new commercial or multi-family structures and all existing commercial
or multi-family structures proposed to be enlarged by more than twenty-five
(25) percent, or where a change of use is proposed, shall provide adequate
space for the collection and storage of refuse and recyclable materials.
(2) The amount of space provided for the collection and storage of recyclable
materials shall be designed to accommodate collection and storage
containers that are appropriate for the recyclable materials generated. Areas
for storage of trash and recyclable materials shall be adequate in capacity,
number and distribution to serve the development project.
(3) Recyclable materials storage areas shall be located abutting refuse
collection and storage areas.
(4) Each trash and recycling enclosure shall be designed to allow walk-in access
without having to open the main enclosure service gates.
(5) Trash and recycling areas must be enclosed so that they are screened from
public view. The enclosure shall be constructed of durable materials such as
masonry and shall be compatible with the structure to which it is associated.
Gates on the enclosures shall be constructed of metal or some other
comparable durable material, shall be painted to match the enclosure and
shall be properly maintained.
(6) Enclosure areas shall be designed to provide adequate, safe and efficient
accessibility for service vehicles.
(7) Enclosure areas shall be constructed on a cement concrete pad.
(8) The property owner shall supply and maintain adequate containers for
recycling and waste disposal. Containers must be clearly marked for
recycling.
4. Section 3.3.3 Water Hazards
(A) Lands which are subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainageway shall
not be approved for development or redevelopment unless the following conditions
are met:
496
August 23, 2011
(1) the project development plan complies with the Basin Master Drainageway
Plan as applicable.
(2) the project development plan complies with City Stormwater Design Criteria
and Construction Standards.
(3) the project development plan complies with the floodplain regulations as
established in Chapter 10 of the City Code.
(4) all measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate or control water hazards
related to flooding or drainageways have been approved by the Water
Utilities General Manager.
(B) If a project includes a water hazard such as an irrigation canal, water body or other
water channel, necessary design precautions shall be taken to minimize any hazard
to life or property, and additional measures such as fencing, water depth indicators
and erection of warning signs shall be taken, to the extent reasonably feasible.
(C) Any lands that are subject to high groundwater (meaning groundwater at an
elevation such that basement flooding is reasonably anticipated by the City Engineer
to occur) shall not be platted for building lots with basements unless adequate
provisions to prevent groundwater from entering basements have been designed and
approved by the City Engineer.
5. Section 3.4.1 Natural Habitats and Features
(C) General Standard. To the maximum extent feasible, the development plan shall be
designed and arranged to be compatible with and to protect natural habitats and
features and the plants and animals that inhabit them and integrate them within the
developed landscape of the community by: (1) directing development away from
sensitive resources, (2) minimizing impacts and disturbance through the use of buffer
zones, (3) enhancing existing conditions, or (4) restoring or replacing the resource
value lost to the community (either on-site or off-site) when a development proposal
will result in the disturbance of natural habitats or features.
(F) Protection of Wildlife Habitat and Ecological Character.
(2) Connections. If the development site contains existing natural habitats or
features that connect to other off-site natural habitats or features, to the
maximum extent feasible the development plan shall preserve such natural
connections. If natural habitats or features lie adjacent to (meaning in the
region immediately round about) the development site, but such natural
habitats or features are not presently connected across the development site,
then the development plan shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, provide
such connection. Such connections shall be designed and constructed to
allow for the continuance of existing wildlife movement between natural
497
August 23, 2011
habitats or features and to enhance the opportunity for the establishment of
new connections between areas for the movement of wildlife.
(I) Design and Aesthetics.
(1) Project design. Projects in the vicinity of large natural habitats and/or
natural habitat corridors, including, but not limited to, the Poudre River
Corridor and the Spring Creek Corridor, shall be designed to complement
the visual context of the natural habitat. Techniques such as architectural
design, site design, the use of native landscaping and choice of colors and
building materials shall be utilized in such manner that scenic views across
or through the site are protected, and manmade facilities are screened from
off-site observers and blend with the natural visual character of the area.
These requirements shall apply to all elements of a project, including any
aboveground utility installations.
(2) Visual Character of Natural Features. Projects shall be designed to minimize
the degradation of the visual character of affected natural features within the
site and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views to and from the natural
features within the site.
6. Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
(A) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to ensure that the physical and operational
characteristics of proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered
within the context of the surrounding area. They should be read in conjunction with
the more specific building standards contained in this Division 3.5 and the zone
district standards contained in Article 4. All criteria and regulations contained in
this Section that pertain to "developments," "the development plan," "buildings" and
other similar terms shall be read to include the application of said criteria and
regulations to any determination made by the Planning and Zoning Board under
paragraphs 1.3.4(A)(5) and (6) for the purpose of evaluating the authorization of an
additional use.
(B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed
areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas
by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural
character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this
Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard
of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be
achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar
proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street,
similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have
color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the
proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered
compatible with wood framing and other materials.
498
August 23, 2011
(C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar in size
and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is
proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face,
opposing block face or cater-corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See
Figure
Figure 7
Infill Buildings
New buildings in historic districts should reflect the historic character of the neighborhood
through repetition of roof lines, patterns of door and window placement, and the use of
characteristic entry features.
(E) Building Materials.
(1) General. Building materials shall either be similar to the materials already
being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being
proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form,
architectural detailing, color and texture, shall be utilized to ensure that
enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible, despite the
differences in materials.
(2) Glare. Building materials shall not create excessive glare. If highly reflective
building materials are proposed, such as aluminum, unpainted metal and
reflective glass, the potential for glare from such materials will be evaluated
to determine whether or not the glare would create a significant adverse
impact on the adjacent property owners, neighborhood or community in
terms of vehicular safety, outdoor activities and enjoyment of views. If so,
such materials shall not be permitted.
(3) Windows.
(a) Mirror glass with a reflectivity or opacity of greater than sixty (60)
percent is prohibited.
499
August 23, 2011
(b) Clear glass shall be used for commercial storefront display windows
and doors.
(c) Windows shall be individually defined with detail elements such as
frames, sills and lintels, and placed to visually establish and define
the building stories and establish human scale and proportion.
(F) Building Color. Color shades shall be used to facilitate blending into the
neighborhood and unifying the development. The color shades of building materials
shall draw from the range of color shades that already exist on the block or in the
adjacent neighborhood.
(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual character
are proposed adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions are not possible
or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the
maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through compliance with the
standards set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors and
adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting,
placement of noise-generating activities and similar restrictions.
(J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. Conditions may be imposed upon
the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be
compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses. Such conditions may include, but
need not be limited to, restrictions on:
(1) hours of operation and deliveries;
(2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on
adjacent uses such as noise and glare;
(3) placement of trash receptacles;
(4) location of loading and delivery zones;
(5) light intensity and hours of full illumination;
(6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines;
(7) location and number of off-street parking spaces.
7. Section 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards
(C) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking.
500
August 23, 2011
(2) Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling
units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any
adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking.
8. Section 3.6.3 Street Pattern and Connectivity Standards
(F) Utilization and Provision of Sub-Arterial Street Connections to and From Adjacent
Developments and Developable Parcels. All development plans shall incorporate
and continue all sub-arterial streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan
by previously approved development plans or existing development. All development
plans shall provide for future public street connections to adjacent developable
parcels by providing a local street connection spaced at intervals not to exceed six
hundred sixty (660) feet along each development plan boundary that abuts
potentially developable or redevelopable land.
9. Section 3.8.16 Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed
(E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit.
(2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on
the type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request
from the applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Land
Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who
may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not
increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided such
additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities
as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and
to protect the adjacent neighborhood.
10. Section 4.6(D)(2) Mix of Housing Types
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Mix of Housing Types. A complete range of the permitted housing types is
encouraged in a neighborhood and within any individual development plan,
to the extent reasonably feasible, depending on the size of the parcel. The
following minimum standards are intended to promote such variety:
(a) A minimum of two (2) housing types shall be required on any
development parcel sixteen (16) acres or larger, including parcels
part of a phased development. A minimum of three (3) housing types
shall be required on any development parcels thirty (30) acres or
larger.
(c) The following list of housing types shall be used to satisfy this
requirement:
501
August 23, 2011
1. Small lot single-family detached dwellings on lots containing
less than six thousand (6,000) square feet.
2. Two-family dwellings.
3. Single-family attached dwellings.
4. Mixed-use dwelling units.
5. Group homes.
6. Multifamily dwellings.
11. Section 4.27(D)(2) Secondary Uses
(D) Land Use Standards.
(2) Secondary Uses. All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and
appearance into a larger employment district development plan that
emphasizes primary uses. A secondary use shall be subject to administrative
review or Planning and Zoning Board review as required for such use in
Section 4.27(B). The following permitted uses shall be considered secondary
uses in this zone district and together shall occupy no more than twenty-five
(25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan.
12. Section 5.1.2 Definitions
Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the city for approval of a
permitted use which depicts the details of a proposed development. Development plan
includes an overall development plan, a project development plan and/or a final plan.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record and relevant provisions of the Code and
Charter, and after consideration, either:
1. Remand the decision if the Council finds that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; or
2. Uphold, overturn or modify the Board’s decision; or
3. Remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues raised on appeal.”
Steve Olt, City Planner, gave a brief overview of the Project Development Plan and stated the
development proposes 218 dwelling units in 12 buildings, eleven of which are residential and one
of which is a multi-use building including the clubhouse and residential uses. Access to the site
would be from Centre Avenue. The appeal lists concerns with primary and secondary uses within
502
August 23, 2011
the development plan, housing types within the development plan, and the proposed increased
occupancy in 18 of the dwelling units.
Project Development Plan Appeal Presentation - Appellants
Heather Stickler, 633 Gilgalad Way, stated residents in the appellants’ neighborhoods have been
supportive of other development in the area; however, appellants are not supportive of this project
as it is too large, presents safety issues, and is not supported by the Land Use Code.
Rick Zier, attorney representing the appellants, discussed the project’s non-compliance instances
including compatibility, scale, and pet issues. The appellants requested a modification of the PDP,
should it be approved, that the floor area ratio will be interpreted per the Land Use Code.
Valerie Assetto, 615 Gilgalad Way, stated the neighbors are not opposed to student housing, but are
opposed to the proposed scale of the project.
Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, stated there is no statement in the record from any CSU
representative. She also noted the Land Use Code states that all secondary uses shall be integrated
in function and appearance to a larger Employment district development plan that emphasizes
primary uses.
Dale Grenfeld, Sunderland Townhomes resident, discouraged Council from choosing greed and
profit over quality of life.
Project Development Plan Appeal Presentation – Applicant
Linda Ripley, planning consultant for the applicant, discussed the changes made by the applicant
from its original plan. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the project by a vote of 6-0. The
distance between the proposed multi-family buildings and existing homes varies from 231 to 357
feet. The proposed project represents a transition of land use between the single-family
neighborhood and the commercial buildings to the south and east.
Josie Plout, CSU Institute for the Built Environment, discussed the efforts Campus Crest has made
to design its project more appropriately for Fort Collins.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing the applicants, discussed the appeal allegations. She noted the
Land Use Code states that any standards relating to mix of uses will be applied over the entire
Overall Development Plan, not on each individual Project Development Plan review.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence, Neighbors and Students United Member, discussed distances of
similar projects from adjacent neighborhoods and noted the on-site management will maintain a
code of conduct similar to that of CSU.
Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Governmental Affairs, stated this project has been opposed
because it is student housing.
503
August 23, 2011
Project Development Plan Rebuttal – Appellants
Mr. Zier stated the appellants do not oppose student housing but do expect compatibility standards
to be met. The floor area ratio standard is to apply to all parcels; those parcels are lots at the PDP
level.
Project Development Plan Rebuttal - Applicant
Ms. Liley stated the applicant does not object to keeping the floor area ratio note. The Planning and
Zoning Board gave its unanimous approval to the project.
(**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Weitkunat stated the first appeal allegation to be addressed relates to the integration of
secondary uses into a larger Employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the Land Use Code section which states “all secondary uses
shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger Employment district development
plan that emphasizes primary uses.” Shepard replied this parcel has been part of a master plan since
1985. Integration of the area is ongoing and the area is building out according to evolving plans.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about Section 4.27(d)(2) and its statement that secondary uses in the
Employment zone shall occupy no more than 25% of the total gross area of the development plan.
Olt replied Parcel C is split between MMN and E zoning and the clubhouse structure, which is
considered to be a mixed-use dwelling and is not a secondary use, will be part of that area. Portions
of two of the residential buildings in that area are secondary uses.
Mayor Weitkunat asked what the “development plan” references. Olt replied it is historically the
ODP. The 25% is in reference to the 96 acres of Employment zoned land.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with a mix of housing types in the MMN
district.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Council had adopted a requirement regarding varying the look of
housing types. Shepard replied First Reading of the ordinance amending the Land Use Code and
adding that requirement will be September 6th. The Planning and Zoning Board heard the item on
July 21st. The LMN standards for multi-family buildings would be applied to MMN zones, with
an adjustment for scale.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if this standard would have affected the design of these buildings.
Shepard replied the standard, if it were in place, would have resulted in some minor changes to the
buildings.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the decision to consider the clubhouse building as a second
building type. Olt replied there are 11 true residential buildings in the proposal; however, the
clubhouse building is defined as a multi-use dwelling which is a second housing type, thereby
504
August 23, 2011
allowing the Project Development Plan to satisfy the Land Use Code requirement of two housing
types.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if all buildings will be LEED certified. Ms. Plout replied LEED
certification will be sought for one building only, primarily due to the expense incurred in applying
for the certification. However, all buildings will be built to the same standards and with the same
specifications.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what level of LEED certification would be sought. Ms. Plout replied
the project will meet at least the base, or certified, level. There is a possibility of achieving silver
certification. The applicant has also voluntarily agreed to meet the new Green Building Code that
has been set forth by the City.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with the improper interpretation of
compatibility with regard to various building characteristics.
Councilmember Horak asked what types of buffering make this compatible with the area. Olt
replied the overall building heights have been decreased in planning and relief variation has aided
in breaking up building mass. The land use transition merges from Low-Density Residential and
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood to this project and to Commercial.
Councilmember Horak asked why two-story buildings were not considered. Ms. Ripley replied the
project cannot be changed by dropping bedrooms as the project would no longer be feasible.
Councilmember Horak asked how the three northernmost buildings are being buffered from the
neighborhood. Ms. Ripley replied much foliage currently exists; additionally, a public street with
street trees and native plantings around the wetland area will be part of the project as a buffer.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what assurance exists regarding building material types. Olt replied
building elevations have been reviewed with the Project Development Plan. Once recorded, those
plans have to be consistent with plans submitted for building department review.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the number of trees shown in the site plan are the number of trees
required. Olt replied the detailed landscape plan will be required to be fulfilled at build-out.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the City Forester is involved in determining the appropriateness of
tree types for various developments. Tim Buchanan, City Forester, replies he receives and approves
all landscape plans.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked approximately how many years it will take for the trees to provide
significant coverage. Buchanan replied the two to three inch caliper trees will be 14 to 16 feet tall.
It will likely take 10 to 15 years before a significant amount of coverage occurs.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked whether wildlife considerations are considered when looking at tree
retention. Buchanan replied several considerations are examined, including wildlife.
505
August 23, 2011
Councilmember Poppaw asked about the possibility of changing the architectural character of the
buildings to make them visually less bold. Olt replied in the negative. Ms. Ripley replied only one
story is being added from the adjacent two-story homes. Ms. Plout replied the community workshop
resulted in significant changes being made to the architecture.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation relates to protecting life, safety, and reducing
flood hazards.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the use of fill dirt to increase the elevation of a property.
Bryan Varella, Floodplain Administrator, replied Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code is written
allowing any development to fill in the flood fringe without realizing the impact of that fill on
adjacent neighbors. The rise cannot exceed 6 inches as determined by the edge of the floodway.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with the misinterpretation of a Land Use
Code section requiring preservation of natural connections between natural habitats and integration
of wildlife into the developed landscape.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated cats and dogs are not compatible with wildlife. Mike Hartnett,
Campus Crest co-founder, replied pets are allowed at Campus Crest’s other communities. Each pet
has to be approved and pet owners pay a non-refundable fee as well as a monthly pet rent.
Approximately 10% of the residents have pets.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Campus Crest would self-enforce the ban on free-roaming outdoor
cats. Mr. Hartnett replied all of the communities have enforced leash laws.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if Campus Crest would consider not allowing pets in the Fort Collins
project. Mr. Hartnett replied it could be considered. Additionally, Campus Crest would consider
including a pet park in the development.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation relates to vinyl siding.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the longevity of vinyl siding and whether or not most multi-
family units are being built with vinyl siding. Shepard replied two recent multi-family projects have
used a masonry product from grade to the top of the first floor window. Siding, usually clapboard,
or a stucco product, would be above that. Vinyl has not been a predominant material recently.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the staff report indicates vinyl siding is not found in the adjacent
neighborhoods. Ms. Plout replied vinyl siding does have a bad reputation when it comes to
sustainability. The life cycle assessment of vinyl siding was found by an independent source to be
comparable to a fiber cement siding.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Poudre Fire Authority had commented on any safety issues
relating to the siding. Shepard replied PFA has commented that the installation of the mandatory
automatic fire sprinkler system is critical. Siding is not a consideration once the sprinkler system
is installed.
506
August 23, 2011
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with the reduction of energy consumption
and demand. Ms. Liley replied the applicant will guarantee there will be a source of heat other than
electric heat.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation relates to sidewalk directness and connectivity.
Councilmember Manvel asked for a staff perspective. Shepard replied the standards require that
buildings front on streets. The parking lots behind the buildings do make for a somewhat
complicated walking scenario getting to the clubhouse. The issue can be addressed further with the
applicant.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the next appeal allegation deals with adequate capacity, number, and
distribution of trash collection devices.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about recycling standards for multi-family units. Olt replied the trash
enclosure/recycling section of the Land Use Code clearly defines the function and operational
aspects of the enclosures and receptacles. Each enclosure must include both trash and recycling
receptacles and there are six enclosures within this development. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested
follow-up information regarding the single-stream and labeling nature of the recycling receptacles.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to uphold the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving The Grove at Fort Collins PDP No. 16-10B
because the Board properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the Land Use Code.
Councilmember Troxell stated this project meets and exceeds many of the Land Use Code
requirements. The buffering and transition aspects of the project represent the standards and density
appropriate for an infill project.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the note issue and bicycle parking standards need to be examined for
future projects. The floor area ratio issue also needs to be examined or better explained in the future.
He commended Ms. Plout and the Institute for the Built Environment for work on the project. Mass
and scale issues remain a bit of a concern. He expressed concern about the lack of all buildings
meeting LEED certification standards and the lack of a resolution to the pet issue.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would not support Council placing a pet prohibition condition
on the project. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson replied he was seeking a voluntary pet prohibition from the
developer.
Councilmember Kottwtiz stated she would not support Council dictating additional LEED
certification requirements. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson clarified that his condition would be what has
already been proposed by the developer, that one building be at least LEED certified with all
buildings being built to the same standards. Ms. Liley stated the applicant will accept that condition.
Councilmember Horak made a friendly amendment, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to place
a condition on the approval requiring one building attain LEED certification and all other buildings
be built with the same standards. Councilmembers Troxell and Kottwitz accepted the amendment.
507
August 23, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked Councilmember Manvel if his concerns regarding employment and
secondary uses have been resolved. Councilmember Manvel replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how many new trees will be planted to reconcile the two large
cottonwood trees that will be lost. Ms. Ripley replied 55 new trees will be planted along the canal
as well as the trees on-site meeting Land Use Code standards.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the motion unless pets are prohibited. Ms.
Liley stated the applicant will accept the pet prohibition condition.
Councilmember Horak made a friendly amendment, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to place
a condition on the approval prohibiting pets.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern regarding the appropriateness of raising the pet issue
at an appeal hearing.
Councilmember Horak stated one of the appeal allegations dealt with wildlife and habitat impacts.
Therefore, this amendment is an appropriate modification.
City Attorney Roy stated the condition is appropriate and it is within Council’s purview to modify
the Planning and Zoning Board decision rather than uphold it. A Resolution making formal findings
will be brought forth at the next Council meeting.
Councilmembers Horak and Manvel withdrew their motion to amend.
Councilmembers Troxell and Kottwitz withdrew their motion to uphold the Planning and Zoning
Board decision.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to modify the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board approving The Grove at Fort Collins PDP No. 16-10B
with the condition that at least one building on the project meets attains LEED certification and pets
are prohibited.
Councilmember Horak stated his preference would have been for the three northernmost buildings
to have been sized differently; however, adequate natural buffers and the distance between the
project and neighborhood will result in his support of the motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed appreciation for Council incorporating resolutions to his concerns
and stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would support the motion and commended the attention to the
Green Building Codes and work with the Institute for the Built Environment. She encouraged the
applicants to be good neighbors to the adjoining neighborhoods.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the motion and referred to the project as a good example
for the future direction of the community and Land Use Code.
508
August 23, 2011
Councilmember Horak thanked the audience for its respect.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Wetikunat, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
509
August 31, 2011
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Special Meeting – 6:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Wednesday, August 31,
2011, 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: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Ohlson,
Poppaw and Horak.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Resolution 2011-071
Amending Resolution 2011-070 Submitting a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance to Prohibit the
Operation of Medical Marijuana Centers, Optional Premises Cultivation Operations, and
Medical Marijuana-Infused Product Manufacturing Within the City of Fort Collins
Corporate Limits at a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on November 1, 2011, In
Conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election, Adopted
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution amends Section 2 of Resolution 2011-070, which was adopted by the City Council
on August 16, 2011, and which submitted a citizen-initiated ordinance to the registered electors of
the City concerning a prohibition of the operation of medical marijuana centers, optional premises
cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product manufacturing within City limits.
The initiated ordinance is to be considered by the City electors at a special municipal election on
November 1, 2011. The proposed amendment clarifies that the reference to a regular election in
Section 2 of the resolution is mistaken, and it corrects that error.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On August 16, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-070 submitting a citizen-initiated
ordinance to the registered electors of the City at a special municipal election to be held in
conjunction with the Larimer County Coordinated Election on Tuesday, November 1, 2011 (the
“Special Election”). The Special Election had previously been called by the City Council by
adoption of Ordinance No. 82, 2011, expressly for such purpose. Section 2 of Resolution 2011-070
mistakenly refers to the Special Election as “said regular election”. The proposed resolution
corrects this error by changing the reference to “said special election”.
510
August 31, 2011
City Attorney Roy stated this resolution makes a correction to Resolution 2011-070 to clarify that
the citizen-initiated ordinance will be considered at a special election held in conjunction with the
Larimer County Coordinated Election on November 1, 2011.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked why this correction needed to be made at a special meeting instead
of waiting until the next regular meeting. City Attorney Roy stated the correction could not be
delayed because the ballot language must be certified to Larimer County by September 2.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2011-071. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
511
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to the Compensation
of Councilmembers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, repeals the City Code provision relating
to Council compensation. This section is unnecessary because the method for adjusting compensation is set out in
the City Charter, and such adjustment is accomplished through administrative action of the City Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 6, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 6, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2011, Repealing Section 2-575 of the City Code Relating to the Compensation
of Councilmembers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance repeals the City Code provision relating to Council compensation. This section is unnecessary
because the method for adjusting compensation is set out in the City Charter, and such adjustment is accomplished
through administrative action of the City Manager.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On April 8, 1997, the voters of Fort Collins approved an amendment to Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter,
pertaining to the compensation of Councilmembers, providing that, commencing in 1998, the amounts of compensation
of the Mayor and Councilmembers shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder
Consumer Price Index.
In January 1999, Council enacted a new section in the City Code relating to Council compensation. Council
periodically amends this section of the City Code so that it accurately reflects the amount of compensation, adjusted
for inflation, that is currently paid to Councilmembers. These amendments sometimes create the misimpression
among members of the public that the City Council is, by adopting an amending ordinance, increasing the
compensation of its members, when, in fact, adjustment of Council compensation is accomplished through
administrative action of the City Manager.
Since the current amount of Councilmember compensation is readily available to members of the public through
sources other than the City Code, such as the City’s website and financial records of the City, this Ordinance repeals
Section 2-575 of the City Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 107, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REPEALING SECTION 2-575 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF COUNCILMEMBERS
WHEREAS, on April 8, 1997, the electorate of the City approved certain amendments to the
City Charter; and
WHEREAS, one such amendment was an amendment to Article II, Section 3 of the City
Charter, pertaining to the compensation of Councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter, as amended, provides that,
commencing in 1998, the amounts of compensation of the Mayor and Councilmembers shall be
adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index; and
WHEREAS, the adjustment of Council compensation, pursuant Article II, Section 3 of the
City Charter, is accomplished though administrative action of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1999, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 233, 1998, amending
the City Code by the addition of a new section relating to Council compensation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council periodically amends this section of the City Code so that it
accurately reflects the amount of compensation, adjusted for inflation, that is currently paid to
Councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, such amendments sometimes create the misimpression among members of the
public that the City Council is, by adopting the amending ordinance, increasing the compensation
of its members, whereas such increases actually occur automatically under the above-referenced City
Charter provision; and
WHEREAS, the current amount of Councilmember compensation is readily available to
members of the public through sources other than the City Code, such as the City’s website and
financial records of the City; and
WHEREAS, for these reasons, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests
of the City to repeal Section 2-575 of the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 2-575 is repealed in its entirety.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Lawrence Pollack
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in
Various City Funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this annual “clean-up” Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be
appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not
included in the 2011 budget. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants
that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being
appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose. This Ordinance,
adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Horak) appropriates prior year reserves and
unanticipated revenue in various City funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 6, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 6, 2011
STAFF: Lawrence Pollack
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in Various
City Funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following is a list of funds that make up the increase in appropriations:
General Fund
Unanticipated Revenue $ 630,881
Prior Year Reserves
Traffic Surcharge Reserve $ 93,696
Camera Radar Reserve $ 274,485
Other Reserves $ 213,807
Capital Projects Fund $ 355,000
Cultural Services and Facilities Fund $ 53,768
Neighborhood Parkland Fund $ 167,797
Recreation Fund $ 151,901
Sales & Use Tax Fund $ 502,526
Transit Services Fund $1,445,784
Transportation Services Fund $ 36,500
The purpose of this annual “clean-up” Ordinance is to combine dedicated revenues or reserves that need to be
appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not
included in the 2011 budget. The unanticipated revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions and grants
that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses. Prior year reserves are primarily being
appropriated for unanticipated operation expenses from reserves that are set aside for that purpose.
This Ordinance appropriates prior year reserves and unanticipated revenue in various City funds. The City Charter
permits the City Council to provide by ordinance for payment of any expense from prior year reserves. The Charter
also permits the City Council to appropriate unanticipated revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new
revenue sources.
If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue and
reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A. GENERAL FUND
1. Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) has received revenue from various sources which needs to be
appropriated to cover the related expenditures. A listing of these items follows:
a. $34,500 - Chemical Test Fees and Driving Without Insurance Penalty Assessments - Pursuant to C.R.S.
16-11-501(2)(j), the costs of chemical tests (blood/breath tests) shall be reimbursed by the defendant to
the law enforcement agency which administered and paid for the test. The driving without insurance law
provides revenue to the law enforcement agency issuing the citation. It is projected that by the end of
2011, $34,500 will have been collected by the courts and passed on to FCPS under these provisions. This
revenue is used to directly offset the actual cost of testing for Driving Under the Influence and Driving
Under the Influence of Drugs.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 16
b. $3,800 - Training Revenue - In 2011, FCPS sponsored various classes which other agencies paid tuition
to attend. The training events were sponsored by the SWAT Team. The revenue from these classes is
used to offset the cost of supplies and to fund other SWAT related supply costs.
c. $4,200 - Community Workshop Fees - FCPS conducts community education workshops for Municipal
Violation and Noise Violation offenders. Attendance is a requirement as part of their sentence. The fee
is $20 per participant. This money is used to offset the overtime incurred by those teaching the course.
d. $12,390 - Miscellaneous Overtime Reimbursement - In 2011, Police Services billed various outside entities
for overtime expenses for the following activities: DEA investigative partnership, Tour De Fat, Brew Fest
and the Regional Auto Theft Investigative Unit. The revenue collected directly offsets what was spent.
e. $38,200 - Police Report and Special Event Permit Fees - Police reports purchased by the public and
insurance agencies generate revenue of approximately $7.50 per report. Special event permits are
required if the public wishes to hold an event that will interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or takes
place on public property. Special event permits cost $50 per event. In 2011, approximately $38,200 will
be collected from these fees. The fee revenue is used to subsidize the cost of copy machine rental.
f. $200 - Community Contributions - In 2011, FCPS received a $200 donation from a community member
for the K-9 program. The money will be used to purchase equipment for the program.
g. $93,696 - Traffic Surcharge Officer - In 2010, authorization was received to hire an additional police officer
assigned to the Traffic Unit, to be supported by the Traffic Calming Surcharge. The addition was not part
of the 2011 authorized budget. Since inception, the fund has stabilized enough to support a third officer
dedicated to traffic enforcement. This appropriation covers the 2011 salary and benefits for the officer.
h. $97,068 - Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Funded District One Officer - In 2010, the City of Fort
Collins entered into an agreement with the DDA for the DDA to provide two years of funding for an
additional officer for District One. This appropriation covers the ongoing operating expenses, salary and
benefits for 2011.
i. $13,500 – Police Service Seizure Expense - In 2011, Police Services purchased a Lexipol policy
management system. The system allows for review of the origin of all policy content, including federal and
state laws and law enforcement best practices. This system provides regular policy updates in response
to legislative mandates, case law and best practices evolution. Federal rules determine what seizure funds
can be used for and the purchase of this system is a permissible use of these funds.
j. $46,309 – In-Car DUI Officer Camera System - The old DUI car camera system was failing, beyond its
useful life and ability to be covered by a maintenance agreement. A new system by the name of
“Arbitrator” was purchased in 2011. City of Fort Collins Purchasing Guidelines were followed in the
acquisition of this system.
k. $228,176 – Patrol Car Modification Project - With the replacement of laptops scheduled at the end of the
year, modifications need to be made to the patrol cars to accommodate the new laptop. The semi rugged
laptop is at the end of its life cycle and the next ruggedized series has a different “footprint”. Docking
stations are being installed to improve connectivity to (1) exterior antennas (Wi-Fi hotspots, broadband,
GPS signals) (2) power sources (battery, alternator and distribution timers) and (3) interfacing USB devices
(cameras, voice recorders, etc.)
The docking station also provides a locking mechanism for anti-theft and a more sturdy housing than a
stand-alone computer mount. Antennas will be added for improved wireless coverage. The vehicles
center console will be modified to integrate the docking station and laptop safely and ergonomically instead
of installing separate computer mounts. New radio cabling will also be installed in anticipation of mobile
radio replacement in 2012 while the console is removed, saving labor costs on that project. In total, 147
vehicles are being equipped. It is estimated these consoles have a useful life of 10+ years.
l. $40,000 – Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System Storage Capacity Addition - The aging CAD/RMS
(Records Management System) system required a storage upgrade in 2011. This appropriation will cover
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -3- ITEM 16
the cost of replacing the RMS component of the CAD system. This will be funded by the CAD reserve
account which was established exclusively to repair/replace CAD components.
m. $6,000 - Seatbelt Enforcement Grant - In 2011, FCPS received a contract from the State of Colorado
Department of Transportation for $6,000 to be used for seatbelt compliance enforcement.
n. $6,356 – Driving while Under the Influence (DUI) Enforcement Grant - FCPS received an additional $6,356
of funding over what was originally appropriated for the 2010 DUI enforcement grant. The grant pays for
FCPS officer overtime during multi-agency checkpoints.
o. $15,335 – DUI Enforcement Grant – Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) received a grant for DUI
enforcement in 2011. The grant pays for FCPS officer overtime during multi-agency checkpoints.
p. $6,376 - Colorado Internet Crimes Against Children Grant - For late 2010 and early 2011 Fort Collins
Police was the sub-recipient of $6,376 in grant funding as part of the Colorado Internet Crimes Against
Children (ICAC) Task Force. The Colorado Springs Police Department administered the grant and FCPS
received funds to pay for ICAC sponsored community internet safety meetings and case related overtime.
The grant also provided funds to purchase computer equipment and to attend out of state training.
q. $13,271 – Supplemental Grant Awards - Fort Collins Police Services is the administrative agency for the
Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (NCDTF). The NCDTF is the recipient of a grant from the Rocky
Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. Occasionally, additional funding is
available to help offset the cost of illegal narcotics investigations. Supplemental funding was received for
both 2009 ($7,414) and 2010 ($5,857) grants.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Police) $ 93,290
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DDA) $ 97,068
FROM: Prior Year Reserve (Traffic Surcharge) $ 93,696
FROM: Prior Year Reserve (Police Seizure) $ 13,500
FROM: Prior Year Reserve (Camera Radar) $274,485
FROM: Prior Year Reserve (CAD Replacement) $ 40,000
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Seatbelt Grant) $ 6,000
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement Grant) $ 21,691
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (ICAC Task Force Grant) $ 6,376
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Drug Task Force Grant) $ 13,271
FOR: Police Services $612,039
FOR: Seatbelt Grant $ 6,000
FOR: DUI Enforcement Grant $ 21,691
FOR: ICAC Task Force Grant $ 6,376
FOR: Drug Task Force Grant $ 13,271
2. The Climate Wise program received a private grant of $4,000 in 2010 for continuing education, events and
outreach to encourage further Climate Wise partner project implementation and to reach new businesses.
At the end of 2010, the revenue was closed into the General Fund reserves. The grant period is from July 1,
2010 through June 30, 2011. This grant does not require a local match.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $4,000
FOR: Climate Wise Program Expenses $4,000
3. The Waste Innovation Program, which generates money from departments’ landfill tipping fees, has a current
balance of $105,307. To meet the City’s internal sustainability goals, the City Manager established this fund
in 2010 to be used for projects that improve various departments’ ability to divert trash from landfill disposal.
Working with Parks Maintenance, Streets, and Environmental Regulatory Affairs, the Natural Resources
Department has developed a proposal to establish a fully permitted, outdoor facility that will be used for
composting landscape maintenance trimmings and fall leaves. The $105,307 in the Waste Innovation
Program will be applied to building the new composting facility, which has a projected budget of $119,500 to
complete Phase I (planning) and Phase II (implementation).
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -4- ITEM 16
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $105,307
FOR: Waste Innovation Fund Expenses $105,307
4. a. The City Manager and Executive Leadership Team (ELT) considered ways to enhance the efficiency and
effectiveness of the City organization. Changes impacting existing service areas were approved in March
2011 and included the following:
1. Assistant to the City Manager - This new position is an executive level position intended to support
the City Manager in pursuing a world class community and performance excellence. There will be
primarily three areas of focus, including Sustainability Coordination, Community Design & Special
Projects, and Innovative Culture.
2. Assistant to the City Manager - Employee and Communications Services (Restructured
Communications and Public Involvement Director Position)
3. Reclassify the current Public Relations Coordinator to the Communications and Public Involvement
Manager
This item appropriates $25,000 from General Fund Reserves to cover the costs for this change in 2011.
b. On November 10, 2010 the Communications and Public Involvement Office (CPIO) received and
deposited a donation from the Johanna A. Favrot Fund to be used towards the 2011 City Works 101
program. At the end of 2010, the revenue was closed into the General Fund reserves. This item
appropriates this donation in the amount of $6,000 for that purpose.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $31,000
FOR: Communications & Public Involvement Office Expenses $31,000
5. Forestry has identified several high use public areas where trees need maintenance for safety and tree health
reasons. In some cases, maintenance has not been performed in over a decade. This item appropriates
$20,000 from the General Fund - Tree Donations Reserve to be used to contractually prune and remove
mature City trees.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Tree Donations) $20,000
FOR: Forestry Expenses $20,000
6. This request is to appropriate a $30,000 donation from Poudre Valley Health Systems for the 4th of July
celebration in 2011. The donation paid for fireworks and other supplies for the celebration.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $30,000
FOR: Parks Expenses $30,000
7. Operations Services-Facilities has performed construction, maintenance, repairs, alterations, and facilities
related services for various City departments on a cost reimbursement basis. This work includes the recent
project of repainting the interior of the downtown Civic Center Parking Structure. This item appropriates
$225,000 that has been billed to those various departments to cover the cost of the work performed.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Work for Others) $225,000
FOR: Facilities Expenses $225,000
8. The Gardens on Spring Creek has received additional money from events above the original revenue
appropriated during the budget process. These revenues will be used to fund hourly, seasonal staff and
supplies at The Gardens. In addition, sponsorship dollars were raised to support events. These monies must
be spent on those specific events (Harvest Festival, Garden of Lights, etc.).
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $50,000
FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek $50,000
9. The Gardens on Spring Creek received several grants in 2011 that need to be appropriated. They are as
follows: Can Do Grant - $13,000, Stanley Smith Horticulturist Trust Grant - $19,350, and Colorado Health
Foundation Grant - $55,835. The Can Do Grant and Colorado Health Foundation Grant fund the Community
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -5- ITEM 16
Garden Outreach Program, which grows food in the Garden of Eatin’, coordinates Garden Network meetings
for those interested in community gardens and growing food for low income populations, and provides
technical assistance to people and organizations that are creating community gardens specifically targeting
low income residents. The Stanley Smith Horticulturist Trust Grant provides money for an hourly horticulturist
to oversee construction and maintenance of the Rock Garden which opens in September 2011.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $88,185
FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek Grant Expenses $88,185
B. RECREATION FUND
1. The following items appropriate expenditures from unanticipated revenue and unrestricted reserves for
programs in the Recreation Fund.
a. $24,000 – Recreator - Unanticipated revenue ($11,000) for advertising sales in the Recreator and prior
year Recreation reserves ($13,000) will be appropriated through this item and used for increased
production and distribution costs for the publication. Over the next few months there could be additional
unanticipated revenues that offset the need to draw on the Recreation Reserves.
b. $17,260 – Northside Aztlan Community Center Rentals - Unanticipated revenue for the Northside Aztlan
Rentals will be appropriated through this item and used to cover additional costs of increased rental
activity.
c. $5,951 – Northside Aztlan Community Center Fitness - Unanticipated revenue in Northside Aztlan Fitness
programs will be appropriated through this item and used to cover additional costs of the increased
programming demand.
d. $35,000 – Trips and Travel Program - Unanticipated revenue in the Senior Center Trips and Travel
program will be appropriated through this item and used to cover additional costs of increased
programming demand.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Recreation Fund) $69,211
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Recreation Fund) $13,000
FOR: Recreation Programs $82,211
2. The Recreation Division administers several restricted revenue accounts for various programs. Revenues
for these programs include grants, fund-raising events and activities, and sponsorships. The following items
appropriate unanticipated restricted revenue and restricted reserves for specific programs.
a. $11,000 – Alternative Programs - Prior year reserves in the Alternative Program special revenue account
will be appropriated through this item and used for fall programs and contractual staffing.
b. $7,000 – Youth Programs - Unanticipated revenue in the Youth Programs special revenue account will be
appropriated through this item and used for the Toys for Kids program and fundraising activities.
c. $1,000 – Senior Center - Prior year reserves in the Senior Center special revenue account will be
appropriated through this item and used for an upgraded sound system and fundraisers.
d. $8,855 – Senior Center - Prior year reserves in the Recreation donation special revenue account will be
appropriated through this item and used for a fundraising feasibility study and a business plan for the
Senior Center addition.
e. $2,800 – Youth Sports - Prior year reserves in the Youth Sports special revenue account will be
appropriated through this item and used to purchase youth sports equipment.
f. $17,500 – Club Tico - Unanticipated revenue ($16,000) and prior year reserves ($1,500) in the Club Tico
special revenue account will be appropriated through this item and used for the architectural designs of
phase two of the Club Tico renovation.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -6- ITEM 16
g. $4,535 – Active Kids - Prior year reserves in the Active Kids special revenue account will be appropriated
through this item and used to support youth physical activities.
h. $17,000 – Youth Football - Unanticipated revenues ($12,125) and prior year reserves ($4,875) in the Youth
Football special revenue account will be appropriated through this item and used to support youth football
programs.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Recreation Fund) $35,125
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Recreation Fund) $34,565
FOR: Recreation Programs $69,690
C. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND
1. Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Section 5309 State of Good Repair Funding - The City of Fort Collins is the
recipient of $1,200,000 in unanticipated 2010 FTA Section 5309 "State of Good Repair" funding. The funding
was awarded to the City to replace three heavy-duty, diesel transit buses that have exceeded their useful life.
