HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 12/18/2012 - 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 Nelson, City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and
will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to
the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
December 18, 2012
Proclamations and Presentations
5:30 p.m.
A. Proclamation Declaring January 2013 as “Narconon Colorado - a Life Worth Saving Month”.
Regular Meeting
6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER.
2. ROLL CALL.
Page 2
3. AGENDA REVIEW:
• City Manager Review of Agenda.
• Consent Calendar Review.
This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent
Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent
Calendar and considered separately.
N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item No. 22)
N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items.
(will be considered under Item. No. 29)
4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP
This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen
Participation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 18. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council
to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of
the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of:
! Ordinances on First Reading that are routine
! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine
! Those of no perceived controversy
! Routine administrative actions.
Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to
address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The
timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals
who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual.
! 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
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital
Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project.
The design of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project included enhancements to the University
Station at the request of Colorado State University (CSU), including decorative fencing, enhanced
landscaped plaza, walkway lighting, spare conduit installation, and upsizing of the storm drainage
system to accept CSU storm water runoff. These items are not eligible for reimbursement from the
Federal Transit Administration as part of the MAX BRT Project, and therefore will be funded by CSU.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, appropriates the
identified funds of $806,380 to construct the improvements concurrently with the BRT project.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees’ Pay Plan.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, adopts the 2013 Pay
Plan, which establishes a pay range structure for employee compensation. It is the framework that
sets the minimum and maximum pay for City positions. The methodology used by the City is based
on compensation best practices. The 2013 Pay Plan uses average actual salary data collected from
public and private sector markets for benchmark positions to determine pay range midpoints within
occupational groups. Ranges for non-benchmark jobs are established using a point factor system
that is calibrated against the benchmark jobs.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
To Modify the Requirements for Emergency Work.
A recent review of specific permit elements included in the City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater
Management Program identified an inconsistency with state interpretation of the requirements. This
inconsistency is due to the Fort Collins Design Criteria Manual allowing emergency work to be
exempted from the sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) requirements
of the Manual. Except for emergency firefighting activities, the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permit does not allow exemptions from the requirements. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, clarifies that emergency work will be
exempt only from advance submittal requirements, but not requirements for measures to prevent and
control erosion.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No. 117, 2012, to Correct the List
of Properties That Are Subject to the Special Fee Imposed by Said Ordinance.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, amends Ordinance
No. 117, 2012, that established a special fee to be paid by the owners of property within close
proximity to the reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392.
The spreadsheet mistakenly included a parcel of property in Zone A that is actually located within the
Town of Windsor. This property should not have been shown as being subject to the Fort Collins Fee
Ordinance. This Ordinance removes that parcel of property and slightly adjusts the area of the
property owned by Terry and Mary Van Cleave to more accurately reflect the actual property size.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Manager.
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review of
City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 146, 2012, establishes the salary of the City Manager
at $207,063.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Attorney.
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2012 to conduct the performance review of
City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 147, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the City Attorney
at $170,662.
Page 4
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review of
Municipal Judge Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 148, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading
on December 4, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the Municipal Judge at $99,253.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Property Interests Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to
the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project.
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (MAX BRT) Project staff has identified two additional real estate
acquisition interests which are necessary to construct the MAX BRT Project. As with prior
acquisitions/acquisition phases, City Council authorization for eminent domain (if necessary) is the
first step in the acquisitions process.
As a federally funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Public Law
91-646). In accordance with this act, property owners must be informed about the possible use of
eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado State Statute in the official Notice-of-Interest
Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this information to property owners.
This letter is the first official step in the acquisition process, which must occur prior to the appraisals.
Given the construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be conducted
under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition of the required property interests
is necessary. Therefore, City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain for the MAX
Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down.
The acquisitions that are the subject of this Ordinance concern two sets of property interests (more
specifically, two signboard easements, leasehold interests and improvements) located within the
alignment of planned BRT Project improvements on Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (the
“BNSF”) property. (Note: As background, on November 6, City Council upheld an appeal to an
August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision, thereby disallowing a ZBA variance that
would have permitted the relocation of one of the off-premise signboards which is the subject of this
Ordinance).
14. Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, Adopting an Update to Appendix C of the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards Pertaining to “Streetscape Standards” for the City of
Fort Collins.
.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code and the
Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate Provisions Implementing Low Impact
Development Principles.
Ordinance No. 151, 2012 replaces the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines
document with a new version entitled “City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards”. Ordinance No.
152, 2012 updates the City’s Low Impact Development Criteria and Policy regarding the control and
treatment of stormwater runoff from streets and site development.
The Streetscape Standards relate to the treatment of parkway strips (between the curb and sidewalk),
medians, intersections, roundabouts, and key gateway intersections. The update primarily involves
raising the bar for the quality of streetscape development in arterial medians and at key gateway
intersections.
The City’s Low Impact Development (LID) Criteria and Policy addresses the City’s requirements and
incentives for more distributed stormwater runoff management and control which relies mainly on
filtration and infiltration to treat and manage the stormwater runoff. This approach will apply to private
site development projects as well as to public street projects.
Page 5
15. Resolution 2012-118 Approving Fee Agreements Between the City and Certain Property Owners in
the Community Activity Center Adjacent to the Interchange at the Interstate 25 and State Highway
392.
On November 6, 2012, Council adopted Ordinance No. 117, 2012, establishing a special fee to be
paid by the owners of certain properties located west of Interstate 25 and within close proximity to the
reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. This ordinance
included the option for the property owners to elect to enter into a settlement agreement with the City
and the Town of Windsor as outlined in the attached draft agreements. The ordinance also required
the property owners electing to enter into such agreement to notify the City Manager in writing of their
desire to do so on or before November 30, 2012, and that the agreements need to be approved by
the City Council on or before December 31, 2012.
To date, the City has received written notice from all of the properties within the City’s jurisdiction
electing to pay the fee pursuant to the terms and conditions of a written agreement with the City. This
resolution authorizes the City Manager to sign said agreements with the property owners.
16. Resolution 2012-119 Adopting an Updated City Investment Policy.
The purpose of the Interagency Loan Program is to support City services, missions, and values by
making loans to outside entities such as the Urban Renewal Authority and the Downtown
Development Authority while maintaining an adequate rate or return for the City.
The 2012 Updated Investment Policy includes the following significant changes:
1. A Purpose Statement was added to the Inter-agency Loan Program
2. The name changed from Inter-fund Borrowing Program to Inter-agency Loan Program
3. The loan must be evidenced by a promissory note
4. The interest rate is the higher of Municipal Bonds or Treasury Bill rate plus 0.5%
5. A nexus is not required for utility funds
6. Approval from oversight board is required
7. Maximum loan term is 25 years
8. Restrictions on total loans made to Governmental and Enterprise funds.
17. Resolution 2012-120 Making Appointments to Various Boards, Commissions, and Authorities of the
City of Fort Collins.
Vacancies currently exist on various boards, commissions, and authorities due to resignations of
boardmembers and the expiration of terms of current members. Applications were solicited during
September, and Council teams interviewed applicants during October, November, and December.
This Resolution appoints members to fill current vacancies and term expirations.
18. Resolution 2012-121 Excusing the Absence of Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz From Attendance at
Meetings of the City Council During the Period From November 8, 2012 Through January 15, 2013.
Under the City Charter, a Council seat is considered vacant if the Councilmember misses regular and
special meetings for 60 consecutive days, unless excused by resolution of the Council. Due to illness,
Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz was last able to attend meetings of the City Council on November
6, 2012, and will be unavailable to resume such attendance until at least January 15, 2013.
END CONSENT
19. Consent Calendar Follow-up.
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent
Calendar.
Page 6
20. Staff Reports.
a. Presentation of the Starburst Award to the City from Great Outdoors Colorado.
b. Update on the Turnberry Project.
21. Councilmember Reports.
22. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made
by staff
! Staff presentation (optional)
! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)
! Council questions of staff on the item
! Council motion on the item
! Council discussion
! Final Council comments
! Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room.
The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again
at the end of the speaker’s time.
23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2012, Amending Division 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow
for the Processing of Applications for the Development of Property Not Yet under the Full Ownership
and Control of the Applicant or Developer. (staff: Laurie Kadrich; 2 minute staff presentation; 5
minute discussion)
The Land Use Code (LUC) presently requires that all submittal requirements must be met before an
application can be processed. One of those submittal requirements is that the applicant must own
or control all of the property that is the subject of the application. This Ordinance, adopted on First
Reading on December 4, 2012 by a vote of 4-1 (Nays: Ohlson; Weitkunat recused; Kottwitz absent)
amends the LUC to give the Director discretion to allow applications to proceed through the review
process under certain circumstances even if not all of the subject property is yet controlled by the
applicant. The applicant would have to show that, at the time of application, the applicant has
ownership of, or the legal right to use and control, the majority of the property to be developed. The
Director would then have to determine that reviewing the application would not be contrary to the
public interest, and the applicant would need to agree not to record any documents related to the
processing of the application until the applicant had gained control of the entire property. The
applicant would also be required to indemnify the City against any third party claims related to the
processing of the application.
24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2012, Establishing a Moratorium on the Acceptance or
Processing of Land Use Applications, Permit Applications, and Other Applications Seeking Approval
to Conduct Oil and Gas Extraction or Related Operations Within the City of Fort Collins. (staff: Laurie
Kadrich, Dan Weinheimer; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion)
On December 4, 2012, Council considered regulation of oil and gas exploration and production and
unanimously voted to impose a six-month moratorium on the submission, acceptance, consideration
Page 7
and approval of any all applications for City licenses, permits and other approvals related in any way
to oil and gas uses within the City. The moratorium will allow staff and Council time to further
investigate the extent of the City’s authority to regulate such uses. In order to give the newly seated
Council time to consider the regulations to be developed during the moratorium, staff is
recommending that the moratorium be extended on Second Recording to seven months rather than
six.
25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2012, Designating the Whitcomb Street Historic District as a Fort
Collins Landmark District, Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. (staff: Karen McWilliams; 10
minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The Whitcomb Street Historic District contains 14 properties, which, together, form a cohesive entity
associated historically, architecturally, and developmentally with the 100 block of South Whitcomb
Street. The proposed district is generally bound on the north by Mountain Avenue, on the south by
Oak Street, and by alleys on the east and west sides. It consists of the twelve properties that
comprise the 100 Block of South Whitcomb Street and two properties historically associated with the
100 Block of South Whitcomb Street, now addressed as 601 West Mountain Avenue and 612 West
Oak Street. The period of significance dates from the oldest construction in 1889, to 1940, when the
newest of the historic dwellings was built on the last subdivided lot, seventy-two years ago.
Owners of ten of the fourteen properties have consented in writing to establishment of the Whitcomb
Street Historic District, desiring to protect their investments from redevelopment activities and to
become eligible for financial programs available to historic properties. Owners of four properties are
in opposition to the district, preferring to not have additional restrictions placed on their properties,
including review of exterior alterations or demolitions.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2012, Amending Article IV of Chapter 15 of the City Code
relating to Door-to-Door Solicitation. (staff: Jessica Ping-Small, Jim Szakmeister; 10 minute staff
presentation; 30 minute discussion)
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 060, 2011, which took effect on May 27, 2011. It established a
permit system regulating residential door-to door solicitation. The City's goal in regulating door-to-door
solicitation was to help protect the safety and privacy of residents in their dwellings. Since
implementing the permit system, staff has identified certain changes that they recommend be made
to the provisions to ensure that the permit system is working properly and effectively, and also to allow
staff to respond quickly and efficiently to violations of the Ordinance.
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2012, Amending Section 2-483 of the City Code So as to Make
the Conflict of Interest Provisions Contained in Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter Applicable to
the Members of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority. (staff:
Steve Roy; 5 minute staff presentation; 15 minute discussion)
This Ordinance would amend the City Code so that the ethical rules that apply to the City Council will
also apply to the URA Board of Commissioners. The City Council Ethics Review Board has
recommended this change since, in Fort Collins, the URA Board consists of the members of the City
Council itself.
28. Resolution 2012-122 Accepting Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2012-3 of the Ethics
Review Board. (staff: Steve Roy; 5 minute staff presentation; 15 minute discussion)
Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review
Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical
situations involving potential conflicts of interest. On December 7, 2012, the Ethics Review Board met
for the purpose of responding to an inquiry submitted to the Board by Mayor Weitkunat and
Councilmember Manvel. The question submitted is whether, in the Board’s opinion, either of them
has a conflict of interest in participating in upcoming decisions of the City Council regarding the
possible redevelopment of the Link-n-Greens property by Woodward, Inc. The Mayor and
Councilmember Manvel presented the question because of the proximity of their respective
businesses to the redevelopment site. As required by the Code, the Board has forwarded its opinion
and recommendation to the full Council for its consideration. The Board opinion indicates that neither
Mayor Weitkunat or Councilmember Manvel has a conflict of interest in this situation. Adoption of the
Page 8
Resolution would indicate that the majority of the Council agrees with the Board’s opinion and
recommendation.
29. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.
30. Other Business.
31. 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, the value of a single life is inestimable; and
WHEREAS, addiction threatens the very foundation of our community, its individuals, its
families and its businesses, churches, organizations and groups; and
WHEREAS, the effect of an individual’s addiction has a dramatic impact on virtually every
relationship and connection the addict has, thus through these connections, the ravages of addiction
permeates the lives of nearly every member of our society; and
WHEREAS, there are over four hundred thousand Coloradoans and over twenty-three
million Americans who are drug and alcohol addicted; and
WHEREAS, Narconon Colorado – A Life Worth Saving and its staff dedicate themselves
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year to help the
individual by salvaging him or her utterly from addiction, restoring his or her abilities to be a
successful, happy, productive individual and a contributing member of his or her family and the
community; and
WHEREAS, Narconon Colorado – A Life Worth Saving has helped hundreds of addicts
restore their sobriety and dignity. Having been helped, they are now taking responsibility for and
are creating a positive effect on the thousands of lives they touch and, in so doing, they are creating
a zone of calm where once there was only sorrow and despair, helping to make this a better world.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
declare January 2013 as
NARCONON COLORADO – A LIFE WORTH SAVING MONTH
and recognize Narconon Colorado - A Life Worth Saving and its staff for helping hundreds of
addicts find sobriety and better, happier, more successful lives, helping our families and our
community at large.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Rick Richter
Erika Keeton
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund,
Mason Corridor Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The design of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project included enhancements to the University Station at the
request of Colorado State University (CSU), including decorative fencing, enhanced landscaped plaza, walkway
lighting, spare conduit installation, and upsizing of the storm drainage system to accept CSU storm water runoff.
These items are not eligible for reimbursement from the Federal Transit Administration as part of the MAX BRT
Project, and therefore will be funded by CSU. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December
4, 2012, appropriates the identified funds of $806,380 to construct the improvements concurrently with the BRT
project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Rick Richter
Erika Keeton
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason
Corridor Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The design of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project included enhancements to the University Station at the
request of Colorado State University (CSU), including decorative fencing, enhanced landscaped plaza, walkway
lighting, spare conduit installation, and upsizing of the storm drainage system to accept CSU storm water runoff.
These items are not eligible for reimbursement from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as part of the MAX BRT
Project, and therefore will be funded by CSU. This ordinance appropriates the identified funds of $806,380 to construct
the improvements concurrently with the BRT project.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The MAX Bus Rapid Transit Project extends from the Downtown Transit Center at Maple Street to approximately 1/4
mile south of Harmony Road, with a total length of approximately five miles. The University Station is one of twelve
BRT stations along this alignment, and is located on the Colorado State University Campus south of University Street.
This project will have significant impact on the function and aesthetics of the main CSU campus. University staff
participated in the design meetings and actively coordinated engineering issues with the City of Fort Collins throughout
the design process. Several enhancements were requested by CSU to include decorative fencing, an enhanced
landscaped plaza, additional walkway lighting, spare communication conduits, and an upsized storm drainage system
to accept CSU storm water runoff. Since these items are outside the scope of the required infrastructure for the BRT
stations, and therefore ineligible for federal funds identified for the BRT project, CSU agreed to fund the additional
expenses associated with the improvements.
The improvements are located within, or directly adjacent to, the BRT construction limits. For ease of construction and
coordination, the improvements will be constructed concurrently with the BRT project using the City’s existing BRT
construction contracts.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
There is no financial impact to the project, as the BRT design and budgeting process anticipated CSU funding
participation for these improvements. These dollars will be tracked separately from those identified in the Project
Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) finalized with FTA in May 2012 for $86,833,848.
Upgraded Fence/Guardrail $ 160,177
Walkway Lighting $ 151,116
Conduit Installation $ 139,379
Storm Drain System $ 77,419
Enhanced University Station $ 143,892
Contingency $ 134,397
Total $ 806,380
On October 5, 2012, the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System approved the use of the Land
Income Account for the Mason Bus Rapid Transit Infrastructure Improvements totaling $1.5 million. Their action
includes $806,380 to be incorporated into existing City BRT construction contracts as described, along with additional
funds for non-BRT related improvements to be managed by Colorado State University staff. The City will invoice CSU
based on actual costs of work completed.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -2- ITEM 13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The construction of the MAX system was included in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental
Assessment for the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project. On September 9, 2008, the Federal Transit
Administration declared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would result from the construction and operation
of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Project. On December 21, 2010, the FTA affirmed that the 2008 EA and 2008 FONSI
are valid, and the changes in final design documented in the 2010 Environmental Re-Evaluation serve to amend the
2008 EA and 2008 FONSI.
The Environmental Assessment analyzed Impacts on the following categories:
Land Use and Zoning Wildlife/Ecological
Social Conditions Threatened and Endangered Species
Economic Conditions Visual Quality
Environmental Justice Cultural Resources
Right-of-way Hazardous Materials
Air Quality Parks and Recreation Resources
Noise and Vibration Farmland
Water Resources and Water Quality Public Safety and Security
Wetlands Construction
Flooding and Floodplain Management Transportation
Vegetation Cumulative Impacts
Noxious Weeds
For more detailed information concerning the environmental impacts and mitigation measures please refer to the
Mason Corridor Environmental Assessment located at: www.fcgov.com/mason/environment.php .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On September 20, 2000, the Transportation Board unanimously voted to approve the Mason Street Corridor Master
Plan, which included plans for the purchase of BRT buses and construction of the MAX transit route. Since 2000, staff
has regularly updated the Transportation Board regarding the progress of the Mason Corridor, most recently on May
18, 2011. The Board also receives regular updates as to construction, public events and milestones. Minutes from
the May 18, 2011Transportation Board can be seen in Attachment 5.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Significant public outreach has been conducted since 1998 for the Mason Corridor project. The most recent public
outreach event was an Open House held October 3, 2012. Information related to the scope, budget, alignment, and
two-way conversion of Mason Street were presented. The project was also presented at the City sponsored Business
Innovation Fair on October 11, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Area map
2. October 18, 2012 Letter from Steve Hultin, Director Facilities Management, CSU
3. October 5, 2012 CSU Board of Governors Approval of Use of Land Income Account for Mason Bus Rapid
Transit Infrastructure Improvements
4. Project Construction Grant Agreement between Federal Transit Administration and City of Fort Collins
5. May 18, 2011 Transportation Board Minutes
ORDINANCE NO. 138, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, MASON CORRIDOR PROJECT
WHEREAS, the MAX Bus Rapid Transit project (“MAX BRT”) is a five-mile, north-south
byway extending from the Downtown Transit Center at Maple Street to approximately one-fourth
mile south of Harmony Road; and
WHEREAS, MAX BRT includes six park-n-ride locations, twelve stations/stops, and two
transit centers; and
WHEREAS, the University Station is one of twelve MAX BRT stations along the byway and
is located on the Colorado State University (“CSU”) campus south of University Street; and
WHEREAS, CSU has requested several enhancements to the University Station including
decorative fencing, an enhanced landscaped plaza, additional walkway lighting, spare
communication conduits, and an upsized storm drainage system to accept CSU storm water runoff;
and
WHEREAS, these items are outside the scope of the required infrastructure for the MAX
BRT stations and thus ineligible for federal funds identified for the MAX BRT project; and
WHEREAS, CSU has agreed to fund the additional expenses associated with these
improvements in the amount of $806,380; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes 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 Capital Projects Fund to exceed the current
estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue from Colorado State
University in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of EIGHT HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS ($806,380) for expenditure in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason
Corridor Project.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Janet Miller
Amy Sharkey
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees’ Pay Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, adopts the 2013 Pay Plan, which
establishes a pay range structure for employee compensation. It is the framework that sets the minimum and
maximum pay for City positions. The methodology used by the City is based on compensation best practices. The
2013 Pay Plan uses average actual salary data collected from public and private sector markets for benchmark
positions to determine pay range midpoints within occupational groups. Ranges for non-benchmark jobs are
established using a point factor system that is calibrated against the benchmark jobs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Janet Miller
Amy Sharkey
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2012, Adopting the 2013 Classified Employees’ Pay Plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins 2013 Pay Plan establishes a pay range structure for employee compensation. It is the
framework that sets the minimum and maximum pay for City positions. The methodology used by the City is based
on compensation best practices. The 2013 Pay Plan uses average actual salary data collected from public and private
sector markets for benchmark positions to determine pay range midpoints within occupational groups. Ranges for
non-benchmark jobs are established using a point factor system that is calibrated against the benchmark jobs.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 2009, the City has utilized the recommended best practice methodology for market pricing and competitive pay
analysis. This same methodology was used to design the 2013 Pay Plan and is outlined below:
Step 1 – Market Identification
Consistent with City Council direction, a market identification process is used to ensure that the City’s Pay Plan aligns
closely with the actual markets with which the City compete (both the public and private sectors). The City identified
126 benchmark jobs for which market pay data could be gathered.
The Colorado Front Range (Fort Collins to Colorado Springs) was identified as the market for professional and
technical jobs. Northern Colorado, including Larimer and Weld Counties, was the market identified for administrative
support and some labor trade jobs. Salary data for these two markets includes cities and counties with populations
greater than 50,000 and private sector data, where available.
Step 2 – Market Data Collection and Analysis
Average actual salary data was collected for the benchmark jobs using surveys from Mountain States Employer’s
Council (MSEC) and the Colorado Municipal League (CML). Average actual salary (also referred to as the mean) is
the sum of all reported pay for every employee in a benchmark job divided by the number of incumbents in a given
job. Because the salary data was collected in March 2012, staff “aged” the data by multiplying survey salaries by an
Employment Cost Index, 1.1%, (for government jobs) to arrive at an effective average actual pay rate to be
implemented in 2013.
Primary Data Sources
Mountain States Employer’s Council (MSEC) Colorado Compensation Survey
MSEC Colorado Compensation Survey represents Colorado employers of all sizes. Data was collected from 489
respondents located across the State of Colorado representing 45921 employees. Government employers represent
18% of the employers. MSEC surveys 383 benchmark jobs.
Mountain States Employer’s Council (MSEC) Information Technology Compensation Survey
Data is collected from 371 respondents. There are 6,432 employees and 83 benchmark jobs. Information is not
broken down by geographic region or type of industry.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -2- ITEM 14
Mountain State Employer’s Council (MSEC) Public Employers Compensation Survey
Data is collected from 124 respondents. There 35,300 employees and 362 benchmark jobs.
Colorado Municipal League (CML)
CML reports compensation from many jurisdictions in the State of Colorado, including municipalities, counties, and
special districts.
Step 3 – Establish Pay Ranges
After collecting the most recent data, each pay grade was analyzed. Average actual salaries were used to set the
City’s midpoint for each pay grade within seven occupational groups that make up the Classified Employees’ Pay Plan.
In order to determine pay grade midpoints (the pay structure), staff used regression analysis to establish the best line
of fit for the average actual salaries and pay grades. Midpoints were then used to establish the minimum and
maximum of the pay range (40% spread).
As a result of the market analysis, staff is recommending that the pay ranges for one of the seven occupational groups
be adjusted. Accordingly, all pay grades within the Electric Utility Operations and Skill Trade occupational groups have
been adjusted upwards by 4.75%. All pay grades within the other six occupational groups (Administrative Professional,
Administrative Support, Information Technology, Tech/Engineering, Operation Skill Trades/non-electric trades and
Police Civilian) remain at their current levels.
The result of all this effort is the recommended 2013 Classified Employee Pay Plan.
Outstanding Pay Plan Items
The market analysis identified two areas which need additional review and discussion in 2013:
1. The Electric Utility Operations and Skill Trade occupational group is 8.7% behind market; for budget
reasons, we are recommending only a 4.75% adjustment, but the remaining gap will need to be addressed
in future years.
2. Although the Administrative Professional Occupational Group appears to be an average 3.8% below the
market, we are not recommending any adjustments to the pay range at this time. There is significant
variability amongst the benchmark jobs in the group, so an overall review of the occupational group
structure is required before we can determine what adjustments are needed.
City staff will present proposed options for addressing these issues next year.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Funding for the 2013 Classified Employees’ Pay Plan is included in the 2013 Adopted City Budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 139, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE 2013 CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES
PAY PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 2-566 of the City Code requires that the pay plan for all classified
employees of the City shall be established by ordinance of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating employees in a manner that is fair,
competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the annual market analysis conducted by the Human Resources Department
includes public and private employer survey information for Northern Colorado and the Front
Range, providing clear benchmark information for approximately 143 benchmark positions; and
WHEREAS, the pay plan recommended by the City Manager is consistent with City
Council objectives, including the philosophy of establishing pay ranges by using the average
actual salaries for benchmark positions to set the mid-point of pay ranges for those positions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adoption of the recommended pay plan is
in the best interests of the City and further believes that the allocation of individual salaries
within the pay plan should be related to employee performance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2013 City of Fort Collins
Classified Employees Pay Plan (the "Plan"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That the effective date of the Plan shall commence with the January 7,
2013, pay period.
Section 3. That the City Manager shall fix the compensation levels of all classified
employees within the pay levels established in the Plan except to the extent that the City
Manager determines, due to performance or other extraordinary circumstances, that the pay level
of a particular employee should remain below the minimum or be fixed above the maximum for
that employee’s job title.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective 1/07/2013
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
8010 N ASSISTANT TECHNICAL COORD AP01 1,443.92 1,729.27 2,014.58
8012 N PLANNING TECHNICIAN 3,128.50 3,746.75 4,364.92
8016 N PUBLICITY/MARKETING TECHNICIAN 37,542.00 44,961.00 52,379.00
8018 N MEDIA INTEGRATION ASSISTANT
8020 N COUNCIL AGENDA COORDINATOR
8052 N URBAN DESIGN SPECIALIST AP02 1,617.19 1,936.77 2,256.35
8054 N GRAPHICS SPECIALIST 3,503.92 4,196.33 4,888.75
8058 N ASSOCIATE PLANNER 42,047.00 50,356.00 58,665.00
8060 N RECREATION COORDINATOR
8061 N PLANNING SPECIALIST I
8062 N PUBLICITY/MARKETING SPECIALIST
8064 N REVENUE/LICENSING AGENT
8068 Y UTILITY FEE/RATE SPECIALIST
8070 Y CURATOR
8074 N WELLNESS PROGRAM SPECIALIST
8076 N MEDIA INTEGRATION TECHNICIAN
8078 N CASH SYSTEMS COORDINATOR
8082 N BICYCLE COORDINATOR
8084 N WATER CONSERVATION COORDINATOR
8086 N ENERGY SERVICES PROGRAM COORDINATOR
8088 N FUNDRAISING & MARKETING COORDINATOR
8090 N SERVICE PLANNER
Revised 112112 Page 1
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective 1/07/2013
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
8100 Y PLANNING SPECIALIST II AP03 1,811.27 2,169.19 2,527.08
8102 Y ACCOUNTANT 3,924.42 4,699.92 5,475.33
8104 Y CHANGE MANAGEMENT ANALYST 47,093.00 56,399.00 65,704.00
8106 Y RECRUITMENT SPECIALIST
8110 Y WATER CONSERVATION SPECIALIST
8114 Y BUYER
8116 Y HUMAN RESOURCES REP
8117 Y BENEFITS ANALYST
8120 Y WELLNESS PROGRAM COORDINATOR
8122 Y HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER
8124 Y CDBG/HOME PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
8126 Y NEIGHBORHOOD ADMINISTRATOR
8127 Y NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LIAISON
8128 Y MARKETING ANALYST
8130 Y ENVIRO ED/PUBLIC INVOLV COORD
8134 Y FINANCIAL COORDINATOR
8136 Y TECHNICAL PRODUCTION DIRECTOR
8137 Y OUTREACH MARKETING SPECIALIST
8139 Y BUSINESS APPLICATION ANALYST
8140 Y SALES TAX AUDITOR
8142 Y VISUAL ARTS ADMINISTRATOR
8146 Y PUBLIC RELATIONS COORDINATOR
8150 Y BUDGET ANALYST
8156 Y REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST II
8160 N DEPUTY CITY CLERK
8162 Y COMMUNITY MEDIATION PROG COORD
8164 Y SALES MANAGER
Revised 112112 Page 2
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective 1/07/2013
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
8202 Y SENIOR BUYER AP04 2,028.62 2,429.46 2,830.35
8204 Y THERAPEUTIC RECREATION SPEC 4,395.33 5,263.83 6,132.42
8206 Y HUMAN RESOURCES PARTNER 52,744.00 63,166.00 73,589.00
8212 Y INDUSTRIAL HYGENIST
8214 Y SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
8216 Y ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
8218 Y SENIOR BUDGET ANALYST
8224 Y RECREATION SUPERVISOR
8226 Y CHIEF DEPUTY CITY CLERK
8228 Y TRANSPORTATION PLANNER
8230 Y CITY PLANNER
8232 Y FINANCIAL ANALYST
8236 Y KEY ACCOUNTS REP
8240 Y REAL ESTATE SPECIALIST III
8244 Y ASSISTANT MUSEUM DIRECTOR
8248 Y HRIS/BENEFITS ANALYST
8252 Y FINANCIAL/SWEEPING OPERS COORDINATOR
8254 Y RECREATION FINANCE/BUSINESS ANALYST
8258 Y HORTICULTURE FACIL/SERVICES ADMIN
8260 Y COMPENSATION ANALYST
8262 Y SENIOR SALES TAX AUDITOR
8268 Y ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ANALYST
8308 Y SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER AP05 2,272.04 2,721.00 3,169.96
8310 Y PERFORMING ARTS CENTER MANAGER 4,922.75 5,895.50 6,868.25
8312 Y SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PLNR 59,073.00 70,746.00 82,419.00
8318 Y SENIOR CITY PLANNER
8320 Y MUSEUM DIRECTOR
8330 Y SALES TAX MANAGER
8334 Y INVESTMENT ADMINISTRATOR
8336 Y COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER
8338 Y CUSTOMER AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MGR
8340 Y GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM MANAGER
8342 Y UTILITIES CUSTOMER SUPPORT MANAGER
8346 Y UTILITIES OUTREACH AND EDUCATION MGR
8354 Y PARKS FINANCE SUPERVISOR
8356 Y HEALTH AND SAFETY SPECIALIST
8360 Y FINANCIAL AND POLICY ANALYST
8362 Y UTIL CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS SUPERVISOR
Revised 112112 Page 3
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective 1/07/2013
ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
8400 Y RISK MANAGER AP06 2,544.69 3,047.54 3,550.38
8404 Y CHIEF PLANNER 5,513.50 6,603.00 7,692.50
8407 Y BIKES PROGRAM MANAGER 66,162.00 79,236.00 92,310.00
8408 Y UTILITY RATE ANALYST
8410 Y RECREATION AREA MANAGER
8416 Y PROJECT/PUBLIC INFO MANAGER
8418 Y REAL ESTATE SERVICES MANAGER
8420 Y NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES MANAGER
8422 Y HR STRATEGIC PARTNER MANAGER
8424 Y LEARNING AND ORGAN DEVELOP MANAGER
8426 Y IT FINANCIAL AND POLICY MANAGER
8428 Y MANAGER OF PARKS
8432 Y CABLE TELEVISION MANAGER
8434 Y ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MANAGER
8436 Y POLICY & PROJECT MANAGER
8438 Y FINANCIAL POLICY AND PROJECT MANAGER
8914 Y UTILITIES FINANCIAL OPERATIONS MGR
8448 Y ASSISTANT TRANSFORT/DAR GENERAL MGR AP07 2,799.15 3,352.27 3,905.38
8452 Y NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM MANAGER 6,064.83 7,263.25 8,461.67
8458 Y REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MANAGER 72,778.00 87,159.00 101,540.00
8460 Y FC MOVES PROGRAM MANAGER
8925 Y PDT BUDGET, POLICY, AND COMM MGR
8472 Y COMP, BENEFITS, AND HRIS MANAGER AP08 3,079.08 3,687.62 4,295.96
8906 Y DIR OF PURCHASING AND RISK MGMT 6,671.33 7,989.83 9,307.92
80,056.00 95,878.00 111,695.00
Revised 112112 Page 4
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective 1/07/2013
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
4012 N PARKING ATTENDANT AS02 936.58 1,121.65 1,306.73
2,029.25 2,430.25 2,831.25
24,351.00 29,163.00 33,975.00
4100 N ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK I AS03 1,046.88 1,256.27 1,463.54
4102 N ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY I 2,268.25 2,721.92 3,171.00
27,219.00 32,663.00 38,052.00
4150 N FACILITIES SCHEDULER AS04 1,172.50 1,407.00 1,639.15
4152 N DEPUTY COURT CLERK I 2,540.42 3,048.50 3,551.50
4155 N RECORDS MANAGEMENT TECH 30,485.00 36,582.00 42,618.00
4156 N ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY II
4158 N ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK II
4160 N CUSTOMER SERVICE REP I
4200 N SERVICE SCHEDULE COORD AS05 1,289.77 1,547.69 1,803.08
4202 N ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE 2,794.50 3,353.33 3,906.67
4206 N LEGAL SECRETARY 33,534.00 40,240.00 46,880.00
4208 N DEPUTY COURT CLERK II
4210 N DISPATCHER/SCHEDULER
4212 N ACCOUNTS PAYABLE REP
4214 N CUSTOMER SERVICE REP II
4216 N RECREATION SERVICES REP
4218 N ASSIST FINANCIAL COORDINATOR
4220 N UTILITY LOCATING DISPATCHER/SCHEDULER
Revised 112112 Page 5
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective 1/07/2013
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
4244 N HUMAN RESOURCES TECHNICIAN AS06 1,418.73 1,702.46 1,983.38
4246 N PERSONNEL SPECIALIST 3,073.92 3,688.67 4,297.33
4248 N DOT COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR 36,887.00 44,264.00 51,568.00
4250 N PAYROLL SPECIALIST
4252 N RIGHT OF WAY TECHNICIAN
4254 N RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS COORD
4256 N LEGAL ASSISTANT
4258 N RISK MANAGEMENT TECHNICIAN
4260 N ADMIN TECH SUPPORT SPECIALIST
4266 N ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
4272 N EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASST
4274 N CREDIT/COLLECTIONS REP
4276 N FINANCIAL TECHNICIAN
4280 N LEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE REP
4286 N BLDG AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TECH
4288 N LEAD DISPATCHER/SCHEDULER
4290 N EVENTS COORDINATOR
4352 N MUNICIPAL COURT SUPERVISOR AS07 1,563.73 1,872.73 2,181.73
4360 N ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SPVSR 3,388.08 4,057.58 4,727.08
4362 N SCHEDULING SUPERVISOR 40,657.00 48,691.00 56,725.00
4364 N BOX OFFICE COORDINATOR
4366 N BENEFITS SPECIALIST
4368 N SENIOR LEGAL ASSISTANT
4372 N UTILITIES ADMINISTRATIVE SERV SUPERVISOR
4374 N SENIOR BLDG AND DEVELOP REVIEW TECH
4410 Y UTILITY SERVICES COORDINATOR AS08 1,720.08 2,060.00 2,399.88
3,726.83 4,463.33 5,199.75
44,722.00 53,560.00 62,397.00
4452 Y PAYROLL/ACCTS PAYABLE SPVSR AS09 1,892.12 2,266.00 2,639.88
4454 N EXEC ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER 4,099.58 4,909.67 5,719.75
49,195.00 58,916.00 68,637.00
Revised 112112 Page 6
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective 1/07/2013
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
5511 N PC HARDWR/SOFTWR SPECIALIST IT04 1,640.69 1,964.88 2,289.08
5517 N GIS MAPPING SPECIALIST 3,554.83 4,257.25 4,959.67
42,658.00 51,087.00 59,516.00
5516 N TELECOM SYSTEMS SPECIALIST IT05 1,837.58 2,200.65 2,563.77
3,981.42 4,768.08 5,554.83
47,777.00 57,217.00 66,658.00
5520 Y PROGRAMMER/ANALYST IT06 2,058.08 2,464.77 2,871.42
5525 Y GIS PROGRAMMER/ANALYST 4,459.17 5,340.33 6,221.42
5526 Y CONTROL & DATA SYS SPECIALIST 53,510.00 64,084.00 74,657.00
5533 Y CIS DEVELOPER/ANALYST IT07 2,305.04 2,759.38 3,216.00
5535 Y SENIOR GIS PROGRAMMER/ANALYST 4,994.25 5,978.67 6,968.00
5536 Y TELECOM TECHNICAL SPECIALIST 59,931.00 71,744.00 83,616.00
5537 Y SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
5538 Y ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING ANALYST
5545 Y WEB PROGRAMMER ANALYST
5540 Y DATABASE ANALYST IT08 2,535.54 3,036.58 3,537.62
5543 Y TELECOM SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR 5,493.67 6,579.25 7,664.83
5546 Y LAN AND SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR 65,924.00 78,951.00 91,978.00
5550 Y SYSTEMS ANALYST
5551 Y POLICE SYSTEMS ANALYST
5552 Y SYS INTEGRATOR/NETWK ADMINIST
Revised 112112 Page 7
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Effective 1/07/2013
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
5553 Y INFORMATION SERVICES MANAGER IT09 2,789.08 3,340.23 3,891.38
5555 Y WEB DEVELOPER/ARCHITECT 6,043.00 7,237.17 8,431.33
5558 Y CONTROL AND DATA SYSTEM ENGR 72,516.00 86,846.00 101,176.00
5559 Y ERP PROGRAM MANAGER
5561 Y NETWORK ADMINISTRATION MANAGER
5562 Y SENIOR DATABASE ANALYST
5564 Y SENIOR SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
5566 Y SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATION MANAGER
5565 Y SENIOR NETWORK ENGINEER IT10 3,068.00 3,674.27 4,280.50
5571 Y APPLICATION SVCS MGR - UTILITIES 6,647.33 7,960.92 9,274.42
5573 Y SR DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR 79,768.00 95,531.00 111,293.00
5575 Y INFORMATION SECURITY ARCHITECT IT11 3,221.38 3,857.96 4,494.50