Transfort intends to purchase two 35 foot alternative fuel (compressed natural gas) heavy-duty transit buses
and one 60 foot alternative fuel (compressed natural gas) articulated transit bus with the grant funding.
Federal funding has been awarded at an 83%/17% match rate and the local match in the amount of $245,784
is requested from the Transit Fund prior year reserves.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (FTA Section 5309 Funding) $1,200,000
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Transit Services Fund) $245,784
FOR: Replacement Buses $1,445,784
D. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. Fort Collins FCBikes Program - This item appropriates unanticipated revenue for the 2011 FCBikes program.
The Orthopedic Center of the Rockies contributed $500 for the 2011 Bike Week events. These funds will be
applied to program expenditures.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $500
FOR: FCBikes Program Expenses $500
2. Staff is requesting that the 2011 budgeted appropriation for expenses related to Senior Alternatives in
Transportation (SAINT) services be transferred from the Transit Fund to the Transportation Fund. Historically,
through the Transfort budget, the City of Fort Collins has contributed annual funding to SAINT for the operation
of a volunteer demand-response transportation program for people 60 years old and older and people with
disabilities. This low-cost type of transportation eases the demand for more costly Dial-A-Ride services
provided by the City. A recent Federal Transit Administration procurement review identified the need to use
time consuming and expensive FTA procurement processes if the City continues to make this $36,000
appropriation through the Transfort budget. These requirements are not necessary if the appropriation is from
another fund. As the current 2011 Transfort budget contains $36,000 to be paid to SAINT, staff is requesting
that this appropriation be transferred to the Transportation Fund to pay to SAINT. This issue will be addressed
as part of the 2013-2014 Budget process to eliminate the future need for a fund transfer. This item
appropriates the $36,000 in the Transportation Fund.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from Transit) $36,000
FOR: Transportation Services Fund-SAINT Expenses $36,000
E. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND FUND
1. Trail Connection from Provincetown Development to Carpenter Road - The developer of Provincetown 3rd
filing was required to provide funding for the trail connection from the development to Carpenter Road for
access to Thompson Elementary School on the south side of the road. Construction of an 8-foot wide
concrete trail will be installed in 2011. The funds will be used for the construction of the trail in conjunction
with Waters Way Neighborhood Park.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -7- ITEM 16
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $167,797
FOR: Trail Development $167,797
F. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. Transfort is requesting that revenue and appropriations in the amount of $350,000, be transferred from the
Building on Basics (BOB) Transit Services Fund account to the Mason Express (MAX) vehicles project in the
Capital Projects Fund. BOB funding was awarded to Transfort to serve as local match for the replacement
of transit vehicles. The funds will serve as a portion of the local match for MAX buses, which will replace older
buses. This transfer is requested to appropriately identify the funds that will be used to meet the local match
requirements for MAX transit vehicle procurement - in the Mason Corridor Capital Project in the Capital
Projects Fund.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $350,000
FOR: Mason Corridor Project $350,000
2. The Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund provided a $5,000 contribution from an anonymous donor for bike lane/path
improvements on Trilby Road from the railroad to Timberline Road. Currently the additional funds needed for
these improvements have not been identified. This appropriates the contribution into the BOB funded Bike
Plan project to be held until the bike improvements project can move forward.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $5,000
FOR: BOB – Bike Plan Implementation Project $5,000
G. CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND
1. City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public Places (APP) Program. The purpose of the
program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community
through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all
eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines.
The APP Program has received unanticipated revenue for specific art projects. The following items describe
the revenue source and how the funds are to be used.
a. $3,468 is revenue from the North College Improvement Project in the Capital Projects Fund. These funds
will be used for the APP project for North College. This project is currently in the design phase and will
be brought to City Council for final review.
b. $9,800 has been received from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) These funds will be used
for administration for the collaborative projects with the Downtown Development Authority. For the DDA
Alley Paver Project, APP produced a total of sixty pavers with drawings by local youth, to be installed in
three alley projects. The Art in Action Project had an artist working on Old Town Square during the
summer months and creating a final piece of artwork for display.
c. $40,500 has been received from the Bohemian Foundation for the “Pianos About Town”, a collaborative
project with the Bohemian Foundation and Downtown Development Authority. These funds are the
Bohemian Foundation’s contribution to the project. This appropriation funds the overall project, including
the tuning, moving, purchase, repairs and artists painting the pianos, as well as a portion of the
administration costs. There will be fourteen painted pianos about town at the end of the project.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $53,768
FOR: Art-in-Public Places projects $53,768
H. SALES AND USE TAX FUND
1. The revenue forecast model was updated in July 2011 with data from the first six months of the year. The net
sales and use tax revenue increase is projected to be about 2.5% over the budgeted amount. While staff does
not recommend appropriating the additional revenue at this time, the appropriations for transfers from the
Sales and Use Tax Fund to the Capital Projects Fund for the one quarter cent Building on Basics tax, and to
the Natural Areas Fund for the one quarter cent Natural Areas tax need to be increased. Transfers to the
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -8- ITEM 16
General Fund, the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund, and the Transportation Services Fund are not needed
because the tax revenues are recorded directly into the appropriate fund and do not flow through the Sales
and Use Tax Fund.
This item appropriates the projected increase of $217,500 for transfer from the Sales and Use Tax Fund to
the Capital Projects fund for the Building on Basics projects and $217,500 from the Sales and Use Tax Fund
to the Natural Areas Fund. These dollars will be held in the respective fund reserves for future programs and
projects.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Sales Tax) $435,000
FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $217,500
FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $217,500
2. In accordance with Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate, $67,526 was
paid out in March 2011 for the 2009 rebate program. The rebate program was established to encourage
investment in new manufacturing equipment by local manufacturing firms. Vendors have until December 31st
of the following year to file for the rebate. This item appropriates the use tax funds to cover the payment of
the rebates.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $67,526
FOR: Manufacturers Rebate $67,526
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases total City 2011 appropriations by $3,926,145. Of that amount, this Ordinance increases
General Fund 2011 appropriations by $1,212,869. Funding for the total City appropriations is $2,593,814 from
unanticipated revenue, $942,863 from prior year reserves, and $389,468 transferred from other funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 111, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND
UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN VARIOUS CITY FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City has prior year reserves, excess revenue, and unanticipated revenue
available to appropriate; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, Section 8(b) of the City Charter, any expense or
liability entered into by an agent of the City, on behalf of the City, shall not be made unless an
appropriation therefor shall have been made by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter also permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer
by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital
project to another fund or capital project, provided the purpose for which the transferred funds are
to be expended remains unchanged; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide for the expenditures listed below and the City
Manager recommends that these expenditures be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the following funds are hereby authorized for transfer and appropriated for
expenditure for the purposes stated below:
A. GENERAL FUND
1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Miscellaneous Police) $ 93,290
APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (D.D.A.) $ 97,068
APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Traffic Surcharge) $ 93,696
APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Police Seizure) $ 13,500
APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Camera Radar) $ 274,485
APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (CAD Replacement) $ 40,000
APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Seatbelt Grant) $ 6,000
APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (DUI Enforcement Grant) $ 21,691
APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (ICAC Task Force Grant) $ 6,376
APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Drug Task Force Grant) $ 13,271
FOR: Police Services $ 612,039
FOR: Seatbelt Grant $ 6,000
FOR: DUI Enforcement Grant $ 21,691
FOR: ICAC Task Force Grant $ 6,376
FOR: Drug Task Force Grant $ 13,271
2. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 4,000
FOR: Climate Wise Program Expenses $ 4,000
3. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 105,307
FOR: Waste Innovation Fund Expenses $ 105,307
4. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (General Fund) $ 31,000
FOR: Communications & Public Involvement Expenses $ 31,000
5. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Tree Donations) $ 20,000
FOR: Forestry Expenses $ 20,000
6. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Donations) $ 30,000
FOR: Parks Expenses $ 30,000
7. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Work for Others) $ 225,000
FOR: Facilities Expenses $ 225,000
8. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 50,000
FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek $ 50,000
9. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Grants) $ 88,185
FOR: The Gardens on Spring Creek $ 88,185
B. RECREATION FUND
1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Recreation Fund) $ 69,211
APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Recreation Fund) $ 13,000
FOR: Recreation Programs $ 82,211
2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Recreation Fund) $ 35,125
APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Recreation Fund) $ 34,565
FOR: Recreation Programs $ 69,690
C. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND
1. APP FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (FTA Section 5309 Funding) $1,200,000
APP FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Transit Services Fund) $ 245,784
FOR: Transfort Replacement Buses $1,445,784
-2-
D. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 500
FOR: FCBikes Program Expenses $ 500
2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Transfer from Transit) $ 36,000
FOR: SAINT Expenses $ 36,000
E. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND FUND
1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 167,797
FOR: Trail Development $ 167,797
F. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 350,000
FOR: Mason Corridor Project $ 350,000
2. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 5,000
FOR: BOB - Bike Plan Implementation Project $ 5,000
G. CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND
1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue $ 53,768
FOR: Art-in-Public Places projects $ 53,768
H. SALES AND USE TAX FUND
1. APP. FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (Sales Tax) $ 435,000
FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects - Building on Basics $ 217,500
FOR: Transfer to Natural Areas Fund $ 217,500
2. APP. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Sales & Use Tax Fund) $ 67,526
FOR: Manufacturers Rebate $ 67,526
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-4-
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Matt Johnson
Hal Dean
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City Code.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining
to Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2011, Adding a Section to Article IV of Chapter 17 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Violation of Court Orders.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2011, Amending Articles VII and VIII of Chapter 17 of the City Code
Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct, Harassment and Public Indecency.
D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2011, Adding a New Section in Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City
Code Pertaining to Graffiti Crimes.
E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining
to Loitering.
F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2011, Adding a New Section to Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City
Code Pertaining to Staying on Medians Prohibited.
G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2011, Amending Article III of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining
to Jurisdictional Amount of Various Criminal Offenses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To maintain continuity with federal law, the revised statutes for the State of Colorado, and the needs of citizens of Fort
Collins, the Fort Collins City Code must be regularly updated through amendments, deletions, and the creation of new
ordinances. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, will allow law
enforcement to more effectively and efficiently protect and serve the citizens of Fort Collins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 6, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 6, 2011
STAFF: Matt Johnson
Hal Dean
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Updates, Amendments, Deletions and Additions to Chapter 17 of the City Code.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to
Abandoned Refrigerators and Similar Items.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2011, Adding a Section to Article IV of Chapter 17 of the City Code
Pertaining to the Violation of Court Orders.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2011, Amending Articles VII and VIII of Chapter 17 of the City Code
Pertaining to Disorderly Conduct, Harassment and Public Indecency.
D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2011, Adding a New Section in Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code
Pertaining to Graffiti Crimes.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to
Loitering.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2011, Adding a New Section to Article VII of Chapter 17 of the City Code
Pertaining to Staying on Medians Prohibited.
G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2011, Amending Article III of Chapter 17 of the City Code Pertaining to
Jurisdictional Amount of Various Criminal Offenses.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To maintain continuity with federal law, the revised statutes for the State of Colorado, and the needs of citizens of Fort
Collins, the Fort Collins City Code must be regularly updated through amendments, deletions, and the creation of new
ordinances.
These amendments, deletions, and creations of several new ordinances will allow law enforcement to more effectively
and efficiently protect and serve the citizens of Fort Collins.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Amendments to Chapter 17 of the City Code are proposed in the following areas to reflect current updates and/or
conformity with state law:
(1) theft
(2) theft of rental property
(3) concealment of goods
(4) criminal mischief
(5) abandoned refrigerators
(6) disorderly conduct
(7) harassment
(8) public indecency.
The assault section is being amended to eliminate the requirement of bodily injury as an element of the offense to
provide Fort Collins Police Services peace officers and other City staff a better fit for the types of assault charges that
could be filed into Municipal Court.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 17
The loitering section is being deleted to reflect current Colorado case law regarding the constitutionality of such an
ordinance.
The following proposed sections were created to allow law enforcement to more effectively and efficiently protect and
serve the citizens of Fort Collins:
(1) violations of court orders
(2) possession of graffiti materials by minors prohibited & possession of graffiti materials prohibited
(3) staying on medians prohibited.
A new section, Violation of Court Orders, was created to provide criminal enforcement of valid court orders. This
proposed section will support the location diversion program which is heavily used for problem solving efforts in
downtown Fort Collins. The proposed sections regarding regulations of graffiti are intended to diminish incidents of
graffiti in Fort Collins. The final proposed section regarding medians is designed to protect the citizens of Fort Collins
by minimizing the safety risks to pedestrians and motorists involved with remaining in roadway medians for extended
periods of time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 112, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO ABANDONED REFRIGERATORS
AND SIMILAR ITEMS
WHEREAS, the state statute regarding abandoned refrigerators is more inclusive and more
enforceable than the City’s current ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services recommends amending the misdemeanor crime of
abandoned refrigerators to be more consistent with state law and the City Council believes that it
would be in the best interests of the City to approve such amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 17-81 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 17-81. Abandoned refrigerators and similar items.
No person shall leave outside of any building or dwelling place or in any
uninhabited building or any place accessible to children any chest, closet, piece of
furniture, refrigerator, icebox, motor vehicle, or other article, having a compartment
of a capacity of one and one-half cubic feet or more and having a door or lid which
when closed cannot be opened easily from the inside, or who, being the owner,
lessee, or manager of such place, knowingly permits such abandoned or discarded
article to remain in such condition.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 113, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADDING A NEW SECTION TO ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 17
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PERTAINING TO THE VIOLATION OF COURT ORDERS
WHEREAS, the Municipal Court has adopted the use of a sentencing provision for
misdemeanor criminal violations that prohibits violators from frequenting the site of the commission
of the crime (“Location Diversion”); and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services peace officers (“Peace Officers”) often find
defendants in violation of a Location Diversion court order; and
WHEREAS, the Peace Officers have sometimes been challenged by violators when
enforcing the Location Diversion Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Code currently has no provision dealing with violations of Municipal
Court orders; and
WHEREAS, City staff has recommended adding a new section to the City Code that would
provide for criminal enforcement of a valid court order; and
WHEREAS, this section will provide Peace Officers with the power to issue a citation for
a violation of a court order, and will support the Location Diversion Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
approve this recommended amendment to the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new
Section 17-69 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 17-69. Violation of court orders.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to violate a valid written order issued by
any court of record within the United States of America, including Indian tribal
courts, which requires a person to refrain from entering or remaining on certain
premises or within any specified area after such person has been personally served
with such order or has otherwise acquired from the court actual knowledge of the
contents of any such order.
(b) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter or diminish the inherent
authority of the Municipal Court to enforce its orders through civil or criminal
contempt proceedings.
(c) No person charged with violation of an order pursuant to this Section shall
be permitted, in the criminal action resulting from such charges, to collaterally attack
the validity of the order which such person is accused of violating.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 114, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLES VII AND VIII OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO DISORDERLY CONDUCT,
HARASSMENT AND PUBLIC INDECENCY
WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has amended the state statutes regarding
disorderly conduct, harassment, and public indecency; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services recommends amending the misdemeanor crimes
of disorderly conduct, harassment, and public indecency contained in the City Code to conform with
state law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
approve the changes to the City Code that have been recommended by Fort Collins Police Services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 17-124 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 17-124. Disorderly conduct.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly:
(1) Make a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture or display in a
public place when such utterance, gesture or display tends to incite an
immediate breach of the peace; or
(2) Fight with another in a public place except in an amateur or professional
contest of athletic skill; or
(3) Not being a peace officer, display a deadly weapon in a public place in a
manner calculated to alarm.
Section 2. That Section 17-126 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 17-126. Harassment.
(a) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm
another person, he or she:
(1) Strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise touches a person or subjects him or her
to physical contact; or
(2) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to
or at another person; or
(3) Follows a person in or about a public place; or
(4) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by
telephone, telephone network, data network, text message, instant message,
computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to
harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any
comment, request, suggestion or proposal by telephone, computer,
computer network, or computer system which is obscene; or
(5) Makes a telephone call or causes a telephone to ring repeatedly, whether
or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate conversation;
or
(6) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the
privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another’s
home or private residence or other private property; or
(7) Repeatedly insults, taunts or challenges another in a manner likely to
provoke a violent or disorderly response.
(b) As used in this Section, unless the context otherwise requires, obscene
means a blatantly offensive description of ultimate sexual acts or solicitation to
commit ultimate sexual acts, whether or not said ultimate sexual acts are normal or
perverted, actual or simulated, including masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio,
anilingus or excretory functions.
(c) Any act prohibited by Paragraph (a)(4) of this Section may be deemed to
have occurred or to have been committed at the place at which the telephone call was
either made or received.
Section 3. That Section 17-142 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 17-142. Public indecency.
No person shall knowingly appear in any public place in a nude state or state of
undress such that the genitals or buttocks of either sex or the breast or breasts of a
female are exposed.
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 115, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADDING A NEW SECTION IN ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 17
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PERTAINING TO GRAFFITI CRIMES
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) and City staff have observed an increase
in the number of incidents of graffiti in the City over the past few years; and
WHEREAS, FCPS recommends adding the proposed new sections to the City Code
regulating graffiti to address the increasing incidents of graffiti; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
approve the addition of these sections to the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of new
Sections 17-135, 17-136, and 17-137, which read in their entirety as follows:
Sec. 17-135. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Division shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this Subsection:
Broad tipped marker pen shall mean a felt-tip marker, or similar implement
containing a fluid which is not water soluble, with a tip that exceeds one-quarter
(1/4) inch in width.
Glass etching tool or instrument shall mean any device or product used for
engraving or creating a frosted effect on any surface or delivering a solution to any
surface in order to create an image, or any container of such solution, including, but
not limited to, glass etching creams or solutions.
Paint pen shall mean a tube, marker, or other pen-like instrument with a tip of
one-quarter (1/4) inch in diameter or less that contains paint or a similar fluid and an
internal paint agitator.
Prohibited graffiti material shall mean any can of spray paint, spray paint nozzle,
broad tipped marker pen, paint pen, glass cutting tool, or glass etching tool or
instrument.
Spray paint shall mean any aerosol container that is made or adapted for the
purpose of applying paint or other substance capable of defacing property.
Spray paint nozzle shall mean a nozzle designed to deliver a spray of paint of a
particular width or flow from a can of spray paint.
Sec. 17-136. Possession of graffiti materials by minors prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any minor, except a minor under the direct
supervision of the minor's parent, legal guardian, school teacher, or a law
enforcement officer in the performance of duty, to purchase, procure, or possess, or
attempt to purchase, procure, or possess, any prohibited graffiti material.
(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to charges under this Section that the
minor possessing the material was:
(1) within his or her home;
(2) at his or her place of employment; or
(3) upon real property with permission from the owner, occupant, or person
having lawful control of such property, to possess such materials.
Sec. 17-137. Possession of graffiti materials prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess graffiti materials.
(b) A person possesses graffiti materials when he or she possesses any paint,
marking pen, materials, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly
used for committing or facilitating the commission of an offense involving
damaging, defacing, or destroying public or private property, and intends to use the
thing possessed in the commission of such offense, or knows that some other person
intends to use the thing possessed in the commission of such an offense.
(c) Defacing as used in subsection (b) above shall include, but not be limited
to, the writing, painting, inscribing, drawing, scratching or scribbling upon any wall
or surface owned, operated or maintained by any person or the city unless the city
or the property owner grants written permission for such writing, painting,
inscribing, drawing, scratching or scribbling.
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 116, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO LOITERING
WHEREAS, in recent years, there have been several successful constitutional challenges to
numerous Colorado cities’ loitering ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services recommends eliminating the misdemeanor crime
of loitering to be consistent with Colorado case law and the City Council believes that it would be
in the best interests of the City to approve such changes to the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 17-22 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety:
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 117, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADDING A NEW SECTION TO ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 17
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PERTAINING TO STAYING ON MEDIANS PROHIBITED
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) has encountered persons occupying the
medians of streets within the City for extended periods of time; and
WHEREAS, FCPS is concerned with the safety risks to those individuals and others driving
or using the streets, sidewalks, and crosswalks; and
WHEREAS, FCPS is recommending that a new section be added to the City Code
prohibiting a person from remaining on medians for longer than is reasonably necessary to cross the
street; and
WHEREAS, the proposed new section would protect the citizens of Fort Collins by
minimizing the safety risks to pedestrians and motorists; and
WHEREAS, City Council believes it is in the best interests of the City to approve the
addition of this new section to the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new
section 17-122 which reads in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 17-122. Staying on medians prohibited.
(a) No person shall stand or be upon a median of any street for longer than is
reasonably necessary to cross the street.
(b) For the purposes of this Section, median shall mean:
(1) The area of a street, generally in the middle, which separates traffic
traveling in one direction from traffic traveling in another direction, or
which, at intersections, separates traffic turning left from traffic proceeding
straight. Such an area is physically defined by curbing, landscaping, or
other physical obstacles to the area's use by motor vehicles, or by traffic
control markings which prohibit use of a portion of the pavement of a street
by motor vehicles other than to drive generally perpendicularly across the
markings, or to wait there awaiting the opportunity to cross or merge with
the opposing lanes of traffic (also known as painted medians, which are
wider than a double yellow line); or
(2) The area of a street at an intersection between the streets and a right turn
only lane, roughly triangular in shape, and separated from the motor
vehicular traffic lanes by curbing, landscaping, or other physical obstacles
to the area's use by motor vehicles (also known as a right turn island).
(c) This Section does not apply to medians which are thirty (30) or more feet
wide or to persons maintaining or working on the median for the government which
owns the underlying right-of-way or for a public utility.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 118, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT
OF VARIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSES
WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has amended state law to change the
jurisdictional amount for the misdemeanor crimes of theft, theft of rental property, concealment of
goods, and criminal mischief from $500 to $1,000; and
WHEREAS, the City Code currently establishes the jurisdictional amount for the
misdemeanor crimes of theft, theft of rental property, concealment of goods, and criminal mischief
at $500; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services recommends raising the jurisdictional amounts of
these local offenses to $1,000 to be consistent with state law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
approve the changes to the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 17-36 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 17-36. Theft.
No person shall knowingly obtain or exercise control over anything of value of
less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.) of another without authorization or by threat
or deception when such person:
(1) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the
thing of value; or
(2) Knowingly uses, conceals or abandons the thing of value in such manner as
to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or
(3) Uses, conceals or abandons the thing of value intending that such use,
concealment or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of
its use or benefit; or
(4) Demands any consideration to which he or she is not legally entitled as a
condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person.
Section 2. That Section 17-37 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 17-37. Theft of rental property.
No person shall:
(1) Obtain the temporary use of personal property of another, which is available
only for hire, by means of threat or deception, or knowing that such use is
without the consent of the person providing the personal property; or
(2) Having lawfully obtained possession for temporary use of the personal
property of another which is available only for hire, knowingly fail to reveal
the whereabouts of or to return the property to the owner thereof or a
representative of the owner or to the person from whom the property was
received within seventy-two (72) hours after the time at which the person
agreed to return it where the value of the thing involved is less thanone
thousand dollars ($1,000.).
Section 3. That Section 17-38 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 17-38. Concealment of goods.
If any person willfully conceals unpurchased goods, wares or merchandise valued
at less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.) owned or held by and offered or displayed
for sale by any store or other mercantile establishment, whether the concealment be
on his or her own person or otherwise and whether on or off the premises of the store
or mercantile establishment, such concealment constitutes prima facie evidence that
the person intended to commit the crime of theft.
Section 4. That Section 17-39 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 17-39. Criminal mischief.
No person shall knowingly injure, damage or destroy the real or personal
property of one (1) or more other persons in the course of a single criminal episode
where the aggregate damage to the real or personal property is less than one thousand
dollars ($1,000.).
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
-2-
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-3-
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Hal Dean, Joe Olson
Randy Hensley
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2011 Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins Traffic Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative session relating to state traffic
laws. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, ensures that the Fort Collins
Traffic Code is consistent with state traffic laws.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 6, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 6, 2011
STAFF: Hal Dean, Joe Olson
Randy Hensley
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2011 Amending Various Provisions of the Fort Collins Traffic Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado General Assembly amended certain statutory provisions this legislative session relating to state traffic
laws. This Ordinance ensures that the Fort Collins Traffic Code (the “Traffic Code”) is consistent with state traffic laws.
During a review of the statutory changes, staff identified additional amendments that would make the Traffic Code
more consistent and provide more effective and efficient local enforcement.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Colorado General Assembly regularly amends certain statutory provisions relating to traffic laws. At the time of
the most recent adoption of the Traffic Code, it was the understanding of staff and Council that the Traffic Code would
most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also
to ensure that the Traffic Code remains consistent with state traffic laws.
This Ordinance reflects proposed changes to the Fort Collins Traffic Code to maintain consistency with state law and
also includes changes recommended by City Traffic, Parking, and Police Services staff intended to make the Traffic
Code more consistent and to provide more effective and efficient traffic and parking enforcement.
The changes recommended by staff involve providing flexibility for fines in work zones, improving crosswalk safety
and clarifying parking regulations within the City as well as the immobilization and impounding of vehicles.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 119, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE
FORT COLLINS TRAFFIC CODE
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2003, by Ordinance No. 016, 2003, the Council of the City of
Fort Collins adopted the Fort Collins Traffic Code (the "Traffic Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Traffic Code, it was the expectation of staff
and the City Council that the Traffic Code would likely be subject to future amendments, not only
for the purposes of clarification and correction of errors, but also to ensure that the Traffic Code
remains consistent with State law; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has amended certain statutory provisions
relating to child restraint and seat belt use, and school bus operation; and
WHEREAS, the City Traffic Engineer and Parking Services have made suggestions for
clarifying the provisions of the Traffic Code related to traffic turns, parking, and immobilization of
vehicles; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Council’s desire to amend the Fort Collins Traffic Code to reflect
the changes made by the General Assembly and adopt clarifying modifications proposed by the City
Traffic Engineer and Parking Services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Traffic Code amendments which have
been proposed are in the best interest of the City and are necessary for the health, safety and welfare
of its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 116(5)(c) of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
116. Restrictions for minor drivers.
. . .
(5) A violation of this Section is a traffic infraction, and, upon
conviction, the violator may be punished as follows:
. . .
(c) By an assessment of two (2) license suspension points
pursuant to Section 42-2-127(5)(kk), C.R.S.
Section 2. That Section 229 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
229. Safety glazing material in motor vehicles.
(1) No person shall sell any new motor vehicle, nor shall any new motor
vehicle be registered, unless such vehicle is equipped with safety
glazing material of a type approved by the State Department of
Revenue for any required front windshield and wherever glazing
material is used in doors and windows of said motor vehicle. This
Section shall apply to all passenger-type motor vehicles, including
passenger buses and school vehicles but, in respect to camper
coaches and trucks, including truck tractors, the requirements as to
safety glazing material shall apply only to all glazing material used
in required front windshields and that used in doors and windows in
the drivers' compartments and such other compartments as are
lawfully occupied by passengers in said vehicles.
. . .
(4) No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any highway within this
State unless such vehicle is equipped with a front windshield of an
approved type as provided in this Section, except as provided in
Section 232(1) and except for motor vehicles registered as collectors'
items pursuant to state law.
Section 3. That Section 236 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
236. Child restraint systems required - definitions - exemptions.
(1) As used in this Section, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) Child care center means a facility required to be licensed
under the “Child Care Licensing Act”, Article 6 of Title 26,
C.R.S.
(b) Child restraint system means any device which is designed to
protect, hold or restrain a child in a privately owned
noncommercial passenger vehicle in such a way as to prevent
or minimize injury to the child in the event of a motor vehicle
accident and which conforms to all applicable federal motor
vehicle safety standards.
(c) Motor vehicle means a passenger car; a pickup truck; or a
van, minivan, or sport utility vehicle with a gross vehicle
weight rating of less than ten thousand (10,000) pounds.
-2-
Motor vehicle does not include motorcycles, low-power
scooters, motorscooters, motorbicycles, motorized bicycles,
and farm tractors and implements of husbandry designed
primarily or exclusively for use in agricultural operations.
(d) Properly restrained means, for a child safety restraint system,
restrained according to the manufacturer’s instructions and
with any shoulder belt, if present, crossing the shoulder and
chest, and the lap belt crossing the hips and touching the
thighs.
(d) Safety belt means a lap belt, shoulder belt or any other belt or
combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain
drivers and passengers, except any such belt which is
physically a part of a child restraint system. Safety belt
includes the anchorages, buckles and all other equipment
directly related to the operation of safety belts.
(e) Seating position means any motor vehicle interior space
intended by the motor vehicle manufacturer to provide
seating accommodation while the motor vehicle is in motion.
(2) (a) (I) Unless exempted pursuant to Subsection (3) of this
Section and except as otherwise provided in
subparagraphs (II) and (III) of this paragraph (a),
every child who is under eight (8) years of age , who
is being transported in the City in a motor vehicle or
in a vehicle operated by a child care center shall be
properly restrained in a child restraint system.
(II) If a child is less than one (1) year of age and weighs
less than twenty (20) pounds, the child shall be
properly restrained in a rear-facing child restraint
system in a rear seat of the vehicle.
(III) If a child is one (1) year of age or older, but less than
four (4) years of age, and weighs less than forty (40)
pounds but at least twenty (20) pounds, the child shall
be properly restrained in a rear-facing or forward-
facing child restraint system.
(b) Unless excepted pursuant to Subsection (3) of this Section,
every child, who is at least eight (8) years of age but less than
sixteen (16) years of age, who is being transported in this
City in a motor vehicle or in a vehicle operated by a child
-3-
care center, shall be properly restrained in a safety belt or
child restraint system.
(c) If a parent is in a motor vehicle, it is the responsibility of the
parent to ensure that his or her child or children are provided
with, and properly restrained in, a child restraint system or
safety belt system. If a parent is not in the motor vehicle, it
is the responsibility of the driver transporting a child or
children, subject to the requirements of this Section, to ensure
that such children are provided with, and that they properly
use, a child restraint system or safety belt system.
(3) Except as provided in Section 116(4) of this Traffic Code, the
requirement of Subsection (2) of this Section shall not apply to a
child who:
(a) Is less than eight (8) years of age and is being transported in
a motor vehicle as a result of a medical or other life-
threatening emergency and a child restraint system is not
available; or
(b) Is being transported in a commercial motor vehicle, as
defined in Section 42-2-402(4)(a) C.R.S., that is operated by
a child care center; or
(c) Is the driver of a motor vehicle and is subject to the safety
belt requirements provided in Section 237; or
(d) Weighs more than forty (40) pounds and is being transported
in a motor vehicle in which the rear seat of the vehicle was
not equipped at the time of manufacture with combination lap
and shoulder belts; or
(e) Is being transported in a motor vehicle that is operated in the
business of transporting persons for compensation or hire by
or on behalf of a motor vehicle carrier as defined in Section
40-10-101(4)(a), C.R.S., a contract carrier by motor vehicle
as defined in Section 40-11-101(3), C.R.S., or an operator of
a luxury limousine service as defined in Section 40-16-
101(3.3), C.R.S.
(4) No person shall use a safety belt or child restraint system, whichever
is applicable under the provisions of this Section, for children under
sixteen (16) years of age in a motor vehicle unless it conforms to all
applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards.
-4-
(5) The fine may be waived if the defendant presents the court with
satisfactory proof of the acquisition, purchase or rental of a child
restraint system by the time of the court appearance.
(6) A minor driver who violates this Section shall be punished in
accordance with Section 116(5) of this Traffic Code.
Section 4. That Section 601 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
601. Local governments to sign highways, where.
The City shall place and maintain such traffic control devices, conforming
to the state traffic control manual and specifications for statewide uniformity
as provided in Section 42-4-104, C.R.S., upon streets and highways as it
deems necessary to indicate and to carry out the provisions of this Traffic
Code or to regulate, warn or guide traffic.
Section 5. That Section 606 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
606. Display of unauthorized signs or devices.
(1) No person shall place, maintain or display upon or in view of any
highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking or device which
purports to be or is an imitation of or resembles an official traffic
control device or railroad sign or signal, or which attempts to direct
the movement of traffic, or which hides from view or interferes with
the effectiveness of any official traffic control device or any railroad
sign or signal, and
(2) No person shall place or maintain nor shall any public authority
permit upon any highway any traffic sign or signal bearing thereon
any commercial advertising. The provisions of this section shall not
be deemed to prohibit the use of signs providing motorist services
information of a general nature on official highway guide signs if
such signs do not indicate the brand, trademark, or name of any
private business or commercial enterprise offering the service, nor
shall this section be deemed to prohibit the erection upon private
property adjacent to highways of signs giving useful direction
information and of a type that cannot be mistaken for official signs.
(3) Every such prohibited sign, signal, or marking is declared to be a
public nuisance, and the City Engineer is empowered to remove the
same or cause it to be removed without notice.
-5-
(4) Any person who violates any provision of this Section commits a
Class A traffic infraction.
(5) The provisions of this Section shall not be applicable to informational
sites authorized under Section 43-1-405, C.R.S.
(6) The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to specific
information signs authorized under Section 43-1-420, C.R.S..
Section 6. That Section 802(6) of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
802. Pedestrians right-of-way in crosswalks.
. . .
(6) Whenever special pedestrian-control signals exhibiting “Walk” or
“Don't Walk” word or symbol indications are in place, as declared in
the traffic control manual adopted by the Colorado Department of
Transportation, such signals shall indicate and require as follows:
(a) “Walk” (steady): While the “Walk” indication is steadily
illuminated, pedestrians facing such signal may proceed
across the roadway in the direction of the signal indication
and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all
vehicles.
(b) “Don't Walk” (steady): While the “Don't Walk” indication is
steadily illuminated, no pedestrian shall enter the roadway in
the direction of the signal indication.
(c) “Don't Walk” (flashing): Whenever the “Don't Walk”
indication is flashing, no pedestrian shall start to cross the
roadway in the direction of such signal indication, but any
pedestrian who has partly completed his or her crossing
during the “Walk” indication shall proceed to a sidewalk or
to a safety island, and all drivers of vehicles shall yield to any
such pedestrian.
Section 7. That Section 901(1) of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
901. Required position and method of turning.
(1) The driver of a motor vehicle intending to turn shall do so as follows:
-6-
(a) Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall
be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway.
(b) Left turns. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left shall
approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to
such vehicle. Whenever practicable, the left turn shall be made from
the left of the center of the intersection and completed in the extreme
left-hand lane lawfully available to such vehicle on the roadway
being entered.
(c) Two-way left-turn lanes. Where a special lane for making left turns
by drivers proceeding in opposite directions has been indicated by
official traffic control devices in the manner prescribed in the state
traffic control manual, a left turn shall not be made from any other
lane, and a vehicle shall not be driven in said special lane except
when preparing for or making a left turn from or into the roadway or
when preparing for or making a U-turn when otherwise permitted by
law.
Section 8. That Section 1013 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1013. Driving on roadways with designated bicycle lanes.
Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a roadway, any person
operating a motor vehicle on such roadway shall not drive in the bicycle lane
except to park where parking is permitted, to enter or leave the highway or
to prepare for a turn. Any person operating a motor vehicle shall not enter
a bicycle lane as provided by this Section until yielding the right-of-way to
all bicycles lawfully within the bicycle lane.
Section 9. That Section 1107(2) of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
-7-
1107. Designation of highway maintenance, repair or construction zone signs -
increase in penalties for speeding violations.
. . .
(2) The City Traffic Engineer may designate by erecting or placing an
appropriate sign that a maintenance, repair or construction activity is
taking place or will be taking place within four (4) hours. Such sign
shall notify the public that increased penalties for speeding violations
are in effect in such zone. The City Traffic Engineer shall erect or
place a second sign after such zone indicating that the increased
penalties for speeding violations are no longer in effect. A
maintenance, repair or construction zone begins at the location of the
sign indicating that increased penalties are in effect and ends at the
location of the sign indicating that the increased penalties are no
longer in effect.
. . .
Section 10. That Section 1204(1) and (2) of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
1204. Stopping, standing or parking prohibited in specified places.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (4) of this Section, no
person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle except when necessary to
avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with the directions
of a police officer, emergency services personnel or official traffic
control device, in any of the following places:
. . .
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (4) of this Section, in
addition to the restrictions specified in Subsection (1) of this Section,
no person shall stand or park a vehicle, except when necessary to
avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions
of a police officer, emergency services personnel, or an official traffic
control device, in any of the following places:
. . .
(c) Within twenty (20) feet of a crosswalk;
. . .
(g) At any other place where official signs or red curb markings
are used to prohibit standing.
Section 11. That Section 1205.5 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
-8-
1205.5 Obedience to angle parking sign or markings.
On those streets which the City Traffic Engineer has approved and has signed
or marked for angle parking, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle
other than at the angle to the curb or edge of the roadway indicated by such
signs or markings, and within lined markings, with the vehicle's appropriate
front tire adjacent to the correspondent curb or edge of the roadway except
when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the
directions of a police officer or other emergency services personnel.
Section 12. That Section 1208 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1208. Parking privileges for persons with disabilities.
(1) As used in this Section:
(a) License plate or placard means a license plate or placard
issued pursuant to State law.
(b) Person with a disability has the meaning provided for such
term pursuant to State law.
(2) A vehicle with a license plate or a placard obtained pursuant to
Section 42-3-204, C.R.S., or as otherwise authorized by Subsection
(4) of this Section may be parked in public parking areas along public
streets regardless of any time limitation imposed upon parking in
such area; except such privilege shall not apply to zones or times of
day in which:
(a) Stopping, standing or parking of all vehicles is prohibited;
(b) Only special vehicles may be parked;
(c) Parking is not allowed during specific periods of the day.