6,979.67 8,358.92 9,738.08
83,756.00 100,307.00 116,857.00
5574 Y INFO TECH DIR - INFRASTRUCTURE SERV IT12 3,382.46 4,050.85 4,719.23
5576 Y INFO TECH DIR - APPLICATION SERV 7,328.67 8,776.83 10,225.00
87,944.00 105,322.00 122,700.00
Revised 112112 Page 8
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Non-Skill Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
TECH/ENGINEERING
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
6010 N LABORATORY ASSISTANT TE01 1,203.35 1,441.12 1,678.88
2,607.25 3,122.42 3,637.58
31,287.00 37,469.00 43,651.00
TE02 1,347.73 1,614.04 1,880.35
2,920.08 3,497.08 4,074.08
35,041.00 41,965.00 48,889.00
6100 N LAND SURVEY TECHNICIAN TE03 1,509.46 1,807.73 2,106.00
3,270.50 3,916.75 4,563.00
39,246.00 47,001.00 54,756.00
6150 N TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TECH I TE04 1,690.58 2,024.65 2,358.73
6152 N ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN 3,662.92 4,386.75 5,110.58
6154 N PARK PLANNING TECHNICIAN 43,955.00 52,641.00 61,327.00
6158 N CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL TECH
6202 N CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR TE05 1,893.46 2,267.62 2,641.77
6204 N SURVEY PARTY CHIEF 4,102.50 4,913.17 5,723.83
6206 N TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TECH II 49,230.00 58,958.00 68,686.00
6248 N ENERGY SERVICES SPECIALIST
6250 N SENIOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR TE06 2,120.69 2,539.73 2,958.77
6252 Y APPRENTICE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 4,594.83 5,502.75 6,410.67
6253 N CHEMIST 55,138.00 66,033.00 76,928.00
6256 Y CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL SPEC
6258 Y WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL SPEC
6262 N INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT SPEC
6264 Y CABLE TV PRODUCTION ENGINEER
6274 N PARKS PROJECT MANAGER
6276 N TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TECH III
6307 Y ELECTRIC UTILITY PROJECT MGR TE07 2,332.73 2,793.69 3,254.65
6310 Y CIVIL ENGINEER I 5,054.25 6,053.00 7,051.75
6312 Y FACILITIES PLAN/ARCHITECT 60,651.00 72,636.00 84,621.00
6314 Y WATERSHED SPECIALIST
6316 Y LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
6319 Y LABORATORY QUAL ASSURANCE COORDIN
6320 Y ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGER
6322 Y ENERGY SERVICES ENGINEER
Revised 112112 Page 9
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Non-Skill Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
TECH/ENGINEERING
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
6401 Y LABORATORY SUPERVISOR TE08 2,566.00 3,073.08 3,580.12
6402 Y POLLUTION CONTROL SERVICE SUPV 5,559.67 6,658.33 7,756.92
6404 Y PROJECT ENGINEERING SUPERVISOR 66,716.00 79,900.00 93,083.00
6406 Y TRAFFIC SYSTEMS ENGINEER
6407 Y TRAFFIC SYSTEMS ENGINEER/SUPERVISOR
6408 Y WATER UTILITY FIELD OPER SUPERINTENDENT
6410 Y CIVIL ENGINEER II
6412 Y CHIEF SURVEYOR
6414 Y ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY SPECIALIST
6418 Y FACILITIES PROJECT MANAGER
6420 Y WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER
6426 Y CHIEF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR
6430 Y SENIOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
6432 Y SYSTEMS AND ENGERY MANAGER
6504 Y CIVIL ENGINEER III TE09 2,822.62 3,380.38 3,938.15
6508 Y SENIOR ENERGY SERVICES ENGINEER 6,115.67 7,324.17 8,532.67
6514 Y SPECIAL PROJECTS ENGINEER 73,388.00 87,890.00 102,392.00
6516 Y SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER
6520 Y SENIOR PROCESS ENGINEER
6522 Y ASSET MANAGER
6526 Y CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
6532 Y SENIOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER TE10 3,104.88 3,718.42 4,331.96
6534 Y PROCESS/SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR 6,727.25 8,056.58 9,385.92
6538 Y DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MANAGER 80,727.00 96,679.00 112,631.00
6540 Y PAVEMENT MGMT PROGRAM MGR
6542 Y STREET OVERSIZING PROGRAM MGR
6546 Y ASST OPERATIONS SERVICES DIRECTOR
6548 Y ENERGY SERVICES MANAGER
6550 Y STORMWATER AND FLOODPLAIN PROG MGR
8948 Y WATER UTILITY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MGR
6554 Y WATER PRODUCTION MANAGER TE11 3,260.12 3,904.35 4,548.58
6556 Y REGULATORY & GOV'T AFFAIRS MGR 7,063.58 8,459.42 9,855.25
6558 Y ENGINEERING AND CAPITAL PROJ MGR 84,763.00 101,513.00 118,263.00
6560 Y WATER RESOURCES MANAGER
6564 Y WATER RECLAM & BIOSOLIDS MANAGER
8958 Y CHIEF ENGINEER
8960 Y ELEC SYSTEM ENG MGR
8961 Y ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Skills-Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
TECH/ENGINEERING
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
STE05 1,893.46 2,267.62 2,641.77
4,102.50 4,913.17 5,723.83
49,230.00 58,958.00 68,686.00
STE06 2,120.69 2,539.73 2,958.77
6254 N PLANS ANALYST 4,594.83 5,502.75 6,410.67
55,138.00 66,033.00 76,928.00
Revised 112112 Page 11
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Non-Skill Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE I
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
7074 N PARTS RUNNER OSA02 952.46 1,140.69 1,328.92
7076 N BUS CLEANER 2,063.67 2,471.50 2,879.33
24,764.00 29,658.00 34,552.00
7084 N MATERIALS HANDLER OSA03 1,066.77 1,277.58 1,488.38
7086 N TRANSP MAINTENANCE WORKER 2,311.33 2,768.08 3,224.83
27,736.00 33,217.00 38,698.00
7110 N METER READER OSA04 1,194.81 1,430.88 1,667.00
7112 N WAREHOUSE WORKER 2,588.75 3,100.25 3,611.83
7118 N EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE WORKER 31,065.00 37,203.00 43,342.00
7120 N FACILITY ASSISTANT
7122 N PARTS ASSISTANT
7150 N SENIOR WAREHOUSE WORKER OSA05 1,338.19 1,602.62 1,867.04
7154 N UTILITY FIELD SERVICE REP 2,899.42 3,472.33 4,045.25
7156 N STREETS EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I 34,793.00 41,668.00 48,543.00
7158 N TRAFFIC EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I
7162 N PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
7166 N BUS OPERATOR
7168 N GRAFFITI ABETEMENT OFFICER
7250 N FARM TECHNICIAN OSA06 1,498.77 1,794.92 2,091.08
7252 N FACILITY MAINTENANCE TECH 3,247.33 3,889.00 4,530.67
7256 N TRAFFIC EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II 38,968.00 46,668.00 54,368.00
7257 N STREETS EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II
7258 N MAINTENANCE TECH-LANDSCAPE
7260 N TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECH I
7264 N STREET SIGN TECHNICIAN
7266 N FORESTRY TECHNICIAN
7270 N COMPLIANCE INSPECTOR
7272 N UTILITY FACILITY LOCATOR
7276 N PARKS/GROUNDS TECH
7280 N MAINTENANCE TECH-BUILDING
7284 N HORTICULTURE TECHNICIAN
Revised 112112 Page 12
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Non-Skill Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE I
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
7328 N FLEET SPECIALIST OSA07 1,641.12 1,965.42 2,289.73
7330 N TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECH II 3,555.75 4,258.42 4,961.08
7332 N NATURAL AREA TECHNICIAN 42,669.00 51,101.00 59,533.00
7334 N EXHIBITS TECHNICIAN
7336 N MAINTENANCE PLANNER/SCHEDULER
7342 N TRANSFORT SAFETY & TRAINING SUPERVISOR
7346 N RESOURCE RECOVERY SPECIALIST
7350 N ASST SUPERINTENDENT-GOLF
7356 N MAINTENANCE TECH-HVAC
7358 N CUSTODIAL CONTRACT ADMIN
7364 N WATER UTILITY LEAK DETECT SPC
7366 N ROAD SUPERVISOR
7368 N GRAFFITI ABETEMENT COORDINATOR
7369 N PARKING FACILITIES SUPERVISOR
7400 N INSTRUMENT/ELECTRICAL TECH OSA08 1,805.27 2,162.00 2,518.73
7402 N ZONING INSPECTOR 3,911.42 4,684.33 5,457.25
7405 N WATER SUPPLY CONTROLLER 46,937.00 56,212.00 65,487.00
7414 N OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR
7418 N MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST
7422 N METER READER SUPERVISOR
7424 N CUSTOMER SERVICES SUPERVISOR
7426 N MATERIAL CONTROL SUPERVISOR
7428 N BLDG CONTROL SYS MAINT SPEC
7430 N HVAC LEAD
7432 N PARKING ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR
7436 N UTIL BLDG/HVAC MAINTENANCE COORDIN
7438 N FORESTRY CREW LEADER - SM & MED TREES
7440 N FORESTRY CREW LEADER - LARGE TREES
7461 N COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR OSA09 1,985.81 2,378.19 2,770.62
7463 N CREW CHIEF 4,302.58 5,152.75 6,003.00
7466 Y BUILDING MAINTENANCE SPVSR 51,631.00 61,833.00 72,036.00
7468 Y ASSISTANT CITY FORESTER
7470 N MASTER ELECTRICIAN
7474 Y FORESTRY SUPERVISOR
7478 Y SUPERINTENDENT OF GOLF
7480 Y FACILITIES LOCATE SUPERVISOR
7482 Y SHOP SUPERVISOR
7484 Y PARTS SUPERVISOR
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Non-Skill Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE I
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
7522 Y WATER SRVC SAFETY & TRNG SPVSR OSA10 2,184.35 2,616.00 3,047.65
7524 Y TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR 4,732.75 5,668.00 6,603.25
7526 Y WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISOR 56,793.00 68,016.00 79,239.00
7528 Y WATER UTIL CONSTRUCT/PURCHASING COOR
7531 Y ZONING SUPERVISOR
7532 Y PROCESS CONTROL SUPERVISOR
7534 Y PARKS SUPERVISOR
7540 Y INSTRUMENT/ELECTRICAL SPVSR
7560 Y WATER TREATMENT PLANT SUPT OSA11 2,391.88 2,864.54 3,337.19
5,182.42 6,206.50 7,230.58
62,189.00 74,478.00 86,767.00
Revised 112112 Page 14
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Skills-Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE 1
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
7268 N WATER UTILITY MAINT OPERATOR SOSA06 1,498.77 1,794.92 2,091.08
7286 N WATER METER TECHNICIAN 3,247.33 3,889.00 4,530.67
7290 N WATER METER SYSTEMS OPERATOR 38,968.00 46,668.00 54,368.00
7345 N MECHANIC SOSA07 1,641.12 1,965.42 2,289.73
7397 N NATURAL AREA/TRAILS RANGER 3,555.75 4,258.42 4,961.08
42,669.00 51,101.00 59,533.00
7406 N LEAD MECHANIC SOSA08 1,805.27 2,162.00 2,518.73
7409 N LEAD RANGER 3,911.42 4,684.33 5,457.25
7410 N BUILDING INSPECTOR 46,937.00 56,212.00 65,487.00
7416 N PLANT OPERATOR
7465 N LEAD BUILDING INSPECTOR SOSA09 1,985.81 2,378.19 2,770.62
7472 N LEAD PLANT OPERATOR 4,302.58 5,152.75 6,003.00
51,631.00 61,833.00 72,036.00
Revised 112112 Page 15
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Non-Skill Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE II
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
7800 N SPECIAL SERVICES TECH OSB06 2,088.85 2,501.58 2,914.35
4,525.83 5,420.08 6,314.42
54,310.00 65,041.00 75,773.00
7852 N SR. ELECTRIC SYSTEMS OPERATOR OSB07 2,287.27 2,739.23 3,191.23
4,955.75 5,935.00 6,914.33
59,469.00 71,220.00 82,972.00
7900 N SERVICES CREW CHIEF OSB08 2,504.58 2,999.50 3,494.42
7902 N ELECTRIC DIST. SAFETY SPVSR 5,426.58 6,498.92 7,571.25
7904 N SUPERVISORY ELECT SYS OPERATOR 65,119.00 77,987.00 90,855.00
7906 N METER SYSTEMS SUPERVISOR
7950 N SUPERVISORY CREW CHIEF OSB09 2,742.50 3,284.46 3,826.35
5,942.08 7,116.33 8,290.42
71,305.00 85,396.00 99,485.00
Revised 112112 Page 16
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Skills-Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
OPERATIONS AND SKILL TRADES TABLE II
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
7760 N ELECTRIC METER TECH SOSB05 1,907.62 2,284.58 2,661.54
4,133.17 4,949.92 5,766.67
49,598.00 59,399.00 69,200.00
7804 N ELECTRIC SYSTEMS OPERATOR SOSB06 2,088.85 2,501.58 2,912.81
7806 N ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN I 4,525.83 5,420.08 6,311.08
7808 N LINEWORKER EQUIPMENT SPEC 54,310.00 65,041.00 75,733.00
7850 N ELECTRICAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR SOSB07 2,287.27 2,739.23 3,191.23
7860 N ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN II 4,955.75 5,935.00 6,914.33
7862 N SUBSTATION SPECIALIST 59,469.00 71,220.00 82,972.00
7864 N ELECTRIC LINEWORKER
7908 N LINE CREW CHIEF SOSB08 2,504.58 2,999.50 3,494.42
7910 N SPECIAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR 5,426.58 6,498.92 7,571.25
7912 N LINE EQUIPMENT CREW CHIEF 65,119.00 77,987.00 90,855.00
7952 N SUBSTATION ELEC/COMM.SPEC SOSB09 2,742.50 3,284.46 3,826.35
5,942.08 7,116.33 8,290.42
71,305.00 85,396.00 99,485.00
Revised 112112 Page 17
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Non-Skill Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
PROTECTIVE SERVICES CIVILIAN
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
9030 N WARRANTS TECHNICIAN PSA03 1,271.38 1,522.62 1,773.85
2,754.67 3,299.00 3,843.33
33,056.00 39,588.00 46,120.00
9050 N POLICE SUPPLY TECHNICIAN PSA04 1,423.96 1,705.35 1,986.73
3,085.25 3,694.92 4,304.58
37,023.00 44,339.00 51,655.00
9064 N POLICE REPORT SPECIALIST PSA05 1,594.81 1,909.96 2,225.12
9065 N PROPERTY/EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN 3,455.42 4,138.25 4,821.08