(3) (a) A person with a disability may park in a parking space
identified as being reserved for use by persons with
disabilities, whether on public property or private property
available for public use. A placard or license plate obtained
pursuant to Section 42-3-204, C.R.S., or as otherwise
authorized by Subsection (4) of this Section shall be
displayed at all times on the vehicle while parked in such
space.
. . .
-9-
(5) It is unlawful for any person other than a person with a disability to
park in a parking space on public or private property that is clearly
identified by an official sign or pavement markings as being reserved
for use by persons with disabilities unless:
(a) Such person is parking the vehicle for the direct benefit of a
person with a disability to enter or exit the vehicle while it is
parked in the space reserved for use by persons with
disabilities; and
(b) A license plate or placard obtained pursuant to Section 42-3-
204, C.R.S., or as otherwise authorized by Subsection (4) of
this Section is displayed in such vehicle.
. . .
(7) Any person who is not a person with a disability and who uses a
license plate or placard issued to a person with a disability pursuant
to Section 42-3-204, C.R.S., in order to receive the benefits or
privileges available to a person with a disability under this Section,
commits a traffic offense.
. . .
Section 13. That Section 1214(1) of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
1214. Parking certain vehicles in a residential zone prohibited.
(1) No motor vehicle exceeding twenty (20) feet in length, or any trailer
coach, recreational vehicle, mobile home, trailer, semi-trailer or truck
tractor, or part of such vehicle, shall be parked or stored upon the
street adjacent to any lot zoned Urban Estate District (U-E);
Residential Foothills District (R-F); Low Density Residential District
(R-L); Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N);
Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (M-M-N);
Neighborhood Conservation Low Density district (N-C-L);
Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District (N-C-M);
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B); or High
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (H-M-N), except:
. . .
Section 14. That Section 1408 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1408. Operation of motor vehicles on property designated as parks, natural
areas or recreation areas under the control of or owned by the City.
-10-
(1) It is unlawful for any person to operate or park a motor vehicle in any
natural area, park or recreation area owned by or under the control of
the City unless otherwise authorized by City Code.
(2) A vehicle owner's liability for violation of Subsection (1) of this
Section pertaining to any parking restrictions shall be the same as set
forth in Section 1209 of this Traffic Code.
Section 15. That Section 1412 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1412. Operation of bicycles, motorized bicycles and other human-powered
vehicles.
. . .
(14) A person riding a bicycle or electrical assisted bicycle upon and
along a recreational trail shall yield the right-of-way to any
pedestrian using the recreational trail and shall give an audible signal
or verbal warning before overtaking and passing any such pedestrian.
(15) The rider of an electrical assisted bicycle shall not use the electrical
motor on a bike or pedestrian path or on a recreational trail unless
otherwise authorized by the City Code.
Section 16. That Section 1503 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1503. Operating motorcycles or low-power scooters on roadways laned for
traffic.
(1) A person operating a motorcycle is entitled to full use of a traffic
lane, and no motor vehicle shall be driven in such a manner as to
deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a traffic lane. This
Subsection (1) shall not apply to motorcycles operating two (2)
abreast in a single lane.
(2) A person operating a low-power scooter upon a roadway shall ride as
close to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due
care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same
direction.
(3) The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake or pass in the same
lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken.
-11-
(4) No person shall operate a motorcycle or low-power scooter between
lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles.
(5) Motorcycles shall not be operated more than two (2) abreast in a
single lane.
(6) Subsections (3) and (4) of this Section shall not apply to police
officers in the performance of their official duties.
Section 17. That Section 1801 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1801. Authority to impound and immobilize.
. . .
(4) If the owner of a motor vehicle does not respond to a notice sent to
him or her by the Clerk of the Court, Municipal Court Clerk’s Office,
or Parking Services pursuant to this Traffic Code and any Parking
Services personnel, code enforcement officer, community service
officer or police officer finds such vehicle standing upon any portion
of a street or highway right-of-way or other public property within
the City, then such employee is authorized to immobilize such
vehicle by installing on or attaching to such vehicle a device designed
to restrict the normal movement of the vehicle.In such event, officer
the employee shall attach to the vehicle a notice advising the owner,
driver or person in charge of the vehicle that the vehicle was
immobilized due to the failure to respond to a previous notice
regarding alleged violation(s) of the Traffic Code. Said notice shall
also include information regarding the procedure for releasing the
vehicle from such immobilization or impoundment, which may be
obtained by contacting the Office of Parking Services. .
Arrangements for release must be made within seventy-two (72)
hours of immobilization. If no arrangements are made within that
time period, an immobilized vehicle may be impounded. Before a
vehicle may be released from immobilization or impoundment, all
fines, fees and other penalties applicable to such vehicle, including
fees established for immobilizing and impounding the vehicle, must
be paid in full.
(5) The owner of a motor vehicle may request an administrative hearing
to contest whether, at the time the vehicle was immobilized or
impounded, reasonable grounds existed to immobilize or impound the
vehicle by:
-12-
(a) Paying the total amount of the fines, fees, and penalties,
including fees for immobilization and impoundment, to
Parking Services within seventy-two (72) hours of
immobilization; and
(b) Filing a motion with the Municipal Court Parking Referee to
contest the reasonable grounds within forty-eight (48) hours
after payment, on a form approved by the court.
Failure to timely pay said fines, fees, and penalties and file the
motion required under this provision will constitute a waiver of the
administrative hearing.
(6) The Municipal Court Parking Referee shall hold an administrative
hearing only on the following questions:
(a) Whether the Municipal Court Parking Referee has
jurisdiction;
(b) Whether the claimant is the owner of the motor vehicle, or
presently entitled to possession; and
(c) Whether probable cause existed to immobilize or impound
the vehicle.
The Municipal Court Parking Referee shall not enter orders or
findings on any other issue of fact or law, including but not limited
to, the validity of the charges, the amount charged, or the
constitutionality of ordinances or statutes.
(7) No vehicle which has been immobilized pursuant to this Section shall
be moved by any person without first obtaining a release from such
immobilization from Parking Services, nor shall any person deface,
injure, tamper with or open, or willfully break, destroy or impair the
usefulness of any immobilization device attached to a vehicle
pursuant to this Section or remove or attempt to remove said device
from such vehicle.
(8) Any person who violates Subsection (7) of this Section is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable under Section 1-15(a) of the City Code.
(9) Subsections (7) and (8) of this Section shall not apply to city
employees acting in the performance of their official duties.
Section 18. That Section 1903 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code are hereby amended to
read as follows:
-13-
1903. School buses - stops - signs - passing.
. . .
(2) The driver of a vehicle upon a highway with separate roadways need
not stop upon meeting or passing a school bus which is on a different
roadway. For the purposes of this Section, highway with separate
roadways means a highway that is divided into two (2) or more
roadways by a depressed, raised or painted median or other
intervening space serving as a clearly indicated dividing section or
island.
Section 19. That Section 2002 of the Fort Collins Traffic Code is hereby amended by the
addition of a new definition “School Vehicle” which reads in its entirety as follows with all
subsequent definitions being renumbered accordingly:
2002. Definitions.
. . .
(28) School Vehicle. A motor vehicle, including but not limited to a
school bus, that is owned by or under contract to a public or private
school and operated for the purpose of transporting school children
to or from school or a school-related activity; provided, however, that
such transportation shall not include informal or intermittent
arrangements such as the sharing of actual gasoline expense or
participation in a car pool for the transportation of children to or from
school or any school-sponsored activity, or motor vehicles owned by
or under contract to a child care center, as defined in section 26-6-
102(1.5), C.R.S., and used for the transportation of children who are
served by the child care center.
-14-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-15-
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011, makes various changes, additions and
clarifications in the 2011 annual update of the Land Use Code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 6, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 6, 2011
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2011, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2011 annual update of the Land
Use Code.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular
basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last update. The
proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall
quality and “user-friendliness” of the Code.
Most of the items were taken to the July 21, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. One item was deleted from
consideration for further study. Two items were taken to the August 18, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
All of the proposed revisions included in the Ordinance have received unanimous approval from the Planning and
Zoning Board.
The list of revisions has been reviewed by City Council at two work sessions. First, on March 9, 2010, Council
recommended that the Ecological Characterization Study be submitted 10 working days prior to submittal. This has
been done as described in Code revision number 873. Second, on June 14, 2011, Council indicated general support
for all of the revisions but specifically recommended that the waiting period between the neighborhood meeting and
application submittal be increased from five to ten days. This has been done as described in Code revision number
883. All items related to the East Side and West Side Neighborhoods Design Standards for Single Family Detached
Dwellings have been forwarded to the appropriate staff working on the Reset Project.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A Land Use Code that is systemically updated is able to respond to changing trends and conditions. This continuous
improvement provides for an adaptable regulatory environment yet remains predictable for all users and decision-
makers. While there may be no direct financial and economic impacts in the typical fiscal sense, a dynamic Land Use
Code creates a valid and credible legal framework that serves a vibrant local economy.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Proposed revision Item 873 would provide for the submittal of an Ecological Characterization Study at least 10 days
prior to submittal of a P.D.P. This allows staff and the applicant to evaluate the results of the study and make the
appropriate adjustments prior to submitting for a Project Development Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On July 21, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code and took
two actions:
1. The Board discussed the items and voted 7 – 0 to recommend approval of all items with the exception of Item
888. As proposed, Item 888 would amend Section 3.4.1(E) – Establishment of Buffer Zones – to clarify that
the point of measurement for streams should be the top of bank instead of full-bank discharge.
2. The Board then separately discussed Item 888. The Board expressed concerns that this particular item would
benefit from further analysis. In addition, specific examples and pictures from the field would help illustrate
the concept being proposed. Further, a specific provision should address a stream channel that is braided.
The overall intent of clarifying the standard is supported but questions about stream character and hydrology
remain and should be addressed.
The Board then voted 4 – 3 to not recommend approval of this one revision. Staff agreed that additional work
on this item is warranted. Consequently, this one item has been pulled from consideration. Staff will endeavor
to refine the standard and offer evidence and field data for the Board’s consideration. Staff commits to
bringing this item forward expeditiously. If found favorable, this revision will be acted upon when ready, and
not held to the annual review cycle.
On August 18, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two additional revisions. These items are:
1. Item 896 slightly revises the language of the Order Of Proceedings At a Public Hearing to provide consistent
criteria for both applicant and public testimony, and to provide guidance for the Planning and Zoning Board
Chairperson or Hearing Officer to determine relevancy of testimony.
2. Item 897 revises the Preliminary Feedback from City Council Regarding Complex Development Proposals
by broadening the criteria by which a developer may bring a project to City Council for a pre-hearing prior to
submittal.
The Board voted 5 – 0 to recommend approval of these two additional items. These two items are now included in
the Ordinance.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach included a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee as well as the
general notice that accompanies both of the Planning and Zoning Board public hearings.
ATTACHMENTS
1. List of Land Use Code Issues
2. Summary report of all the issues
3. Cross-reference of the issues to the Ordinance section numbers
4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, July 21, 2011
5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, August 18, 2011
6. Work Session Summary, June 14, 2011
7. Work Session Summary, March 9, 2010
1
ORDINANCE NO. 120, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the
City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and
WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the
understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be
subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of
errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic
document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals
and citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the
Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code
and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use
Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS that the Land Use Code is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1.6.5(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(B) Where a proposed building addition exceeds five thousand (5,000) square
feet or twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of such building as
it existed on March 27, 1997, whichever results in the least amount of
square footage, the building and the parcel of ground upon which the
building is located shall be brought into compliance with the applicable
general development standards contained in Article 3 and the applicable
district standards contained in Article 4 of this Land Use Code, to the
extent reasonably feasible. Any new structure that is added to said parcel
of ground shall also comply with the applicable general development
standards and district standards referenced above.
Section 2. That Section 2.1.2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
. . .
(H) Is it possible to receive preliminary feedback from the City Council
regarding complex development proposals? If an application for approval
2
of a development plan also entails City Council approval of an annexation
petition, an amendment to the city's Comprehensive Plan, or some other
kind of formal action by the City Council, other than a possible appeal
under this Land Use Code, and if a land development or renewal project is
determined by the City Manager to be of community-wide impact, the
applicant for such approval may request that the City Council conduct a
hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City
Council regarding the applicant's overall proposal in order to assist the
developer in determining whether to file a development application or
annexation petition. All pre-application hearings scheduled by the City
Manager under this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions
contained in Steps 6, 7(B) and 7(C) of the Common Development Review
Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step 6(B) shall
be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing and not less than
fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of requesting
the hearing, the applicant must advance the city's estimated costs of
providing notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs
will be refunded to the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing,
members of the City Council may, but shall not be required to, comment on
the proposal. Any comment, suggestion or recommendation made by any
Councilmember with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise
obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision
pertaining to the proposal. Only one (1) such hearing may be requested.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 2.2.2(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2.2.2 Step 2: Neighborhood Meetings
(A) Purpose. In order to facilitate citizen participation early in the development
review process, the city shall require a neighborhood meeting between
citizens of area neighborhoods, applicants and the Director for any
development proposal that is subject to P&Z review unless the Director
determines that the development proposal would not have significant
neighborhood impact. Citizens are urged to attend and actively participate
in these meetings. The purpose of the neighborhood meeting is for such
development applications to be presented to citizens of area neighborhoods
and for the citizens to identify, list and discuss issues related to the
development proposal. Working jointly with staff and the applicant,
citizens help seek solutions for these issues. Neighborhood meetings are
held during the conceptual planning stage of the proposal so that
neighborhoods may give input on the proposal before time and effort have
been expended by the applicant to submit a formal development application
to the city. At least ten (10) calendar days shall have passed between the
date of the neighborhood meeting and the submittal to the City of the
3
application for development approval for the project that was the subject of
the neighborhood meeting.
Section 4. That Section 2.2.7(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(C) Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing. The order of the proceedings at
the public hearing shall be as follows:
(1) Staff Report Presented. The Director shall present a narrative and/or
graphic description of the development application. The Director
shall present a Staff Report which includes a written recommendation.
This recommendation shall address each standard required to be
considered by this Land Use Code prior to approval of the
development application.
(2) Applicant Presentation. The applicant may present information in
support of its application, subject to the determination of the Chair as
to relevance. Copies of all writings or other exhibits that the applicant
wishes the decision maker to consider must be submitted to the
Director no less than five (5) working days before the public hearing.
(3) Staff Response to Applicant Presentation. The Director, the City
Attorney and any other City staff member may respond to any
statement made or evidence presented by the applicant.
(4) Public Testimony. Members of the public may comment on the
application and present evidence, subject to the determination of the
Chair as to relevance.
(5) Applicant Response. The applicant may respond to any testimony or
evidence presented by the public.
(6) Staff Response to Public Testimony or Applicant Response. The
Director, the City Attorney and any other City staff member may
respond to any statement made or evidence presented by the public
testimony or by the applicant's response to any such public testimony.
Section 5. That Section 2.2.11(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(C) Project Development Plan and Plat. Within a maximum of three (3) years
following the approval of a project development plan and upon the
expiration of any right of appeal, or upon the final decision of the City
Council following appeal, if applicable, the applicant must proceed by
obtaining the Director's approval of a final plan for all or part of the project
development plan. If such approval is not timely obtained, the project
development plan (or any portion thereof which has not received final
4
approval) shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director
may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing three-year requirement, which
extension may not exceed six (6) months in length. No vested rights shall
ever attach to a project development plan. The approval of, or completion of
work pursuant to, a final plan for portions of a project development plan shall
not create vested rights for those portions of the project development plan
which have not received such final plan approval and have not been
completed.
Section 6. That Section 2.2.11(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(D) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans.
(1) Approval. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved
upon the approval by the decision maker relating thereto.
. . .
(9) Post denial re-submittal delay. Property that is the subject of an overall
development plan or a project development plan that has been denied by
the decision maker or denied by City Council upon appeal, or withdrawn
by the applicant, shall be ineligible to serve, in whole or in part, as the
subject of another overall development plan or project development plan
application for a period of six (6) months from the date of the final
decision of denial or the date of withdrawal (as applicable) of the plan
unless the Director determines that the granting of an exception to this
requirement would not be detrimental to the public good and would: (a)
substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of City-
wide concern; or (b) result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of
the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important
community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the
City’s Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or
resolution of the City Council.
(10) Automatic repeal; waiver. Nothing in this Section is intended to create
any vested property right other than such right as is established pursuant to
the provisions of Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S. In the event of the repeal of
said article or a judicial determination that said article is invalid or
unconstitutional, this Section shall be deemed to be repealed and the
provisions hereof no longer effective. Nothing herein shall be construed
to prohibit the waiver of a vested property right pursuant to mutual
agreement between the City and the affected landowner. Upon the
recording of any such agreement with the county Clerk and Recorder, any
property right which might otherwise have been vested shall be deemed to
be not vested.
5
Section 7. That Section 2.3.2(H)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. An overall development plan shall comply
with the following criteria:
(1) The overall development plan shall be consistent with the permitted
uses and applicable zone district standards (Article 4) of all zone
districts contained within the boundaries of the overall development
plan. The plan shall also be consistent with any zone district
standards (Article 4) and general development standards (Article 3)
that can be applied at the level of detail required for an overall
development plan submittal. Only one (1) application for an overall
development plan for any specific parcel or portion thereof may be
pending for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be
subject to the provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11.
. . .
Section 8. That Section 2.4.2(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project development plan shall comply
with all General Development Standards applicable to the development
proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4); and,
when a project development plan is within the boundaries of an approved
overall development plan, the project development plan shall be consistent
with the overall development plan. Only one (1) application for a project
development plan for any specific parcel or portion thereof may be pending
for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be subject to the
provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11.
Section 9. That Section 3.2.2(L) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(L) Parking Stall Dimensions. Off-street parking areas for automobiles shall
meet the following minimum standards for long- and short-term parking of
standard and compact vehicles:
. . .
Section 10. That Section 3.4.1(D)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary
Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the
6
Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The
actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project development shall be
proposed by the applicant and established by the Director through site
evaluations and reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological
characterization of the natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the
map.
(1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains,
or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or
if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from
inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life
and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection, then the
developer shall provide to the city an ecological characterization
report prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology,
wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. At least ten (10)
working days prior to the submittal of a project development plan
application for all or any portion of a property, a comprehensive
ecological characterization study of the entire property must be
prepared by a qualified consultant and submitted to the City for
review. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements
of this requirement if the city already possesses adequate information
required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth
in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as
set forth in subsection (N) below. The ecological characterization
study shall describe, without limitation, the following:
. . .
Section 11. That Section 3.4.7(C) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(C) Determination of Landmark Eligibility. The determination of individual
eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code. A site, structure
or object may be determined to be individually eligible for local landmark
designation if it meets one (1) or more of the criteria as described in Section
14-5, "Standards for Designation of Sites, Structures, Objects and Districts
For Preservation" of the City Code. If a property is determined to be
eligible for designation, the applicant will provide a completed Colorado
Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form for the property.
The determination of individual eligibility for the National or State Register
of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures of the
Colorado Historical Society.
Section 12. That Section 3.5.1(H) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
7
(H) Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual
character are proposed adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions
are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the
development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve
compatibility through compliance with the standards set forth in this
Division regarding scale, form, materials and colors, buffer yards and
adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation,
lighting, placement of noise-generating activities and similar restrictions.
Section 13. That Section 3.6.2(L) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(L) Private Drives and Street-like Private Drives.
(1) When Allowed.
(a) Internal access or additional cross-access. Private drives shall
be allowed in a development, provided that their function will
only be to provide access to property within the development or
additional cross-access between developments that are also
connected by a street(s). Private drives shall not be permitted if
(by plan or circumstance) such drives would, in the judgment of
the City Engineer, attract "through traffic" in such volumes as to
render such drives necessary as connections between
developments, neighborhoods or other origins and destinations
outside of the development plan.
(b) Primary access. A private drive shall be allowed to provide
primary access to development, provided that the drive is in
compliance with paragraph (a) above.
(c) Street-Like Private Drives. A street-like private drive shall be
allowed as primary access to facing buildings or to parcels
internal to a larger, cohesive development plan, or for the
purposes of meeting other requirements for streets. Street-like
private drives shall be designed to include travel lanes, on-street
parking, tree-lined border(s), detached sidewalk(s), and
crosswalks. Other features such as bikeways, landscaped
medians, corner plazas and pedestrian lighting may be provided
to afford an appropriate alternative to a street in the context of
the development plan.
On-street parking for abutting buildings may be parallel or
angled. Head-in parking may only be used in isolated parking
situations.
8
Such street-like private drives must be similar to public or
private streets in overall function and buildings shall front on
and offer primary orientation to the street-like private drive.
Street-like private drives may be used in conjunction with other
standards, such as block configuration, orientation to connecting
walkways, build-to-lines, or street pattern and connectivity.
(d) Neither a private drive nor a street-like private drive shall be
permitted if it prevents or diminishes compliance with any other
provisions of this Land Use Code.
(2) Design Requirements. Private drives shall be designed to meet the
following criteria:
(a) If any property served by the private drive cannot receive fire
emergency service from a public street, then all emergency
access design requirements shall apply to the private drive in
accordance with Section 3.6.6. An "emergency access
easement" must be dedicated to the city for private drives that
provide emergency access.
(b) Private drives which must comply with Section 3.6.6 for
emergency access shall be limited to an overall length of six
hundred sixty (660) feet from a single point of access (measured
as the fire hose would lay).
. . .
Section 14. That Section 3.8.11(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(D) For the purposes of this Section, the height of a fence or wall shall be the
distance from the top of the fence or wall to the finished grade of the lot
directly under the fence or wall as such grade existed at the time the fence
or wall was constructed. Any berm, wall or similar feature that is
constructed for the purpose of increasing the height of a fence or wall shall
be considered to be a part of the fence or wall.
Section 15. That Section 3.10.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
3.10.1 Applicability and Purpose
(A) Applicability. These standards apply to applications for development
within the boundary of the TOD Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road and
provided further that the provisions contained in Section 3.4.10(D)
9
regarding parking structure design shall also apply to the H-M-N, High
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and the C-C, Community Commercial
zone districts throughout the City.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone
districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and
design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor.
These provisions allow for a mix of goods and services within convenient
walking distance of transit stations; encourage the creation of stable and
attractive residential and commercial environments within the TOD
Overlay Zone south of Prospect Road; and provide for a desirable
transition to the surrounding existing neighborhoods. Accordingly, in the
event of a conflict between the provisions contained in this Division and
the provisions contained in Article 4, this Division shall control. The
purpose of this Section is also to apply the standards contained in Section
3.4.10(D) regarding parking structure design to all land within the City
that is located in the H-M-N, High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and
the C-C, Community Commercial zone districts.
Section 16. That Section 4.2(D)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
(1) Density/Intensity. All development shall meet the following require-
ments:
(a) Overall average density shall not exceed two (2) dwelling units
per gross acre.
. . .
Section 17. That Section 4.2(E)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(c) Minimum lot sizes do not apply provided that the overall
average density of the proposed development does not exceed
two (2) dwelling units per gross acre and the density of the
cluster development does not exceed five (5) dwelling units per
net acre.
Section 18. That Section 4.6(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by
the addition of a new subsection (3) which reads in its entirety as follows:
(3) Design standards for multi-family dwellings.
10
(a) Orientation and setbacks. Setbacks from the property
line of abutting property containing single- and two-family
dwellings shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
(b) Variation among repeated buildings. For any
development containing at least five (5) and not more than
seven (7) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices),
there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different building
designs. For any such development containing more than
seven (7) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices),
there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different building
designs. For all developments, there shall be no more than
two (2) similar buildings placed next to each other along a
street, street-like private drive or major walkway spine.
Buildings shall be considered similar unless they vary
significantly in footprint size and shape, architectural
evaluations and entrance features, within a coordinated
overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other
characteristics. To meet this standard, such variation shall
not consist solely of different combinations of the same
building features.
(c) Variation of color. Each multi-family building shall
feature a palette of muted colors, earth tone colors, natural
colors found in surrounding landscape or colors consistent
with the adjacent neighborhood. For a multiple structure
development containing at least forty (40) and not more
than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least two
(2) distinct color schemes used on structures throughout the
development. For any such development containing more
than fifty-six (56) dwelling units, there shall be at least
three (3) distinct color schemes used on structures
throughout the development. For all developments, there
shall be no more than two (2) similarly colored structures
placed next to each other along a street or major walkway
spine.
(d) Entrances. Entrances shall be made clearly visible from
the streets and public areas through the use of architectural
elements and landscaping.
(e) Roofs. Roof lines may be either sloped, flat or curved, but
must include at least two (2) of the following elements:
11
1. The primary roof line shall be articulated through a
variation or terracing in height, detailing and/or
change in massing.
2. Secondary roofs shall transition over entrances,
porches, garages, dormers, towers or other
architectural projections.
3. Offsets in roof planes shall be a minimum of two
(2) feet in the vertical plane.
4. Termination at the top of flat roof parapets shall be
articulated by design details and/or changes in
materials and color.
5. Rooftop equipment shall be hidden from view by
incorporating equipment screens of compatible
design and materials.
(f) Facades and Walls. Each multi-family dwelling shall be
articulated with projections, recesses, covered doorways,
balconies, covered box or bay windows and/or other similar
features, dividing large facades and walls into human-
scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single- or two-
family dwellings, and shall not have repetitive,
undifferentiated wall planes. Building facades shall be
articulated with horizontal and/or vertical elements that
break up blank walls of forty (40) feet or longer. Façade
articulation may be accomplished by offsetting the floor
plan, recessing or projection of design elements, change in
materials and/or change in contrasting colors. Projections
shall fall within setback requirements.
(g) Colors and materials. Colors of non-masonry materials
shall be varied from structure to structure to differentiate
between buildings and provide variety and individuality.
Colors and materials shall be integrated to visually reduce
the scale of the buildings by contrasting trim, by
contrasting shades or by distinguishing one (1) section or
architectural element from another. Bright colors, if used,
shall be reserved for accent and trim.
Section 19. That Section 4.7(B)(1)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(b) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
12
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
Section 20. That Section 4.7(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted
in its entirety:
Section 21. That Section 4.7(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
. . .
(3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable
Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer service shall be
considered to have habitable space. Any person applying for a building
permit for such a building shall sign and record with the Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall
not be used as a dwelling unit. All applicable building permits issued for
such buildings shall be conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such
structure containing habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting
principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600) square
feet of floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the
basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½)
feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear
portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback requirements of
this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
. . .
Section 22. That Section 4.8(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
13
Section 23. That Section 4.8(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted
in its entirety:
Section 24. That Section 4.8(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(D) Land Use Standards.
. . .
(3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space. Any person
applying for a building permit for such a building shall sign and record
with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an affidavit stating that
such accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. All
building permits issued for such buildings shall be conditioned upon this
prohibition. An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory
building to contain habitable space. Any such structure containing
habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal building
shall contain a maximum six hundred (600) square feet of floor area.
Floor area shall include all floor space within the basement and ground
floor plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a
ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet. Such accessory
building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot, provided
that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there
is at least a ten-foot separation between structures.
. . .
Section 25. That Section 4.9(B)(1)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(d) Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses:
1. Accessory buildings, provided that they contain no
habitable space.
2. Accessory buildings containing habitable space.
3. Accessory uses.
Section 26. That Section 4.9(B)(2)(d) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted
in its entirety:
Section 27. That Section 4.9(D)(3) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
14
(3) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future
Habitable Space). Any accessory building with water and/or sewer
service shall be considered to have habitable space. An applicant may
also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable
space. Any person applying for a building permit for such a building
shall sign and record with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder an
affidavit stating that such accessory structure shall not be used as a
dwelling unit. All building permits issued for such buildings shall be
conditioned upon this prohibition. Any such structure containing
habitable space that is located behind a street-fronting principal
building shall contain a maximum six hundred (600) square feet of
floor area. Floor area shall include all floor space within the
basement and ground floor plus that portion of the floor area of any
second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half
(7½) feet. Such accessory building may be located in any area of the
rear portion of a lot, provided that it complies with the setback
requirements of this District and there is at least a ten-foot separation
between structures.
Section 28. That the graphic contained Section 4.16(D)(2)(c) of the Land Use
Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the new graphic below:
Figure 18.6
Measurement of Height Limits
15
Section 29. That the graphic contained in Section 4.16(D)(4)(b)2 of the Land
Use Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the new graphic below:
Section 30. That Section 4.27(D)(4)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
. . .
(4) Dimensional Standards.
(a) Maximum height shall be four (4) stories.
. . .
Section 31. That the definition “Development” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Development shall mean the carrying out of any building activity or mining
operation, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any
structure or land, or, except as is authorized in Section 1.4.7, the dividing of land
into two (2) or more parcels.
. . .
16
(2) Development shall not include:
(a) work by the City, or by the Downtown Development Authority
(if within the jurisdictional boundary of the Downtown
Development Authority and if such work has been agreed upon
in writing by the City and the Authority), or work by a highway
or road agency or railroad company for the maintenance or
improvement of a road or railroad track, if the work is carried
out on land within the boundaries of the right-of-way, or on
land adjacent to the right-of-way if such work is incidental to a
project within the right-of-way;
. . .
Section 32. That the definition “Private drive” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Private drive shall mean a parcel of land not dedicated as a public street, over
which a private easement for road purposes has been granted to the owners of
property adjacent thereto, which intersects or connects with a public or private
street, and where the instrument creating such easement has been recorded in the
Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County. A street-like private drive is
a type of private drive that may be used instead of a street under the provisions of
Section 3.6.2(L)(c).
Section 33. That the definition “Private street” contained in Section 5.1.2 of
the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Private street shall mean a parcel of land not dedicated as a public street, over
which a public access easement for street purposes has been granted to the city,
and where the instrument creating such easement has been recorded or filed in the
Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County. The public access easement
shall allow for access by police, emergency vehicles, trash collection and other
service vehicles, utility owners and the public in general.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th
day of September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
17
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Jon Haukaas
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a Tract of Stormwater Utility
Property to Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1992, the final plat of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing dedicated Tract E to the City of Fort Collins for the purposes of
storm drainage, flood plain management and Department of Parks and Recreation use. The intended purpose of the
Parks and Recreation use was for a bike trail. In 1998, the location of the bike trail was changed to be adjacent to
Shields Street. To accommodate this change, the City acquired Tracts A, B, and D of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing for
the bike trail that has been constructed and is now in use. Due to the City’s change of use for Tract E, the adjacent
property owners, Kevin and Julia Caffrey, have expressed an interest to obtain the portion of Tract E that abuts their
property at 5424 Hilldale Court. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 6, 2011,
authorizes the conveyance to the Caffreys of two small triangular areas in Tract E, totaling 547 square feet in area,
that are outside the erosion buffer limits, the City’s floodway, and therefore are not required for flood plain management
or for storm drainage by the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - September 6, 2011
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: September 6, 2011
STAFF: Jon Haukaas
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of a Tract of Stormwater Utility
Property to Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1992, the final plat of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing dedicated Tract E to the City of Fort Collins for the purposes of
storm drainage, flood plain management and Department of Parks and Recreation use. The intended purpose of the
Parks and Recreation use was for a bike trail. In 1998, the location of the bike trail was changed to be adjacent to
Shields Street. To accommodate this change, the City acquired Tracts A, B, and D of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing for
the bike trail that has been constructed and is now in use. Due to the City’s change of use for Tract E, the adjacent
property owners, Kevin and Julia Caffrey, have expressed an interest to obtain the portion of Tract E that abuts their
property at 5424 Hilldale Court.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Tract E of Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing is adjacent to Burns Tributary. While the City does not need to use any portion
of Tract E for a bike trail, the City’s needs remain for storm drainage and flood plain management. With the City needs
for Tract E, City staff told the Caffreys that their request to obtain Tract E adjacent to their property was not possible.
In ongoing discussions with the Caffreys, staff did identify two small triangular areas that were outside the erosion
buffer limits, the City’s floodway, and therefore are not required for flood plain management or for storm drainage by
the City. These areas total 547 square feet and are shown on the attached City Flood Risk Map. City staff presented
this option to the Caffreys and they have requested to obtain the identified property containing 547 square feet.
The original design of Fossil Creek Trail placed the trail through a Shields Street underpass and followed the Burns
Tributary though Tract E to Fossil Creek. Detailed review of this route indicated very limited space existed for the trail
next to the Burns Tributary; the trail would cross a local street at grade, and would have required a trail bridge over
Fossil Creek. The Burns Tributary takes a circular route from the underpass area, ending a few hundred feet east of
Shields Street when it joins Fossil Creek. This route’s impact to the Burns Tributary and ending point just east of
Shields Street were factors resulting in this route not being selected for the trail. City staff decided to direct trail traffic
to the east sidewalk along Shields Street from the Burns Tributary south to Fossil Creek Drive where the trail follows
road right-of-way east toward College Avenue.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Caffreys have agreed to compensate the City $1,000 for the purchase of the property. The value of the subject
property is minimized due to its current use and its location. The property can only be used by the City or by the
adjacent property owner. The future use of the property is restricted due to the area zoning of RL – low density
residential. With this zoning, the Caffreys’ use of the new property will be limited to landscape improvements. They
will also assume the maintenance responsibilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Staff has not identified any environmental impacts for this proposed conveyance since the subject property is outside
of the City’s Floodway (100-year floodplain).
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
September 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 21
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
2. City Flood Risk Map
ORDINANCE NO. 121, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF A TRACT
OF STORMWATER UTILITY PROPERTY
TO KEVIN P. CAFFREY AND JULIA J. CAFFREY
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of Tract E, Clarendon Hills Fifth Filing, located along
Burns Tributary; and
WHEREAS, Tract E was dedicated to the City for storm drainage, flood plain
management, and Department of Parks and Recreation use with the final plat of Clarendon Hills
Fifth Filing in 1992; and
WHEREAS, the City changed Fossil Creek Trail’s location to Shields Street and Parks
and Recreation has no further need for any portion of Tract E; and
WHEREAS, the City still uses the majority of Tract E for storm drainage and flood plain
management; and
WHEREAS, City staff has identified two triangular areas totaling 547 square feet
(“Remnant Parcels”) that are no longer needed because these areas are outside the erosion buffer
and the City’s floodway; and
WHEREAS, Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey (“Caffreys”) have requested that the
City convey the Remnant Parcels to them for use with their adjacent residential lot; and
WHEREAS, City staff has not identified any negative impacts to the City resulting from
the conveyance of the Remnant parcels described herein; and
WHEREAS, although the statutory provisions establishing the disposition of dedicated
rights-of-way upon vacation do not apply in this instance, the proposed conveyance is consistent
with the principle embodied in that statute of returning the dedicated land to the parcel from
which it was dedicated; and
WHEREAS, due to the small area of the Remnant Parcels, the value of the land is
nominal, and the Caffreys have agreed to compensate the City $1,000 for the Remnant Parcels;
and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code provides that the City Council is
authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of real property owned by a City Utility,
provided the Council first finds by ordinance that such sale or other disposition will not
materially impair the viability of the affected utility system as a whole and that it will be for the
benefit of the citizens and in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the conveyance of the Remnant Parcels to the Caffreys as provided
herein will not materially impair the viability of the affected utility system as a whole and will
be for the benefit of the citizens of the City and is in the best interest of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Remnant Parcels to Kevin P. Caffrey and Julia J. Caffrey, on terms and
conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as
the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or
appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary
changes to the legal description of the Remnant Property, as long as such changes do not
materially increase the size or change the character of the Remnant Property.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of September, A.D.
2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Susan Neiman
Jim O’Neill
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Upgrade of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System.
A. Resolution 2011-085 Approving an Exemption to the Use of a Competitive Process for a Contract with
Tiburon, Inc. For System Upgrades to the Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail
Management System.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue
in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and
Jail Management System Upgrade.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution authorizes Fort Collins Police Services to upgrade the current Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records
Management and Jail Management System (CAD/RMS/JMS) systems (software, hardware and project manager costs)
through Tiburon, Inc. which will allow the CRISP (Combined Regional Information Sharing Project) agencies to bring
the current CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to-date. The current version of CAD/RMS/JMS is outdated and does not
operate in the latest Windows or Internet Explorer environments. The Ordinance authorizes the appropriation of funds
needed to complete this project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Police Services (FCPS) conducted a competitive process in 2002 for a Computer Aided Dispatch/Records
Management/Jail Management system in which Tiburon, Inc. was selected. The current CAD/RMS/JMS system being
used by Fort Collins Police Services in conjunction with Larimer County Sheriff, Colorado State University Police, Estes
Park Police, Timnath Police, Poudre Fire Authority and Poudre Valley Ambulance was fully implemented in 2004.
Since that time, this system has not been upgraded. A software and hardware upgrade to this system is a vital
component to the operation of these agencies.
The vendor that supplies this application, Tiburon, Inc. has released several versions beyond the version installed at
the CRISP agencies. The City has spent significant effort to research the new software release and has deemed it
a very desirable upgrade. The latest release will align this system with the current standards and direction of the City’s
overall Information Technology strategies. The upgrade to the latest software release will be required in the future if
the City continues to use this vendor’s products. Although there are other vendors that supply similar applications,
the City would have to purchase an entire new system from those vendors. It is more cost effective to upgrade the
existing system with the software available from Tiburon, Inc.
Section 8-161 of the City Code states that any exemption to the use of competitive bidding in excess of $200,000 must
be approved by City Council. The Resolution authorizes the purchase of software, hardware and project manager
costs for the purpose of upgrading and replacing the current CAD/RMS/JMS system as an exemption to the use of
competitive bid or proposal as provided in Section 8-161(d)(1)b.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The cost of the software and hardware upgrade is approximately $1,600,000 but would not exceed $2,000,000. The
2011 costs for a project manager to oversee this upgrade is approximately $22,000. This request is to appropriate
$712,612 from the Building on Basics (BOB) sales and use tax allocated for the Police CAD replacement and $960,000
from the Police CAD Replacement Reserve in the General Fund. These appropriations are for Police Services to issue
purchase orders for the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade.
September 20, 2011 -2- ITEM 13
Police Services will continue its partnerships with the agencies that are currently a part of this project (listed above).
The Larimer County Sheriff’s Office has committed to fund 50% of this project ($750,000) and the costs of a Project
Manager.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
RESOLUTION 2011-085
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING AN EXEMPTION TO THE USE OF A COMPETITIVE
PROCESS FOR A CONTRACT WITH TIBURON, INC. FOR SYSTEM UPGRADES
TO THE COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH, RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND JAIL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
WHEREAS, in 2002, the City completed a competitive process and selected Tiburon, Inc.
as the vendor to provide a computer aided dispatch, records management and jail management
system (the “System”); and
WHEREAS, the current version of the System is outdated and Fort Collins Police Services
has identified certain software and hardware upgrades that will enhance the functionality of the
System (the “System Upgrades”); and
WHEREAS, although there are other vendors that provide similar systems, it would not be
cost effective to use a different vendor to effectuate the needed upgrades because in order to do so
the entire system would need to be replaced at significant additional cost; and
WHEREAS, in 2003, the City and Larimer County entered into an intergovernmental
agreement for the joint implementation of the System (the “System IGA”); and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the City and the County amended the System IGA and the amendment
provides that the City and the County may determine the appropriate cost sharing for System
upgrades and enhancements on a case by case basis; it is expected that the City and the County will
share the costs of the System Upgrades on an equal basis; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 8-161(d)(1)b. of the City Code authorizes the Purchasing
Agent to contract for material or services where, although there exists more than one responsible
source, a competitive process cannot reasonably be used or, if used, will result in a substantially
higher cost to the City, will otherwise injure the City's financial interests or will substantially impede
the City's administrative functions or the delivery of services to the public; and
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 8-161(d)(1)c. of the City Code authorizes the Purchasing
Agent to contract for material without competition if, a particular material or service is required to
maintain interchangeability or compatibility as a part of an existing integrated system; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has determined that although there exists more than one
responsible source, a competitive process cannot reasonably be used or, if used, will result in a
substantially higher cost to the City, will otherwise injure the City's financial interests or will
substantially impede the City's administrative functions or the delivery of services to the public; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Agent has submitted the requisite justification for this
determination to the City Manager for approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed and approved the justification for this
procurement; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the upgrades to the System is estimated to be $1,600,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 8-161(d)(3) of the City Code requires the City Manager to submit all
procurements over $200,000 to the City Council in an open meeting for final approval.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Purchasing Agent or City Manager is hereby authorized to contract with Tiburon,
Inc. for the purchase of software and hardware upgrades to the System.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of September A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES AND UNANTICIPATED REVENUE
IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE BUILDING ON BASICS POLICE
COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH, RECORDS MANAGEMENT
AND JAIL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins Police Services operates a computer aided dispatch,
records and jail management system (the “System”) in conjunction with the Larimer County Sheriff,
Colorado State University Police, Estes Park Police, Timnath Police, Poudre Fire Authority, and
Poudre Valley Ambulance; and
WHEREAS, the current System was fully implemented in 2004 and has not been upgraded
since that time; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2005, Fort Collins voters passed a ballot measure establishing
a one-quarter cent sales tax to fund the projects in the “Building on Basics” (“BOB”) program,
which program includes enhancements an updates to the System; and
WHEREAS, in order to enhance the functionality and preserve the continued viability of the
System, which is a vital asset of Fort Collins Police Services and critical infrastructure of the other
agencies that utilize the System, it is necessary to upgrade the existing software and hardware for
the System;
WHEREAS, the cost of the upgrades is estimated to be $1.6 million; and
WHEREAS, there currently exists in the BOB portion of the Sales and Use Tax fund the
amount of $712,612, available for expenditure on the System (the “BOB Funds”), which funds has
not been previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, the BOB Funds are available to be moved to the General Fund, as unanticipated
revenue, and appropriated therein for expenditure on the System; and
WHEREAS, the sum of $960,000 has been reserved in the General Fund for the System
upgrades; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate
by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from
reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously
appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make
supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total
amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for
that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be
received during the fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described
herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue
in the General Fund the sum of SEVEN HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
TWELVE DOLLARS ($712,612) for the upgrade and replacement of the Police Services computer
aided dispatch, records management and jail management system.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in
the General Fund the sum of NINE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($960,000) for
the upgrade and replacement of the Police Services computer aided dispatch, records management
and jail management system.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial
Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ordinance expands the financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council,
City Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person making disclosure or
the person’s spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the purpose of resale and profit, as currently
required.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 2 of the City Code currently requires any candidate for the office of City
Councilmember, every member of the City Council, the City Manager and the City Attorney to periodically file with the
City Clerk a written disclosure statement, the contents of which are specified in Section 2-637 of the City Code. One
of the disclosures required under Section 2-637 is the disclosure of any interest in real property that is held or acquired
for the purpose of resale at a profit and that is owned by the person making the disclosure or such person’s spouse.
In the interest of transparent government, the City Council recently expressed a desire to expand this disclosure
requirement to include any and all interests in real property held by the person making disclosure or such person’s
spouse, regardless of whether such property is held for the purpose of resale and profit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 123, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-637 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO EXPAND THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY MANAGER,
AND THE CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, in the interest of transparent government, the City Council has adopted Chapter
2, Article VIII of the City Code pertaining to financial disclosures; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Division 2 of said Chapter 2, Article VIII, any candidate for the
office of City Councilmember, every member of the City Council, the City Manager and the City
Attorney are required to periodically file with the City Clerk a written disclosure statement, the
contents of which are specified in Section 2-637 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, one of the disclosures required under Section 2-637 is the disclosure of any
interest in real property that is held or acquired for the purpose of resale at a profit and that is owned
by the person making the disclosure or such person’s spouse; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the citizens
of the City to expand this disclosure requirement to include any and all interests in real property held
by the person making disclosure or such person’s spouse, regardless of whether such property is held
for the purpose of resale and profit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, that Section 2-637 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2-637. Requirements.
Financial disclosure shall include:
. . .
(3) The legal description of any interest in real property held or acquired for the
purpose of resale at a profit owned by the person making disclosure or such person's
spouse;
. . .
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Laurie D’Audney
Beth Sowder
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code Regarding
Weeds, Grass and Rubbish.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City Code Regarding
Resource Conservation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In an effort to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide options for Fort Collins
residents who are interested in using water-wise turfgrass, these Code amendments allow certain grass types to be
exempt from the current six inch height limit. The grass types that would be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalograss,
and they would have a height limit of twelve inches.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Code Section 20-42 requires that all weeds and grasses (except “ornamental” grasses which cannot exceed
twenty percent of the landscape) be kept to a maximum of six inches in height. In recent years, staff has heard from
citizens who would like to grow certain types of water-wise turfgrass. Some of these grasses need to grow higher than
six inches in order to thrive.
It is currently against City Code to have a yard of any grass or weeds in excess of six inches. During the past growing
season, Code Compliance Inspectors have sent violation notices to properties using water-wise turfgrass species that
were exceeding the height limit. This brought to light inconsistencies with the City’s messages encouraging
conservation and how the weed/grass height code is enforced.
Staff discussions and research looked at what other communities are doing regarding weed/grass height limits, the
allowance of certain native grasses, and the encouragement of water conservation through landscape decisions. Staff
also examined current policies and sought the advice of local experts.
City policies, as well as proposed policies in Plan Fort Collins, include strong messages to encourage water
conservation and to require quality and ecologically sound landscape design. Colleagues at both Colorado State
University and the Larimer County Extension Offices agreed that water conserving landscapes should be encouraged,
and they provided their input regarding which grasses should be exempt from the six inch height limit.
Staff is not aware of many properties in Fort Collins that currently have water-wise turfgrass. If adopted, this
amendment could encourage more people to use water-wise turfgrass within their landscape. Water-wise turfgrass
helps conserve water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The water conservation can be significant – Blue Grama
and Buffalograss need about three-quarter inch of water every two weeks; bluegrass needs about one and one-half
inch per week. This equates to about one-quarter of the water use when using water-wise turfgrass.
The staff team recommends amending Code Section 20-42 to provide an exemption for “water-wise turfgrass,” which
includes Blue Grama and Buffalograss, to exceed the six inch height limit but not to exceed twelve inches.
Additionally, staff recommends amending the Resource Conservation Ordinance, Code Section 12-120, to include
these water-wise turfgrasses as part of the Xeriscape Landscaping definition. This would prohibit homeowner
associations from restricting the use of these grasses.
During the review and discussion of these ordinances, staff also found some areas in need of minor updates. The
recommended amendments include: changing the title of Code Section 20, Article IV, to “Weeds, Grass, Refuse, and
Rubbish”; changing the title of Code Section 20-42 to “Weeds, unmowed grasses, refuse, and rubbish nuisances
September 20 2011 -2- ITEM 15
prohibited”; adding certain grasses to the list of “ornamental grasses”; adding a definition of grass; updating the weed
list; adding “public right-of-way or other public property” to the section prohibiting the deposit or accumulation of refuse,
rubbish, or storage of materials within or upon these public areas; and adding “buffer zone for natural habitat” as an
exemption from the weed/grass height requirements.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
These Code amendments would not have a financial impact on the City of Fort Collins. There could be a cost savings
for residents directly related to using less water.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Positive environmental impacts include water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions from less mowing,
improved water quality from having less water runoff into the storm drain, and less pesticides and fertilizers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
An article about water-wise turfgrass was included in the September Neighborhood News e-newsletter, which has over
700 subscribers, and the Neighbors in the Know email list (including over 90 active neighborhood leaders) in order
to explain this potential Code amendment and to solicit feedback.
If adopted, these Code amendments will be communicated to the public in several ways including:
• Neighborhood News and CityNews newsletters
• Education through Xeriscape and water-wise classes
• Coloradoan article
• Spotlight on the website
• Email distributions to homeowner associations and neighborhood group contacts
ATTACHMENTS
1. An Introduction to Blue Grama and Buffalograss
An Introduction to Blue Grama and Buffalograss
Blue grama and Buffalograss are warm season grasses native to Colorado’s short-grass prairie.
They won’t start to turn green until after the last freeze of the spring and go dormant after the
first freeze of the fall. Being warm season grasses, they tolerate heat and drought very well.
These grasses go dormant when stressed and can stay dormant for extended periods.
Blue Grama
Blue grama is a bunch grass
with flat blades. Color is blue-
green; texture is fine and soft.
The State Grass of Colorado, it
produces recognizable seed
heads.
Height: 8 to 15 inches; mow to
3 inches or leave unmowed.
Water: needs ½ to ¾ inch Blue grama going dormant
every two weeks during hot,
dry weather.
Exposure: Full sun, poor
shade tolerance. Blue grama lawn
Traffic: fair tolerance to traffic during
periods of active growth.
Advantages: Attractive seedheads, requires minimal
water and fertilizer once established, won’t invade flower
or vegetable beds. Good for sunny areas, such as slopes
where foot traffic is minimal. Blue grama seedheads
Disadvantages: Not very traffic tolerant during dormancy, weed
control can be a problem, seed is expensive, short growing season.
Buffalograss
Buffalograss is a sod-forming grass with fine
leaf blades. It uses stolons to spread, like a
strawberry plant.
Height: 4 to 8 inches; mow to 3 inches or leave
unmowed. Buffalograss stolons
Water: needs ½ to ¾ inch every two weeks during
hot, dry weather.
Exposure: Full sun, poor to fair shade tolerance.
Traffic: Fair to good tolerance to traffic during periods of active growth.
Advantages: Attractive, requires minimal water and fertilizer once
established, few insect or disease problems. Good for sunny areas, such as
slopes where foot traffic is minimal.
Disadvantages: Not very traffic tolerant during dormancy, weed control
can be a problem, will invade vegetable and flower beds, short growing
season.
Buffalograss lawn
ATTACHMENT 1
Blue Grama/Buffalograss Mix
Blue grama and buffalograss have complementary characteristics and perform well as a mixture.
This native mix is increasingly being used by homeowners as an alternative to traditional turf
grasses.
Blue grama/buffalograss mix -
Blue grama/Buffalograss mix mowed & unmowed
2
ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 20 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REGARDING WEEDS, GRASS AND RUBBISH
WHEREAS, Section 20-42 of the City Code requires that all weeds and grasses, with the
exception of ornamental grasses consuming not more than twenty percent of the landscape, be kept
to a maximum of six inches in height; and
WHEREAS, in recent years, City staff has heard from citizens who would like to grow
water-wise turfgrass, which requires a growth height of more than six inches to thrive; and
WHEREAS, staff has researched water-wise turfgrass in collaboration with colleagues at
both Colorado State University and the Larimer County Extension Offices and has concluded that
Section 20-42 should be amended to provide an exception for water-wise turfgrass, including Blue
Grama and Buffalograss, so as to allow such grasses to exceed six inches in height; and
WHEREAS, staff has also concluded that Blue Grama and Buffalograss should be excluded
from the definition of “ornamental grasses” under Section 20-42 so as to allow them to exceed
twenty percent of the landscape; and
WHEREAS, allowing Blue Grama and Buffalograss to exceed a height of more than six
inches and to exceed more than twenty percent of the landscape would be consistent with the City’s
message of encouraging water conservation and requiring quality and ecologically sound landscape
design; and
WHEREAS, staff has also proposed that the mowing of grasses in areas established as
natural habitat or other such features pursuant to the Land Use Code be regulated according to the
applicable provisions of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified other minor amendments that should be made to City Code
Sections 20-41 and 20-42 relating to weeds, grass and rubbish, including clarification of the scope
of the prohibition against depositing or storing materials on adjacent open areas and public
properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 20-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition entitled “Grass” which shall read in its entirety as follows:
Grass shall mean any monocot plants of the family Poaceae, excluding any plants
that are weeds, as that term is defined hereinafter.
Section 2. That the definition “Ornamental grasses” contained in Section 20-41 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Ornamental grasses shall mean any of the following grasses: yellow foxtail
(Alopecurus pratensis), blue or western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii or
Pascopyrum smithii), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), bulbous oatgrass
(Arrhenatherum elatius), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), blue grama
(Bouteloua gracilis or Chrondrosum gracile), rattlesnake or quaking grass (Briza
media), feather reed grass (Calamagrostis acutiflora or C. arundinacea), Korean
feather reed grass (Calamagrostis brachytricha), golden sedge (Carex elata 'Bowles
Golden'), blue sedge (Carex glauca), Gray’s or morning star sedge (Carex grayi),
Japanese sedge (Carex hachijoensis ‘Evergold’), variegated Japanese sedge (Carex
morrowii), palm sedge (Carex muskingumensis), northern sea oats (Chasmanthium
latifolium), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloama), dwarf pampas grass (Cortaderia
sellonana), lemon grass (Cymbopogon citratus), tufted hair grass (Deschampsia
caespitosa), blue lyme grass (Elymus arenarius), Canada wild rye (Elymus
canadensis), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), sand love grass (Eragrotis
trichodes), ravenna or plume grass (Erianthus ravennae or Saccharum ravennae),
Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), blue fescue (Festuca cinerea, F. ovina or F.
glauca), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), variegated mannagrass (Glyceria
maxima variegata), blue oatgrass (Helictotrichon sempervirens), needle-n-thread
(Hesperostipa comata), New Mexico feathergrass (Hesperostipa neomexicana),
velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), Japanese blood
grass (Imperata cylindrica), junegrass (Koeleria cristata, K. gracilis or K.
macrantha), woodrush (Leymus spp. or Luzula spp.), Great Basin wild rye (Leymus
cinereus), hairy melic grass (Melica ciliata), ruby grass (Melinus nerviglumis), giant
Chinese silvergrass (Miscanthus floridulus or M. giganeus), Japanese silvergrass
(Miscanthus oligostachys), flame grass (Miscanthus purpurascens), silver banner
grass (Miscanthus sacchariflorus), maiden grass or silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis),
moor grass (Molina caerulea), muhly grass (Muhlenbergia spp.), green needlegrass
(Nassella viridula), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopis hymenoides or Achnatherum
hymenoides), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), feathergrass (Pennisetum
alopecuroides), purple majesty millet (Pennisetum glaucum), tender fountain grass
(Pennisetum setaceum), feather top (Pennisetum villosum), ribbon grass (Phalaris
arundinacea), ruby grass (Rychelytrum neriglume), plume grass (Saccharum
ravennae), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium or Andropogon scoparius),
autumn moorgrass (Sesleria autumnalis), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans or S.
avenaceum), cord grass (Spartina spp.), frost or graybeard grass (Spodiopogon spp.),
prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), giant sacaton (Sporobolus wrightii) and
any other species of grass approved by the City Manager that is customarily used for
ornamental purposes and not as a turf grass.
Section 3. That Section 20-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new definition entitled”Water-wise” which shall read in its entirety as follows:
-2-
Water-wise turfgrass shall mean blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis or Chrondrosum
gracile) or buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides).
Section 4. That Section 20-42 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 20-42. Weeds, unmowed grasses, refuse and rubbish nuisances
prohibited.
(a) All weeds, brush piles, or unmowed grasses required to be mowed under
Subsection (c) of this Section, refuse and rubbish on a property within the City are
hereby declared to be a nuisance and a menace to the health and safety of the
inhabitants of the City.
(b) It is shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to permit
refuse, or rubbish or brush piles to accumulate on any part of the property. All refuse
shall be stored for prompt disposal on the premises in refuse containers, and the
storage area shall be kept free of loose refuse. Any refuse or rubbish which by its
nature is incapable of being stored in refuse containers may be neatly stacked or
stored for prompt disposal. The number and size of refuse containers shall be
sufficient to accommodate the accumulation of refuse from the property. Containers
shall be secured and placed where they are screened from view of the street and are
not susceptible to being spilled by animals or wind or other elements.
(c) It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to permit
weeds to grow upon such property to a height of more than six (6) inches.
(cd) Except as is provided in Subsection (de), (f) or (g) of this Section, it is
unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to permit weeds and grasses to
grow upon such property to a height of more than six (6) inches; provided, however,
that this Subsection (c) shall not be applicable to any ornamental grass so long as it
is used solely, or in combination with any other ornamental grass or grasses, as a
supplement to the property's overall landscaped area and does not constitute in
square footage more than twenty (20) percent of the property's overall landscaped
area.
(de) It isshall be unlawful for the owner of any open area, ditch, ditch right-of-
way or railroad right-of-way to allow the growth of weeds or grasses other than those
grown for agricultural purposes upon such open area, ditch or right-of-way in excess
to grow to a height of more than twelve (12) inches in height.
(f) It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to allow
grasses in any area planted predominantly in water-wise turfgrass to grow to a height
of more than twelve (12) inches.
-3-
(g) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section which may be
construed to the contrary, the owner or occupant of any property that includes an
area that has been established as a natural habitat or feature pursuant to Section 3.4.1
(D) of the Land Use Code, or a buffer zone for natural habitat or feature pursuant to
Section 3.4.1 (E) of the Land Use Code, which area is managed and maintained in
accordance with specific conditions established in a site-specific development plan
or development agreement, shall not be required to mow said areas other than as
required in such development plan or agreement.
(eh) It isshall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to permit
the growth of noxious weeds as designated by the Colorado Weed Law or Larimer
County Weed District, regardless of height.
(fi) No person shall cause or allow the disposal of refuse or rubbish by burning
except in an incinerator that is designed for such purpose and pursuant to an
operating permit from the State Department of Public Health and Environment. In
no event may rubbish or refuse be burned in a stove or fireplace except for clean,
dry, untreated wood.
(gj) No person shall, for a period longer than twenty-four (24) hours at any one
(1) time, store or permit to remain on any business, commercial or industrial
premises owned or occupied by such person, any manure, refuse, animal or vegetable
matter or any foul or noxious liquid waste which is likely to become putrid, offensive
or injurious to the public health, safety or welfare.
(hk) No owner or occupant of any premises which are adjacent to any portion
of any open area, vacant lot, ditch, detention pond, storm drain, or watercourse, or
public right-of-way or other public property, nor any other person, shall cause the
deposit or accumulation of refuse, or rubbish, or storage of any materialthe deposit,
accumulation or storage of materials, chattels, or fixtures other than those ordinarily
attendant upon the use for which the premises are legally intended, within or upon
such adjacent areas.
(il) The property owners and the prime contractors in charge of any
construction site shall maintain the construction site in such a manner that refuse and
rubbish will be prevented from being carried by the elements to adjoining premises.
All refuse and rubbish from construction or related activities shall be picked up at the
end of each workday and placed in containers which will prevent refuse and rubbish
from being carried by the elements to adjoining premises.
(jm) The accumulation of refuse and rubbish which constitutes or may create a
fire, health or safety hazard or harborage for rodents is unlawful and is hereby
declared to be a nuisance.
-4-
(kn) The owner or occupant of any premises within the City, whether business,
commercial, industrial or residential premises, shall maintain the property in a neat,
tidy, methodical, systematic, clean and orderly condition, permitting no deposit or
accumulation of materials other than those ordinarily attendant upon the use for
which the premises are legally intended. If a property is used for a purpose
(including, without limitation, a junkyard) which, by its fundamental nature, cannot
be maintained as required above, then, in lieu thereof, such property, or any affected
portion thereof, shall be completely screened from public view and from the view of
any abutting property that is used for residential purposes.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-5-
ORDINANCE NO. 125, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REGARDING RESOURCE CONSERVATION
WHEREAS, on this same date, the City Council has adopted on First Reading, Ordinance
No. 124, 2011, which amends Chapter 20, Article IV of the City Code pertaining to weeds, grass
and rubbish; and
WHEREAS, the effect of these amendments is to allow water-wise turfgrass, including Blue
Grama and Buffalograss, to exceed the six inch height limit contained in City Code Section 20-42;
and
WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that Section 12-120 of the City Code also be
amended to include these water-wise turfgrasses as part of the Xeriscape landscaping definition,
thereby prohibiting homeowner associations from restricting the use of these grasses; and
WHEREAS, in addition, staff has developed an updated and improved definition of the term
Xeriscape landscaping and has recommended that Section 12-120 be amended to reflect this
improved language.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the definition of “Xeriscape landscaping” contained in Section 12-120 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows:
Xeriscape landscaping shall mean any or all of the followinglandscaping
planned, designed, installed and maintained so as to create a landscape that is
sustainable in Colorado’s semi-arid climate, based on seven basic principles:
(1) Preparation of a plan identifying major elements of the landscape,
including structures and plantings and characteristics influencing water
requirements;
(2) Soil improvements appropriate to optimize absorption and release of water
for plantings given the soils present;
(3) Use of efficient watering systems and practices to supplement water
naturally supplied to plantings, as appropriate;
(14) Grouping plants with similar light and water requirements together on the
same irrigation zonesin an area that matches these requirements;
(5) Use of appropriate mulches to keep plant roots cool, prevent soil from
crusting, minimize evaporation and reduce weed growth;
(26) Limiting high irrigationLimiting the use of turf and plantings to appropriate
high-use areas with highwith high water requirements, with consideration
of visibility and functional needs, and incorporating water-efficient
alternative species, specifically including, but not limited to, water-wise
turfgrasses, as defined in Section 20-41;
(7) Providing appropriate water, pruning and fertilization, pest control and
other maintenance to preserve the sustainability and health of the
landscape.
(3) Use of low-water demanding plants and turf;
(4) Use of efficient irrigation systems;
(5) Use of mulches.
Xeriscape landscaping shall not include artificial turf or plants; mulched
(including gravel) beds or areas without landscape plant material; paving of areas not
required for walkways, patios, or plazas or parking areas; bare ground; or weed-
covered or weed-infested surfaces.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-3-
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Beth Sowder
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code Pertaining to
Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code to Allow for
an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and Making
Editorial Corrections to Article IV.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The amendments to Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code will allow staff to make payment plan arrangements with
defendants for the amount due for civil infractions, and to extend a defendant’s timeframe within which to satisfy
judgment after a final hearing to a reasonable period of time beyond thirty days.
The amendments to Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code will provide the option of an appeal process for weed
and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services (CDNS)
or with the Municipal Court Referee which is consistent with the appeal process for sidewalk snow removal
abatements.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Currently the Code requires payment in full for civil infraction fines from defendants within ten days after the service
of the citation. Additionally, the Code limits a defendant’s timeframe within which to satisfy judgment after a final
hearing to thirty days. Recently, staff has heard that it is difficult for some defendants to pay the full fine within ten days
of service of the citation or to satisfy the final judgment within thirty days of the final hearing, and it would be helpful
if staff could offer a payment plan and to extend the timeframe of thirty days to a reasonable period of time so that the
defendant can pay the fine. Offering this flexibility will help defendants who are unable to pay the fine, and may help
the City collect the fine without the need to use a collection agency.
Additionally, the Code currently allows for the option of an appeal for a sidewalk snow removal abatement invoice with
the CDNS Director, or his or her designee, or the Municipal Court Referee, but the Code does not allow this option
for weed and rubbish abatements. This Code amendment would make this appeal process consistent for both weed
and rubbish abatements and sidewalk snow removal abatements.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This change may help the City recover more fines without the need to use a collection agency. This flexibility will help
defendants pay the fine in a reasonable amount of time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Defendants will be told about the ability to make payment plan arrangements and the appeal process when they are
provided information about the civil infraction process or when they receive an abatement invoice.
ORDINANCE NO. 126, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 19 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO RULES FOR
CIVIL INFRACTIONS AND MAKING EDITORIAL CORRECTIONS
TO ARTICLE V
WHEREAS, Section 19-66 of the City Code allows the Community Development &
Neighborhood Services Director or Forestry Director to accept a defendant’s payment in full for a
civil infraction if it is made within ten days after the service of the citation; and
WHEREAS, Section 19-66 of the City Code does not allow for an option of a payment plan;
and
WHEREAS, staff has heard complaints from numerous defendants that it is difficult to make
a payment in full without the option of a payment plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 19-69 of the City Code limits a defendant’s timeframe within which
to satisfy judgment after a final hearing to 30 days; and
WHEREAS, staff has heard complaints from numerous defendants that it is difficult to make
those payments within the 30-day timeframe; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends modifying Section 19-66 to allow for an option of a payment
plan and Section 19-69 to eliminate the 30-day restriction and to allow a defendant a reasonable
period of time within which to satisfy judgment after a final hearing; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified other minor amendments that should be made to City Code
Section 19 related to civil infractions, including updating department titles; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
approve these recommended amendments to the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the title of Section 19-64 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-64. No jury of trial for infractions.
. . .
Section 2. That Section 19-65(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-65. Commencement of action; citation procedure.
(a) Officers shall have the authority to initiate enforcement proceedings as
provided below.
(1) An officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a responsible party
has committed a civil infraction under this Code is authorized to serve a
notice of violation to the responsible party. Except as otherwise provided
in this Code, the officer shall set a reasonable time period within which the
responsible party must correct the violation. This determination shall be
based on considerations of fairness, practicality, ease of correction, the
nature, extent and probability of danger or damage to the public or
property, and any other relevant factor relating to the reasonableness of the
time period prescribed. An officer may immediately serve a civil citation
to a responsible party, without prior notice, if there is reason to believe that
the violation presents a threat to the public health, safety or welfare, ifor
the damage done by the violation is irreparable or irreversible, or if the
alleged violation is of Land Use Code Section 3.8.16 pertaining to
occupancy limits.
. . .
Section 3. That Section 19-66(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-66. Payment without appearance.
(a) The Neighborhood and Building ServicesCommunity Development and
Neighborhood Services Director or, in the case of a forestry code violation, the
Forestry Director, shall accept payment in full of the amount due for a civil infraction
from a defendant or make a payment plan arrangement with a defendant if such
payment or payment plan arrangement is made within ten (10) days following
service of the citation for the violation. Such payment shall be separately accounted
for and deposited into the City's general fund in accordance with rules and
procedures of the Finance Department.
. . .
Section 4. That Section 19-68(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-68. Subpoenas and discovery.
(a) At the request of any party to the hearing, the Municipal Judge or Referee
may subpoena witnesses, documents or other evidence where the attendance of the
witness or the admission of evidence is necessary to decide the issues at the hearing.
The issuance and service of a subpoena shall be as provided in Rule 217, C.M.C.R.
-2-
. . .
Section 5. That Section19-69 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 19-69. Judgment and procedures after hearing.
(a) If the civil infraction is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the
Municipal Judge or Referee shall find the defendant liable for the violation and enter
appropriate judgment. If, however, the civil infraction is not proven by a
preponderance of the evidence, the Referee shall dismiss the charge and enter
appropriate judgment.
(b) If the defendant is found liable, the Municipal Judge or Referee shall assess
the appropriate penalty and any additional costs or fees authorized by law or
ordinance.
(c) The judgment shall be satisfied upon payment to the Neighborhood and
Building ServicesCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services Director or
Forestry Director, with respect to forestry code violations, in the total amount of
penalty, costs and fees assessed.
(d) If the defendant fails to satisfy the judgment immediately following the
final hearing or within the time allowed by a reasonable extension, not to exceed
thirty (30) days granted upon a showing of good cause by and upon application of
the defendant, then such failure shall be treated as a default.
Section 6. That Section 19-71 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 19-71. Continuances.
Continuances may be granted by the Municipal Judge or Referee only upon a
showing of good cause by the City or the defendant.
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-4-
ORDINANCE NO. 127, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADDING A SECTION IN ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ALLOW FOR AN
APPEAL PROCESS TO CONTEST THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS OF
WEED AND RUBBISH ABATEMENTS AND MAKING EDITORIAL
CORRECTIONS TO ARTICLE IV
WHEREAS, Section 20-44 of the City Code does not currently allow for an option to appeal
the assessment of costs of a weed or rubbish abatement; and
WHEREAS, staff has found over the years that property owners and occupants often wish
to challenge the assessment of costs of weed and/or rubbish abatements; and
WHEREAS, City Code Section 20-102(b) allows for a property owner or occupant to contest
the assessment of costs for sidewalk snow removal abatements; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends amending Section 20-44 to include an appeal process similar
to the appeal process set forth in Section 20-102(b) for sidewalk snow removal abatements; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends amending Section 20-44 to include an appeal process to allow
for a property owner or occupant to contest the assessment of costs of a weed or rubbish abatement;
and
WHEREAS, staff has identified other minor amendments that should be made to City Code
Section 20-44, including updating department titles; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to
amend the City Code as described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS Section 20-44 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 20-44. Notice of violation; removal authority and procedure; assessment
lien on property.
(a) The Neighborhood and Building Services DirectorCommunity
Development and Neighborhood Services Director and any officer, as such is defined
in § 19-66, are authorized and directed to give notice to any owner and occupant
whose property, open area, ditch or right-of-way is being kept or maintained in
violation of the provisions of this Article. Such notice may be personally served upon
such person or, if not personally served, shall be deposited in the United States mail,
addressed to the occupant and owner of record at the address on the assessment roll
of the County Assessor or at such other, more recent address as may be available to
the City, or with respect to notice to occupants, at the address of the property so
occupied. The notice shall state that, if the property, open area, ditch or right-or-way
has not been brought into compliance with this Article on or before five (5) days
from the date of such notice, a civil citation will issue and the abatement of the
nuisance will be done by the City and any costs of abatement, including the cost of
inspection, the cost of any grading or sloping necessary to protect the public safety
and other incidental costs in connection therewith and the costs for carrying charges
and costs of administration will be charged against the property, open area, ditch or
right-of-way, in addition to any other penalty and costs or orders that may be
imposed. With respect to rubbish only, the notice shall also state that, if said owner
desires a hearing before the Referee to contest the declaration of nuisance and/or the
removal, such owner shall request such hearing in writing to the Director of
Neighborhood and Building ServicesCommunity Development and Neighborhood
Services within five (5) days of mailing of the notice and shall further state that, if
a request for such hearing is made, the City will remove the rubbish in accordance
with Subsection (b) below and will store the material pending the holding of the
hearing and the determination therefrom. The notice shall further state that if no
request for such hearing is timely filed, the City will remove the rubbish in
accordance with Subsection (b) below and shall destroy or otherwise dispose of the
rubbish.
(b) If the property, open area, ditch or right-of-way has not been brought into
compliance with this Article within five (5) days from the date of the notice and if
the owner has not requested a hearing before the Referee to contest the declaration
of nuisance and/or the removal as provided in Subsection (a) above, the removal may
be done by the City, either by City personnel or by private contractors, as the
Director of Neighborhood and BuildingCommunity Development and Neighborhood
Services shall determine. In the event of such removal by the City, the cost, including
inspection, removal of obstructions, if any, the cost of any grading or sloping
necessary to protect the public safety, other incidental costs in connection therewith,
and the costs for carrying charges and administration shall be assessed against the
offending property, open area, ditch or right-of-way and the owner thereof. With
respect to rubbish only, if the owner has requested a hearing pursuant to the
provisions of Subsection (a), removal of the rubbish may be accomplished as
provided in this Subsection; provided, however, that such material removed shall be
stored by the City until such time as the Referee holds the hearing and determines,
based upon the evidence presented by the owner and the staff of the City, whether
the nuisance should have been declared and the rubbish removed. If the Referee
determines that the declaration of nuisance and removal are proper, then the rubbish
shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the City, and the additional costs of
storage shall be assessed, together with all other costs, as provided above. If the
Referee determines that the declaration of nuisance and removal were improper, then
the material shall be returned to the owner and no costs shall be assessed.
(c) If the property owner or occupant contests the assessment of costs with
regard to weeds and/or rubbish, he or she shall file a written request for review of
such assessment of costs with the Director of Community Development
-2-
Neighborhood Services, or a written request for a hearing on the same before the
Referee, within ten (10) days from the service of notice of assessment.
(cd) Any cost assessment shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against
each property, open area, ditch or right-of-way from the date the assessment became
due until paid and shall have priority over all other liens, except general taxes and
prior special assessment liens. Any such assessment shall be billed by the Director
of Neighborhood and BuildingCommunity Development and Neighborhood
Services, or his or her designee, to the owner by deposit in the United States mail
addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls or such
other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and to any agents,
representatives or occupants as may be known. If any such assessment is not paid
within thirty (30) days after it has been billed, the Financial Officer, or his or her
designee, is hereby authorized to thereafter certify to the County Treasurer the list
of delinquent assessments so billed, giving the name of the owner as it appears of
record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of the assessment plus a ten-
percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and form as required
for the certification of other taxes. The County Treasurer, upon receipt of such
certified list, is hereby authorized to place it upon the tax list for the current year and
to collect the assessment in the same manner as general property taxes are collected,
together with any charges as may by law be made by the County Treasurer and all
laws of the State for the assessment and collection of general taxes, including the
laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes and the redemption thereof, shall apply
to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property, open area, ditch or right-of-
way is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the
amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at
law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of
September, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 4th day of October, A.D. 2011.
-3-
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-4-
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Darin Atteberry
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-086 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the Territory
of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and the Territory of the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to exclude properties
annexed into the City in 2010 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and the Windsor-Severance Fire
Protection District in accordance with state law and to allow for the provision of fire protection services to such
properties by the Poudre Fire Authority.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
State law (CRS § 32-1-502 et seq) requires that Council adopt a resolution agreeing to provide fire protection service
to areas newly annexed into the City that were previously served by a fire protection district.
In 2010, the City annexed property in the McMurry Natural Area annexation that was within the territory of the Poudre
Valley Fire Protection District. In 2010, the City also annexed property in the Fossil Creek 392 annexation that was
within the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District. The relevant legal descriptions are described in Exhibit “A”
attached to the Resolution.
Prior to annexation, residents within the properties described on Exhibit “A” have paid ad valorem property taxes to
the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District or the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District for fire protection services.
Subsequent to annexation, the annexed properties are subject to ad valorem property taxes to the City of Fort Collins
for City services, including fire protection. From the date of such annexations, the City has provided municipal services
to said properties, including police and fire services.
This Resolution sets forth the City’s agreement to continue to provide fire protection services to the previously annexed
properties and allows the City Attorney to begin the process for an order of exclusion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2011-086
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS
OF ANNEXED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE TERRITORY
OF THE POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE
TERRITORY OF THE WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in 2010, the City completed the McMurry Natural Area annexation and the
Fossil Creek 392 annexation; and
WHEREAS, the property annexed in the McMurry Natural Area annexation was within the
Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, and the property annexed in the Fossil Creek 392 annexation
was within the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. Section 32-1-502 requires an order of exclusion from the district court
to remove annexed properties from special district territories; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of C.R.S. Section 32-1-502(2)(a), any order excluding
property from the boundaries of a special district requires the governing body of the annexing
municipality to agree, by resolution, to provide the services previously provided by the special
district to the area described in the petition for exclusion from and after the effective date of the
exclusion order; and
WHEREAS, from the date of such annexations, the City has provided municipal services to
said properties, including police and fire services; and
WHEREAS, the residents within the properties described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference (the "Annexed Properties") have paid ad valorem property
taxes to the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District or the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District
for fire protection services prior to annexation and, subsequent to annexation, will instead pay ad
valorem property taxes to the City for City services, including fire protection; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the City Council to reflect by this Resolution its
willingness to provide fire protection services to the annexed properties within the McMurry Natural
Area annexation and to exclude all such properties from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District;
and, to do the same for the properties within the Fossil Creek 392 annexation and to exclude those
properties from the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to properly exclude the Annexed Properties from the
fire districts in accordance with law and to allow for the provision of fire protection services to such
properties by the Poudre Fire Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby agrees that the properties within the McMurry
Natural Area annexation should be excluded from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby agrees that the properties within the Fossil
Creek 392 annexation should be excluded from the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District.
Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition
in the Larimer County District Court pursuant to CRS Section 32-1-502 for an order to exclude the
Annexed Properties as described above, the boundaries of which are described on Exhibit “A”.
Section 4. That the City Council hereby agrees to provide fire protection service, through
the Poudre Fire Authority, to the Annexed Properties.
Section 5. That the City Council hereby finds that a plan for the disposition of assets of
either the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District or the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District
is not necessary.
Section 6. That the City Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with the fire
protection districts for the continuation of services for the Annexed Properties, which agreements
shall be substantially in the form of Exhibit “B” attached hereto, subject to such modifications as
the City Manger may, in consultation with the City Attorney, deem necessary to protect the interests
of the City.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of September A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
FOSSIL CREEK 392
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO, TO WIT:
NW 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE
6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO. CONSIDERING THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 22 AS BEARING N 89° 40' 32" E AND WITH ALL
BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO. COMMENCING
AT THE NW CORNER OF SAID SECTION 22, THENCE N 89° 40' 32" E,
60.01' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE CONTINUING ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22,
SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD N 89°
40'32" E, 1214.38 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE S 00° 19'
28" E, 33.41 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
INTERSTATE 25, THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY
LINE ON THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
S 81° 21' 28" E, 303.80 FEET;
N 89° 33' 02" E, 450.02 FEET;
S 31° 12' 58" E, 553.67 FEET;
S 18° 25' 02" E, 70.21 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE S 89° 34' 58"W, 2279.35
FEET; THENCE NO 00° 28' 50"E, 625.37 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. THUS DESCRIBED TRACT CONTAINS 28.974 ACRES AND
IS SUBJECT TO A 30 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE NORTH SIDE
FOR COUNTY ROAD AND ANY EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF WAY AS
NOW OF RECORD.