9067 N FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS SPECIALIST 41,465.00 49,659.00 57,853.00
9080 N POLICE INVESTIGATIVE AIDE PSA06 1,754.31 2,100.96 2,447.62
9082 N POLICE SERVICES TECHNICIAN 3,801.00 4,552.08 5,303.17
45,612.00 54,625.00 63,638.00
9095 N CRIME ANALYST PSA07 1,929.73 2,311.08 2,692.42
4,181.08 5,007.33 5,833.58
50,173.00 60,088.00 70,003.00
9126 N VICTIM SERVICES SUPERVISOR PSA08 2,122.69 2,542.15 2,961.62
9128 N POLICE RECORDS SUPERVISOR 4,599.17 5,508.00 6,416.83
9130 N PROPERTY/EVIDENCE SUPERVISOR 55,190.00 66,096.00 77,002.00
PSA09 2,335.00 2,796.38 3,257.77
5,059.17 6,058.83 7,058.50
60,710.00 72,706.00 84,702.00
9150 Y RECORDS MANAGER PSA10 2,451.73 2,936.19 3,420.65
9160 Y POLICE TECHNICAL PROJECTS MGR 5,312.08 6,361.75 7,411.42
63,745.00 76,341.00 88,937.00
9170 Y POLICE PHYSCHOLOGIST PSA11 2,574.31 3,083.00 3,591.69
5,577.67 6,679.83 7,782.00
66,932.00 80,158.00 93,384.00
Revised 112112 Page 18
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Skills-Based Pay Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
PROTECTIVE SERVICES CIVILIAN
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM MIDPOINT
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
9097 N CRIMINALIST SPSA07 1,929.73 2,311.08 2,692.42
4,181.08 5,007.33 5,833.58
50,173.00 60,088.00 70,003.00
Revised 112112 Page 19
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PAY PLAN
CLASSIFIED POSITIONS
Collective Bargaining Unit Positions
Effective 1/07/2013
PROTECTIVE SERVICES SWORN
JOB
TYPE
EXEMPT
Y/N JOB TITLE
PAY
GRADE
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MINIMUM
BI-WEEKLY/
MONTHLY/
ANNUAL
SALARY
MAXIMUM
9250 Y POLICE CAPTAIN PSB05 4,669.92 4,847.62
10,118.17 10,503.17
121,418.00 126,038.00
Revised 112112 Page 20
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Susan Strong
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual To Modify the
Requirements for Emergency Work.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A recent review of specific permit elements included in the City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Management Program
identified an inconsistency with state interpretation of the requirements. This inconsistency is due to the Fort Collins
Design Criteria Manual allowing emergency work to be exempted from the sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) requirements of the Manual. Except for emergency firefighting activities, the Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit does not allow exemptions from the requirements. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, clarifies that emergency work will be exempt only from
advance submittal requirements, but not requirements for measures to prevent and control erosion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Susan Strong
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2012, Amending the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual To Modify the
Requirements for Emergency Work.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A recent review of specific permit elements included in the City of Fort Collins’ Stormwater Management Program
identified an inconsistency with state interpretation of the requirements. This inconsistency is due to the Fort Collins
Design Criteria Manual allowing emergency work to be exempted from the sediment and erosion control Best
Management Practices (BMPs) requirements of the Manual. Except for emergency firefighting activities, the Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit does not allow exemptions from the requirements. The proposed
amendment will clarify that emergency work will be exempt only from advance submittal requirements, but not
requirements for measures to prevent and control erosion.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2003, the City of Fort Collins was issued an MS4 permit in order to discharge stormwater associated with its MS4.
This federally mandated program is administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE). The City is currently in its second permit term, 2008-2013.
The CDPHE Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) recently required that MS4 permittees submit a completed
Targeted Permit Questionnaire, which provided a framework for permittees to review specific elements in their
stormwater management programs and make corrections outside of a Division audit.
Review of the Construction Site Runoff Control program requirements revealed that while the City’s program requires
implementation of sediment and erosion control BMPs for land-disturbing activities greater than 10,000 square feet,
emergency work is exempt. Except for emergency firefighting activities, CDPHE interpretation of the MS4 permit does
not allow exemptions from the requirements. The revised language will clarify that emergency work will be exempt
only from advance submittal requirements, but not requirements for measures to prevent and control erosion.
In addition to meeting CDPHE interpretation of MS4 permit program goals and requirements, the proposed Criteria
Manual change also helps protect the quality of the stormwater that flows from our MS4 into waters of the state to the
maximum extent practicable.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed Criteria Manual change will have a positive financial impact on the City because the operator of the
emergency site disturbance will be responsible for implementing controls to protect water quality from the discharge
of sediment. This will save the City money on maintenance costs for removing sediment from the storm sewer system.
In addition, failure to fully comply with the requirements of the program as interpreted by CDPHE could result in the
imposition of financial penalties.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed Criteria Manual change reflects environmental regulatory requirements of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and CDPHE interpretation of the requirements. The regulatory requirements are promulgated to
implement the goals of the Clean Water Act to protect and improve the quality of our nation’s waterbodies.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -2- ITEM 15
Requirements for implementation of erosion and sediment control BMPs for emergency land-disturbing activity will
help protect our local creeks and the Cache la Poudre River from the discharge of sediment, a major water quality pollutant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its November 15, 2012 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the amendment
to Section (O) - Volume 3, Chapter 7, Subsection 1 of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual relating to the
exemption for implementation of erosion control requirements for emergency work.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach has been conducted by Utilities staff regarding the prohibition of the discharge of pollutants and
contaminated water to the City’s stormwater system. Education has included business educational outreach
campaigns, warning letters to first-time violators, and education for developers and construction site employees on
proper erosion and sediment control measures.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Board minutes, November 15, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 140, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL
TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERGENCY WORK
WHEREAS, in December 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 174, 2011, which
adopted by reference the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (“UDFCD”) Criteria Manual,
modified by the Fort Collins Amendments also adopted by Ordinance No. 174, together referred to
and codified as the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual (the “Manual”); and
WHEREAS, as part of recent reviews of the City's Municipal Separate Stormwater System,
and based on recommendations of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, City
staff has developed an amendment to the Manual that narrows the scope of an exemption from
certain requirements for emergency work; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendment is to increase accountability for sediment and
erosion control measures for emergency work, where practicable, while recognizing that
circumstances generally prevent the advance submission of plans and reports; and
WHEREAS, the revisions were presented to the Water Board at its November 15, 2012,
regular meeting, and the Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the revisions, as set
forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section (O) of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(O) Volume 3, Chapter 7 - Construction BMPs:
(1) A new Section 1.1 is added, to read as follows:
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The Stormwater Criteria Manual provides the minimum design and technical criteria
for the design and analysis of drainage and erosion control plans. The erosion-
related requirements of this Manual are intended to reduce erosion to an acceptable
level, emphasizing the control of erosion and sediment transport from the surface of
disturbed land by water. Channel erosion control for temporary channels
(diversions, gullies) and major channel stabilization are addressed as erosion control
matters in this Manual. The requirements of Volume 3, Chapter 7, as amended,
apply to all land disturbing activities covered by this Manual, except for the
following:
(1) Single Family Residential lots less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in
area and less than four to one slopes except when construction activities are
within 50 feet of the outer limits of sensitive areas including floodplains,
slopes, riparian corridors, lakes, irrigation ditches, or other features subject
to natural areas buffer requirements under the City Land Use Code; and
(2) Emergency work disturbing ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more in area
will not be required to supply an Erosion Control Plan and/or Report, but
must comply with otherwise applicable erosion control requirements except
to the extent that such compliance is precluded by the emergency
circumstances necessitating the emergency work.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Rick Richter
Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No. 117, 2012, to Correct the List of Properties
That Are Subject to the Special Fee Imposed by Said Ordinance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, amends Ordinance No. 117, 2012,
that established a special fee to be paid by the owners of property within close proximity to the reconstructed
interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. The spreadsheet mistakenly included a parcel
of property in Zone A that is actually located within the Town of Windsor. This property should not have been shown
as being subject to the Fort Collins Fee Ordinance. This Ordinance removes that parcel of property and slightly
adjusts the area of the property owned by Terry and Mary Van Cleave to more accurately reflect the actual property
size.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Rick Richter
Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2012, Amending Ordinance No. 117, 2012, to Correct the List of Properties That
Are Subject to the Special Fee Imposed by Said Ordinance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance amends Ordinance No. 117, 2012, adopted on Second Reading on November 6, 2012, that
established a special fee to be paid by the owners of property within close proximity to the reconstructed interchange
at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. The spreadsheet mistakenly included a parcel of property
in Zone A that is actually located within the Town of Windsor. This property should not have been shown as being
subject to the Fort Collins Fee Ordinance.
This Ordinance removes that parcel of property and slightly adjusts the area of the property owned by Terry and Mary
Van Cleave to more accurately reflect the actual property size.
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.”
On November 6, 2012, the City Council adopted on Second Reading Ordinance No. 117, 2012, establishing a special
fee to be paid by the owners of certain properties located west of Interstate 25 and within close proximity to the
reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. On November 13, 2012, the
Town Board of Windsor, Colorado, adopted a similar ordinance establishing a special fee to be paid by certain
properties located east of the Interchange and within the Windsor town limits.