Page 1 of 4
MCMURRY NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION
A tract of land located in the south half of Section 2, Township 7 North, Range 69
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado, being more
particularly described as follows;
Considering the west line of the Southwest Quarter of the said Section 2 as
bearing South 00 degrees 39 minutes 49 seconds West between a 2.5" Aluminum
Cap monument PLS 4502 at the West Quarter corner of Section 2 and a 3"
Aluminum Cap monument PLS 20123 at the Southwest corner of Section 2, based
upon GPS observation and the City of Fort Collins coordinate base, and with all
bearings contained herein relative thereto;
Commencing at the said West Quarter corner of Section 2;
THENCE along the west line of the said Southwest quarter of Section 2, South 00
degrees 39 minutes 49 seconds West for a distance of 120.00 feet to the south line
of that certain tract of land described in a Warranty Deed recorded September 17,
2004 at Reception No. 20040091973 records of the Clerk and Recorder of the
said Larimer County;
THENCE along the said south line, South 89 degrees 19 minutes 41 seconds East
for a distance of 30.00 feet to the east right of way of North Shields Street, and to
the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE continuing along the said south line, South 89 degrees 19 minutes 41
seconds East for a distance of 420.00 feet to the east line of the said tract
described at Reception No. 20040091973;
THENCE along the said east line, North 00 degrees 39 minutes 49 seconds East
for a distance of 120.00 feet to the north line of the said southwest quarter of
Section 2;
THENCE along the said north line, South 89 degrees 19 minutes 41 seconds East
for a distance of 1466.41 feet to the easterly line of that certain tract of land
described in a Warranty Deed recorded February 1, 1962 in Book 1163 at Page
552 records of the said Clerk and Recorder;
THENCE along the said easterly line the following ten (10) courses and
distances, (1) South 10 degrees 00 minutes 19 seconds West for a distance of
241.70 feet;
(2) South 34 degrees 02 minutes 41 seconds East for a distance of 148.78 feet;
(3) South 60 degrees 23 minutes 41 seconds East for a distance of 232.97 feet;
(4) South 89 degrees 19 minutes 41 seconds East for a distance of 473.50 feet to
the east line of the said Southwest Quarter of Section 2;
(5) along the said east line, South 00 degrees 26 minutes 45 seconds West for a
distance of 94.30 feet;
(6) leaving the said east line, South 89 degrees 21 minutes 26 seconds East for a
distance of 104.40 feet;
Page 2 of 4
(7) South 09 degrees 31 minutes 41 seconds East for a distance of 81.68 feet;
(8) South 27 degrees 03 minutes 41 seconds East for a distance of 267.53 feet;
(9) South 33 degrees 13 minutes 19 seconds West for a distance of 239.84 feet;
(10)South 47 degrees 36 minutes 19 seconds West for a distance of 153.11 feet to
the said east line of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2;
THENCE along the said east line, South 00 degrees 26 minutes 45 seconds West
for a distance of 102.25 feet to the southwesterly line of that certain tract of land
described in a Warranty Deed recorded August 12, 1980 in Book 2061 at Page
621 records of the said Clerk and Recorder;
THENCE along the said southwesterly line, North 23 degrees 10 minutes 38
seconds West for a distance of 100.58 feet to the southerly line of that certain
tract of land described in a Warranty Deed recorded November 8, 1979 in Book
2003 at Page 881 records of the said Clerk and Recorder;
THENCE along the said southerly line, North 52 degrees 53 minutes 59 seconds
West for a distance of 134.49 feet to the southerly line of that certain tract of land
described in a Warranty Deed recorded February 1, 1962 in Book 1163 at Page
554 records of the said Clerk and Recorder;
THENCE along the said southerly line as described in Book 1163 at Page 554,
North 63 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds West for a distance of 69.90 feet;
THENCE continuing along the said southerly line, North 68 degrees 57 minutes
41 seconds West for a distance of 46.95 feet returning to the said southerly line as
described in Book 2003 at Page 881;
THENCE along the said southerly line as described in Book 2003 at Page 881 the
following three (3) courses and distances, (1) South 84 degrees 50 minutes 25
seconds West for a distance of 185.62 feet;
(2) South 69 degrees 17 minutes 06 seconds West for a distance of 192.35 feet;
(3) North 76 degrees 55 minutes 09 seconds West for a distance of 6.29 feet
returning to the said southerly line as described in Book 1163 at Page 554;
THENCE along the said southerly line as described in Book 1163 at Page 554,
South 66 degrees 19 minutes 19 seconds West for a distance of 18.58 feet;
THENCE continuing along the said southerly line, North 65 degrees 13 minutes
41 seconds West for a distance of 54.88 feet returning to the said southerly line as
described in Book 2003 at Page 881;
THENCE along the said southerly line as described in Book 2003 at Page 881 the
following four (4) courses and distances, (1) North 76 degrees 55 minutes 09
seconds West for a distance of 98.15 feet;
(2) North 66 degrees 50 minutes 19 seconds West for a distance of 201.58 feet;
(3) North 83 degrees 44 minutes 02 seconds West for a distance of 208.68 feet;
(4) South 89 degrees 14 minutes 21 seconds West for a distance of 139.43 feet to
the southerly line of certain tract of land described in a Warranty Deed recorded
July 27, 1979 in Book 1973 at Page 059 records of the said Clerk and Recorder;
THENCE along the said southerly line as described in Book 1973 at Page 059 the
following eight (8) courses and distances, (1) South 88 degrees 48 minutes 10
seconds West for a distance of 13.42 feet;
Page 3 of 4
(2) South 84 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds West for a distance of 126.74 feet;
(3) North 82 degrees 54 minutes 13 seconds West for a distance of 192.08 feet;
(4) North 62 degrees 04 minutes 03 seconds West for a distance of 187.02 feet;
(5) North 44 degrees 23 minutes 40 seconds West for a distance of 222.05 feet;
(6) North 38 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds West for a distance of 330.57 feet;
(7) North 59 degrees 23 minutes 10 seconds West for a distance of 111.76 feet;
(8) North 70 degrees 32 minutes 16 seconds West for a distance of 352.40 feet to
the said east right of way of North Shields Street;
THENCE along the said east right of way, North 00 degrees 39 minutes 49
seconds East for a distance of 236.41 feet to the point of beginning.
The above described tract contains 48.793 acres more or less.
Page 4 of 4
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR
CONTINUATION OF SERVICE
(______________ FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT/CITY OF FORT COLLINS)
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this __________ day of____, 2011, by
and among the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal home-rule corporation
(hereinafter "City"), and the _________ FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a special statutory
district within the State of Colorado (hereinafter "District");
WHEREAS, the City has recently filed pursuant to Section 32-1-502(1)(a), C.R.S., a
Petition with the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado for an Order excluding
certain properties from the territory of the District, which properties are shown on Exhibit "A"
hereto attached, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein; and
WHEREAS, said Petition is premised upon the prior annexation and inclusion of said
properties within the municipal boundaries of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the City and the District to set forth their
understanding and agreement with regard to the continuation of fire protection services to said
properties, as well as remaining properties within the boundaries of the District and Poudre Fire
Authority, as defined below;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and
obligations herein contained, the parties agree:
1. From and after the effective date of any Order of Exclusion issued by the District
Court in response to the City's Petition, filed pursuant to Section 32-1-502(1)(a), which effective
date is anticipated to be January 1, 2012, the City will continue to assume full and complete
responsibility for fire protection services to the properties shown on Exhibit "A" hereto attached,
the contents of which are incorporated by this reference. Such fire protection services shall be
provided by Poudre Fire Authority (“PFA”) pursuant to that certain intergovernmental agreement
effective November 3, 1987, by and among the City and the District.
2. From and after the effective date of the Exclusion Order entered by the District
Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado, the District shall have no further liability or
responsibility with regard to the provision of fire protection services for such properties or any
improvements thereon, other than the obligations existing under the aforementioned
intergovernmental agreement creating PFA for the provision of regional fire and rescue services.
3. From and after the effective date of any Exclusion Order entered by the District
Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado, the District agrees that the properties shown on
Exhibit "A" shall be free from taxation by the District, other than mill levies assessed for
purposes of paying outstanding bonded indebtedness and interest thereon, owed by the District
effective immediately prior to the effective date of such Exclusion Order. Exclusion of the
Page 1 of 3
requested property from the District and entry of an Exclusion Order by the District Court shall
not affect any claim the District may have or the District's ability to make such claim for taxes
which were certified by the District prior to the effective date of the Exclusion Order.
4. The District will retain ownership of all equipment and facilities now owned by
the District, including such facilities as may be located within the municipal boundaries of the
City of Fort Collins, if any.
5. The District will, through its agreement with PFA, continue to provide fire
protection services to those properties located within the boundaries of the District, as modified
by the exclusion of territory pursuant to the anticipated Exclusion Order requested from the
District Court.
6. In the event that any bonded indebtedness exists as of the effective date of the
anticipated Exclusion Order, the Board of Directors of the District shall continue to assess a
proportional mill levy against the properties identified on Exhibit "A" hereto attached, together
with other properties within the boundaries of the District, sufficient to repay the principal and
accrued interest on any such bonded indebtedness in accordance with the terms and provisions of
the instruments pursuant to which said obligations have been created and incurred.
7. Nothing within this Agreement shall modify or terminate any obligations of the
City or the District with respect to existing obligations under the intergovernmental agreement
forming the PFA, including any future amendments or modifications thereto as the parties may
hereafter agree.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
ATTEST: a municipal home-rule corporation
______________________ ________________________
City Clerk Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Approved as to form:
________________________
Assistant City Attorney
Page 2 of 3
_____________ FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT,
a special statutory district within the State of
Colorado
__________________________________
By: ________________
Chairman, Board of Directors
Approved as to form:
__________________________________
By: ________________
Attorney for Respondent
____________ Fire Protection District
Page 3 of 3
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Ted Shepard
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-087 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Leistikow
Annexation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicants, Wayne B. and Janice E. Leistikow, the property owners, have submitted a written petition requesting
annexation of 18.035 acres located on the east side of South Timberline North Road, and on the south side of Trilby
Road. The property contains a single family detached home approved in Larimer County under FA-1 zoning as part
of the Leistikow Minor Residential Division approved in 1992. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban
Estate. The parcel to the north is the Westchase P.U.D., zoned L-M-N and U-E and annexed into the City of Fort
Collins in 2001. The properties to the east, south and west are currently zoned FA-1 and located in Larimer County.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines
that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The
hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on November 1, 2011. Not
less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements
between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is
eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from
a common boundary with the Westchase Number Two Annexation located to the north. This annexation request is
in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins
Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request at its regular
monthly meeting on October 20, 2011, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's recommendation
will be forwarded to the City Council in time for First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on November
1, 2011.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements. There are no issues or known controversies associated with this annexation.
September 20, 2011 -2- ITEM 18
PUBLIC OUTREACH
There was no public outreach for this Initiating Resolution as this Resolution simply accepts the Annexation Petition
and provides a schedule for upcoming Council hearings with a schedule and notification requirements that comply with
State Statutes.
Future Development – Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has issued a press release indicating its desire to construct a temple
on the property described by this annexation. The City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan
both provide guidance that the subject 18.03 acres should be zoned Urban Estate. A Place of Worship is a permitted
use in the U-E zone, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. A development review outreach
neighborhood meeting is scheduled for September 14, 2011 to discuss the development review process for a future
potential submittal of a Project Development Plan for a temple for the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day-Saints.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Structure Plan Map
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2011-087
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND
INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
LEISTIKOW ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been
filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Leistikow
Annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Leistikow
Annexation, more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to
wit:
Legal description of a parcel of land being Lot 2, of the Amended Leistikow MRD
and a portion of the existing right-of-way of Timberline Road situate in Sections 17
and 18, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado
being more particularly described as follows;
Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section 17, and considering the North line
of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 17 as bearing
South 89<56’00” East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; thence
along said North line, South 89<56’00” East 785.96 feet to the True Point of
Beginning, said point being a point on the South line of Westchase Annexation No.
2 to the City of Fort Collins according to the plat on file in the office of the Clerk and
Recorder said County; thence along said South line, South 89<56’00” East 140.27
feet; thence departing said South line, South 00<04’00” West 91.40 feet; thence
South 75<01’11” West 126.44 feet; thence South 14<58’49” East 95.52 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of
98<02’18” and a radius of 528.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said
curve 903.46 feet; thence departing said curve, South 07<22’24” East 175.33 feet;
thence South 89<54’32” West 467.79 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of
said Timberline Road; thence along said West right-of-way line the following
courses and distances, North 00<09’18” East 55.71 feet; thence South 89<54’44”
East 10.00 feet; thence North 00<09’18” East 959.03 feet to a point on the South line
of said Westchase Annexation No. 2; thence along said South line South 89<56’00”
East 273.04 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having
a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 512.50 feet; thence Northeasterly along
the arc of said curve 21.95 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said
curve North 87<36’45” East 95.36 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
to the Southeast having a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 487.50 feet;
thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 20.88 feet to the end of said curve;
thence tangent from said curve, South 89<56’00” East 207.42 feet to the beginning
of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 17<15’28” and
a radius of 733.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 220.78 feet
to the True Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel contains 18.035 acres more or less.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition
for the Leistikow Annexation and accompanying map are in substantial compliance with the
Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution.
Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the
passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City
Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal
Annexation Act.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of September A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
NOTICE
TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a
Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Leistikow Annexation, said Annexation being
more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice.
That, on November 1, 2011, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and
zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be
annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation
and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the
Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may
desire.
The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the
Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
Dated this 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_______________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Steve Olt
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-088 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Courtney
Annexation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicants, C. Scott and Nancy E. Courtney, the property owners, have submitted a written petition requesting
annexation of 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of
the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street
right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. The property is developed and
is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate.
The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA1 – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, east and south; and,
UE – Urban Estate in the City to the west.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act,
determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the
hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on November
1, 2011. Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law.
The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements
between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is
eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from
common boundaries with the Strobel Annexation (April, 1992) and the Wild West Annexation (August, 1994) to the
west.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request at its regular
monthly meeting on October 20, 2011, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's recommendation
will be forwarded to the City Council in time for First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on November
1, 2011.
This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to
annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements. There are no issues or known controversies associated with this annexation.
September 20, 2011 -2- ITEM 19
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The property is developed and contains a single-family residence, which has been on the property since 1992. No
public outreach has been done to date other than the required placement of a sign on the property notifying the public
of an annexation request to the City of Fort Collins. Newspaper and letter notifications for the public hearings will be
mailed two weeks prior to the October 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity map
2. Zoning map
3. Structure plan map
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2011-088
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND
INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
COURTNEY ANNEXATION
WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been
filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Courtney
Annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Courtney
Annexation, more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to
wit:
Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87, and a portion of Charlie Lane and Nite Court,
situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the
Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described
as follows: considering the North line of said Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87 as
bearing S89°33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is
contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Northeast corner of said Lot
3 and run thence along the East line of said Lot 3, S20°31'30"E 193.45 feet to the
Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence along the South line of said Lot 3,
N89°33'00"W 605.44 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S00°27'00"W 15.59 feet,
and again along the arc of a 70.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a
distance of 77.34 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which
bears S31°12'00"E 73.46 feet, and again along the arc of a 130.00 foot radius curve
concave to the Southwest a distance of 138.06 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00",
the long chord of which bears S32°25'30"E 131.67 feet, and again along the arc of
a 40.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 52.72 feet, whose
central angle is 75°31'05", the long chord of which bears S35°45'32"W 48.99 feet;
thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N02°00'16"W 38.73 feet
to the centerline of Nite Court; thence along said centerline, along the arc of a 100.00
foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 106.20 feet, whose central
angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears N32°25'30"W 101.28 feet, and
again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance
of 110.48 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears
N31°12'00"W 104.95 feet, and again N00°27'00"E 15.59 feet to a point on the
existing South right-of-way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing South
right-of--way line, N89°33'00"W 265.54 feet; thence departing said existing South
right-of-way line, N00°00'00"E 57.48 feet to a point on the existing North right-of-
way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, along
the arc of a 270.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 36.95 feet,
whose central angle is 07°50'25", the long chord of which bears N86°31'48"E 36.92
feet, and again S89°33'00"E 233.75 feet; thence departing said existing North right-
of-way line, along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a
distance of 28.08 feet, whose central angle is 107°15'00", the long chord of which
bears N36°49'30"E 24.15 feet to a point on the existing right-of-way line of Nite
Court; thence along said existing right-of-way line, N16°48'00"W 56.63 feet, and
again along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of
218.50 feet, whose central angle is 250°22'48", the long chord of which bears
N55°15'36"E 81.72 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; thence along said
North line, S89°33'00"E 497.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.1295
acres, more or less.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition
for the Courtney Annexation and accompanying map are in substantial compliance with the
Municipal Annexation Act.
Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution.
Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the
passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City
Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal
Annexation Act.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of September A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
NOTICE
TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a
Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Courtney Annexation, said Annexation being
more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice.
That, on November 1, 2011, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and
zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be
annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation
and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the
Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may
desire.
The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the
Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District.
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
Dated this 20th day of September, A.D. 2011.
_______________________________
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Rick Richter
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-089 Extending the Deadline for the City and Town of Windsor to Take Certain Actions Required by
the Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement 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
the City and Windsor will take certain actions to implement the IGA by March 31, 2011. On March 15, 2011, Council
extended the deadline for all actions to be taken under Section 4.2.2, 4.3.1 and 4.3.8 of the IGA to June 7, 2011.
On May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-041, extending the deadline for staff of both municipalities
to complete their studies and public outreach until September 20, 2011. The staff of both municipalities recommend
that the September 20, 2011, deadline be further extended to December 6, 2011, in order to allow additional time to
complete their studies and public outreach and make their recommendations.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council and the Windsor Town Board held five joint work sessions to discuss the I-25 and State Highway 392
Interchange Improvements, System Level Study (1601 Process), and design. The System Level Study for this
interchange was approved by the CDOT Transportation Commission on January 21, 2009. This approval, along with
a signed IGA, has allowed the Project to move into the final design phase. The accelerated design process for this
Project was completed in January 2010. The accelerated design process made this Project “shovel ready,” thereby
enhancing the possibility of obtaining funding for construction.
The design followed the intent of the guiding principles adopted by the City Council and the Town Board in August
2008, specifically the community character guiding principle that states: “The I-25/392 Interchange is an important
‘gateway’ feature for both Fort Collins and Windsor. It is viewed as Fort Collins’ southern gateway and the main
gateway into the Town of Windsor. The design of the interchange, sensitivity to view sheds and associated land
development shall enhance the gateway concept.”
The total construction and right-of-way cost for the Project is estimated at $27.5 million. On May 20, 2010, the
Colorado Transportation Commission authorized the allocation of $20 million for the construction of the Interchange.
CDOT had previously identified $2.5 million of state FASTER funds to be used for right of way acquisition. The funding
gap of $5 million has been met by the local communities.
On December 21, 2010, Council adopted Resolution 2010-077 authorizing the Mayor to execute the IGA. The primary
purposes of the IGA are to set forth the respective financial contributions of the City and Windsor related to the
reconstruction of the Interchange; to provide for orderly land use and development within the area immediately
surrounding the Interchange; to ensure that the property owners most directly benefitted by the Interchange
improvements proportionally share in the cost of the improvements; and to provide for a revenue sharing formula
between the City and Windsor.
The IGA establishes a Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”) around the Interchange, within which certain land uses have
been agreed upon by the parties and two kinds of fees will be imposed to reimburse the City and Windsor for their
financial contributions to the construction of the Interchange and to help fund the construction and maintenance of
improvements and services within the CAC. The first fee is a development impact fee that will be paid by the property
owners within the CAC. The proceeds from that fee will reimburse the City and the Town for their share of the cost
of constructing the Interchange ($2.5 million each). The second is a public improvement fee (“PIF”) to be imposed by
retailers within the CAC. The PIF revenues will be used primarily to pay for the maintenance of the “enhanced
improvements” to the Interchange that the Colorado Department of Transportation will not be maintaining. In addition,
September 20, 2011 -2- ITEM 20
the PIF revenues will be used to fund a list of improvements and services that the parties are in the process of
identifying, with the input of affected property owners, and that will primarily benefit the properties within the CAC.
Section 3.2 of the IGA requires that, on or before March 31, 2011, the governing bodies of the City and Windsor shall
each adopt mutually acceptable design standards for the CAC. Those standards, explained by Ordinance No. 036,
2011, were adopted by the Council on second reading on March 22, 2011.
The IGA originally set a deadline of March 31, 2011. On March 15, 2011, by adopting Resolution 2011-026, Council
extended the deadline for all actions to be taken under Section 4.2.2, 4.3.1 and 4.3.8 of the IGA to June 7, 2011. On
May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-041 extending the deadline for staff of both municipalities
to complete their studies and public outreach until September 20, 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. Staff from both municipalities recommend an extension of the deadline
within which these actions are to be taken in order to allow additional time to complete the study and public outreach
and make recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
2. IGA between the City and Windsor
3. Resolution 2011-041
[_
I-25 & 392
Interchange
COUNTY ROAD 5
KECHTER
4TH
MAIN
MASON
COUNTY ROAD 7
COUNTY ROAD 3
COUNTY ROAD 30
BOARDWALK
BOYD LAKE
71ST
66TH
COUNTY ROAD 36
COUNTY ROAD 9
COUNTY ROAD 13
FAIRGROUNDS
COUNTY ROAD 11
COUNTY ROAD 11C
TROUTMAN
PRIVATE DRIVE
COUNTY ROAD 34E
65TH
TIMBERLINE
COUNTY ROAD 30
COUNTY ROAD 3
COUNTY ROAD 30
S SHIELDS ST
INTERSTATE 25
S COLLEGE AVE
E TRILBY RD
S COUNTY ROAD 5
E COUNTY ROAD 30
S LEMAY AVE
S TIMBERLINE RD
E HARMONY RD
CARPENTER RD
E COUNTY ROAD 32
KECHTER RD
ZIEGLER RD
W TRILBY RD
E COUNTY ROAD 38
STATE HIGHWAY 392
W HARMONY RD
MAIN ST
STRAUSS CABIN RD
S COUNTY ROAD 3F
S COUNTY ROAD 7
S US HIGHWAY 287
S L
EMAY AVE
E COUNTY ROAD 32
ZIEGLER RD
INTERSTATE 25
S TIMBERLINE RD
Legend
Fort Collins City Limits
Growth Management Area E
ATTACHMENT 2
S
tate Highway 392
E County Road 3
2
Interstate 25
Intersta
te 25
E County Road 30
E County Road 30
S County Road 5
F
o
s s i l C
r
e
e k R
e
s e r v
o
i r
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
1:21,327
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Kilometers
I25 Corridor - State Activity HWY Center 392 Interchange (Exhibit A)
Scale
LandUse
Commercial
Employment
Boundary
CAC
Fort Collins GMA
Windsor GMA
Parcels
CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use of
PRODUCTS the by the public. City of The Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only,
warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon.
labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT
COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE
UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them
to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL
from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should
in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of
these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any
map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or
by any person or entity. Printed: November 17, 2010
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION 2011-089
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FURTHER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND THE TOWN OF WINDSOR TO TAKE CERTAIN ACTIONS REQUIRED BY
THE PARTIES’ INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERSTATE 25/STATE HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-077
authorizing the Mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement (the “IGA”) with the Town of
Windsor (“Windsor”) related to the reconstruction of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392
Interchange (the “Interchange”); and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2010, the IGA was also approved by the Windsor Town Board
through the adoption of Resolution 2010-71; and
WHEREAS, the IGA was finalized and fully executed and dated as of January 3, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-026 extending
the deadlines imposed by the IGA to June 7, 2011, to allow additional time for staff to finalize their
recommendations regarding the boundaries of the Corridor Activity Center (“CAC”) around the
Interchange, and to develop a list of improvements and services to funded by retailers within the
CAC through a public improvement fee that will be charged upon the sale of goods or services; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 2011-041 extending the
deadline for staff of both municipalities to complete their studies and public outreach until
September 20, 2011; and
WHEREAS, staff for the City and Windsor have nearly completed the work required by the
IGA but require a short extension to complete their work; and
WHEREAS, the staff of both municipalities have recommended that the September 20, 2011,
deadline be further extended in order to allow additional time to complete their studies and public
outreach and make their recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the deadline for all actions to be taken under the IGA by September 20, 2011, is
hereby extended to December 6, 2011.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of September A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Kathleen Bracke
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-090 Documenting and Presenting the City Council’s Comments on the North I-25 Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region 4 staff has been developing the North I-25 Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for several years. Work on the EIS began in 2001. The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to
plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern Colorado with the Denver metropolitan area. The study
area focuses on highway and transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor, US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor.
CDOT published the Final EIS document on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments through October
3. Staff has reviewed the Final EIS document and provided technical comments to share with City Council and CDOT
as part of this public review period. The September 20 regular session action represents the City’s opportunity to
share staff, Council, and other potential community concerns with CDOT as part of the formal comment period on the
Final EIS document.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The purpose of the North I-25 EIS is to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect Northern Colorado with
the Denver metropolitan area. The study area focuses on highway and transit plans for the Interstate 25 corridor,
US287 corridor, and the US85 corridor. (Please see Attachment 1 for a copy of the Final EIS Executive Summary,
including a copy of the study area map shown on page ES-2).
City Councilmember Ben Manvel and staff from Advance Planning/Transportation Planning have been participants
on CDOT’s Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) throughout the EIS
process. The TAC members are comprised of technical staff from the various local municipalities, plus regional, state,
and federal agencies. The RCC includes elected officials from communities throughout the North I-25 EIS project area.
The RCC and TAC members have provided comments and feedback to CDOT’s EIS project team throughout the multi-
year planning process.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) released the Final North I-25 Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) document for a public review period on August 19 and is seeking agency and public comments
through October 3.
CDOT has an electronic version of the FEIS document available for public review via their website:
(http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis) and hard copies are available at the City’s Transportation Planning
office located at 281 North College Avenue and at the main Library on Peterson Street.
In addition to reviewing the FEIS document via CDOT’s website, the City has an electronic copy available for
review/download. The following are directions for staff and City Council to access the electronic FEIS documents
(please note that the FEIS document is very large so we do not recommend printing it):
Click on your computer’s “start menu” and select the “run” option
• Copy the following text:
explorer.exe ftp://gw-download:ven53dor@ns2.fcgov.com/North_I_25_EIS/
• Paste this text into the "Run" window's text box
• Click the "OK" button
• View or copy the files in this folder
September 20, 2011 -2- ITEM 24
It is important for the City of Fort Collins staff and City Council to provide formal comments on the FEIS document so
that our concerns, questions, and issues are part of the formal record for the Colorado Department of Transportation
and Federal Highways Administration to consider when finalizing the document and completing the environmental
clearance process for these identified highway and transit improvements.
There may be instances where the City’s comments do not directly result in a change to the final EIS document at this
time, however this information will be useful input as the local, state, and federal agencies move forward with
implementing these important transportation improvements in the future. Some of our concerns may be more
applicable at the more detailed design, engineering, and/or construction phases of these transportation projects.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
CDOT has provided the following information regarding the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is a
combination of previous highway and transit alternatives developed by CDOT during the earlier draft phases of the
EIS process. It is based upon technical data analysis as well as upon input from the various local, state, and federal
agencies and the general public.
The Preferred Alternative includes:
• Multimodal improvements on several regional corridors, including highway and transit improvements along
I-25, US287, and SH85. Based on the proposed Preferred Alternative, I-25 would be widened with general
purpose lanes and Tolled Express Lanes (TELs). Substandard interchanges would be reconstructed or
upgraded to accommodate future travel needs and replace aging infrastructure.
• Commuter rail transit service using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor from Fort Collins to the
planned FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Longmont. The commuter rail service is planned to
continue to Downtown Denver’s Union Station via the North Metro route. A connection to Boulder would also
be made with a transfer to the Northwest Rail line at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. The commuter rail
line would consist of a single track with occasional passing tracks.
• Express bus service would operate in the TELs along I-25 to connect northern Colorado communities to
downtown Denver and Denver International Airport (DIA). The express bus service would utilize existing,
expanded and new park & rides along I-25.
• Commuter bus service along US85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with stops at the
communities along the route.
Please see Attachment 1 (Final EIS Executive Summary, page ES-8) for a map illustrating the recommended
transportation improvements included in the Preferred Alternative.
PHASING
To accommodate current funding limitations, the Preferred Alternative has been separated into phases. The first
phase is estimated to cost approximately $670 million (in 2009 dollars) and would be constructed with funding
projected to be available in the amended 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Total cost for all of the
improvements shown in the Preferred Alternative is approximately $2.178 billion. Future phases would be constructed
over time as funding is available.
Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is shown in Attachment 1 (Final EIS Executive Summary, page ES-18) and
includes the following elements within the Fort Collins area:
• Widening I-25 between SH392/Carpenter Road and SH14/Mulberry Street - would initially be used as
continuous acceleration/deceleration lanes but would ultimately become part of the general purpose lanes.
The widening of I-25 between SH392 and SH14 would eventually accommodate TELs. Widening would
include water quality ponds, and median barrier features necessary to accommodate this improvement. Right-
of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section is also included.
September 20, 2011 -3- ITEM 24
• Interchange replacement and upgrades – SH14/Mulberry and Prospect interchanges would be constructed
to their ultimate configurations. The interchange improvements at I-25 and SH392 will be completed as part
of the separate joint agency project already underway.
• Park & ride improvements at I-25 interchanges.
• Commuter Rail Right-of-Way (ROW) preservation – All ROW necessary to construct the ultimate commuter
rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1.
• Initial I-25 Bus – Regional bus service connecting from Fort Collins to downtown Denver and DIA would be
initiated. Transit stations would be constructed as part of Phase 1 and buses would be purchased.
The culmination of the EIS process is for CDOT to seek a Record of Decision (ROD) from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The ROD will signify federal agency approval
for the highway and transit improvements identified in Phase I of the Final EIS (FEIS) document.
The ROD will identify funding for Phase 1 consistent with regional transportation plans included in the Metropolitan
Planning Organization’s planning documents. The ROD will be prepared only for Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative.
For the remaining phases, the rest of the project elements would then be implemented to complete the ultimate
Preferred Alternative over time, depending upon safety factors, transportation needs, and available resources/funding.
Phase 2 is anticipated to include constructing the commuter rail from Loveland to Longmont, constructing TELs and
associated interchange upgrades between SH14/Mulberry and SH56 and between E-470 and 120th Avenue.
Phase 3 is anticipated to include the completion of the commuter rail from Loveland to Fort Collins, constructing the
general purpose lanes from SH14/Mulberry to SH66, and constructing TELs from SH66 to E-470. Subsequent RODs
will be prepared for these future phases, as funding becomes available.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS COMMENTS ON THE EIS
City Council and staff have previously commented on the EIS process and draft documents over the years, with the
most recent being two City Council work sessions in 2009 (February and October) as well as formal comments
provided by the City on the Draft EIS document in 2008.
Prior Fort Collins City Council and staff comments/concerns expressed to CDOT to-date include phasing and details
of proposed commuter rail and highway improvements; impacts to wildlife habitat areas, air quality, water quality, and
stormwater contaminants; as well as the need for bigger picture cost/benefit analysis considering long-term
sustainability objectives.
Exhibit A to the Resolution contains the City of Fort Collins comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
that were submitted to CDOT in 2008 and comments from the 2009 City Council Worksessions. This information
includes CDOT responses to prior City comments as well as new/additional City staff comments that have been added
based upon review of the Final EIS document.
Staff comments on the 2011 FEIS document are consistent with the same themes of concerns shared with CDOT as
part of the City’s comments on the prior draft EIS document and proposed alternatives in 2008-2009.
Staff is pleased that many of our prior comments, concerns, and suggestions shared with CDOT over the years have
been incorporated in to the FEIS document such as the inclusion and importance of the multimodal options to provide
express bus and commuter rail service in the core activity centers and corridors of our community as well as the
highway and interchange improvements needed to improve safety and capacity for automobile and freight traffic.
CDOT has recognized Fort Collins’ land use and transportation planning visions as documented in Plan Fort Collins
(City Plan and Transportation Master Plan), and also integrated the multimodal improvements included in the City’s
Mason Corridor master plan into their commuter rail corridor planning and station locations. For example, the three
future commuter rails stations shown in the FEIS Preferred Alternative are co-located with the City’s MAX Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) stations at the South Transit Center, University station, and Downtown Transit Center to integrate
regional passenger rail service with our local transit plans. Similarly, CDOT’s regional express bus service shown
September 20, 2011 -4- ITEM 24
along Harmony Road will integrate regional and local transit service along this corridor from the City’s South Transit
Center to the transfer center currently located at Harmony/I-25. This interface with the Mason/MAX and Harmony
corridors will support local transit passengers wishing to connect with regional service to downtown Denver and
Boulder.
While many of the prior City comments/questions/concerns have been addressed by CDOT in the FEIS, City staff
continues to have concerns regarding several areas of the FEIS document. Highlights of these continuing concerns
include the following points:
• Implementation phasing for the various transportation improvements, specifically the phasing plan shown for
the future commuter rail service extending from Loveland to Fort Collins is not shown until Phase 3 (CDOT
expected timeframe of 2075+). Staff recommends that CDOT revise the FEIS to only show two phases –
Phase 1 as shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan” based on anticipated funding levels through 2035.
Then, the new “Phase 2” would include all of the remaining elements of the Preferred Alternative and be
considered the “unfunded” items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year time horizon. These
transportation improvements – highway and transit – shown in Phase 2 and 3 need to be implemented sooner
rather than later to serve the regional travel demand forecast for 2035. Dividing them into two artificial phases
does not solve the issue that the future regional transportation needs significantly outpace our current funding
sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be a catalyst for convening regional discussions and
partnerships to work together toward accomplishing these needs within the 2035 timeframe.
• The transportation and air quality analysis included in the FEIS results in travel demand projections that do
not reflect changing fuel costs, use of alternative fuel vehicles, changing lifestyle choices and long-term
sustainability values, as well as other potentially significant factors that would influence the demand for
interstate and transit travel in the future. Our cities, our region, and our country are facing a very different
paradigm in the future. It seems that traditional analysis tools based on the past 50 year trends may not be
accurate for predicting future demand and travel behavior. Staff recommends that CDOT perform a Triple
Bottom Line method of analysis that factors in traditional transportation analysis methods along with including
Environmental, Economic, and Human factors. While staff recognizes the need for addressing pressing safety,
capacity and ageing infrastructure concerns along I-25, we also hope that roadway investments made in the
near future will not become stranded assets as mode shift occurs. Fortunately the transit system in the
Preferred Alternative can accommodate increases in transit mode share over time by adding additional transit
vehicles.
• Every effort to implement non-barrier methods of noise mitigation along I-25 (for example, where it passes
Arapaho Bend Natural Area) should be implemented. Staff does not support construction of a barrier to
mitigate noise in this area. In addition, potential fencing/barriers/sound walls within other areas of Fort Collins,
either along the highway and/or commuter rail corridor, are not permitted in Fort Collins from a community
planning and environmental perspective. Staff requests that CDOT delete these elements and/or include other
options to maintain view sheds and wildlife movement corridors.
• Wetlands impacted in the Fort Collins regional area should be mitigated within the same Fort Collins regional
area. Local mitigation requirements per City of Fort Collins Land Use Code should be considered for locally
(Fort Collins) impacted wetlands. Staff supports the mitigation of both federally jurisdictional and non-
jurisdictional wetlands throughout the project area.
• Regarding floodplains, the mitigation in the FEIS document for each creek, river, or other drainage is vague,
not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluation for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and
floodplains. The same four mitigation measures are identified for separate drainages. Staff requests that
revised, site specific mitigation plans for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate
stakeholders to comment on either as part of the EIS process and/or as part of the design process that moves
forward for implementation. In addition, CDOT should state that all regulations will be followed including
federal, state, and local requirements (not just the FEMA regulations as noted in the FEIS).
• Regarding the Floodplain Report, Cache La Poudre River section, the information should be corrected to
reflect that the City of Fort Collins staff highly supports removing the split flow on the west side of I-25 if
regulatory issues can be resolved through mitigation. The split flow current heads south and crosses Harmony
Road. Eliminating this split flow would be an important life-safety issue since Harmony Road, a major arterial
into Fort Collins, is overtopped in less than a 100-year flood.
September 20, 2011 -5- ITEM 24
Exhibit A to Resolution 2011-090 is a summary of more detailed comments/concerns from City staff on the 2011 FEIS
document. The City comments are organized by topic area and include analysis of CDOT’s responsiveness to the
City’s prior comments as well as new staff comments/questions/concerns based on the FEIS.
Comments that are submitted to CDOT as part of the public review period will be noted for CDOT response and
included for review by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as part of their formal review process of the EIS.
As part of the Record of Decision (ROD) approval process, FHWA will consider whether or not CDOT has adequately
addressed the comments received during the public review period. The EIS Phase 2 and 3 improvements will need
to go through a subsequent formal review process by FHWA before they can be implemented. CDOT will be
confirming the future process for Phase 2 and 3 improvements for the public and local agencies as part of the
upcoming public outreach process.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NEXT STEPS
CDOT is hosting a series of public meetings regarding the FEIS document from 4:30 – 7:30 p.m. on the following
dates:
• September 12– Southwest Weld County Building,4209 Weld County Road 24 ½ (I-25 exit #240)
• September 13 - Longmont Public Library, 409 4th Avenue, Longmont
• September 15 – The Ranch (Budweiser Events Center), 5290 Arena Circle (I-25 exit #259)
The format for each of the public hearings will include an open house from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm with a brief presentation
beginning at 5:30 pm followed with an opportunity to comment. City staff will be attending the public meeting on
September 15th to share comments with CDOT’s EIS project team as well as to listen to community comments.
Once CDOT and FHWA have an approved ROD for the North I-25 EIS, they are planning to move forward with the
design phase of the I-25 highway improvements from SH14 south to SH392. City staff will continue to work with CDOT
throughout this design process to carry forward the issues, comments, and suggestions discussed during the EIS
process.
In addition, CDOT and the Army Corps of Engineers are currently working on the 404 permitting requirements for
wetland mitigation and have submitted a separate permit application to the City’s Natural Resources department for
review. City staff is reviewing this information concurrently with the EIS review and will be providing consistent
comments on both the FEIS and the 404 permit application regarding the desire for wetland mitigation to be done
locally if possible.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts to the City of Fort Collins at this time based on the review of the FEIS document.
In the future, the City of Fort Collins will need to address potential opportunities for partnering with CDOT and other
local/regional agencies to fulfill the implementation of the various transportation projects included in the FEIS Preferred
Alternative.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Please review staff comments provided in Exhibit A to the Resolution regarding the environmental impacts associated
with the information contained in CDOT’s FEIS document.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
September 20, 2011 -6- ITEM 24
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
City staff presented a brief update to the Transportation Board at their August 17, 2011 meeting and Attachment 3
provides a summary of their discussion.
Please see the attachment 4 for a copy of the Fact Sheet provided by CDOT that explains the highlights of the North
I-25 EIS preferred alternative and provides some Frequently Asked Questions/Answers.
For more information regarding the CDOT North I-25 EIS, please visit the project website:
http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis
City and CDOT will be available to address comments, questions, suggestions, and concerns from City Council
regarding the FEIS document.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Final EIS Executive Summary
2. Transportation Board meeting summary (August 17, 2011)
3. CDOT North I-25 EIS Fact Sheet (August 2011)
4. Powerpoint presentation
Executive Summary
ES-1
Final EIS
August 2011
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 ES.1 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION
3 The Federal Highway Administration
4 (FHWA), in cooperation with the Colorado
5 Department of Transportation (CDOT), has
6 prepared this Final Environmental Impact
7 Statement (Final EIS) to identify and
8 evaluate multi-modal transportation
9 improvements along the 61-mile
10 I-25 transportation corridor extending from
11 the Fort Collins/Wellington area to Denver.
12 The improvements being considered in this
13 Final EIS would address regional and inter-
14 regional movement of people, goods, and
15 services in the I-25 corridor. The
16 improvements are needed to address
17 mobility, accessibility, safety, and aging infrastructure problems along I-25, as well as to provide
18 for a greater variety of transportation choices.