The Fort Collins fee ordinance contains a spreadsheet in Section 1(c)(1)a, that identifies the parcels of property that
will be subject to the “proximity component” of the Fort Collins fee. The spreadsheet mistakenly includes a parcel of
property in Zone A that is located within the Town of Windsor and that should not have been shown as being subject
to the Fort Collins Fee Ordinance. This property is known as Larimer County Parcel No. 86150-00-013, and is owned
by Burnette/Young Investments. The purpose of this Ordinance is to correct the above referenced spreadsheet by
eliminating that parcel of property from the Fort Collins fee spreadsheet.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This action will allow for the payment of the Special Fee for the parcel in question to correctly be paid to Windsor
instead of Fort Collins.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -2- ITEM 16
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The impacted property owners have been notified of the intention to correct this error and they had no objection.
ORDINANCE NO. 141, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 117, 2012, TO CORRECT THE
LIST OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL FEE
IMPOSED BY SAID ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance
No. 117, 2012, (the “Fort Collins Fee Ordinance”) establishing a special fee (the “Fort Collins Fee”)
to be paid by the owners of certain properties located west of Interstate 25 and within close proximity
to the reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 (the
“Interchange”); and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2012, the Town Board of Windsor, Colorado, adopted an
ordinance similar to Ordinance No. 117, 2012, establishing a special fee to be paid by certain
additional properties located east of the Interchange and within the Windsor town limits; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Fee Ordinance contains, in Section 1(c)(1)a thereof, a
spreadsheet that identifies the parcels of property that will be subject to the “proximity component”
of the Fort Collins Fee; and
WHEREAS, the spreadsheet mistakenly includes in Zone A thereof a parcel of property that
is located within the Town of Windsor and that should not have been shown as being subject to the
Fort Collins Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, said parcel is known as Larimer County Parcel No. 86150-00-013 and is owned
by Burnette/Young Investments; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to correct the above referenced spreadsheet by
eliminating Larimer County Parcel No. 86150-00-013 from the Fort Collins Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the foregoing spreadsheet also needs to be revised to reduce the Developable
Land Area of the parcel owned by Terry and Mary Van Cleave so as to better reflect the actual
developable square footage of said parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 1(c)(1)a of Ordinance No. 117, 2012, is hereby amended by
substituting the following spreadsheet for the spreadsheet currently contained in said ordinance, so
that Section 1(c)(1)a reads in its entirety as follows:
Section 1. Special fee.
. . .
(c) Imposition of the fee.
(1) There is hereby established a special fee that shall be imposed
pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance upon the owners of all
CAC Properties. Said fee shall consist of a Proximity Component
and a Trip Generation Component. The Proximity Component of the
fee is intended to reflect the relative benefit derived by each CAC
Property from the construction of the Improvements, as determined
by the Foster Study, while the Trip Generation Component of the fee
is intended to reflect the relative traffic impacts of each CAC
Property.
a. The Proximity Component of the fee for all Developed and
Undeveloped Properties shall be in the amounts shown in the following spreadsheet
except to the extent that: (i) the City Manager or the Financial Officer adjusts the
amount due for a particular CAC Property pursuant to an appeal taken under
subsection (f) of this Section 1; or (ii) the City Manager, upon recommendation of
the Financial Officer, increases or decreases the amount due for a particular CAC
Property to more accurately reflect the developable square footage of such parcel, and
so notifies the affected Property Owner in writing no less than thirty (30) days prior
to the date that the first installment of the Proximity Component is due under
subsection (d) of this Section 1. These amounts represent each CAC Property’s
proportionate share of the sum of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Seventy-five
Dollars ($1,275,000.00), which is one-half of the Property Owners’ share of the
Local Contribution.
. . .
Section 2. That in all other respects Ordinance No. 117, 2012, shall remain in full force
and effect.
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Janet Miller
Amy Sharkey
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the
City Manager.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review of City Manager
Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 146, 2012, establishes the salary of the City Manager at $207,063.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Janet Miller
Amy Sharkey
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2012, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the City
Manager.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review of City Manager
Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 146, 2012, establishes the salary of the City Manager.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable.
The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet twice a year to discuss performance and
set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
2012 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
Medical Insurance
Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
ICMA (457)
ICMA (401)
Car Allowance
$ 197,203
8,640
588
345
828
5,916
19,720
9,000
Vacation (30 days per year)
Holidays (11 days per year)
Total Monetary Compensation $ 243,365
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney,
and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge
will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the
first full pay period of the ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect City Manager Darin
Atteberry’s 2013 salary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
Prepared by Human Resources
December 4, 2012
City Manager
Monetary Monetary
Base Salary 197,203 Base Salary 207,063
Medical Insurance 8,640 Medical Insurance 7,800
Dental Insurance 588 Dental Insurance 492
Life Insurance 345 Life Insurance 362
Long Term Disability 828 Long Term Disability 957
ICMA 457 5,916 ICMA 457 6,212
ICMA 401 19,720 ICMA 401 20,706
Car Allowance 9,000 Car Allowance 9,000
Non-Monetary Non-Monetary
Vacation 30 days Vacation 30 days
Holiday 11 days Holiday 11 days
One-Time Perf Award $1,125
Total Compensation 243,365 Total Compensation 252,592
2012 Projected 2013
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. 146, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-596 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND SETTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is
responsible for fixing the compensation of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner which is fair,
competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes not
only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and amounts
paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council met with the City Manager to conduct a review and establish
next year’s goals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees a
competitive salary based on established market data, and is adjusting the salary of the City Manager
to bring that salary more in line with the appropriate market data; and
WHEREAS, the City’s philosophy is to reward performance that meets or exceeds
expectations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the base salary of the City Manager should be
established at the amount of $207,063 effective January 7, 2013, so that the total compensation paid
to the City Manager in 2013 will be in the amount of $252,592.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 2-596. Salary of the City Manager.
The base salary to be paid the City Manager shall be two hundred seven
thousand sixty-three dollars ($207,063.) per annum, payable in biweekly
installments. Forty (40) percent of such sum shall be charged to the city electric
utility, twenty (20) percent to the city water utility and forty (40) percent to general
government expense.
Section 2. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 7, 2013.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Janet Miller
Amy Sharkey
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the
City Attorney.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2012 to conduct the performance review of City Attorney
Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 147, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the City Attorney at $170,662.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Janet Miller
Amy Sharkey
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2012, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the City
Attorney.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 13, 2012 to conduct the performance review of City Attorney
Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 147, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable.
The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Attorney meet twice a year to discuss performance and
set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included the following:
2012 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary
Medical Insurance
Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
ICMA (457)
ICMA (401)
$ 165,691
8,640
588
289
696
4,971
16,569
Vacation (32.5 days per year)
Holidays (11 days per year)
Total Monetary Compensation $ 198,569
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney,
and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge
will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the
first full pay period of the ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect City Attorney Roy’s 2013
salary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
Prepared by Human Resources
December 4, 2012
City Attorney
Monetary Monetary
Base Salary 165,691 Base Salary 170,662
Medical Insurance 8,640 Medical Insurance 7,800
Dental Insurance 588 Dental Insurance 492
Life Insurance 289 Life Insurance 298
Long Term Disability 696 Long Term Disability 789
ICMA 457 4,971 ICMA 457 5,120
ICMA 401 16,569 ICMA 401 17,066
Non-Monetary Non-Monetary
Vacation 32.5 Vacation 32.5
Holiday 11 days Holiday 11 days
One-Time Perf Award $1,125
Total Compensation 198,569 Total Compensation 202,226
2012 Projected 2013
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. 147, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-581 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND
SETTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is
responsible for fixing the compensation of the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner which is fair,
competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes not
only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and amounts
paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council met with the City Attorney to conduct a review and establish
next year’s goals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees a
competitive salary based on established market data, and is adjusting the salary of the City Attorney
to bring that salary more in line with the appropriate market data; and
WHEREAS, the City’s philosophy is to reward performance that meets or exceeds
expectations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the base salary of the City Attorney should be
established at the amount of $170,662 effective January 7, 2013, so that the total compensation paid
to the City Attorney in 2013 will be in the amount of $202,226.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2-581 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
to read as follows:
Sec. 2-581. Salary of the City Attorney.
The base salary to be paid the City Attorney shall be one hundred seventy
thousand six hundred sixty-two dollars ($170,662.) per annum, payable in biweekly
installments. Sixty (60) percent of such sum shall be charged to general government
expense, twenty (20) percent to the city water utility and twenty (20) percent to the
city electric utility.
Section 2. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 7, 2013.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Janet Miller
Amy Sharkey
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the
Municipal Judge.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review of Municipal Judge
Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 148, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012, establishes
the 2013 salary of the Municipal Judge at $99,253.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Janet Miller
Amy Sharkey
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Employment of the Municipal Judge.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2012, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the Salary
of the Municipal Judge.
B. Resolution 2012-116 Reappointing Kathleen M. Lane as Municipal Judge and Authorizing the Tenth
Addendum to the Judge’s Employment Agreement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in executive session on November 13, 2012, to conduct the performance review of Municipal Judge
Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 148, 2012, establishes the 2013 salary of the Municipal Judge.
Resolution 2012-116 reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term to expire December 31, 2014 and authorizes
the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge’s employment agreement to reflect the change in term.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Article VII, Section 1 of the Charter provides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointed for a term of two years.
Kathleen M. Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal Judge effective July 1, 1989. Resolution 2010-
074 reappointed Judge Lane for a two-year term ending on December 31, 2012. This Resolution reappoints Judge
Lane for another two-year term to expire December 31, 2014 and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to
the Judge’s employment agreement to reflect her new term of office.
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable.
The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the Municipal Judge meet twice a year to discuss performance
and set goals for the coming year.
In 2012, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following:
2012 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary (0.8 FTE)
Medical Insurance
Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Long Term Disability
ICMA (457)
ICMA (401)
$ 95,436
8,640
588
167
401
2,863
9,544
Vacation (30 days per year)
Holidays (11 days per year)
Total Monetary Compensation $ 118,764
Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney,
and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge
will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the
first full pay period of the ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect Judge Lane’s 2013 salary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
Prepared by Human Resources
December 4, 2012
Municipal Judge
Monetary Monetary
Base Salary 95,436 Base Salary 99,253
Medical Insurance 8,640 Medical Insurance 7,800
Dental Insurance 588 Dental Insurance 492
Life Insurance 167 Life Insurance 174
Long Term Disability 401 Long Term Disability 459
ICMA 457 2,863 ICMA 457 2,978
ICMA 401 9,544 ICMA 401 9,925
Non-Monetary Non-Monetary
Vacation 30 days Vacation 30 days
Holiday 11 days Holiday 11 days
One-Time Perf Award $1,125
Total Compensation 118,764 Total Compensation 121,081
2012 (.8 FTE) Projected 2013 (.8 FTE)
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-606 OF THE CODE
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND
SETTING THE SALARY OF THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VII, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is
responsible for fixing the compensation of the Municipal Judge; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is committed to compensating its employees in a
manner which is fair, competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes
not only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and
amounts paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and
WHEREAS, each year the City Council conducts a review of the past year's performance
and the next year’s goals of the Municipal Judge; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees
a competitive salary based on established market data, and is adjusting the salary of the
Municipal Judge to bring that salary more in line with the appropriate market data; and
WHEREAS, the City’s philosophy is to reward performance that meets or exceeds
expectations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the base salary of the Municipal Judge
should be established at the amount of $99,253, effective January 7, 2013, so that the total
compensation paid to the Municipal Judge in 2013 will be in the amount of $121,081.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 2-606 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-606. Salary of the Municipal Judge.
The base salary to be paid to the Municipal Judge for working 0.8 FTE shall be
ninety-nine thousand two hundred fifty-three dollars ($99,253.) per annum,
payable in biweekly installments, which sum shall be charged to general
government expense.
Section 2. That the effective date of the salary adjustment shall be January 7, 2013.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Erika Keeton, Patrick Rowe
Helen Matson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain
Property Interests Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit
Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (MAX BRT) Project staff has identified two additional real estate acquisition
interests which are necessary to construct the MAX BRT Project.
As with prior acquisitions/acquisition phases, City Council authorization for eminent domain (if necessary) is the first
step in the acquisitions process.
As a federally funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with
this act, property owners must be informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to
Colorado State Statute in the official Notice-of-Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to
sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official step in the acquisition process, which must
occur prior to the appraisals. Given the construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be
conducted under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition of the required property interests is
necessary. Therefore, City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain for the MAX Project, if necessary,
and only if good faith negotiations break down.
The acquisitions that are the subject of this Ordinance concern two sets of property interests (more specifically, two
signboard easements, leasehold interests and improvements) located within the alignment of planned BRT Project
improvements on Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (the “BNSF”) property. (Note: As background, on November
6, City Council upheld an appeal to an August 9, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decision, thereby disallowing
a ZBA variance that would have permitted the relocation of one of the off-premise signboards which is the subject of
this Ordinance).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project, branded Mason Express or “MAX”, is a five mile, north-south byway
which extends from the Downtown Transit Center on the north to the planned South Transit Center, south of Harmony
Road. MAX will link major destinations and activity centers along the City’s primary transportation and commercial
corridor including, “Old Town”, Colorado State University, Foothills Mall, and South College retail areas. In addition
to greatly enhancing the City’s north-south transportation movement, MAX will be a significant catalyst for economic
growth, both as a short-term stimulus and as a long-term development/re-development driver. The schedule calls for
a 2014 operation date for MAX.
The project is predominately located within the outside twenty-five feet of the east half of the BSNF property; however,
overall project right-of-way will consist of a combination of property owned by the BNSF, Colorado State University,
private land owners, and the City. In addition to property interests from the BNSF, Colorado State University, the
Colorado State University Research Foundation, and several ditch companies, the project includes property acquisition
from approximately 47 distinct property owners. Each acquisition is unique, but the typical acquisition need for the
Project can be characterized as a five foot permanent easement and a twenty foot temporary construction easement
along the rear of properties adjacent to the Project. Additionally, fee simple ownership is also needed in a number
of locations to accommodate stations, and other ancillary project improvements. This Ordinance pertains to a single
(newly identified) Temporary Construction Easement interest.
Significant public outreach has occurred on this long standing project in many forms, including numerous open houses
and direct communication with impacted property owners.
December 18, 2012 -2- ITEM 13
To ensure the integrity of the project schedule, maintain certain project efficiencies, and to remain a viable Federal
Transit Administration funded project, it is critical that the City have the ability to acquire the property interests in a
timely manner. In addition, since this is a federally funded project, City Council must have eminent domain
authorization (only to be used if necessary) before staff is able to send out the required Notice of Interest letter.
Staff has a high degree of respect and understanding for the sensitivity of the acquisition process and commits to
utilizing eminent domain only if absolutely necessary, and only if good faith negotiations are not successful. It’s
important to note that City staff has taken great effort to minimize impacts to property owners, and will continue to do
so as the project progresses.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Property acquisition costs will be covered by available project funds, whether or not eminent domain is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The affected property owners have been contacted by City staff.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map
ORDINANCE NO. 150, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY INTERESTS NECESSARY
TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO
THE MASON CORRIDOR BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT
WHEREAS, construction for the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (the
“Project”) recently commenced; and
WHEREAS, the Project involves the construction of a five mile, north-south byway
which extends from Cherry Street on the north to a point south of Harmony Road (the site of the
new South Transit Center); and
WHEREAS, the Project will include a 24-foot wide traffic lane for buses with concrete
paving, retaining walls, curb and gutter, and drainage and utility improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Project will greatly enhance north-south transportation through the City
and is expected to serve as a catalyst for economic growth and long-term development; and
WHEREAS, the Project recently identified additional property interests that need to be
acquired for the construction of the Project, which interests (the “Property”) are described on
Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City will continue to negotiate in good faith for the acquisition of the
Property from the landowner; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition of the Property may, by law, be accomplished through
eminent domain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that is necessary in the
public interest to acquire the Property described on Exhibit “A” for the purpose of the Mason
Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney and other
appropriate officials of the City to acquire the Property for the City by eminent domain.
Section 3. The City Council hereby finds, in the event that acquisition by eminent
domain is commenced, that immediate possession is necessary for the public health, safety and
welfare.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January, A.D.
2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”
DESCRIPTION OF INTERESTS TO BE ACQUIRED
Two signboard easements, one located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Horsetooth
Road and the BNSF Railroad in the City of Fort Collins, and the other located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Prospect Road and the BNSF Railroad in the City of Fort Collins,
being two of the easement locations described in that certain Signboard Easement between the
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and Outdoor Systems Inc., recorded on
December 23, 1997 at Reception No. 97086045 in the Office of the Larimer County Clerk and
Recorder, along with any interests arising out of said easements, including, but not limited to any
leasehold interests held by the Lamar Company, LLC., NextMedia Outdoor, Inc., and/or any and
all related entities or other entities.
The boundaries of said easements are described on page 1 of the Signboard Easement and the
general locations of said easements are depicted on pages 12 and 17 of the Signboard Easement
and shown on Attachment 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Pete Wray, Clark Mapes,
Basil Hamdan
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, Adopting an Update to Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards Pertaining to “Streetscape Standards” for the City of Fort Collins.
.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code and the Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate Provisions Implementing Low Impact Development Principles.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ordinance No. 151, 2012 replaces the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines document with
a new version entitled “City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards”. Ordinance No. 152, 2012 updates the City’s Low
Impact Development Criteria and Policy regarding the control and treatment of stormwater runoff from streets and site
development.
The Streetscape Standards relate to the treatment of parkway strips (between the curb and sidewalk), medians,
intersections, roundabouts, and key gateway intersections. The update primarily involves raising the bar for the quality
of streetscape development in arterial medians and at key gateway intersections.
The City’s Low Impact Development (LID) Criteria and Policy addresses the City’s requirements and incentives for
more distributed stormwater runoff management and control which relies mainly on filtration and infiltration to treat and
manage the stormwater runoff. This approach will apply to private site development projects as well as to public street
projects.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Two Parts of a Larger Coordinated Program
City Council discussed these two initiatives at a work session on August 14, 2012, as two parts of a larger coordinated
program called the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives. Attachment 1 is a summary of that work
session. The larger program brings four related initiatives together under a unified theme. The other two initiatives
that are not part of this Council agenda item are an update to the street classifications in the Larimer County Urban
Area Street Standards, and a street demonstration project to test the ideas from all of the initiatives. These other
initiatives will be completed in 2013 and 2014.
Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines Update
The current Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines document was adopted in 2001 by the City and Larimer
County as Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Ordinance No. 151, 2012 replaces that
document with a new version, with the shortened title, Streetscape Standards. The new document is Exhibit A to the
Ordinance.
The document sets forth a whole approach toward streets as landscaped public spaces that contribute to Fort Collins
unique identity. It is used primarily by staff in City projects, operations, and budgets. Secondarily, it is used by
developers and property owners doing landscaping in the City right-of-way.
A key finding of this process is the need for an active City program to implement these standards. Staff has formed
an interdepartmental Streetscape Team to do so. The need for a team stems from the multidisciplinary nature of
streetscapes, involving engineering, urban design, horticulture, maintenance, and water use. The City program and
staff team is at least as important as the document itself to achieve the quality of planting-based streetscapes that are
described in the document.
December 18, 2012 -2- ITEM 14
The key policy-level issues for the City involve “raising the bar” for arterial medians, including medians in roundabouts
and also for gateway intersection enhancement. Raising the bar involves corresponding costs for construction and
maintenance.
Besides the larger policy-level issues, the update also involves clarifications, adjustments, and additional details
regarding all aspects of streetscapes. Key topics that have been addressed in the update process include:
• Recognition of differences among arterial street corridors throughout the city on a new GIS map.
• Recognition of exceptional gateway intersections on the map.
• More detailed guidance for arterial median landscaping per the City’s vision for a distinctive, world class
community.
• More attention to the role of maintenance and life cycle costs in project programming and design.
• More attention to the role of an appropriate interdepartmental staff team.
• Consideration of best practices for landscape plantings including such factors as image, appropriate use of
water, storm runoff and drainage, chemical application impacts, maintenance, and replacement needs.
• Consideration of design solutions to acknowledge inevitable vehicular damage to streetscapes.
• Clarification of parkway landscaping between the curb and sidewalk, with a focus on questions of grass versus
planting beds.
Key Aspects of the Proposed New Standards
Streetscapes have a profound effect on the visual character of a city. They can express civic pride and values with
attention to the quality of public space.
A key difference between the proposed and existing documents is that the existing document is general and basic --
it essentially requires that street parkway strips and medians be landscaped, but does not specify a design or
maintenance approach beyond that general requirement. It is unclear on certain key points, such as the landscaping
in parkways; it does not recognize the differences between arterial streets in different parts of the city; and it does not
reflect adequate integration of design, maintenance, and management into a whole approach. Actual streetscapes
on the ground have tended to reflect a minimal landscape design and maintenance approach, particularly toward
arterial medians. The approach has been largely determined on an ad hoc or case-by-case basis rather than a
coordinated citywide program.
The proposed standards are clearer and provide more design guidance than existing standards. The community
benefits by enhanced community identity and appearance, with streetscapes that impart a sense of quality to Fort
Collins as a unique place.
The most significant changes in the updated document involve the following topics:
• Enhanced arterial street median landscaping, including medians in roundabouts.
The proposed standards are intended to reinforce Fort Collins’ identity with strong visual statements in arterial
streetscapes. To accomplish this, the standards give more specific direction for a garden-style approach to
design and maintenance of landscaping. They specify a more intensive planting program with color, texture,
detail, and variety in a palette of perennials, shrubs, and judicious use of annual flowers, in addition to street
trees. The palette of plants emphasizes native and similarly adapted plants with western regional character.
The whole approach includes the use of mulches and boulders in conjunction with plantings.
This landscaping is not only a matter of the standards document, but also involves an enhanced program with
a corresponding level of management and maintenance implemented by a staff streetscape team.
New standards also provide an updated design of concrete edges, and clarify the treatment of narrow median
areas, such as median noses that define left-turn bays. The standards expand planting into median noses
as narrow as three feet, as opposed to existing standards which have typically resulted in paving median
noses under seven feet in width.
December 18, 2012 -3- ITEM 14
• Gateway intersections.
A new map identifies arterial intersections that warrant a heightened level of streetscape enhancements. An
example of such an intersection is the Harmony/College intersection, which was improved two years ago with
special urban design features such as planter pots on plinths, annual flowers, railings, pedestrian lights, public
art on signal poles, and lighted pylons. Another example is the Jefferson/Mountain intersection, which
received extensive design attention in 2011 for both roundabout and signalized options. It has not yet
progressed to final design or construction, but it demonstrated the approach that the standards require for
gateway intersections.
• Landscaping in parkways.
New standards clarify and describe the choices for landscaping in these strips at the interface between public
and private space. The existing 2001 document is unclear on this topic. For standard arterial streets,
turfgrass is required, and options for different types of turfgrass are described. For collector and local streets,
the choice of turfgrass or mulched planting beds is described, and both are permitted.
Policy Background
A clear theme in City Plan is the importance of City streets as public space that creates first impressions, is
experienced by all residents and visitors on a daily basis, and plays a large role in determining and conveying the civic
intentions of Fort Collins.
Closely related to City Plan, the Transportation Master Plan states:
• “Travel infrastructure will be high quality and recognized as world class by residents, visitors, and
peers.”
• “Transportation infrastructure will be designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land use context.”
• “Plan, build, and maintain streets, trails, intersections, and sidewalks as attractive public spaces”
These general themes are supported by a number of Principles and Policies that provide further guidance for
streetscapes to be beautiful, well-maintained, and context-sensitive.
Low Impact Development Criteria and Policy Update
City Council directed Stormwater staff prepared a Low Impact Development (LID) Policy Update in 2012. Over the
past year, staff has researched existing LID policies throughout the United States and identified key issues and
considerations. Staff developed a draft set of LID criteria and LID policy directives for consideration and adoption by
the Water Board, other Boards and Commissions, City Council and the citizens of Fort Collins. The Water Board and
City Council provided feedback and direction to staff to proceed toward adoption of a hybrid policy to require a
minimum level of LID features for all new developments, set at 50% of the total water quality treatment requirement.
Also, staff was directed to provide for an additional incentive-based approach beyond that minimum requirement,
aimed at achieving a higher level of LID implementation when possible and appropriate.
Low Impact Development (LID) is a comprehensive land planning and engineering design approach to capture and
filter runoff from smaller storm events at the source, with multiple, decentralized control and treatment techniques as
opposed to centralized treatment at large regional facilities only. This typically involves landscape areas and
permeable paving which allows water infiltration, using that characteristic of natural systems that existed before
development occurred. Controlling some stormwater at its source reduces the need for larger structures or end-of-
pipe treatment systems. Implementation of LID policies will have a cumulative effect on the size and type of
stormwater infrastructure. Distributing treatment and detention throughout the watershed will reduce the need for
regional treatment facilities, minimize the size of conveyance facilities (pipes and channels) needed to transport runoff
to receiving waters, and reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation effects in our streams and waterways.
This will in turn have implications for planning, zoning, engineering, transportation and stormwater policies and
regulations.
December 18, 2012 -4- ITEM 14
Key aspects of LID include:
• An overall site planning approach that promotes conservation design at both the watershed and site levels.