19 The regional study area (Figure ES-1) that encompasses these proposed improvements includes
20 38 incorporated communities. Major population centers in the regional study area include
21 Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland and communities in the northern portion of the Denver
22 metropolitan area (Denver Metro Area).
23 Three multi-modal build packages (Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative) are
24 being evaluated, as well as the No-Action Alternative in accordance with National Environmental
25 Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Types of highway improvements being considered as a part of
26 the multi-modal packages include highway widening and interchange reconstruction. Transit
27 improvements being considered in the multi-modal packages include commuter rail, commuter
28 bus, and bus rapid transit (BRT) on three different alignments.
29 ES.2 OTHER ACTIONS IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA
30 Two other major actions are being proposed in the regional study area by other governmental
31 agencies. These are:
32 Glade Reservoir and the Relocation of US 287. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
33 District is proposing to build a new reservoir in the northwestern corner of the regional study
34 area. This would require relocation of a segment of US 287 north of Fort Collins.
35 FasTracks Corridors. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) is the existing agency
36 providing transit service in the Denver Metro Area. RTD will build commuter rail along two
37 corridors that will provide service to communities in the regional study area. The FasTracks
38 North Metro Corridor is located along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor just to the east of
39 I-25, terminating in Thornton. The FasTracks Northwest Rail Corridor is located along the
40 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) corridor (which is located adjacent to SH 119
41 between Boulder and Longmont) on the far western edge of the regional study area.
What’s In Executive Summary?
Executive Summary
ES.1 Summary of the Action
ES.2 Other Actions in the Regional Study Area
ES.3 Summary of Reasonable Alternatives
Considered
ES.4 Decision Making Process
ES.5 Summary of Major Environmental and
Other Impacts
ES.6 Other Federal Actions Required
ES.7 Next Steps in the NEPA Process
ES.8 Phased Project Implementation
ATTACHMENT 1
Executive Summary
ES-2
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Figure ES-1 North I-25 EIS Regional Study Area
2
Executive Summary
ES-3
Final EIS
August 2011
1 ES.3 SUMMARY OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
2 CONSIDERED
3 An extensive process was undertaken to identify a range of alternatives that could be
4 developed to meet the purpose and need of the project. These alternatives were then
5 screened and combined to produce two build packages, Package A and Package B, which
6 were evaluated in the Draft EIS. The evaluation of these two packages, as well as input from
7 the project’s advisory committees and the public, was used to develop the Preferred
8 Alternative (which is evaluated in this Final EIS) from elements of Package A and Package B.
9 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative, together with the No-Action Alternative,
10 are considered the reasonable alternatives for this proposed action and all of these
11 alternatives have been fully evaluated in this Final EIS.
12 No-Action Alternative
13 The No-Action Alternative (Figure ES-2) would include those transportation projects that have
14 not been built, but for which funding has been committed, including the two FasTrack corridors.
15 The bridge over I-25 at 84th Avenue is currently being reconstructed as part of a separate project
16 expected to be completed in 2012. The SH 392/I-25 interchange will also be reconstructed as
17 part of a separate project starting in the middle of 2011 and expected to be completed in 2012.
18 The No-Action Alternative also would include replacement of pavement on I-25, installation of
19 signals at five interchange ramp termini, and widening of I-25 off-ramps at the Prospect/I-25
20 interchange.
21 Package A
22 Package A (Figure ES-3) would include adding one additional general purpose lane on I-25 in
23 each direction, for a total of six lanes from SH 66 to SH 14 (plus auxiliary lanes between
24 Harmony Road and SH 60) and a total of eight lanes from E-470 to SH 52. Interchange
25 reconstructions would be included. Package A also includes a double-tracked commuter rail
26 line using the existing BNSF railroad track plus one new track from Fort Collins to downtown
27 Longmont. The new second track was eliminated for a 500-foot segment of the corridor in
28 Loveland to avoid the historic Loveland Depot and in a second location – adjacent to a historic
29 residential property at 122 8th Avenue in Longmont. This would result in bi-directional service
30 along the existing single-track BNSF line near the proposed Loveland station and adjacent to
31 the residential property in Longmont.
32 Also included in Package A would be a new double-tracked commuter rail line that would
33 connect Longmont to the FasTracks North Metro end-of-line station in Thornton. Because
34 Package A commuter rail includes a double-tracked system, a parallel maintenance road
35 would not be needed. Maintenance access would be provided by the second track. Package A
36 also would include nine commuter rail stations and a commuter rail maintenance facility; a
37 commuter bus maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west routes; and
38 commuter bus service along US 85 between Greeley and downtown Denver and along E-470
39 from US 85 to Denver International Airport (DIA).
Executive Summary
ES-4
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Figure ES-2 No-Action Alternative
2
Executive Summary
ES-5
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Figure ES-3 Package A
2
Executive Summary
ES-6
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Package B
2 Package B (Figure ES-4) would include adding one buffer-separated tolled express lane (TEL)
3 to I-25 except for the section between SH 60 and Harmony Road, where two barrier-separated
4 lanes would be added. TELs would extend from SH 14 to 84th Avenue in Thornton. TELs
5 would be used by high-occupancy vehicles for free, by single-occupancy vehicles if they pay a
6 toll, and by buses. Interchange reconstructions would be included. Package B would also
7 provide a bus rapid transit system including 12 bus stations providing service along I-25, along
8 US 34 into Greeley, and along Harmony Road into Fort Collins. Along US 34 and Harmony
9 Road, the buses would travel in mixed traffic. Package B also would include a bus
10 maintenance facility and feeder bus routes along five east-west streets. In addition, bus
11 service would be provided along E-470 from I-25 to DIA.
12 Preferred Alternative
13 The Preferred Alternative (Figure ES-5) would combine elements presented in Packages A
14 and B and would include multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. Under the Preferred
15 Alternative, I-25 would be widened with general purpose lanes and TELs and substandard
16 interchanges would be reconstructed or upgraded to accommodate future travel needs.
17 The Preferred Alternative also includes commuter rail transit service from Fort Collins to the
18 anticipated FasTracks North Metro end-of-line. Service to Denver would travel through
19 Longmont and along the FasTracks North Metro Corridor. A connection to Boulder would also
20 be made with a transfer to Northwest Rail at the Sugar Mill Station in Longmont. Nine
21 commuter rail stations and a commuter transit maintenance facility are included in the
22 Preferred Alternative. The commuter rail would consist of a single track with occasional
23 passing tracks at four locations. The BNSF railroad is requiring that commuter rail utilizing
24 BNSF track upgrade BNSF facilities to include a maintenance road where maintenance access
25 is not available. The Preferred Alternative design includes a maintenance road parallel to the
26 BNSF line between Longmont and Fort Collins. Commuter rail track that is not within the BNSF
27 right-of-way does not include a maintenance road.
28 Express bus service would operate in the TEL to connect northern Colorado communities to
29 downtown Denver and DIA and serve 13 stations along Harmony Road, US 34, and I-25.
30 Commuter bus service along US 85 would connect Greeley with downtown Denver with five
31 stops at the communities along the route. A bus maintenance facility would be constructed to
32 accommodate both express buses and commuter buses.
33
Executive Summary
ES-7
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Figure ES-4 Package B
2
Executive Summary
ES-8
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Figure ES-5 Preferred Alternative
2
Executive Summary
ES-9
Final EIS
August 2011
1 ES.4 DECISION MAKING PROCESS
2 A collaborative decision making process was used to develop consensus among the
3 45 communities and agencies (including CDOT and FHWA) on the elements in the Preferred
4 Alternative and the phasing plan. A collaborative decision making process was used because
5 of the need for broad community support and limited financial resources available for
6 transportation improvements in the region. Broad community support sets the stage for local
7 agency participation, partnerships, and commitment to implementation through policies, zoning
8 and, adoption of complementary land use and transportation plans. Broad community support
9 is also more likely to attract funding. The collaborative decision making process is the
10 mechanism for achieving broad community support for a Preferred Alternative which
11 addresses Purpose and Need in a manner that allows FHWA and CDOT to take responsibility
12 for the decision and implementation. Through this process consensus was achieved on the
13 Preferred Alternative and its phasing plan.
14 ES.5 SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND
15 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
16 Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences and Chapter 4 Transportation Impacts of this Final
17 EIS include information describing environmental and other impacts to all resources in the
18 affected area. Section 3.28 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts includes a summary of all
19 impacts and Section 3.29 Mitigation Summary includes a summary of all mitigation. This
20 section provides a summary of only the major impacts that would occur.
21 Environmental Impacts
22 Land Use
23 Implementation of Package A would support regional planning and municipal planning efforts
24 (including transit oriented development). Under Package B, anticipated development along
25 I-25 would continue in accordance with city and county plans. Bus rapid transit would support
26 this development. In the absence of transit or capacity improvements in Fort Collins, Loveland
27 and Longmont, development would most likely continue to spread outward from city centers.
28 The Preferred Alternative is a combination of components presented in Package A and
29 Package B, and includes multimodal improvements on multiple corridors. The Preferred
30 Alternative would be compatible with existing land uses, zoning, and comprehensive plans,
31 with impacts similar to those described for Package A. Conversion of agricultural and open
32 lands into urban uses will continue regardless of whether a build package is implemented or
33 not. Implementing Package A or the Preferred Alternative could minimize the conversion of
34 agricultural land in the outlying areas of communities along the BNSF rail line as development
35 shifts toward higher densities and urban centers in Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont.
36 Right-of-Way
37 Relocation impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative would include 51 residences and
38 23 businesses, compared with 59 residences and 33 businesses associated with Package A
39 and 24 residences and 16 businesses associated with Package B. All acquisition or relocation
40 needed for this project would fully comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
41 Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.
Executive Summary
ES-10
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Air Quality
2 Air pollutant emissions associated with all three build packages would be slightly greater than
3 those anticipated under the No-Action Alternative because vehicle miles of travel would be
4 expected to increase. These emissions in 2035 would, however, be lower than existing levels
5 for all pollutants and in all alternatives.
6 Noise and Vibration
7 Traffic noise impacts would occur under all three build packages as well as the No-Action
8 Alternative. The No-Action Alternative would impact a few less sites (816 sites) than the
9 Preferred Alternative (840 sites), Package A (826 sites) or Package B (848 sites). Mitigation of
10 traffic noise is recommended for two areas under Package A and for seven areas under
11 Package B and the Preferred Alternative.
12 Noise impacts also would occur as a result of rail transit operations associated with Package A
13 and the Preferred Alternative, with severe impacts projected to occur at 697 residences,
14 6 schools, and 1 church along both the Package A and the Preferred Alternative commuter rail
15 corridors. Vibration impacts, affecting 40 residences, would be expected as a result of
16 commuter rail operations associated with Package A and the Preferred Alternative. Noise and
17 vibration mitigation would be installed. The identified mitigation actions for Package A and the
18 Preferred Alternative of quiet zones, noise barriers, special trackwork and tire-derived
19 aggregate would remove rail transit noise and vibration impacts such that no receivers would
20 be impacted by rail noise or rail vibration. The implementation of quiet zones for rail transit
21 noise will require the involvement of several local governments. Other mitigation measures
22 (such as noise barriers) have been identified in the event that one or more quiet zones cannot
23 be implemented.
24 Quiet zones are the best and preferred train horn mitigation because quiet zones would
25 eliminate the noise source. The direct involvement and sponsorship of local government
26 agencies is required for quiet zone implementation, and they must apply to the PUC for quiet
27 zone approval. CDOT and FHWA cannot guarantee such local government agency actions;
28 however, CDOT and FHWA anticipate that local government agencies will agree that quiet
29 zones will be beneficial and be willing to sponsor the required Public Utilities
30 Commission (PUC) applications. If for any reason, one or more quiet zones cannot be
31 implemented, the recommended mitigation would change to additional noise walls for those
32 locations along the rail corridor.
33 With the proposed mitigation:
34 Package A would impact 623 Category B and 153 Category C receivers from traffic noise,
35 while no receivers would be impacted by commuter rail.
36 Package B would impact 504 Category B and 163 Category C receivers from traffic noise.
37 Preferred Alternative would impact 498 Category B and 161 Category C receivers from
38 traffic noise, while no receivers would be impacted by commuter rail.
39
Executive Summary
ES-11
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Wetlands
2 Wetlands and waters of the U.S. would be impacted by all three build alternatives along
3 highway and transit corridors; Package A would impact 21.9 acres, Package B would impact
4 21.3 acres, and the Preferred Alternative would impact 18.2 acres. Mitigation would be
5 provided for all wetland impacts in compliance with provisions of the Clean Water Act and
6 requirements of Executive Order 11990.
7 Floodplains
8 Impacts would occur to 100-year floodplains situated along the corridors. Package A would
9 impact 12.8 acres of floodplains, Package B would impact 13.5 acres of floodplains, and the
10 Preferred Alternative would impact 13.0 acres of floodplains. All floodplain impacts would be
11 mitigated in accordance with Executive Order 11988, 23 Code of Federal Regulations
12 (CFR) 650, and local regulations.
13 Wildlife
14 Wildlife and aquatic species habitat would be negatively affected. Package A would impact
15 2.0 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 1.8 acres of sensitive aquatic habitat, Package B
16 would impact 2.4 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 2.3 acres of sensitive aquatic habitat,
17 and the Preferred Alternative would impact 1.9 acres of sensitive wildlife habitat and 1.5 acres
18 of sensitive aquatic habitat. All impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible.
19 Threatened, Endangered, State Sensitive and Protected Species
20 There would be impacts to threatened, endangered, state sensitive and protected animal
21 species habitat. Package A would impact 292 acres, Package B would impact 353 acres, and
22 the Preferred Alternative would impact 341 acres. Most of these impacts would occur to bald
23 eagle foraging habitat and black tailed prairie dog colonies. All impacts would be mitigated.
24 Historic Preservation
25 There are many archaeological and historic properties along the transportation corridors.
26 Seventy-two of these are either on the National Register of Historic Places or have been
27 determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Package A would
28 cause an adverse effect to seven of these properties, Package B would result in an adverse
29 effect to one of these properties, and the Preferred Alternative would cause an adverse effect
30 to four of these properties. Mitigation for impacted properties would occur in compliance with
31 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800).
32 Parks and Recreation
33 There are 41 existing and proposed parks or recreational properties along the corridors.
34 Package A would affect eight of these properties, Package B would affect six of these
35 properties, and the Preferred Alternative would affect six of these properties. Mitigation for all
36 impacts would be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the
37 Department of Transportation Act.
38
Executive Summary
ES-12
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Hazardous Materials
2 All three build alternatives would have hazardous materials impacts associated with sites to be
3 acquired for right-of-way (partial and full). Hazardous materials impacts include sites with
4 either potential or known soil and/or groundwater contamination. Package A would impact
5 96 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 18 parcels with recognized
6 environmental conditions. Package B would impact 40 parcels with potential environmental
7 conditions and 16 parcels with recognized environmental conditions. The Preferred Alternative
8 would impact 67 parcels with potential environmental conditions and 20 parcels with
9 recognized environmental conditions.
10 Compatibility with Area Plans
11 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative were designed to accommodate future
12 population and employment growth, increased traffic volumes, and expansion plans of
13 municipalities in the regional study area, and to be compatible with both regional and local
14 area transportation plans. Transit improvements were designed to connect and be compatible
15 with RTD’s planned FasTracks rail system. Not all of the improvements included in Package A,
16 Package B, and the Preferred Alternative are included in the fiscally constrained plan for
17 Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). CDOT has submitted amendments
18 requesting DRCOG to include Phase 1 Preferred Alternative improvements in the fiscally-
19 constrained plan. The amendments are expected to be adopted in September 2011. Adoption
20 of these amendments must occur prior to inclusion of these improvements in a Record of
21 Decision (ROD).
22 Transportation Impacts
23 Transportation travel demand forecasts for 2035 were produced through the use of a multi-
24 modal travel demand model, which was developed by combining the existing DRCOG and
25 NFRMPO travel demand models. Additional expertise was utilized for toll and revenue
26 forecasts. Key transportation impact findings are summarized below.
27 All three build alternatives provide improvements in travel time compared to the No-Action
28 Alternative. In the general purpose lanes, travel would be improved by 16 minutes with
29 Package A and Package B, and 26 minutes with the Preferred Alternative. Using the tolled
30 express lanes, travel time would be 51 minutes faster for Package B, and 52 minutes faster for
31 the Preferred Alternative as compared to the No-Action Alternative. Package A commuter rail
32 would be 40 minutes faster than driving in the No-Action Alternative while the Preferred
33 Alternative commuter rail would be 39 minutes faster. Travel on bus rapid transit (Package B)
34 would be 63 minutes faster.
35 Package A would result in a reduction in traffic on regional study area arterial streets of 10,000
36 to 35,000 vehicles (each arterial per day), Package B would reduce volumes from 5,000 to
37 15,000 vehicles per day, and the Preferred Alternative would reduce arterial volumes 5,000 to
38 25,000 vehicles per day compared to the No-Action Alternative. The reduction in volumes has
39 a notable range, reflecting the natural range in daily total volumes on minor and major
40 arterials. The No-Action Alternative would result in very little physical impact to social,
41 economic, and environmental resources. Air pollution related to traffic congestion would
42 continue to increase and noise impacts from increased traffic also would worsen. Over time,
43 the No-Action Alternative could have a dampening effect on the local economy.
Executive Summary
ES-13
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Travel Demand
2 I-25 capacity improvements attract traffic to I-25 over the No-Action Alternative. The increase
3 in traffic varies by segment reflecting differing origin and destination patterns along the 60-mile
4 corridor. Larger traffic increases occur near mid corridor activity centers. Small increases
5 occur at the northern end of the study area reflecting lower trip generation and at the south
6 end reflecting less available capacity on I-25 south of E-470.
7 Package A projected 2035 daily traffic volumes on I-25 segments between SH 1 and E-470
8 would generally be 8 percent to 33 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, while
9 Package B 2035 daily traffic projections would be about 1 percent to 27 percent higher than
10 the No-Action Alternative. The Preferred Alternative projected 2035 daily traffic volumes would
11 generally be 2 percent to 40 percent higher than the No-Action Alternative, with similar pattern
12 across the range as Package B. In general, the increased traffic on I-25 with the build
13 alternatives would reduce traffic on the roadways parallel to I-25. Package A and the Preferred
14 Alternative would have a greater effect on parallel arterial volumes than Package B in the
15 northern area. In the Denver metropolitan area, only Package B and the Preferred Alternative
16 have some effect on parallel arterials due to the addition of the TELs.
17 The build alternatives would attract more highway users (people) to I-25 than the No-Action
18 Alternative. Package B would generate slightly more total users than Package A. The
19 Preferred Alternative would have the highest level of users at over 990,000 daily (number of
20 vehicles entering this length of I-25 multiplied by vehicle occupancy). The transit components
21 of Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would not appreciably reduce I-25
22 highway traffic volumes because transit ridership projections are an order of magnitude
23 smaller than vehicular demand projections.
24 Transit ridership (not including the feeder buses) in 2035 would be about 5,850 riders per day
25 for Package A, about 6,800 riders for Package B, and about 6,500 riders per day for the
26 Preferred Alternative. Station activity for commuter rail, BRT, and express bus would increase
27 from north to south while station activity for the commuter bus generally would be the same at
28 stations along the route.
29 System Operation
30 Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative would experience similar peak hour
31 operation at the I-25 interchange ramp termini but the Preferred Alternative would operate with
32 substantially fewer miles of congestion on I-25 than either Package A or Package B.South of
33 E-470, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would experience fewer miles of congestion
34 on I-25 than Package A due to the increased capacity with the additional TELs.
35 Safety
36 Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative would modify newer interchange
37 structures, rehabilitate older structures, or replace the existing structures to address geometric
38 and capacity-related safety concerns. To minimize the potential for conflict between the
39 proposed commuter rail line and private automobiles, railroad grade crossings were designed
40 to comply with both Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and RTD safety standards through
41 either grade separation or other treatment and warning methods. Along the BNSF alignment in
42 Package A and the Preferred Alternative, existing grade separations would be maintained but
Executive Summary
ES-14
Final EIS
August 2011
1 no new structures would be added. For the new alignment from Longmont to North Metro
2 Corridor in Package A and the Preferred Alternative, six new grade separations would be
3 incorporated into the design.
4 Package A, Package B and the Preferred Alternative are expected to experience
5 approximately the same number of total crashes in 2035 with slightly fewer injury and fatality
6 crashes anticipated under Package B.Barrier-separated sections of Package B were
7 predicted to have fewer accidents than the same sections of I-25 in Package A or the
8 Preferred Alternative.
9 Freight Traffic on I-25
10 Neither Package A, Package B, nor the Preferred Alternative would affect the current growth
11 rate for freight traffic (estimated to be two percent on the south end and three percent on the
12 north end). In general, freight traffic would benefit from improved traffic operations in the GPLs
13 and reconstruction of the highway to a maximum grade of four percent included in all build
14 packages. In Package B and the Preferred Alternative, freight traffic would be prohibited from
15 using the TEL.
16 Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems
17 The No-Action Alternative generally would not affect bicycle/pedestrian facilities along the I-25
18 corridor.All build package improvements along I-25 generally would facilitate future
19 bicycle/pedestrian travel, because reconstruction plans would include provisions for future
20 bicycle/pedestrian facilities to cross the interstate and new bridges over waterways would
21 accommodate planned trails.Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations in
22 Package A and the Preferred Alternative would be located along the BNSF rail line, US 85,
23 and I-25.Pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit stations in Package B would be
24 focused along I-25. Proposed queue jumps along US 34 (Package A, Package B, and
25 Preferred Alternative) and US 85 (Package A) would require acquisition of some new right-of-
26 way, which could affect some pedestrian crossings and on-street bicycle facilities. All
27 connections and trails would be maintained.
28 Construction Impacts
29 Highway construction methods would be similar for all build packages, although Package B
30 and the Preferred Alternative would require additional signage and striping, as well as
31 installation of the toll collection system. In all packages, new highway segments would open as
32 phases are completed and a design-build method could be sought for any of the package
33 improvements. Transit construction methods in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would
34 temporarily disrupt freight rail traffic for the construction of grade crossing improvements and
35 construction of the vertical elements of the commuter rail stations. Transit construction
36 methods in Package B would require night-time closures of the interstate to install the vertical
37 elements of the BRT stations in the interstate median. Regardless of the build package
38 selected, there would be temporary noise, vibration, and visual impacts, although they would
39 be minimized as much as possible. Furthermore, mitigation measures would be needed to
40 avoid air quality, water quality, and traffic impacts. The Section 404 permit would assign
41 additional detailed mitigation measures. Under all build packages, travel demand management
42 measures could be used to minimize traffic impacts.
Executive Summary
ES-15
Final EIS
August 2011
1 ES.6 OTHER FEDERAL ACTIONS REQUIRED
2 The following is a list of other federal actions required for all build packages:
3 Issuance of a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is
4 required prior to impacting any waters of the U.S. A Section 404 permit application has
5 been submitted to the USACE.
6 Issuance of a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be
7 included with the ROD.
8 Consultation with USFWS regarding Platte River water usage.
9 The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will be submitted to the Department of the Interior during
10 the Final EIS comment period. For more information, see Chapter 5, Section 4(f)
11 Evaluation.
12 Ongoing compliance with the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.
13 Air quality conformity findings are needed for the Phase 1 ROD and all subsequent RODs.
14 ES.7 NEXT STEPS IN THE NEPA PROCESS
15 This Final EIS has been prepared in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
16 regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500), FHWA environmental impact and related
17 procedures for implementing NEPA and CEQ regulations on highway transportation projects
18 (23 CFR 771), FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, and other applicable laws. This Final EIS
19 is available to interested parties for review and comment for 30 days. During the review period,
20 public hearings will be held and all comments recorded.
21 The next step in the NEPA process following the Final EIS review period is preparation of a
22 ROD, which will document the federal agency decision for the project.
23 ES.8 PHASED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
24 Because there are not enough funds in the long range plan to build the entire Preferred
25 Alternative, the Preferred Alternative has been separated into three phases. The first phase
26 would cost approximately $670 million (2009 dollars) and would be constructed with funding
27 available in the fiscally-constrained 2035 RTPs, as amended. The second and third phases
28 would together cost approximately $1.5 billion (2009 dollars). These later phases would be
29 constructed over time as additional funds become available. Phasing for Package A and
30 Package B could also be developed in a similar manner. Given that all three build alternatives
31 could be phased, identification of the Preferred Alternative was not based on phasing
32 considerations.
33 Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure ES-6 and includes the following
34 elements:
35 Widening I-25 between SH 66 and SH 56 – with one tolled express lane in each direction.
36 Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features as well as the
37 right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section.
38
Executive Summary
ES-16
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Widening I-25 between SH 392 and SH 14 – would initially be used as continuous
2 accel/decel lanes, but would ultimately become part of the general purpose lanes.
3 Widening would include water quality ponds and median barrier features necessary to
4 accommodate this improvement. Right-of-way purchase associated with the ultimate
5 Preferred Alternative cross section is also included.
6 Widening I-25 between 120th Avenue and approximately US 36 – one buffer-separated
7 tolled express lane in each direction. Widening would include sound walls, water quality
8 ponds, and median barrier features as well as the right-of-way purchase associated with
9 the ultimate Preferred Alternative cross section.
10 Interchange replacement and upgrades – SH 14, Prospect, SH 56, CR 34, and SH 7
11 would be constructed to their ultimate configurations. US 34/Centerra Parkway
12 intersection would be reconstructed to a single point urban interchange. SH 392 and
13 84th Avenue would be completed as part of a separate project. Minor modifications to
14 84th Avenue, Thornton Parkway, 104th Avenue, and SH 392 will be completed as part of
15 Phase 1 highway widening.
16 Six carpool lots at I-25 interchanges.
17 Commuter Rail right-of-way preservation – all right-of-way necessary to construct the
18 ultimate commuter rail configuration would be purchased as part of Phase 1.
19 Initial I-25 Bus – regional bus service connecting Fort Collins and Greeley to downtown
20 Denver and DIA would be initiated. Four transit stations would be constructed as part of
21 Phase 1 and 27 buses would be purchased.
22 Commuter Bus – commuter bus along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown Denver
23 would be implemented in Phase 1. This would include construction of five stations and the
24 purchase of five buses.
25 Phase 2 is anticipated to include constructing the commuter rail from Loveland to Longmont,
26 constructing TELs and associated interchange upgrades between SH 14 and SH 56 and
27 between E-470 and 120th Avenue. Phase 3 is anticipated to include the completion of the
28 commuter rail, constructing the general purpose lanes from SH 14 to SH 66, and constructing
29 TELs from SH 66 to E-470.
30 Metropolitan Planning Regulation (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 450.322) and the
31 Clean Air Act (CAA) Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93.104) work together to require
32 that a project located in a Metropolitan Planning Area and/or in a CAA nonattainment or
33 maintenance area, be contained in a conforming, fiscally-constrained long-range regional
34 transportation plan. Through a ROD, FHWA can approve project improvements that are
35 included in conforming, fiscally-constrained regional transportation plans.
36 After this Final EIS has been made available to the public and the review period concludes,
37 FHWA and CDOT will identify an initial phase for the ROD. Phase 1, as identified in this
38 chapter, is proposed as Phase 1 for the ROD. Consideration of the Final EIS and the first ROD
39 will be part of future implementation of projects. Improvements included in Phase 2 and
40 Phase 3 can be re-evaluated, as necessary, based on future safety needs, funding availability,
41 and transportation needs and identified in subsequent RODs as additional funding becomes
42 available. Phases 2 and 3 do not necessarily need to be selected in their entirety or in order in
43 subsequent RODs. This will be determined at the time of a subsequent ROD, considering
44 available funding, priorities at that time, and the results of any reevaluation that may be
45 needed.
Executive Summary
ES-17
Final EIS
August 2011
1 The identification of a Preferred Alternative for the entire project in this Final EIS is consistent
2 with FHWA’s objective of analyzing and identifying transportation solutions on a broad enough
3 scale to provide meaningful analysis and to avoid segmentation. The identification of an initial
4 phase for implementation is consistent with FHWA requirements to have funding for projects
5 identified before final decisions are made. As funds become available, it is the intent of FHWA
6 and CDOT to work toward implementation of the Preferred Alternative in its entirety through
7 this phased approach.
8
Executive Summary
ES-18
Final EIS
August 2011
1 Figure ES-6 Preferred Alternative Phase 1
2
ATTACHMENT 2
FACT SHEET
North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement
August 2011
Project Overview
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in coop-
eration with the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT), is completing an Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) to identify and evaluate multi-modal trans-
portation improvements along approximately 60 miles
of the I-25 corridor from the Fort Collins-Wellington area
to Denver. The EIS addresses regional and inter-regional
movement of people, goods and services along I-25.
Preferred Alternative
Over the past year, CDOT has been working closely with
FHWA and local agencies to identify a preferred alterna-
tive. With guidance from public comments submitted on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and an
extensive collaborative effort, a preferred alternative has
been identified which will include the following elements:
• General Purpose Lanes – one new general purpose
lane in each direction of I-25 between SH 66 and SH
14.
• Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) – one buffer-separated
TEL in each direction of I-25 from the existing HOV/
Express Toll lanes at approximately 84th Avenue
north to SH 14.
Wellington to Denver
• Interchanges - 13 I-25 interchanges will be upgraded.
• Express Bus – Express bus with 13 stations along I-25,
US 34 and Harmony Road with service from Fort Col-
lins and Greeley to downtown Denver and DIA.
• Commuter Rail – Commuter rail service with nine sta-
tions connecting Fort Collins to Longmont using the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way,
generally paralleling SH 119 then County Road 7 and
tying into FasTracks North Metro line in Thornton,
providing service to downtown Denver. Passengers
may also connect to the FasTracks Northwest line in
Longmont, which will travel to Boulder.
• Commuter Bus – Commuter bus service with eight
stations along US 85 connecting Greeley to downtown
Denver.
• Congestion Management- Improvements include
accommodations for ridesharing, carpools and van-
pools, along with additional bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. In addition, signal timing, ramp metering on
I-25 and signage will also be improved.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. When will we have an opportunity to review the Final
EIS?
A. The North I-25 Final EIS will be available for public re-
view and comment for a 30-day period from mid-August
to mid-September. During this time, the public hearings
listed above will be held to gather feedback.
UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Colorado Department of Transportation will host three public hearings in September to gather feedback
on the Final Environmental Impact Statement. All meetings will take place from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m. with a
brief presentation at 5:30 p.m. and an opportunity to comment publicly.
September 12, 2011- Southwest Weld County Building: 4209 Weld County Road 24 1/2 (I-25 exit #240)
September 13, 2011- Longmont Public Library: 409 4th Avenue in Longmont
FACT SHEET
North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement
Wellington to Denver August 2011
Q. What does the Final EIS include?
A. The Final EIS includes a detailed evaluation of the
three build alternatives including Package A, Package
B and the Preferred Alternative. A phased approach for
implementation of the Preferred Alternative will also
be included. The Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 are
shown on the project website at
http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis
Q. What is a Record of Decision (ROD)?
A. The Record of Decision for North I-25 is a document
that will describe the transportation improvements that
have been selected by CDOT and FHWA for the first
phase of implementation.
Q. What is the North I-25 ROD expected to include?
A. A final decision on what to include in the North I-25
ROD will be made after the Final EIS public comment
period. It is currently anticipated that Phase 1, as identi-
fied in the Final EIS, will be selected for implementation
in the ROD.
Q. When will the North I-25 ROD be completed?
A. The ROD is expected to be signed by CDOT and
FHWA in Fall 2011.
Q. When will construction begin?
A. To accommodate current funding limitations, CDOT
and FHWA anticipate constructing the improvements
in phases over time. CDOT is already moving forward
with preliminary design of two northern sections of I-25
improvements. At this time, construction funding has not
been identified.
Staying Informed
For the latest information about the project, visit
http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis
1
1
Colorado Department of Transportation
North I-25
Environmental Impact Statement
City Council Meeting
September 20, 2011
2
North I-25 EIS
• Purpose of City Council Item is to provide an update on
CDOT’s North I-25 EIS
• Staff is requesting input from Council regarding CDOT’s
Preferred Alternative & Phasing Plan for Highway & Transit
Improvements
• Preferred Alternative does support the transportation goals
of Plan Fort Collins:
– City Plan and Transportation Master Plan (2010-11)
• Staff will share City Council comments with CDOT as part of
the formal comment period on the Final EIS document
ATTACHMENT 4
2
3
4
North I-25 EIS – Preferred Alternative
• I-25 improvements in Fort Collins area include:
– Highway widening for general purpose and Tolled Express Lanes
• Interchange improvements:
– SH 1, Mountain Vista, Mulberry/SH14, Prospect, Harmony
– Includes Park & Ride improvements
• Transit improvements in Fort Collins area include:
– Express Bus Service along Harmony Road & I-25
– Commuter Rail Service along BNSF Railroad Corridor, with 3
stations shown in Fort Collins:
• Downtown Transit Center, CSU, and new South Transit Center
• Total cost for Preferred Alternative: $2.178 Billion
3
5
6
North I-25 EIS – Phasing Plan
• Three phases: 1 (2035), 2 (2055), and 3 (2075)
• Phase I (2035)
• Cost: $670 Million
• Widening I-25 between Sh392/Carpenter Road –
SH14/Mulberry Street
• Interchange and Park & Ride improvements:
– SH14 & Prospect
• Commuter Rail Rights of Way Preservation
• I-25 Express Bus from Fort Collins to Denver & DIA
4
7
North I-25 EIS Phase I
8
North I-25 EIS – Phasing Plan
• Phase 2 (2055)
• Cost: $1.09 Billion
• Reconstruct I-25 from SH1 to SH14
• Tolled Express Lanes from SH14 to SH56
• Interchange Improvements:
– Harmony, Mountain Vista, SH1
• Commuter Rail from Longmont to Loveland
5
9
North I-25 EIS – Phase 2
10
North I-25 EIS – Phasing Plan
• Phase 3 (2075)
• Cost: $418.3 Million
• Completion of Commuter Rail from Loveland to
Fort Collins
• Tolled Express Lanes and general purpose lanes
from SH14 to E-470
6
11
North I-25 EIS – Phase 3
12
North I-25 Staff Comments
• Phasing Plan
– Concern with Commuter Rail to Fort Collins shown in Phase 3 (2075)
• Transportation modeling
– Travel projections under represent transit demand
– Need to factor in fuel prices, updated land use data, changing lifestyle
choices, and long-term sustainability
• Need to maintain view sheds and wildlife movement
corridors, do not want barrier/sound walls or fencing
• Mitigate wetland impacts locally, per City codes, 1:1 ratio
• Site specific floodplain mitigation measures and per City,
State, and Federal regulations.
• Support for removing Poudre River split flows west of I-25
7
13
North I-25 EIS – Next Steps
• City Comments due to CDOT, October 3rd
• Contacts:
– City of Fort Collins:
• Kathleen Bracke, City Transportation Planning
Director, phone: (970) 224-6140 or e-
mail:kbracke@fcgov.com
– Colorado Dept of Transportation:
• Carol Parr, CDOT Region 4 Environmental
Manager, phone: (970) 350-2170 or e-mail:
Carol.Parr@DOT.STATE.CO.US
– Website:
http://www.coloradodot.info/projects/north-i-25-eis
14
North I-25 EIS
Questions for City Council
1. Does City Council have any questions or
concerns with CDOT’s Final EIS document,
including the preferred alternative, phasing plan,
and environmental considerations?
2. Does City Council have any questions regarding
City staff comments to-date on the Final EIS
document?
RESOLUTION 2011-090
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DOCUMENTING AND PRESENTING THE CITY COUNCIL’S
COMMENTS ON THE NORTH I-25 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) has, for the past decade,
been developing the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”), the purpose of which is
to plan for long-range transportation needs to connect northern Colorado with the Denver
metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, the study area for the EIS focuses on highway and transit plans for the I-25
corridor, the U.S. 287 corridor and the U.S. 85 corridor; and
WHEREAS, on August 19, 2011, CDOT published the final EIS for the study corridor and
has been seeking agency and public comments for the period ending October 3, 2011; and
WHEREAS, following extensive public outreach and upon the favorable recommendation
of the Transportation Board, City staff has prepared and presented to the City Council a draft of the
proposed City comments on the EIS; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed comments accurately
represent the City’s staff, Council and other potential community concerns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby desires to document and present these comments to
CDOT as the City’s official comments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the comments contained in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, should be presented to CDOT as the City’s documented comments on the North I-25
final EIS.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of September A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 1 of 22
City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
1
Travel to Denver is emphasized to the exclusion of travel to Longmont and Boulder,
which are apparently at least as important destinations from Northern Colorado. The
analysis should address a broader spectrum of trips. For example the graphics of
travel patterns in Figure 4-6 indicate no riders going to or from Longmont, assuming
all passengers are going to Denver. Really?
1. All trip types are covered by the analysis. Trips to Boulder and Longmont are also included in the analysis; however
Figure 4-6 only depicts riders on the specific transit system improvements proposed by this project. Riders transferring
to/from the RTD FasTracks and bus system are not directly illustrated, but their activity is discerned through the rail
access/egress in the pie chart. For example, at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont, it can be seen that about three- eights
of the riders getting on or getting off the commuter rail transfer to/from the FasTracks Northwest Rail line.
Comment addressed - Commuter Rail and
Express Bus routes in the FEIS Preferred
Alternative will provide service to both
Downtown Denver and Boulder to serve the
different destinations for Fort Collins travelers.
A
2
Connections to other transit options, in particular the North and Northwest routes
proposed for FasTracks, are vital. How does each alternative interact with them?
2. All of the alternatives are connected to the future FasTracks system. Package A extends the end of the FasTracks North
Metro rail line to terminate at the Downtown Transit Center in Fort Collins. Package A also extends the end of the
FasTracks Northwest rail line to a new station in southern Longmont, labeled the Sugar Mill station. This would be a
shared station with the North Metro line to Fort Collins, thus allowing rail-to-rail transfers. Package B interacts with the
FasTracks system in downtown Denver, allowing BRT passengers to access all the FasTracks rail lines as well as the
RTD bus routes serving downtown Denver. In addition, the BRT routes in Package B stop at Wagon Road, a major park-
n-Ride in the northern metro area at I-25 and 120th Avenue that is served by numerous bus routes. The Preferred
Alternative includes the commuter rail FasTracks connectivity points as described for Package A, and it includes express
bus to downtown Denver, allowing connectivity to all the FasTracks corridors.
Comment addressed - The Preferred Alternative,
including the Commuter Rail and Express Bus
routes, are now integrated with the future
FasTracks system routes. A
3
Does the analysis look to the future, anticipating high fuel prices, demand pricing of
car travel, and possible alternatives to commuting?
3. The EIS forecasts are conservative as no change in the relative cost of gasoline is assumed, because predicting the
price of fuel would be impracticable. Similarly, the forecasts assume the portion of work-at-home and other alternative
commute activities remain at similar percentages to that experienced today. If the price of gas or commute characteristics
dramatically change, these could indeed influence travel behavior patterns. (Information about this is in the FEIS in
Section 4.2.9). The EIS has openly acknowledged that the future price of gas is an unknown and therefore introduces an
uncertainty into the forecasts, as described in section 4.2.6.6.
Staff continues to be concerned regarding the
travel demand forecast methodology used in the
FEIS, particularly that it is substantially
underestimating future transit ridership
projections. We appreciate that CDOT openly
acknowledges these challenges. For example, the
FEIS states that if fuel prices were to be factored
into the forecasts, the transit projections could be
up to 90% higher and could be up to 40% higher
than projected based on recent data from
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 2 of 22
City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
“Transportation Master Plan” as part of the
2010-11 “Plan Fort Collins” process. These plans
emphasize higher density, transit oriented
development” in the core areas of our
community and support infill/redevelopment
along “Enhanced Travel Corridors” such as the
Mason Corridor and Harmony Road corridor.
Also, the North Front Range MPO has recently
updated their travel demand model and staff
recommends that this new information be used
for future transportation projections for transit
and highway improvements to factor in updated
land use and transportation data sources.
5
In Figures 4-6 and 4-7, the E-W ridership numbers are totally different. Why? 5. The amount of riders on the east-west feeder buses differ between the alternatives because these buses
serve different
regional transit systems, with different route alignments and station locations. In Package A, east-west ridership is high,
as the bus feeder services to commuter rail also serve local inter-community trips. In Package B, feeder bus riders to
BRT along I-25 do not serve as many inter-city trips. In the Preferred Alternative, the feeder routes are designed similar
to Package B, and do not have as high a ridership as Package A.
Comment addressed A
6
The financial analysis in Chapter 6 is very skimpy. Is such a superficial analysis all
that is possible?
6. Cost and financial information is provided in Chapters 2 and 6 of the Final EIS. The Cost Estimate Review report,
which provides detailed information on the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 cost estimates, is included in Cost Estimate
Review Final Report, July 2010, FHWA. For more information see the Cost Estimate Review Report, which is a
supporting technical report to this Final EIS and is available for review at CDOT Region 4.
Comment addressed, EIS financial analysis
seems to be more thorough than in DEIS. Larger
policy concern continues regarding the future of
multimodal transportation financing for our
region. The City of Fort Collins would like to
continue to be part of regional discussions
regarding potential funding strategies and
partnerships needed to implement the Preferred
Alternative shown in the FEIS as well as other
local and regional transportation needs. There
are many good partnership models from current
projects such as the SH392 & I-25 project, North
College corridor improvements, Jefferson/SH14
project, Flex transit route, and other joint
projects. We look forward to continuing to work
with CDOT and other regional partners to further
completion of these important regional
connections.
C
7
Is sufficient attention paid to freight transportation? The focus seems to be totally on
moving people.
7. Freight rail service will continue to be maintained in the corridor. The agreement with BNSF will specify the
infrastructure and operating plan requirements to allow both passenger service and freight service. The volume of truck
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 3 of 22
City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
alternatives. A summary of environmental impacts is included in the Executive Summary and Chapter 7, and detailed
information is provided in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
9
Given the enthusiasm which citizens are showing for rail, is the estimate of transit
ridership of the two alternatives accurate?
9. The transit ridership model was calibrated and validated to observed travel patterns in the Denver area. Projections
are based on empirical behavior of travelers, as well as future geographical projections of population and employment
and estimated trip origins and destinations. Recent travel survey data collected by RTD and DRCOG indicates that, as
you suggest, current actual ridership is higher than had been simulated in the model. Section 4.2.6.3 describes the
potential effect these behavior changes might have on ridership. For example, commute rail ridership might be higher by
about 40% than the earlier model estimates.
See comment to #3 above. C
10
It is important for the North I-25 EIS and recommended improvements to address the
link between transportation and environmental sustainability as well as to reflect the
visions and values of the communities.
10. The North I-25 EIS provides information to decision-makers about alternatives for transportation improvements and
their adverse impacts and benefits. Information is included in the Draft and the Final EIS about transportation impacts
and benefits as well as those related to sustainability (land use, compatibility with community visions, air q
See staff comments in both the transportation
and environmental topic areas.
C
11
It is important for transportation improvements to provide linkages between the core
areas of our communities. This “core to core” link is a very important part of Fort
Collins’ community values.
11. Comment noted. Staff continues to support this position and this is
reflected in the City’s adopted Transportation
Master Plan and City Plan. This comment is also
linked to the staff comments regarding phasing
of the Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail
service.
C
12
It seems that Package A addresses those core community values. This is not a
statement of a preferred package, but more general thoughts and feelings for this
alternative.
12. No Response Needed The Preferred Alternative, including the
proposed highway, interchange, and transit
system improvements, is consistent with City
Plan and the Transportation Master Plan
(updated in 2010-11).
A
City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
13
Good information to discuss and North I-25 EIS process should address social,
environmental, economic needs in addition to transportation needs.
These needs are all discussed in the document
Comment addressed A
14
Transportation needs to include moving people and commerce – goods & services.
These needs are both discussed in the document
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 4 of 22
City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
19
McKee Farm land may be restricted from Impacts due to GoCo agreement and/or
other agreements with funding partners.
The Commuter Rail alignment is located within existing rail right-of-way.
Comment addressed A
20
Concerns regarding water quality and storm water contaminants Stormwater Best Management Practices have been incorporated which will reduce the predicted increases in stormwater
constituent loading
See comment in Storm Water section C
21
Concerns regarding CDOT’s willingness to address City comments. Tom Anzia,
representing Felsburg Holt & Ullevig and serving as the consultant project manager
for CDOT’s North I-25 EIS project team, stated that they are responding to all
comments received on the draft document and take these comments very seriously.
They will be doing more detailed analysis as part of the current work effort as well as
during the preparation for the Final EIS document.
All comments made on the DEIS will be addressed in the FEIS
Many comments addressed in FEIS; several
still remaining as noted in these comments C
22
Interest in recent CDOT workshops. Input from Council members is important to
share with CDOT and representatives from other communities.
We have been doing this
CDOT to provide summaries from FEIS
public meetings to local agencies. C
23
CDOT is hearing a lot of enthusiasm for Package A Commuter Rail service from
many communities because it serves the existing, largest population centers and
people like the idea of using rail service.
The FEIS Preferred Alternative reflects this community interest; it includes Commuter Rail from Package A, as well as
highway elements from Package B
Comment addressed A
24
Starting to hear conflicts arise between communities east of I-25 due to concerns
about current land use patterns and population centers compared with future growth
areas.
Observation noted; the FEIS compares and contrasts the potential land use effects of Package A, B, and the Preferred
Alternative
Comment addressed A
25
The average trip length on I-25 is less than three miles, so the highway is being used
for local trips, rather than the regional and inter-regional trips that it is intended for.
Cities need to address future improvements to other local north/south arterials to
service the shorter distance trips to provide alternative routes to I-25.
Hopefully communities will begin to address these local improvements
Impact/benefit of I-25 improvements will
need to be analyzed in the future when the
NFRMPO model is updated C
26
More insight on rail alternatives needs to be examined and EIS needs to coordinate
with other rail studies.
Extensive analysis of rail alternatives was conducted during the development of the DEIS and the Preferred Alternative.
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 5 of 22
City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
32
Concern was expressed by Council regarding the number of commuters that leave
Fort Collins daily to commute to Denver and/or other communities. Commuter rail
could potentially change nature of Fort Collins to become bedroom community to
Denver. Project should compare Fort Collins’ numbers to the numbers leaving our
neighboring communities. Fort Collins’ numbers are much lower.
Agreed, the number of commuters leaving Fort Collins is lower than some other communities. In fact, data from the MPO
and other sources has also indicated that the share of all northern area commuters who travel to the Denver metro area is
relatively low. The improvements proposed in the EIS do not noticeably change this pattern.
Comment addressed
A
City Council Comments (October 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
33
Prioritizing transit/commuter rail sooner versus highway widening improvements.
Implementing transit/commuter rail services earlier could defer or eliminate the need
for future highway widening.
The phasing plan developed with the TAC introduces both transit and highway improvements in Phase 1. The highway
has aging infrastructure issues that need to be addressed in early phases. Express bus on I-25 and commuter bus along
US-85 are initiated in Phase 1.
See comments on phasing C
34
Need to focus on best ways to move people, not vehicles, to meet the long-term needs
of our region;
The FEIS Preferred Alternative includes Commuter Rail, a sustainable regional transportation connection between the
core of communities. The I-25 highway facility needs rebuilding to address aging infrastructure needs. The FEIS
Preferred Alternative includes a Tolled Express Lane (TEL) on I-25, allowing HOV vehicles free travel in a restricted
lane hence supporting the alternative modes of carpooling and vanpooling. Express Bus service, with connecting bus
service to the communities, also will serve the I-25 corridor in the TEL lanes.
Comment addressed, however continued
concerns such as transit ridership projections C
35
Consider emerging larger-scale trends (fuel prices, new energy sources, demographics,
etc.) that will determine transportation needs/options in the future ;
We are aware of these trends that effect future travel. These issues will be qualitatively addressed in the FEIS.
See comments on modeling C
36
Concern over how to serve commerce related transportation (freight, goods &
services);
Freight rail service will continue to be maintained in the corridor. The volume of future freight truck traffic is accounted
for in all the traffic analyses conducted in the DEIS and FEIS. The design of I-25 and its interchanges will meet the
requirements of freight trucks.
Comment addressed A
37
Concern over a consensus approach applied by CDOT to identify and prioritize
improvements;
Please elaborate on this concern?
38
Support to preserve right-of-way for commuter rail as part of phase one improvements;
We have heard this support; Commuter Rail ROW preservation is in Phase 1
Comment addressed A
39
Need for more detailed analysis and data driven approach.
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 6 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
44
General comment: Transportation Planning staff agrees with the purpose and need
of the North I-25 DEIS. CDOT, FHWA, FTA, and their consultant team, have been
helpful to work with City staff over the years during the development of the EIS
alternatives analysis process and development of the DEIS document.
The DEIS packages “A” and “B” reflect input from City staff regarding
compatibility with the City’s Transportation Master Plan, Master Street Plan,
Transfort Strategic Plan (currently being updated) and the Mason Corridor Master
Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Preliminary Engineering documents. Either
of the DEIS proposed packages can serve Fort Collins’ transportation needs in the
future to address both highway and transit improvements.
It is important to note that further discussions are necessary with the Fort Collins
Boards, Commissions, and City Council in 2009 to reach a formal recommendation
to CDOT, and their partnering agencies, regarding a preferred package of
improvements.
The following summary includes a preview of staff comments for both packages and
notes concerns that will need to be addressed by CDOT during the development of
the preferred alternative and the Final EIS document in 2009.
1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project. Transportation Planning staff would like to offer
the same appreciation to CDOT staff and their
consultant team for their work with City staff and
City Council over the years and supports the
recommended Preferred Alternative however we
offer these formal comments on the FEIS for
CDOT’s consideration at this time as well as for
input for the future implementation phases of the
highway and transit improvements.
A
Travel Model:
45
In terms of more specific comments and concerns, Transportation Planning staff
recommends that future travel demand forecast modeling be updated by CDOT and
their consulting team as part of the selection process for the preferred alternative and
Final EIS analysis process to ensure that the most recent transportation and land-use
data is used for determining long-term transportation improvements. Also, separate
land use data assumptions should be developed for each of the two packages of
alternatives based on the expected land use changes that would be driven by the
proposed transportation corridor improvements to more accurate reflect the inter-
relationship between land use and transportation planning.
2. The FEIS includes updated long-term forecasts to reflect 2035 RTP socioeconomic and network conditions. Agreed,
separate land use forecasts would more accurately reflect the inter-relationship between land use and transportation
infrastructure. Since the highway improvements are generally similar between packages, an expert panel concluded that
future growth along I-25 would not substantially differ between the packages. The commuter rail of Package A and the
Preferred Alternative would tend to attract growth near station areas in city centers, in contrast to the I-25 BRT and
express bus of Package B and the Preferred Alternative, but the magnitude of the differences would be relatively small.
For these reasons, the results of the comparison and evaluation of alternatives with different land use sets would not have
differed appreciably from the results with a single land use data set. Separate forecasts were not prepared due to the
constant need for prudent use of study resources.
CDOT did update the long-term forecasts to
2035 which should more accurately reflect the
future travel demand. However see prior staff
comments items regarding continuing modeling
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 7 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
48
Package A
The proposed improvements shown in Package A, the regional commuter rail
service and addition of general purpose lanes on I-25, are very effective to address
high-quality transit system improvements as well as general highway travel, safety,
and freight improvements to serve the Fort Collins community and North Front
Range region.
Package A includes the commuter rail transit alternative using the existing BNSF
railroad tracks through Fort Collins and staff agrees with the three passenger rail
stations shown at the City’s Downtown Transit Center, Colorado State University’s
Main Campus, and at the City’s South Transit Center. Staff appreciates CDOT co-
locating the commuter rail stations at the same stations as the City’s Mason Corridor
Bus Rapid Transit stations to allow for easy passenger transfers. This convenience
and potential travel time savings could affect the transit ridership projections and
that is one of the reasons for staff’s request that future travel modeling (roadway &
transit) be completed by the North I-25 EIS team.
5. The modeling for the FEIS has been updated to include the Mason Street BRT since it is a committed project; the effect
of co-locating the three stations in Fort Collins is reflected in the ridership projections for Package A and the Preferred
Alternative. Similarly, the FEIS modeling for Package B includes the Mason BRT and the effect of a common BRT station
at the South Transit Center.
The updated modeling reflects the City's
comments regarding adding Mason BRT.
A
49
City Transportation Planning staff does not agree with the need for double-tracking
of the BNSF railroad tracks from Prospect Road north through Downtown and
believes that the existing single track is sufficient to operate service through
Colorado State University (CSU) main campus and through Downtown Fort Collins,
as the DEIS states is shown for the downtown Loveland area. Staff has previously
shared this comment with CDOT staff and their consultant team.
From Transportation Planning’s perspective, the regional commuter rail transit
alternative, while initially more costly than bus service, is an effective transit
configuration for Fort Collins’ and Northern Colorado’s long-term future because it
centers high-quality regional transit service in the heart of the communities along
the US287/BNSF railroad corridor to serve the largest population centers.
Particularly for the Fort Collins community, the regional commuter rail corridor and
three passenger stations are located along our highest density population centers
such as Downtown, CSU, and the US287/College Avenue corridor. Locating the
regional transit service along this high population corridor allows for easy access
from local activity centers and neighborhoods and minimizes the need for people to
drive or take local transit routes to access regional transit service.
6. Note that Package A has single track between University and the downtown transit center. During development of the
Preferred Alternative, single track for the corridor between South Transit Center and downtown Fort Collins was
evaluated in further detail, as you suggest. As a result, it was concluded that single track would have fewer
environmental impacts while accommodating the Mason Corridor BRT. However, it was necessary to revise the service
pattern on this segment of the corridor. The service plan for the Preferred Alternative consists of hourly service to/from
downtown Fort Collins, with 30 minute service maintained to the South Transit Center during the peak periods. Package
A and the Preferred Alternative serve the population centers of Fort Collins as you describe. Package B only directly
serves the College Avenue Corridor at the South Transit Center.
The Preferred Alternative supports the single
track as suggested by the City.
A
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 8 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
51
Also, the long-term return on investment that is likely to occur within Fort Collins
due to the location of the three proposed regional commuter rail stations would be a
strong economic catalyst for additional higher density, mixed-use, transit-oriented
development (TOD) over and above what is currently envisioned as part of the
Mason Corridor. The potential synergy of high quality local and regional transit
service along this central corridor of the Fort Collins community will greatly serve
our long-range economic vitality and environmental stewardship values, as well as
address our established transportation and land-use goals.
The regional commuter rail service along the existing BNSF railroad tracks/corridor
will also link Fort Collins into Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD)
FasTrack “Northwest Rail Corridor” commuter rail line that begins in Longmont.
This provides a cost-effective opportunity to link the North Front Range regional
commuter rail improvements proposed in the North I-25 EIS to the already approved
and funded FasTrack’s Northwest Rail Corridor. This is a synergistic way to link
regional commuter rail passengers from Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud to both
Denver Union Station as well as to the Boulder area.
In regards to adding the general purpose lanes shown along I-25, these additional
travel lanes will address safety concerns along I-25 and at the interchanges shown
within Fort Collins area, as well as serve as an effective means to address current
and future vehicle traffic capacity needs (automobile & freight traffic). These
general purpose lanes will not limit the use of the new travel lanes to high-
occupancy vehicles or require tolling. It is important for the EIS to address both
passenger and freight transportation needs.
8. Yes, Package A and the Preferred Alternative connect to the RTD FasTracks system via commuter rail at both
Longmont and the North Metro end-of-line, and in downtown Denver. In contrast, the BRT of Package B connects only in
downtown Denver. We agree with your assessment that commuter rail stations will be a strong economic catalyst for
higher density, mixed use TOD. Values of TOD adjacent properties in the US have increased from 6.4 percent to more
than 40 percent in the past few years. Office buildings have fewer vacancies if located within walking distance of a transit
station. As you state, the general purpose lanes of Package A provide additional capacity and are not restricted by
vehicle type. The Preferred Alternative includes adding both general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes to I-25 which
will similarly address both passenger and freight traffic needs.
The Preferred Alternative, particularly commuter
rail, is in line with the City of Fort Collins goals
to support TOD development, and providing
regional connections.
A
52
Package B:
Transportation Planning staff has reviewed CDOT’s DEIS Package “B” that
includes regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service originating from the City’s South
Transit Center and making stops at the intersection of Harmony & Timberline roads
as well as at the Harmony & I-25 Transportation Transfer Center and then traveling
to the Denver area along the center of I-25 in the High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes,
also referred to in the DEIS as the Tolled Express Lanes (TEL).
The South Transit Center would be a primary connection point for passengers
transferring to/from the regional BRT service to the City’s Mason Corridor BRT
service as well as other local Transfort routes. In addition, the regional BRT service
would link into the City’s future plans for the Harmony Road “Enhanced Travel
Corridor” shown on the City’s adopted Structure Plan, Transportation Master Plan,
and Transfort Strategic Plan. The down side of the regional BRT alternative is that it
does not directly serve the core population and activity centers within Fort Collins
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 9 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
toll for speed/convenience purposes. Staff’s concern is that the major improvement
would not address general travel needs for people who cannot afford the tolls nor do
these specially designated lanes address the needs of additional highway capacity for
freight vehicles.
53
General:
Overall, Package “A” and “B” are both sound alternatives and propose important
transportation safety and capacity improvements for highway users and transit
passengers to address the purpose and needs identified for the EIS process.
However, it is important for the North I-25 EIS and community stakeholders to
develop effective long-term solutions for our inter- and intra-regional transportation
needs based on the anticipated future needs for travel, land-use, energy
consumption, sustainability, and environmental concerns – not based on past needs
and trends. The next 20, 30, and 50 years will bring significant changes to our
communities, region, state, nation, and world and we need to be planning for the
future – not based on the past.
All of the proposed improvements (highway and transit) come at a steep price tag
and CDOT, FHWA, and FTA will need to work collaboratively with all of the North
Front Range communities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations to
strategize workable financing options for any of these proposed future regional
transportation infrastructure improvements.
Transportation Planning staff will continue to be actively involved with CDOT,
FHWA, and FTA throughout the development of the final EIS document and will
make every effort to convey the input and concerns from the Fort Collins’ City
organization, City Council, and community members to influence the final
recommendations for these significant regional improvements.
10. The Preferred Alternative has been developed through a collaborative decision making process with communities and
stakeholders from the study area. The future horizon year of 2035 has been used in the analyses presented in the Final
EIS. The 2035 socio-economic projections use the adopted land use data sets of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. Each of the
alternatives provides multi-modal solutions that provide transportation choices for future travelers. Note the evaluation
for 2035 does not rely on a historical trend analysis but utilizes a travel model based on reasonable assumptions of future
transportation conditions.
At this point in the planning process, the only funds identified in the FEIS are those likely to come in through traditional
funding sources over the next 25 years. These funds, and the projects associated with these funds are identified in the
fiscally constrained regional transportation plans (NFRMPO and DRCOG). While the toll lanes have the ability to
generate revenue and provide opportunities for bonding, the FEIS does not make any recommendations for or against
implementation through this means of funding. Additional funding identified by state, federal and local agencies will
enable projects in Phases 2 and 3 to be implemented sooner. Fort Collins will continue to participate in determining how
and which projects are funded in the North Front Range through their role on the NFRMPO Technical Advisory
Committee and the NFRMPO Planning Council. The TAC advises the Council and the council is the decision-making
body. Fort Collins has a seat on each.
Thank you for your continued involvement in the process.
Fort Collins appreciates CDOT's efforts to
include collaborative input from a wide spectrum
of communities and stakeholders. The Preferred
Alternative is consistent with the City
transportation and land use plans.
One of the most significant concerns the City
continues to have regarding the FEIS document
is the proposed phasing.
Implementation phasing for the various
transportation improvements, specifically the
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 10 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
Staff TAC and RCC representatives have voiced
our concerns about this phasing plan during the
development of the FEIS. As we have stated, the
implementation phasing for the various
transportation improvements is a continued
concern, specifically the phasing plan shown for
the future commuter rail service extending from
Loveland to Fort Collins is not shown until Phase
3 (CDOT expected timeframe of 2075+).
Staff recommends that CDOT should revise the
FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as
shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan”
based on anticipated funding levels through
2035. Then, the new “Phase 2” would include all
of the remaining elements of the Preferred
Alternative and be considered the “unfunded”
items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year
time horizon. These transportation
improvements – highway and transit – shown in
Phase 2 for 2055+ and Phase 3 for 2075+ need to
be implemented sooner rather than later to serve
the regional travel demand forecast for 2035.
Dividing them into two artificial phases with
these extreme timeframes does not solve the
issue that the future regional transportation needs
significantly outpace our current funding
sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be
a catalyst for convening regional discussions and
partnerships to work together toward
accomplishing these needs within the 2035
timeframe.
55
Correct reference is the “Mason Corridor”, not
“Mason Street Corridor” nor the “Mason Street
Transportation Corridor”. The correct location
for the “South Transit Center” is located along
the Mason Corridor near west Fairway Lane (not
at Harmony Road). The correct location for the
CSU station is along the Mason Corridor
between University Avenue and Pitkin Street.
Please correct various text references as well as
map “call out boxes” for accuracy and
consistency throughout the FEIS document and
all maps. Also, the opening day for Mason
Corridor “MAX” BRT service is not 2014 based
on the latest schedule information from the
City’s Engineering department. For more details
regarding the MAX BRT project, please contact:
Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer, at (970)
N
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 11 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
218-1409 or via e-mail:
hmigchelbrink@fcgov.com.
56
Page 2-64, will the new Park & Ride location
being built as part of the current SH292 & I-25
interchange project accommodate the future
parking demand (95 additional spaces) shown in
the FEIS?
N
57
The proposed Quiet Zone noise mitigation
strategies in the FEIS along the BNSF corridor
are consistent with the City’s plans to evaluate
potential Quiet Zone improvements along this
corridor to address noise impacts associated with
the existing freight rail operations as well as
future passenger rail service.
N
58
I-25 highway improvements north of Harmony
Road need to accommodate the future extension
of the regional Poudre River Trail that will
connect Fort Collins and Timnath and ultimately
connect through to Greeley.
N
59
Regional “Foxtrot” route is now referred to as
“Flex” and connects from Fort Collins through
Loveland to Longmont where is connects into
RTD’s transit system.
N
60
The list of Access Control Plans listed in the
FEIS (Chapter 2, section 2.1.3 should also
include the two access plans for US287 – North
College and South College Access Control Plans.
N
61
Chapter 2, regarding coordination with other
regional rail studies, are the future design plans
for I-25 interchanges shown in the FEIS taking
into consideration the long-term potential for
high speed rail? For example, are bridges over I-
25 being designed with a “clear span” to allow
for future opportunities for rail transportation in
the center of I-25?
N
62
Page 2-15 seems to be missing a graphic diagram
of the future plans for improving the I-25 &
Prospect interchange – this interchange location
is mentioned in the text, but not included in the
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 12 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
63
Page 2-20, the description of the Package A
Commuter Rail service seems to be inaccurate in
terms of where the northern end of service would
begin. It should read: “Downtown Fort Collins
at Mason and Maple streets” (not at University
Avenue).
N
64
Pages 2-24 and 2-74, note that the City of Fort
Collins’ Master Street Plan shows grade
separated roadway crossings of the BNSF
railroad at Drake Road and Trilby Road. This
information is important for the Commuter Rail
route shown in the Preferred Alternative and will
help address safety, traffic operations, and noise
concerns.
N
65
Sections 2.2.2.11 and 2.2.4.9, City does not what
physical barriers to view sheds and wildlife
movement corridors in Fort Collins.
N
66
Page 3.1-4, include the City of Fort Collins in the
list of I-25 corridor municipal plans (not just on
the US287 list of communities). Also revise the
title of the City’s plan to be “Plan Fort Collins”
which includes both City Plan and the
Transportation Master Plan – these plans were
updated in 2010-11.
N
67
Page 3.1-7, regarding zoning, note that the City
of Fort Collins has a designated “Transit
Oriented Development Overlay Zone” in our
Land Use Code that covers the entire length of
the Mason Corridor BRT system.
N
68
Page 3.1-11, regarding land use, correct the
statement regarding Fort Collins. The City’s
adopted comprehensive plan “City Plan” calls for
higher density, mixed use, infill and
redevelopment along the US287 and Mason
Corridor. This is the area covered by the TOD
Overlay Zone. Our city plans do not envision
this corridor as built out or remaining the same as
today – it is a focus area for targeted infill and
redevelopment supported by high-quality transit
service and multimodal transportation choices.
N
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 13 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
70
Once the FEIS is completed and the ROD
approved, will the North Front Range MPO
model network be revised to include the highway
and transit improvements show in the Preferred
Alternative (Phase I)? This information will also
help better define the potential benefits/impacts
to the local arterial streets from the planned
highway and transit improvements shown in the
FEIS.
N
71
Section 4.2.6, additional question regarding
transit projections, it seems odd that the
Commuter Rail ridership projections are shown
to be lower than the projections for the I-25
express bus when the Commuter Rail route and
stations are located in higher density population
centers such as Downtown Fort Collins. When
future model projections are run for the
implementation phases of the proposed regional
transit system improvements, CDOT, NFR MPO,
and local communities work together to update
these projections.
N
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 14 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
Part I: Natural Areas
72
General comment: The most troubling issue noted is the possibility of a chain link
fence installation along the commuter rail through Natural Areas in the southwest
portion of Fort Collins. The fence would be highly disruptive to wildlife movement.
11. The intent of the Preferred Alternative is to include fencing along the rail corridor to limit access and improve safety
and to adhere to current RTD fencing standards and requirements. However, it is also recognized that the type of fencing
may vary depending upon adjacent land uses, wildlife use, or specific safety concerns. The FEIS will list a range of
fencing options to consider during the design process. This includes wildlife friendly fencing and could potentially include
wildlife underpasses. The actual fencing selected during the design process will be based on consideration of need and
function.
A
73
General comment: Maps for the EIS are not current and many City of Fort Collins’
Natural Areas and Parks are not shown.
12. All maps have been updated with new information that has been collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft.
Collins has been directly contacted and they have provided updated GIS files showing all parks and natural areas as well
as many other land use and transportation information. We believe we now have all City of Ft. Collins natural areas and
parks correctly identified and this information has been used in the FEIS.
A
74
3.1: Land use. These figures only show land uses as of 2000 and should be updated.
Figure 3.1.2 doesn’t show any open space/parks in Fort Collins. Figures 3.1-3
through 3.1-6 do not show all of the Fort Collins area open space/parks. For
example, Fossil Creek Regional Open Space is shown as an employment area, even
in the 2030 projection.
13. All maps have been updated with new information that has been collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft.
Collins has been directly contacted and they have provided updated GIS files showing the most recent land use data for
the city. The mistakes in the referenced maps have been recognized and corrected in the FEIS. Additionally this updated
information has been used in the Final EIS.
The map line weights in this section are so thick
the underlying land use is difficult to determine.
More detailed map sections reflecting individual
communities would be helpful.
Longview Open Space is shown as agriculture.
It should be shown as open space and was
designated open space at the time of mapping.
C
75
3.10.5: Vegetation. Statement regarding “develop an acceptable revegetation plan”
should note that the plan must be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins within its
jurisdictional areas, not just acceptable to Larimer County.
14. The text has been changed to state that the revegetation plan must be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins within its
jurisdictional areas.
A
76
3.10-5. Vegetation. Removal of large cottonwood trees at the Cache La Poudre and
Big Thompson rivers will seriously impair the quality and functionality of the
riparian habitat. Bald eagles and other raptors frequently use these areas to perch and
hunt from. Similarly the continuous “thread” of riparian habitat is critical to wildlife
movement up and down the river corridors. Also, it is not possible to mitigate the
loss of a large-diameter native cottonwood tree.
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 15 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
collisions/etc.
The 3,000 acre native prairie habitat between
Fort Collins and Loveland should be designated
a sensitive habitat and consider/mitigate impacts
as such. Please include this in your mitigation
plan for the project.
FEIS fails to recognize Fossil Creek Reservoir
as an Audubon Society designated Important
Bird Area. The reservoir has extremely high
value for migratory waterfowl and other
waterbirds other than the Bald Eagle.
79
Figure 3-18-1. Parks and Recreation. There are quite a few missing natural areas
and open spaces on the map, including Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space,
Coyote Ridge Natural Area, Long View Farm Open Space.
18. These natural areas and open space properties were identified for the FEIS process. Please see updated Figure 3.18-
1. None of these open space and natural areas were identified as being impacted by the alternatives under consideration.
A
80
Table 3-18-2. Parks and Recreation. This figure is not up to date. There is
misinformation about Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area (confused with the
Regional Open Space; location is east of Timberline, not Timber Lake; etc.).
19. The figure and table have been updated to include the missing open space and natural area properties. Fossil Creek
Reservoir properties have been correctly identified including their location. This property is not impacted by the
alternatives under consideration.
A
81
3-18-3. Parks and Recreation. There will be direct impacts to Long View Farm
Open Space, and Colina Mariposa, Hazaleus, and Red-tailed Grove natural areas, as
well as indirect impacts (due to proximity) to other natural areas. The EIS states that
no parks or recreational resources will be impacted by the commuter rail alternative;
however that cannot possibly be true because it goes through and next to a number of
natural areas.
20. A Preferred Alternative that includes commuter rail has been identified and, along with Package A and B, has been
analyzed in the FEIS. Impacts to these natural areas have been fully assessed in that document. The referenced natural
areas (as well as a complete update to all land use information) have been identified and the design team is recognizing
the potential for impacts to these resources and will make every effort to avoid or minimize impacts under all 3 build
alternatives. The Preferred Alternative identifies single-tracking in this area that will remain within the existing right of
way of the rail corridor which will generally negate any direct impacts to the natural areas. Fencing will be included in
all areas where pedestrian safety is a concern. Indirect impacts such as noise, and visual impacts will be fully evaluated
and the Ft. Collins Natural Resources Staff comments will be taken into account.
A
82
3.6. Noise. Noise studies should be conducted at Arapaho Bend Natural Area in Fort
Collins. Any expanded use as part of the alternatives analysis needs to consider this
site. This open space managed by the City of Fort Collins fall into “Land Use
Category A”. City staff has noticed that noise levels likely exceed the maximum dB
levels outlined by CDOT. This area on the northwest corner of I25 and Harmony
Road in Fort Collins should be evaluated.
21. A TNM model receiver at Arapaho Bend was included in the FEIS analysis, even though developed facilities are not
present at the site. Also, local traffic noise conditions were represented by Receiver B012 at the nearby Strauss Cabin.
Please note that the project team feels Arapaho Bend is a Category B site rather than Category A (e.g., amphitheater).
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 16 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
contaminants) within the Cache La Poudre watershed above the current situation or
under the no-action alternative.
anticipated, for example, to remove 50 percent to 70 percent of total suspended solids, which accounts for the predicted
increase in loading.
85
3.8-12 (line 39). Wetlands. The EIS identifies the “former rest area site north of the
Cache La Poudre River” as a potential mitigation site. In fact that land was
transferred to the City of Fort Collins and is not available as a mitigation site.
24. Comment noted. The relevant statement has been revised and will not include discussion of this site as a potential
mitigation site to offset impacts to wetlands and other waters of the US.
A
86
3.9-12. Floodplains. Impacts to natural vegetation and wetlands along Spring Creek
and Fossil Creek need to be avoided or mitigated. Wetlands in these areas are highly
valued by wildlife including sensitive aquatic species. More detailed analysis is
necessary.
25. Any actions that result in a permanent dredging or filling of wetlands are required to be permitted by the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). As part of this permitting process, mitigation will be required. The first step in this process
is avoidance or minimization of wetland impacts. At Spring Creek, avoidance measures have been implemented so no
wetland impacts occur. At Fossil Creek, Package A has 0.05 acre of wetland impacts. The Preferred Alternative has 0.01
acre of wetland impact. This small amount of wetland impact has been included in the mitigation package being reviewed
by the Corps of Engineers for the Section 404 permit.
Wetlands impacted in the Fort Collins regional
area should be mitigated within (the same) Fort
Collins regional area.
Local mitigation requirements per City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code should be considered
for locally (Fort Collins) impacted wetlands.
We support the mitigation of both federally
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands
throughout the project area.
C
87
3.9-20 (line 6). Floodplains. The proponents of this project need to identify where
wetland mitigation would take place. CDOT or private lands would need to be
identified for the mitigation.
26. CDOT is currently discussing possible wetland mitigation sites with Fort Collins staff and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The details are in the Section 404 Permit application, which has been provided to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
A
88
3.9 (General Comment) Floodplains. The mitigation measures for each creek, river,
or other drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluate for
direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same four mitigation
measures are identified for separate drainages. Revised, site specific mitigation plans
for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate stakeholders to
comment on.
27.Mitigation measures that will be employed consistent with each alternative include: The 100-year FEMA design
flows will be used for freeboard determinations, scour design, and to ensure that flow velocities are acceptable. The 500-
year design flows will be used to further assess the scour design and set the depths of piles or caissons. The design will
consider the maximum allowable backwater as allowed by FEMA. Degradation, aggregation, and scour are to be
determined. Adequate counter measures will be selected using criteria established by the National Cooperative Highway
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 17 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
alternatives. mode choices. Commuter rail and transit
stations can serve as a stimulus to TOD.
Changed conditions
92
The recent volatility in gasoline prices suggest that the basis of long-range land use
and transportation planning may now be in question. For example, what if the land
use projections of I-25 corridor communities prove incorrect under a scenario of
$3.00/gallon gasoline, or $4.00, or $6.00? What if the trip-production rates used in
transportation forecasting are incorrect for the same reason? The EIS should address
the risk of making a poor choice from among the alternative due to the uncertainty of
future gasoline prices.
31. The EIS forecasts are conservative as no change in the relative cost of gasoline is assumed, because predicting the
price of fuel would be impracticable. The forecasts are based on the adopted future population and employment forecasts
of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. If the price of gas dramatically changes, it could indeed influence land use development
activity as well as travel behavior patterns. The FEIS acknowledges that the future price of gas is an unknown and
therefore introduces an uncertainty into the forecasts, as described in section 4.2.6.6.
Future transportation planning efforts such as
this one must begin to develop methods to
define and assess a plausible range of key future
condition such as fuel price because the risk of
not doing so, and making poor investments with
public money, is high. If fuel prices increase,
transit use will dramatically increase and
roadway investments made in the near future
may become stranded assets. Scenario-based
planning is used now in climate adaptation
planning that also involve significant
unknowns.
Fortunately, transit capacity can be relatively
easily expanded, and the FEIS notes that the
Preferred Alternative can accommodate up to a
90% increase in transit mode share.
C
Greenhouse gases
93
Several communities in the I25 corridor have adopted policies and/or plans to address
their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction of transportation
carbon emissions, which is directly proportional to vehicle miles traveled, is critical
to the success of these community efforts and the EIS should address the contribution
of the I25 decision toward their success or failure.
32. The DEIS and the FEIS both address the effect of the project alternatives on carbon dioxide, which is used as the
surrogate for greenhouse gas emissions. Package A produces 0.8 percent more carbon dioxide than the No Action
Alternative, Package B produces 0.4 percent more, and the Preferred Alternative produces 0.9 percent more. The City of
Fort Collins has developed a Climate Action Plan to help reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The intent is to
reduce GHG emissions by the end of 2012 to a level not to exceed 2,466,000 tons of CO2. This will be achieved by the City
implementing measures to reduce VMT, which in turn would reduce GHG emissions. It is estimated that 5 to 10 percent of
automobile trips can be moved to non-motorized transport which would reduce the total VMT by 1 percent by 2012. There
are several transit projects proposed within the Denver Metro area. The Mason Corridor transit system will serve as the
backbone for the enhanced transit system in Fort Collins. Over time (after 2035), it would be expected that the rail
components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower energy consumption
because more trains could easily be added as demand increases.
The FEIS briefly discuses carbon dioxide
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 18 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
function, inflammation of the airways, and increased respiratory symptoms, such as cough and pain when taking a deep
breath. Particle pollution (particulate matter) is a mixture of suspended microscopic solids and liquid droplets made up of
various components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, dust particles, and pollen or mold spores. The size of a
particle is directly linked to its potential for causing health problems. Small particles, that is, those less than 10
micrometers (PM10) in diameter, pose the greatest problems because of their ability to penetrate deeply into the lungs and
bloodstream. Exposure to such particles can affect both the lungs and heart. Particles larger than 10 micrometers (PM10)
act as an irritant to the eyes and throat. Fine particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers is called
PM2.5. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, particularly diesel exhaust,
power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes. Because these
smaller particles penetrate deeper into the respiratory system, they have a strong association with circulatory (heart
disease and strokes) disease and mortality.
94A
Air Pollution Emissions Total air pollution emissions, including criteria
pollutants and mobile source air toxics, are
slightly higher for any of the 2035 Build
alternatives than for the 2035 No Action
alternative. For example, Table 3.5-5 shows
that the 2035 Phase I total emissions for Fort
Collins are 2.2% higher than the 2035 No
Action Alternative. This does not comply with
Fort Collins’ over-arching policy to continually
improve air quality.
However, all alternatives including the
Preferred Alternative show lower CO hotspot
concentrations at Harmony and I-25 than the No
Action Alternative (Table 3.5-10). The
Preferred Alternative also provides reduced
arterial VMT, and reduced crashed/VMT.
In order to help mitigate the increased
emissions, the best available transportation
technology should be implemented in all cases.
as well as comprehensive transportation demand
management strategies.”
N
PM2.5
95
The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5, presumably because there are no
non-attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion of particulate
matter levels in the Affected Environment chapter (page 3.5-7) acknowledges that
PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many
areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of alternatives should be addressed.
34. A project level PM2.5 analysis was not conducted since the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range are in
attainment for PM 2.5. However, precursors of PM2.5 include NOx and VOC. Emissions for this were projected for this
project. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the regionwide total mobile source emission estimates for existing, No Action and the
three build packages. For NOx, emissions estimates show very substantial reductions of approximately 164,000 tons per
day for all build alternatives, compared to existing levels. For VOC, the anticipated reduction is 58 tons per day. These
reductions illustrate the likely conclusion that vehicle emissions of PM 2.5 impacts are not anticipated in the future, with
or without the project improvements.
The address for the PM2.5 monitor station in
Fort Collins in Table 3.5-2 should be changed to
708 South Mason Street. C
More Specific Comments:
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 19 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
8-hour ozone standard. This non-attainment designation should be discussed clearly
in this section, as well as the updated, more stringent 8-hour ozone standard that was
promulgated in March 2008.
The EIS states, on lines 13 and 14, that: “Other criteria pollutants are no longer
pollutants of concern in the Front Range area.” In fact, particulate matter levels even
below the federal health standards impact the health of individuals with respiratory
sensitivity. The City of Fort Collins has a policy to “continually improve air quality
as the city grows”.
Table 3.5-2 should be updated to reflect the second ozone monitoring site that was
established in west Fort Collins in 2006 and should be updated to reflect data
reported through 2007, not 2005.
Discussion of criteria pollutants should acknowledge that the Fort Collins West
monitoring site had the highest 8-hour ozone reading of the entire Front Range in
2007 and has recorded several 8-hour values that exceed the standard.
Greenhouse gas emissions should be discussed in the Affected Environment section,
not only briefly addressed in the Cumulative Impacts section. Within the DIES
study area, the communities of Fort Collins, Boulder and Denver has active
commitments and plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The State of Colorado
also has a Climate Action Plan. Regional transportation planning and projects are
one of the major avenues for reducing greenhouse gas emission from the
transportation sector. In April 2007, the U..S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide fit within the definition of "air pollutant" under the
Clean Air Act ("Act") and the EPA is now in the process of determining whether, in
its judgment, greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution "which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." It is conceivable that
greenhouse gas emissions will need to be addressed more rigorously in future NEPA
processes.
the 8-hour standard in much of the regional study area. Concentrations at monitoring stations throughout the regional
study area returned to levels below the 8-hour standard concentrations after the 2003 peak. However, concentrations
remained above the 8-hour standard after the 2005 peak. In 2006, Fort Collins added a new monitoring station to monitor
ozone concentrations. This monitoring station had the highest concentrations of ozone from 2006 to 2008 within the North
Front Range area. Attainment designation for the ozone standard is based on a three year average. Therefore, since
monitoring stations exceeded the 8-hour ozone standard for three consecutive years (2005 to 2007), the EPA designated
the Denver metro area and the north Front Range as a non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O3) in November 2007.
The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked after this designation. In March 2008, EPA strengthened the NAAQS for the 8-
hour ozone standard from 0.080 ppm to 0.075 ppm.” A discussion of GHG is in the Energy section, Section 3.21.
3.5.3.4 - PM analysis
97
The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5, presumably because there are no
non-attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion of particulate
matter levels in the Affected Environment chapter (page 3.5-7) acknowledges that
PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many
areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of alternatives should be addressed.
36. See response to the “PM2.5” Staff Comment #34.
C
Parks & Recreation Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 20 of 22
98
Comments on the DEIS from the view point of affected City of Fort Collins parks and
trails:
No-Action Alternative: No impact on Fort Collins parks and trails.
Section 3.18 Parks and Recreation, Review:
Archery Range, Creekside Park, Lee Martinez Park, Old Fort Collins Heritage Park
and Washington Park listed as being in the area of the project. Only affected park is
the Archery Range.
Package A: Archery Range impact of 0.09 acre. Construction would be coordinated
to minimize impacts with the use of BMPs to limit erosion, public safety and City
vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation
measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the proposed alternative
are developed.
Package B: Archery Range impact of 0.14 acre. Construction would be coordinated to
minimize impacts with the use of BMPs to control erosion, public safety and City
vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation
measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the proposed alternative
are developed.
37. Your review of the impacts is appreciated. The Preferred Alternative and Package A and B have been evaluated with
respect to parks and recreation resources, and is presented in the FEIS.
I-25 improvements need to be designed to
accommodate the Poudre River Trail extension.
Commuter Rail improvements along BNSF
need to be designed to accommodate the Fossil
Creek Trail.
N
Advance Planning -
Historic Preservation Office Staff Comments (December 2008)
CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
99
The City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office has reviewed those sections of
the North I-25 Draft EIS document pertaining to historic properties within the Fort
Collins Growth Management Area. Staff concurs with the findings that there will be
no adverse affects on any historically designated or eligible properties arising from the
implementation of the North I-25 project.
38. No Response Needed.
A
Regulatory and Government Affairs Division Staff Comments
(December 2008)
CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis Status
Section 3.7 Water Resources
100
3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations
General Comment: While the CDOT MS4 requirements described are generally only
applicable in MS4 areas, please note that all local MS4 construction and development
requirements must also be met within the local MS4 jurisdictional boundaries.
39. While there currently exists a statement that the project must also comply with local MS4 requirements (Page 3.7-2,
lines 19-20), an additional statement regarding construction and development/new development compliance has been
added.
A
101
Table 3.7-5
Both packages A and B are projected to increase stormwater contaminant loading by
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 21 of 22
Regulatory and Government Affairs Division Staff Comments
(December 2008)
CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis Status
With packages A & B, a much larger percentage runoff from the roads and other
impervious surfaces will be treated via water quality ponds or other BMPs than the
current situation or the no-action alternative. This area is figured based on current and
projected future MS4 areas and the area available for BMPs within the right-of-way.
The pollutant removal rates for structural BMPs are given as follows:
TSS - 50-70%
Total P - 10-20%
Zn - 30-60%
Cu - 1.4-30%
Chloride - not given
While this may appear that the increased pollutant loadings will not be adequately
treated for all parameters, increased impervious area will be treated with packages
A&B.
City of Fort Collins Water & Wastewater Utilities Department
Staff Comments (December 2008)
CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011)
Water Quality and Floodplains
Technical Report
Status
102
No comments submitted N/A 1) Pg 65, 5th bullet from top. Add to
sentence….“Denver, Adams, Weld and
Larimer Counties, along with most cities and
towns within the project area, are
responsible for regulating development in
FEMA designated floodplains and adhere to
FEMA policy and local Floodplain
regulations”.
N
103
2) Pg 68-69, Cache La Poudre River section,
the bottom paragraphs of page 68 are
incorrectly stated. The City of Fort Collins
highly supports removing the split flow if
regulatory issues can be resolved through
mitigation with CDOT and staff working
together during design phase. State, Federal
and local regulations will all be adhered to
during the design phase.
N
104
3) Pg 71, table 6-1. Would be helpful to add
column indicating what floodplain and what
jurisdiction each tributary is in. For
example, Boxelder Creek side drainage –
FEMA Regulatory Floodplain, City of Fort
Collins jurisdiction.
N
105
4) Section 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, For each structure
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 22 of 22
in.
106
5) Pg 83, unclear what GPL and GP represent.
Would suggest defining these more clearly.
N
107
6) Pg 85 first bullet, Unsure where this is.
Would be helpful to more clearly show
location on map of each improvement
detailed in bulleted text for the No Action
alternative, Package A and Package B.
N
108
7) Pg 87, Reference to Spring Creek and BNSF
mid page. There are two projects currently
in process at this location, Choice Center
and the Mason BRT project. Both projects
have approved Conditional Letter of Map
Revisions (CLOMRs). Please contact Brian
Varrella, bvarrella@fcgov.com , 970-416-
2217 for more information on this location
and correct statements for this section.
N
109
8) It is very probable a FEMA Conditional
Letter of Map Amendment (CLOMR) and
Letter of Map Amendment (LOMR) will be
required for work performed in a FEMA
regulatory floodway. Close coordination
with the administering local Floodplain
Administer will be required for all work in
the floodplains, flood fringes and floodways
to ensure all projects within the FEMA
regulatory floodplains meet federal and local
floodplain requirements.
N
110
9) PG 93 last paragraph, add the following or
similar statement: All Federal and Local
floodplain regulations will be followed by
CDOT for each project. Floodplain
modeling will be required on many
improvements per Federal and Local
requirements. CDOT will coordinate with
local jurisdiction floodplain administration
in the initial stages of each project.
N
DATE: September 20, 2011
STAFF: Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25
SUBJECT
Resolution 2011-091 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution amends the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council meetings with regard to citizen
comment during the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings. The 30-minute time limit that currently exists for
the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings would be eliminated and certain topics would be specified as not
being appropriate for comment during that portion of the meeting: matters on the discussion agenda for the meeting
and quasi-judicial matters.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 2003, the Council has conducted its meetings under rules of procedure that govern the length of meetings,
citizen comment, Council questions and debate, and basic rules of order. The rules relating to citizen comment during
the Citizen Participation segment of the meetings state that such comment will be limited to a total of 30 minutes. Over
recent years, the practice has been to allow all citizens who wish to comment to do so, subject to limits on the amount
of time that each citizen may speak. That time limit depends on the number of speakers. In order to conform this
portion of the rules to the current practice, the Resolution would eliminate the 30-minute overall time limit and instead
allow the Mayor to set the individual time limit in order to allow as much citizen input as reasonably practicable given
the scheduled agenda for the meeting.
The Resolution also changes the Order of Business to clarify that Agenda Review will take place before Citizen
Participation, so that citizens are not prevented from speaking during Citizen Participation regarding items that were
originally scheduled for Council consideration but removed from the agenda after publication of the agenda materials.
In addition, the Resolution would clarify the topics that are appropriate for comment by citizens under this segment
of the meeting. The first clarification is that comment is not permitted on matters that will be addressed later in the
meeting as part of the discussion agenda for the meeting. The second is that comment is not permitted on quasi-
judicial matters that may in the future be considered by the Council during an appeal. The reason for this second
clarification is twofold. First, quasi-judicial matters must be decided solely on the basis of the information that is
provided to the original decision maker at a public hearing held for that purpose. To respect that requirement,
comments made to the Council by citizens at a regular Council meeting would have to be transcribed and submitted
to the decision maker for consideration at the quasi-judicial hearing so that all parties directly affected by the decision
could be made aware of the comments and have an opportunity at the hearing to respond to them. In addition, the
Council must remain impartial if it is to hear an appeal of the original decision makers’ decision. Comments made
during Citizen Participation may compromise the Council’s impartiality if the matter addressed by the citizens later
comes to the Council on appeal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
RESOLUTION 2011-091
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE
CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted rules of procedure governing the
conduct of City Council meetings (the “Rules of Procedure”); and
WHEREAS, in order to allow citizen comment regarding items originally planned for City
Council discussion but removed from the agenda, the City Council wishes to modify the Order of
Business so that review of the agenda by the City Manager will take place before Citizen
Participation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend Section 3a of the Rules of Procedure dealing
with citizen comment so as to eliminate the 30-minute time limit that currently exists for the Citizen
Participation segment of the Council meetings and to clarify the topics that are appropriate for
citizen comment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the following revised rules governing the conduct of all regular City Council
meetings are hereby adopted by the City Council:
Section 1. Order of Business. Council business shall be conducted in the following
order:
Proclamations and Presentations. (Prior to the meeting)
Pledge of Allegiance
Call Meeting to Order
Roll Call
Agenda Review
Citizen Participation
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Agenda Review
Consent Calendar
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Staff Reports
Councilmember Reports
Items Needing Individual Consideration
Pulled Consent Items
Other Business
Adjournment
Section 2. Length of Meetings
a. Council meetings will begin precisely at 6:00 p.m. Proclamations will be
presented prior to the meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. or such earlier time
as may be necessary in order for the presentation of proclamations to end by
6:00 p.m.
b. No more than two (2) ten-minute breaks will be planned per meeting. All
Councilmembers and staff will return to their seats in the Council Chambers
at the conclusion of each ten-minute break. The Mayor will resume the
meeting at the prescribed time.
c. Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any
item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the
meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend
a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering
additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is
still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters
scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been
considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council
meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting.
Section 3. Citizen Comment.
a. Up to thirty (30) minutes will be allowed for citizen comment during the
“Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting. During the “Citizen
Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on
matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the following:
(1) items to be considered by the City Council under the discussion
agenda for that night’s meeting;
(2) quasi-judicial matters that may be the subject of future consideration
by the City Council on appeal from a City board or commission or
other decision maker.
A maximum of five (5) minutes will be allowed per speaker. In order to
determine the actual amount of time to be allotted to each speaker, the Mayor
will ask for a show of hands by all persons intending to speak. If the number
of persons intending to speak is more than six (6), the Mayor will shorten the
allotted time in order to allow as many people as possible to address the
Council within a reasonable period of time given the scheduled agenda.
within thirty (30) minutes.
-2-
b. Citizen input will be received with regard to: (i) each item on the discussion
agenda, (ii) each item pulled from the consent agenda, and (iii) any item that
is addressed by formal Council action under the “Other Business” segment
of the meeting that may directly affect the rights or obligations of any
member of the general public. Such citizen input will be permitted only once
per item regardless of the number of motions made during Council’s
consideration of the item.
c. The time limits for individual citizen comments regarding agenda items will
be established by the Mayor prior to each such item. In order to determine
the amount of time to be allotted to each speaker, the Mayor will ask for a
show of hands by all persons intending to speak to the item. If the number
of persons indicating an intent to speak to an item is twelve (12) or less, each
speaker will generally be allowed five (5) minutes. If the number of persons
indicating an intent to speak to an item is thirteen (13) or more, each speaker
will generally be limited to three (3) minutes per item. However, the Mayor
may increase or decrease the time limits per speaker as he or she deems
necessary to facilitate the City Council’s understanding of the item, or to
allow the Council to consider and act upon the item in a timely fashion.
d. Any determination of the Mayor with regard to the foregoing time limits
may be overridden by a majority vote of the Council.
Section 4. Council Questions and Debate.
Council questions and debate regarding an agenda item will occur immediately following
citizen input and prior to entertaining any main motion related to the item. Except when raising a
point of order, Councilmembers seeking to ask questions or participate in debate will do so only
when called upon by the Mayor. The Mayor may limit or curtail questions or debate as he or she
deems necessary for the orderly conduct of business, except as overridden by a majority of
Councilmembers present and voting, pursuant to a point of order. No Councilmember will speak
to an item more than once until all other Councilmembers have had an opportunity to be heard.
Section 5. Basic Rules of Order.
The following commonly used rules of order will govern the conduct of City Council
business. Except as specifically noted, all motions require a second. These rules of order are based
upon Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and have been modified as necessary to conform to
existing practices of the Council and to the requirements of the City Charter. For example, while
a two-thirds vote is necessary for the passage of some of the motions listed below under Robert’s
Rules of Order, all motions of the Council, except a motion to go into executive session or a motion
to adopt an emergency ordinance, may be adopted upon approval of a majority vote of the members
present at a Council meeting, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 11 of the City Charter.
If there is a question of procedure not addressed by these rules, reference shall be made to
-3-
Robert’s Rules of Order for any needed clarification or direction. In the event of any conflict
between these rules of order and Robert’s Rules of Order, these rules of order shall prevail. In the
event of any conflict between these rules of order or Robert’s Rules of Order and the City Charter
or City Code provisions, the City Charter or City Code provision shall prevail.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 20th
day of September A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Chief Deputy City Clerk
-4-
improvement or modification listed, include
what floodplain, and what jurisdiction it is N
approximately 50% for all modeled contaminants within the Cache La Poudre
watershed above the current situation or under the no-action alternative. Runoff
intensity and volume and higher pollutant loading are some issues commonly
associated with increased imperviousness.
The modeled pollutant loadings are before the application of best management
practices. Does this include both those used during construction and permanent water
quality structures?
40. The predicted constituent loadings from the Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative presented in the
EIS do not include the application of permanent BMPs. All of the alternatives would show an increase in contaminant
runoff in the Cache la Poudre watershed of approximately 50 percent, without the application of permanent BMPs. As
discussed in the mitigation section, the permanent water quality BMPs are expected to remove approximately 30 to 70
percent of various contaminants. Currently, there are no quantifiable removal rates for temporary construction BMPs
in Colorado. The removal percentages cited by the commenter are for permanent water quality structures and represent
the current level of understanding in Colorado, and the BMPs associated with all action alternatives, including the
Preferred Alternative are anticipated to reduce the pollutant load by the percentages identified in the comment.
A
96
3.5 Introduction
The DEIS text in the introductory section of the air quality chapter should be updated
to reflect that areas within the project have been designated non-attainment for the
federal 8-hour ozone standard in November 2007, per discussion in section 3.5.2, line
3.5.2- Affected Environment
Figure 3.5-1 should be updated to reflect the non-attainment designation area for the
35. Figure 3.5-1 has been updated with the correct ozone non-attainment boundary for the Denver Metro area. The
following text has been added to section 3.5.2: “However, particulate matter levels even below the NAAQS can impact
the health of individuals with respiratory sensitivity. Therefore, the City of Fort Collins has implemented a policy to
“continually improve air quality as the city grows.” Table 3.5-2 has been updated with the new monitoring station in Fort
Collins (3416 W LaPorte Ave) and “2005” has been removed from the table title. Text has been revised on page 3.5-6,
section 3.5.2.2, criteria pollutants and critical pollutant data trends as follows:35. (cont.) “Ozone concentrations have
shown no consistent trend. Concentrations spiked in 1998, 2003, and 2005, with 2003 and 2005 concentrations exceeding
Greenhouse gas emissions were not added to the
Air Quality affected environment chapter.
Please note the City’s over-arching air quality
policy has been updated to simply say
“continually improve air quality.”
C
equivalent emissions in Section 3.21 (Energy).
Estimates show that the preferred alternative
would increase CO2e emissions by 0.9% above
the No Action alternative. This is slightly more
than any other alternative and is attributed to the
impact of attracting more VMT from other
areas. It is a serious problem for this huge
investment in transportation infrastructure to
result in increased CO2e emissions. However,
the modeling does not presume any use of
electric vehicles, does not assume any increases
in the price of fossil transportation fuel, and
acknowledges under-prediction of transit use.
Growth in these areas may result in lower
carbon emissions than predicted by the model.
The FEIS states that mitigation is available for
all impacts. For increased CO2e emissions, it
suggests a focus on VMT reduction. Reduction
of carbon intensity of fuels and improvements
in vehicle fuel economy should be added as
important mitigation measures as well.
C
Ozone Non-Attainment
94
The DEIS refers to ozone designation inconsistently throughout the Air Quality
chapter. All text should reflect the November 2007 non-attainment designation area
for the 8-hour ozone standard. In addition the new, more stringent 8-hour
promulgated in March 2008 should be discussed.
33. The FEIS includes the following text on page 3.5-4: Ground-level ozone is a gas that is not emitted directly from a
source, as are other pollutants, but forms as a secondary pollutant. Its precursors are certain reactive hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides, which react chemically in sunlight to form ozone. The main sources for these reactive hydrocarbons are
automobile exhaust, gasoline, oil storage and transfer facilities, industrial paint and ink solvents, degreasing agents, and
cleaning fluids. Exposure to ozone has been linked to a number of health effects, including significant decreases in lung
We appreciate the inclusion of updated ozone
information in the FEIS.
A
Research Program Report 568 (TRB, 2006) The design will be such that minimal disruption to the ecosystem will occur.
The design will consider costs for construction and maintenance. A bridge deck drainage system that controls seepage at
joints will be considered. I possible, bridge deck drains will be piped to a water quality feature before being discharged
into a floodplain. The designs will comply with federal and state agencies. The designs will make every consideration
towards local agency requirements and will be consistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs.
Please note that wetland mitigation is discussed in Chapter 3.8 of the EIS.
Reiterate that wetlands disturbed within the Fort
Collins area should be mitigation within the
same region.
The mitigation for each creek, river, or other
drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it
impossible to evaluation for direct and indirect
impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same
four mitigation measures are identified for
separate drainages. Revised, site specific
mitigation plans for each drainage should be
conducted for the public and appropriate
stakeholders to comment on.
C
89
3.13-9 Threatened Species – Environmental Consequences. The approach of
conducting an effects analysis on a broad scale is not adequate and the “one size fits
all approach” to mitigation is not adequate. Site by site and drainage by drainage
analyses need to be conducted to ensure impacts are avoided at best, mitigated at
worst.
28. Effects are presented by component and by species. For key species, such as Preble’s and bald eagle, effects are also
broken out by site. Aquatic species are addressed by drainage. For black-tailed prairie dogs, site by site analysis would
not be productive due to the large number of small prairie dog colonies involved, and the likelihood that most of these
colonies will have expanded, contracted, or disappeared by the time of construction. Other species are addressed at a
broad scale and impacts are estimated based on suitable habitat due to a lack of actual presence/ absence data. The FEIS
includes site-specific mitigation measures where appropriate (for example for Preble’s and bald eagle).
Full-cutoff light fixtures or similar standards
should be used in sensitive wildlife habitat areas
(including the Fossil Creek Reservoir area C
90
3.13-12. Threatened Species. Additional lighting adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir
will further impair the quality of the bald eagle roost site at the Reservoir. This could
be mitigated by controlling light leakage or by eliminating lighting from the design of
that interchange.
29. These suggestions have been incorporated in the FEIS for all alternatives. A
Part II: Air Quality
General comments on air quality section:
Induced land use
91
Air quality in the Fort Collins community is dominated by vehicle emissions. A key
issue for local air quality improvement is to reduce the growth of vehicle miles
traveled, which depends, in turn, upon land use changes that support use of transit,
cycling, and walking. For that reason, we believe that land use densification and
transit-oriented development should be a key criteria in deciding among the
30. The purpose and need for the project and stakeholder input provided the criteria framework for alternatives
development. The purpose of the project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro area and the rapidly
growing population centers along the I-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. For this reason, both
highway and transit options were considered for the project. While the transportation system can influence land use
patterns, development is regulated at the level of local government.
Regarding the original comment that land use
densification and transit-oriented development
should be key criterion for deciding among
alternatives, we note the Preferred Alternative
provides the greatest number of alternative
C
The comment is correct that traffic noise levels in the east of Arapaho Bend do exceed the CDOT Category B NAC for
some of the open space. Noise mitigation for Arapaho Bend was evaluated and found not to be feasible and reasonable
under CDOT’s 2002 noise guidelines because there are no developed sites or recreational facilities with frequent human
use present along I-25 that would benefit from a barrier and a barrier did not meet the necessary Cost Benefit Index.
Therefore, noise mitigation is not recommended for Arapaho Bend. The list of traffic-noise-impacted sites in the Final EIS
documents was updated to include Arapaho Bend and a mitigation analysis summary was included in the Final EIS.21.
(cont.) FHWA and CDOT have recently adopted new noise regulations, taking effect in July 2011. Regarding the 2011
regulations, the result is expected to be the same. The site would be Category C rather than B, but would still be
represented by a single receiver based on the new guidance: "For activity areas that are spread across a property or for
properties that lack defined facilities or formalized activity areas, a single generalized receptor should be placed within
the property that best represents the worst expected traffic noise condition, based on professional judgment of the noise
specialist." A large barrier would be needed to abate noise for a single receiver, which would be too expensive relative to
the benefit; therefore, the reasonableness criteria
Every effort to implement non-barrier methods
of noise mitigation along I-25 (where it passes
Arapaho Bend Natural Area) should be
implemented. To be clear, we would not
support construction of a barrier to mitigate
noise in this area.
C
83
3.6.4.1. Noise. Any efforts to mitigate road noise (barriers) should consider wildlife
movement (deer, antelope) and create wildlife crossings across I25 especially north
of Fort Collins and including the Wellington area. Any barriers within the more
“metro” area should provide occasional openings to permit the movement of wildlife
across the interstate.
22. Two barriers have been recommended for the project area north of State Highway 7: Wellington East and Mountain
Range Shadows. Both of these are in fairly developed areas and are not in obvious wildlife corridors. No final
determinations on the specifics of these barriers have been made at this stage of the project, but the final choices will be
sensitive to the larger environmental context of the areas including wildlife movement. Also, see Staff Comment Response
#11.
A
84
Table 3.7-5. Water Quality. It is troubling that both action alternatives (Package A
and B) will increase stormwater contaminant loading by 50% (for all modeled
23. It is important to note that there are anticipated pollutant loadings associated with existing and No Action
Alternatives. These alternatives do not have BMPs associated with them. The BMPs for the action alternatives are
A
15. Impacts to riparian habitat will be mitigated by implementing CDOT’s best management practices as described in
Section 3.10.3, including avoiding existing trees, shrubs, and vegetation to the maximum extent possible, especially
wetlands and riparian plant communities. The project team will coordinate with the CDOT landscape architect before
construction to determine the types of vegetation that will be protected during construction. A revegetation plan will be
developed with the CDOT landscape architect and with county personnel in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver,
Larimer, and Weld counties. CDOT will also have to go through the process of working with the CDOW when submitting
documentation to satisfy Senate Bill 40 for wildlife certification.
Re-vegetation plans for disturbed areas should
include species that are appropriate to the
community disturbed including woody species.
The FEIS does not address the removal of large
cottonwood trees at the Cache La Poudre as it
will seriously impair the quality and
functionality of the riparian habitat. How can a
generic 150 yr old 36” diameter tree be
mitigated?
C
77
Table 3.12.2: Wildlife. Audubon Society has designated Fossil Creek Reservoir as
an “Important Bird Area” and the high value for migratory waterfowl and other
waterbirds is well-documented. This should be represented in the EIS.
16. A reference to the high value of Fossil Creek Reservoir for migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds has been added
to the table.
A
78
Wildlife: Commuter rail appears to be aligned on the McKee Farm which is Larimer
County Open Lands property with conservation easements underlying the property
that would prohibit new construction. Additional train traffic through the area would
be a significant impact to recreation users (noise) and displace wildlife use within a
3,000-acre matrix of protected Fort Collins natural areas.
17. The commuter rail alignment will be located within existing rail right-of-way. Construction of commuter rail would
result in some impacts to wildlife including habitat fragmentation, disruption of movement corridors, and displacement as
described in Section 3.12.3.2. Noise impacts to parks and open spaces have been considered in the FEIS, using
appropriate guidelines. McKee Farm near the rail corridor is being actively farmed and has no visible public access or
visitor facilities.
The preferred alternative fails to recognize the
significant impacts to wildlife movement along
the proposed commuter rail line between Fort
Collins and Loveland. The addition of a
maintenance road, concrete barriers with
additional chain link fence will significantly
impact wildlife movement within and across
this 3,000 acre prairie habitat. Affected areas
include Hazaleus Natural Area, Colina
Mariposa Natural Area, Redtail Grove Natural
Area, and Longview Open Space. The addition
of commuter rail service to current and future
freight train travel will worsen wildlife
C
69
Page 4-2, the more recent update to the City’s
comprehensive plan is “Plan Fort Collins in
2010-11 which includes both City Plan and the
Transportation Master Plan. The 2004 updates
are no longer the most current documents.
N
page of images.
N
phasing plan shown for the future commuter rail
service extending from Loveland to Fort Collins
is not shown until Phase 3 (CDOT expected
timeframe of 2075+).
Staff recommends that CDOT should revise the
FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as
shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan”
based on anticipated funding levels through
2035. Then, the new “Phase 2” would include all
of the remaining elements of the Preferred
Alternative and be considered the “unfunded”
items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year
time horizon. These transportation
improvements – highway and transit – shown in
Phase 2 and 3 need to be implemented sooner
rather than later to serve the regional travel
demand forecast for 2035. Dividing them into
two artificial phases does not solve the issue that
the future regional transportation needs
significantly outpace our current funding
sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be
a catalyst for convening regional discussions and
partnerships to work together toward
accomplishing these needs within the 2035
timeframe.
C
54
Additional/New comments, questions, and
suggestions on the FEIS for the
Transportation Planning section:
Largest overall concern with FEIS is the
proposed phasing plan. This is new information
developed by CDOT and other agencies since the
DEIS was presented for public comment in 2008.
N
such as Downtown, CSU, the central business, employment, and residential areas
along US287/College Avenue. The regional BRT service along Harmony Road to I-
25 will require people to drive to park & rides on the south end of the City or take
local transit routes to transfer to the regional BRT service.
The proposed I-25 Tolled Express Lanes would help give advantage to travelers in
high-occupancy vehicles such as the regional BRT or carpoolers/vanpoolers as well
as support congestion pricing strategies to allow travelers who can afford to pay the
9. That is correct, access to the regional BRT service would be by either walking, driving, or taking a local bus to a
station or stop on the Harmony Road corridor. Note that the access to commuter rail in Package A or the Preferred
Alternative is via the same choice of access modes but to the US-287 corridor through the core population area of Fort
Collins. With the inclusion of express bus, the Preferred Alternative provides regional transit service on both the US 287
and Harmony corridors. The evaluation indeed identified that freight traffic would not be directly served by the addition
of TEL in Package B. However, note that mobility in the adjacent general purpose lanes is improved for freight and non-
toll paying vehicles, but not as much as Package A. The Preferred Alternative includes additional general purpose lanes
as well as TEL north of SH 66. This cross section would improve mobility for freight traffic as well as non-toll paying
vehicle
The Preferred Alternative provides general
purpose lanes as well as toll lanes to serve
highway travel needs and includes the regional
express bus service along Harmony Road from
the City's new south transit center to I-25
connecting to Denver.
A
50
In addition, locating this major regional commuter rail line in the heart of the Fort
Collins community will lessen the likelihood of future land development shifts
occurring away from the existing central population & activity centers within our
community. Fort Collins’ adopted Transportation Master Plan and City Plan are
based on compact urban development occurring within the core areas of our
community. The proposed regional commuter rail alignment along the BNSF
corridor supports these transportation and land use master plans.
7. Comment noted. Your observations of commuter rail’s influence on land development patterns are generally consistent
with the findings of an expert panel convened to evaluate the alternatives regarding induced growth. The effect of
Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway
improvements are generally similar between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of
the packages. However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density of
developments near stations in the city centers.
The Preferred Alternative with regional
commuter rail alignment along the BNSF
corridor supports the City of Fort Collins
Transportation Master Plan and City Plan. A
concerns. C
46
Also, the current results of the travel model show that many trips are moving within
the North Front Range and to/from the Fort Collins and Longmont, Boulder areas
along the US287 corridor. These inter- and intra-regional travel patterns, in addition
to the Fort Collins to downtown Denver trips, need to be analyzed in more detail for
each package of alternatives and as part of the process to determine the preferred
alternative. The preferred alternative should address all of these trip purposes, not
just the Fort Collins to downtown Denver trips along I-25.
3. The DEIS technical analysis accounts for all trip purposes and trip origins and destinations within the northern and
Denver front range area. For purposes of presentation, some illustrations highlight travel along I-25.
The inter- and intra-regional travel patterns
appear to have been included in the analysis.
However those patterns need to be better
illustrated. C
Interchanges
47
Staff supports the analysis completed during the early stages of the North I-25 EIS
process for each of the interchange areas (existing & potential) serving the Fort
Collins area: Carpenter Road/SH392, Harmony Road, Prospect Road, Mulberry
Street/SH14, and Mountain Vista Drive. Staff concurs with the conclusions and
recommended conceptual designs developed by CDOT and their consultant team.
Staff appreciates CDOT’s efforts to include the City of Fort Collins staff and local
property/business owners throughout the interchange analysis process and the design
modifications that CDOT was willing to make to address our local concerns for
adjacent land impacts.
4. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your participation and look forward to your continued involvement. Comments addressed
A
Detailed analyses based on data have been conducted and documented in the DEIS; the same will be true for the
Preferred Alternative in the FEIS
See comments on modeling C
40
Cost estimates must be realistic and include costs for construction as well as on-going
operations & maintenance;
Detailed cost estimates are being updated for the Preferred Alternative and will be documented in the FEIS; including
capital construction costs and on-going operations and maintenance costs.
Comment addressed A
41
Need to consider more environmental factors such as air quality, land impacts, etc. in
the detailed analysis of the proposed improvements.
These factors are all discussed in the document
See comments in each topic section C
42
Need to consider the costs vs. benefits for expenditure of public resources to support
core transportation services and which provide the greatest degree of return on
investment.
Costs are considered throughout the project development process, among other factors. Benefits are difficult to calculate
in terms of dollars, because monetary relationships are less definitive. For example, travel time savings would need to be
converted to dollars, and assumptions for value-of-time necessarily introduce subjectivity. For this reason, benefit-cost
ratios are not typically calculated.
Continue to be concerned regarding the issue
for more systematic triple bottom line
analysis C
43
Consider the costs associated with deferring the improvements beyond 20 year horizon
shown in the phasing plans. The phasing plan 65 year timeframe is unrealistic and
doesn’t make sense, need to find more ways to fund necessary improvements in the
nearer term.
As you know, funding sources are extremely limited. Unfortunately, the 65 year timeframe is the construction schedule
given current projections of revenue. It is possible the schedule for implementation of this project, and similar schedules
for other proposed projects, will be a call to action for stakeholders to initiate new revenue possibilities so that the
phasing plan can be accelerated
See phasing comments
C
Coordination with other rail studies has included FasTracks Northwest Rail, FasTracks North Metro, RMRA High speed
rail, etc.
Comment addressed - more work needs to
continue such as coordination with high speed
rail studies C
27
Why does the North I-25 not show Commuter Rail service between Greeley and
Denver?
Frequency of freight train traffic is very high; potential ridership projections didn’t warrant rail service and the proposed
Express and Commuter Bus services are able to handle future ridership projections for less cost.
Comment addressed A
28
Core to Core connection is very important to serve population centers.
The FEIS Preferred Alternative reflects the community to community connection with Commuter Rail connecting the
downtown cores of communities including Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont
Comment addressed A
29
Move away from status quo highway planning. We need to plan for sustainable,
long-term solutions to connect our communities in the future. Not like the T-Rex
example that only provided 46 seconds of travel time savings after millions of dollars
in investment.
The FEIS Preferred Alternative includes Commuter Rail, a sustainable transportation connection between the core of
communities. The I-25 highway facility needs rebuilding to address aging infrastructure needs. The FEIS Preferred
Alternative also includes a Tolled Express Lane (TEL) on I-25, allowing HOV vehicles free travel in a restricted lane hence
supporting the alternative modes of carpooling and vanpooling. Express Bus service, with connecting bus service to the
communities, also will serve the I-25 corridor in the TEL lanes.
Comment addressed
A
30
Consider environmental impacts, social mobility for all people, and growth impacts.
These impacts are all discussed in the document
Comment addressed A
31
How does Commuter Rail alternative handle the existing freight rail traffic?
The rail corridor will serve both freight rail and the passenger rail service. This will be possible due to coordination of
operating schedules, and use of sidings. Some initial coordination with the BNSF has occurred; a collaborative effort with
the BNSF will establish a joint use agreement regarding infrastructure and operating plan requirements.
Comment addressed A
Comment addressed A
15
Need to consider how the findings in the North I-25 EIS tie to the High Speed Rail
Study
This is one of the studies we coordinated with during the DEIS development. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Study was
ongoing at the time of DEIS publication; coordination efforts show that the EIS’s Commuter Rail serves a travel market of
community to community travel needs, which is different than the intra-state and possibly inter-state travel market that
would use high speed rail.
See comment on future interchange design
and clear space C
16
Natural Resources staff comments are very important and need to be addressed in
Final EIS document, in particular:
Commuter Rail fence disruptive to wildlife movement.
Fencing is to limit access and improve safety. We are following the RTD guidelines. The type of fencing may vary
depending on adjacent land uses and wildlife use. The FEIS will list a range of fencing options to be considered during the
design process, including wildlife friendly fences, and could potentially include wildlife underpasses.
See comment on barriers C
17
Mapping needs to be improved to be more accurate for locations of natural areas,
water features, drainage ways, and floodplain areas.
All maps have been updated with new info collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft Collins has been directly
contacted and staff has provided us updated GIS files.
See comment in Natural Resources section C
18
Concern regarding impacts to wildlife habitat areas, large cottonwood trees, and
Threatened & Endangered species.
Impacts to riparian habitat will be mitigated by CDOT's revegetation Best Management Practices, including avoiding
existing trees to the maximum extent possible. The high value of Fossil Creek Reservoir for migratory waterfowl will be
documented in the FEIS. The FEIS will include site-specific mitigation measures for Threatened and Endangered species
where appropriate (for example for Preble’s and bald eagle). City of Fort Collins staff suggestions for controlling lighting
near Fossil Creek Reservoir to reduce the effect on bald eagle roost sites will be incorporated in the FEIS
See comment in Natural Resources section
C
traffic impacts the capacity and operation of I-25 and I-25 interchanges. Because of this, freight truck traffic and
anticipated growth in truck traffic along I-25 is accounted for in all the traffic analyses conducted in the DEIS and FEIS.
Freight traffic on I-25 is estimated to grow 2% annual on the south end and slightly more than 3% on the north end of the
corridor and constitutes 8 to 14% of the total traffic. It is estimated that under the No Action alternative delay to truck
traffic would be 67 minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street for a total travel time of 133 minutes. Three cross sections
were evaluated for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative. The preferred cross section identified added both a general
purpose lane and a tolled express lane north of SH 66. This was, in part, to better accommodate anticipated growth in
freight traffic along I-25. 8The Preferred Alternative is expected to provide the most travel time improvement for freight
traffic with a total travel time of 107 minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street.
Comment addressed. A
8
Is there an overall picture of environmental damage, including impacts of
transportation, infrastructure, dislocations, and induced development? I don't think so.
8. The DEIS addresses the environmental impacts within each respective resource section. Transportation impacts are
addressed in Chapter 4, dislocations are addressed in Chapters 3.2 and 3.4, and induced development is addressed in
Chapter 3.1 and Appendix C—Land Use. Chapter 7 of the DEIS contains the overall “picture” of the trade-offs among
See staff comments under each topic area for
details.
C
DRCOG’s modeling and Denver’s experience
with rail transit. Also, the FEIS states that for
communities such as Fort Collins that have
“Transit Oriented Development” land-use
policies, there could be up to 35% increase in
ridership projections. These potential differences
in transit ridership projections are substantial.
What would the impact be if these higher
ridership projections are more realistic? Both
from a transit system capacity standpoint as well
as from a highway planning perspective? To
help address these concerns, staff suggests that
travel demand forecasts for automobile trips as
well as transit trips be updated in the future to
reflect new trends and methodologies prior to the
implementation of any of the highway and/or
transit improvements included in the Preferred
Alternative.
C
4
Do the transportation models incorporate the impacts of transportation alternatives on
growth patterns and transportation oriented development? If growth shifts toward I25,
away from city centers, what will happen with VMT?
4. The forecasts use the adopted socioeconomic datasets of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. The effect of Package A, Package
B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway improvements are
generally similar between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of the packages.
However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density of developments near
stations in the city centers. If growth shifts towards I-25, the amount of VMT would increase by a small amount.
Staff continues to be concerned regarding this
issue and recommends that future travel demand
forecasts be updated to reflect more recent local
land use and transportation plans to assess the
potential impacts of changing growth patterns.
For example, Fort Collins’ recently updated our
comprehensive plan “City Plan” and our
C
September 15, 2011- The Ranch (Budweiser Events Center): 5290 Arena Circle (I-25 exit #259)
Continued on page 2
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 1