• A site design philosophy that emphasizes multiple controls (as opposed to a central treatment facility).
• The use of swales and open vegetated conveyances (as opposed to curb and gutter systems).
• Volume reduction for smaller storm events as a key objective (as opposed to peak flow reduction).
Over the last three years, the City has engaged in the design and construction of LID “Demonstration Projects” at
public and private sites. These existing projects are currently being monitored for structural integrity, cost of
maintenance, water quantity reduction and water quality improvement. Monitoring at these sites will continue beyond
the initial implementation of an LID Policy.
The LID Policy will affect not only public streets, but also private development. The effort can be viewed as an
extension of sustainable practices outside of the building envelope to the site design and layout.
Alternatives and Recommended Approach
In the update process, staff prepared a number of “Fact Sheets” that detail the extent of implementation of LID
technologies in various peer cities in Colorado and in other leading stormwater programs around the nation. LID
criteria vary widely from location to location based on geography, climate, hydrology, and any specially regulated
waterways.
Using all information about the range of choices and best practices, staff prepared three LID Policy alternatives for
review and consideration by affected stakeholders, various Boards and Commissions, City Council and the citizens
of Fort Collins.
1. A Required LID Alternative; whereby all new development will be required to construct their stormwater quality
drainage facilities using LID-type technologies.
2. A Fee-In-Lieu of Construction Alternative; whereby the City could build larger, more regional LID-type facilities
and the cost of the City’s investment in these facilities would be recovered through an additional stormwater
fee.
3. An Incentive-Based Approach; whereby LID construction would be encouraged through a variety of City
policies, including reduction of stormwater fees, inclusion into the Utilities’ ClimateWise program, or a
development overlay zone where LID-type stormwater management construction would be encouraged.
Council gave direction to staff to pursue a hybrid approach of Alternatives 1 and 3, whereby a minimum level of LID
implementation is required, and a system of incentives is developed to encourage the use of these technologies
beyond that minimum threshold.
The recommended LID criteria are:
• A minimum of 50% of new impervious surface area must be treated by an LID-type device or technology (i.e.,
bio-retention cell, bio-swale, pervious pavement); and
• At least 25% of new pavement areas must be designed to be pervious; or,
• Implementation of a design alternative that provides equal or better treatment to the previous requirements.
Additionally, projects that incorporate LID technologies and principles into their site design will be recognized through
the Utilities’ ClimateWise program.
Finally, stormwater plant investment fees will be based on a percent “Effective Impervious Area” rather than the current
“Percent Impervious” Area. Using such an approach, the stormwater impact fees will be set at a value commensurate
with the level of LID technologies provided.
December 18, 2012 -5- ITEM 14
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Financial/Economic Impacts of Streetscape Standards
Implementation of the updated streetscape standards will require increments of additional cost for arterial medians,
and for enhanced gateway intersections. The additional costs reflect “raising the bar” for plant material coverage,
urban design enhancements, and better irrigation systems. A general characterization of the higher cost increments
follows, to give a sense of the order of magnitude of cost increments.
Cost impacts for arterial medians
1. Construction cost increment. Higher construction costs associated with the new standards mostly stem from
increased plant material coverage. Other components are similar in cost to “typical” medians without the
proposed standards.
In a landscaping project to renovate an existing median, the additional increment of cost may be characterized
as approximately 15-25% of the project cost. A reasonable example would be about a $10,000 increment in
a $50,000 project to renovate a common-size median of 6,000 square feet.
In a street project to construct a new median, the additional increment of cost may be characterized as
approximately 7-12% of the median cost. A reasonable example would be about a $12,000 increment in a
$140,000 project to construct a new landscaped 6,000 square-foot median.
2. Maintenance cost increment. Higher maintenance costs associated with the new standards mostly stem from
the need for more frequent and skilled horticultural maintenance of perennials and shrubs, along with slightly
higher standards for replenishing mulches and maintaining irrigation systems. A reasonable example would
be about a $1,000 annual increment for a 6,000 square-foot median.
3. Plant replacement cost increment. Higher replacement costs associated with the new standards stem from
the fact that perennials and shrubs have varying life spans and must be replaced periodically. A reasonable
example would be an increment of about $900 annually for a 6,000 square-foot median.
Cost impacts for enhanced gateway intersections
1. Construction cost increment. Two rules of thumb may be used to characterize higher costs associated with
future streetscape projects at these intersections: streetscape enhancements may add approximately
$700,000 to a “typical” intersection project, and may constitute approximately 20-30% of the total cost of a
given intersection.
2. Maintenance cost increment. For enhanced plantings including annuals, and an allowance for electrical work,
painting of metal urban design features, and vandalism repair, a reasonable example would be an increment
of approximately $5,500 annually.
Financial/Economic Impacts of LID Policy
Implementation of the updated LID Policy is expected to have a net positive overall economic impact for new
construction. In general, LID practices tend to be much more cost effective in highly urbanized areas, where land
values are higher, as compared to "green field" development.
The initial cost of constructing LID facilities along with other conventional drainage infrastructure which may still be
needed, is typically higher than for non-LID development. However, life-cycle analysis of costs and benefits typically
shows that higher costs can typically be recovered through increased property values, reduced maintenance costs,
and reduced replacement costs.
City staff analyzed the economic impacts of LID technologies in a recently completed development project in the city,
and found that the project realized a net benefit through more efficient, multi-functional use of on-site space, added
flexibility in site layout, reduced infrastructure needs, and added property value. In that example, a permeable
pavement material was chosen over a portion of the parking lot. The initial investment costs were increased by a factor
December 18, 2012 -6- ITEM 14
of 2.2 for the permeable pavement materials compared to conventional asphalt paving. However these costs were
offset by a smaller detention pond size needed, the elimination of a storm sewer system and a more flexible use of
space.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental Impacts of Streetscape Standards
Direct environmental impacts of the new Streetscape Standards are minimal. The most significant effects of the
standards involve the landscape architecture of arterial medians and gateway intersections, and the effects are more
aesthetic than environmental per se. The new standards emphasize regionally appropriate, low-water use plantings,
with efficient irrigation systems, to enhance the beauty and character of arterial streets high-visibility public spaces.
Because median landscaping which has been occurring under existing standards is already typically water-efficient,
there is no definable impact upon water demands due to the new standards.
Environmental Impacts of LID Policy
By adopting the LID policy standards and criteria update several environmental impacts can be anticipated:
1. Protection of water quality: LID infiltration techniques will capture sediment and pollutant at the source.
Chemical processes during infiltration of runoff will filter the storm runoff resulting in cleaner effluent from
developed areas.
2. Protection of streams and waterways: watershed-level implementation of LID technologies has been shown
to considerably reduce the impact of pollutants on natural waterways and streams through the reduction of
introduced sediments and pollutants into natural systems.
3. Increased flood protection through the reduction of impervious surfaces: impervious areas increase the
amount of runoff that leaves a site, as undeveloped lands that allow for natural infiltration of rain water are
replaced with impervious surfaces such as buildings, sidewalks and pavement.
4. Reduced land disturbance: the use of these techniques encourages the minimization of land disturbance
especially near sensitive eco-systems.
5. Improved landscape and aesthetics: LID implementation will add to the overall site aesthetics by replacing
traditional “grey infrastructure” such as pipes and concrete conveyance structures with a functional system
using techniques such as grass buffers, grass swales, infiltration strips, rain gardens, or other “green
infrastructure” systems.
6. Protection of natural resources: LID technologies often incorporate the use of waste-stream materials into
the construction of drainage facilities, including the re-use of recycled asphalt, recycled concrete, and
shredded paper materials (used in rain gardens and bio retention cells). LID techniques may also reduce
demand for resource-intensive materials as natural systems reduce the need for asphalt, concrete and other
intensive resource-depleting materials.
6. Reduced energy demand: through shading and infiltration techniques, LID reduces “heat-island” effects in
developed areas as the evaporation of infiltrated waters from landscaped and pervious areas has a cooling
effect on developed sites.
7. Reduced water consumption: through the re-use of stormwater runoff to irrigate landscaped areas, combined
with the use of low-water demand grasses and other plant materials, water consumption may be reduced.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
December 18, 2012 -7- ITEM 14
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Planning and Zoning Board
At its November 15, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously on consent to recommend
adoption of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, adopting an update to Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards, which comprises the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines.
Water Board
At its November 15, 2012 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of Ordinance No.
152, 2012 amending Chapter 26 of the City Code and the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate
Provisions Implementing Low Impact Development Principles.
Natural Resources Advisory Board
At its November 26, 2012 meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption
of Ordinance No. 152, 2012 amending Chapter 26 of the City Code and the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
to Incorporate Provisions Implementing Low Impact Development Principles.
Parks and Recreation Board
At its December 5, 2012 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Board voted 7-2 to recommend adoption of Ordinance
No. 151, 2012, adopting an update to Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, which
comprises the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The planning process for the 2012 Initiatives has included public outreach spanning the past two years, including the
following:
• Updates to the Planning and Zoning Board, Transportation Board, Water Board, and City Council.
• A public open house meeting (August 9, 2012).
• A presentation/discussion with the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce.
• A presentation/discussion with City Council at a work session on August 14, 2012
• A presentation/discussion with the US Green Building Council of Northern Colorado Branch.
• A booth at the Climate Wise Business Innovations Fair.
ATTACHMENTS
1. August 14, 2012 City Council Work Session Summary
2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, November 15, 2012
3. Water Board Meeting minutes, November 15, 2012
4. Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, November 26, 2012
5. Parks and Recreation Board minutes, December 5, 2012
Transportation Planning & Special Projects
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.224.6058
970.221.6239 - fax
fcgov.com/transportation
Planning, Development & Transportation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 7, 2012
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning, and Transportation
Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation
Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering & Field Operations Manager
FROM: Aaron Iverson, Interim Transportation Planning Director
Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Quality Engineer
Amy Lewin, Transportation Planner
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
RE: AUGUST 14, 2012 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – 2012 STREETS AND
STORMWATER SITE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
This memorandum provides a summary of the City Council Work Session discussion from
August 14, 2012 regarding the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives.
Attendees:
City Council: Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly Ohlson, Councilmember Ben Manvel, Councilmember Lisa
Poppaw, Councilmember Wade Troxell
City Staff: Darin Atteberry, Diane Jones, Bruce Hendee, Karen Cumbo, John Haukaas, Ken
Sampley, Mark Jackson, Basil Hamdan, Aaron Iverson, Pete Wray, Amy Lewin
Discussion Summary
City Council asked a number of questions and provided feedback on the Low Impact
Development (LID) project, including:
o That stormwater fees are a function of impervious area and by using LID technologies
stormwater fees would be reduced in effect.
o LID technologies are geared toward treatment of smaller storms and their impact on
regional stormwater infrastructure is limited due to Fort Collins' prevailing climate,
vegetation cover and soils.
o Initial investment costs for LID are typically higher by a factor of 2 to 3; however,
looking at life-cycle costs, the use of sustainable infrastructure has been proven to be
the more economical alternative.
o Council doubted that using incentive based LID policies would yield a significant
implementation. Staff noted that research has shown that incentive based LID policies
rarely see wide application.
ATTACHMENT 1
o Requiring a 50% minimum treatment of stormwater runoff using LID technologies as a
starting point is the recommended option by staff.
o Council asked staff to elaborate on the City's collaborative efforts with CSU regarding
this project and others.
There was discussion about being thoughtful in any updates to street standards or
classifications by learning from examples from around the City that for one reason or another
are currently problematic.
Council gave staff several suggestions as to where demonstration projects for green streets
would be beneficial, and urged staff to continue towards implementing a demonstration
project.
Staff noted that the funding for a demonstration project is currently a BFO budget offer, and
that staff will be looking for grant or other funding opportunities as they become available.
Council expressed strong support for the approach adopted by staff so far for all four
projects.
Follow-up Items:
Council asked staff to come back with an LID policy based on a minimum of 50%
requirement combined with an incentive based for going beyond 50% by December. This
would include a discussion of why 50% is an appropriate requirement.
Staff appreciates the opportunity to discuss these four projects with the City Council and
received valuable feedback and direction.
ATTACHMENT 2
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, November 15, 2012
LID and Streetscape Standards Policy Update
(Attachments available upon request).
Mr. Haukaas introduced the item and introduced Civil Engineer Basil Hamdan and City Planner
Clark Mapes. The Low Impact Development (LID) Policy is developed in coordination with the
Streetscape Standards. Both items will be presented to City Council in December.
Mr. Hamdan presented the 2012 Green Streets Initiative. This combines four related projects:
Updating Streetscape/Landscape Standards in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
(LCUASS); updating to Street Classifications to include more flexible urban standards, updating
the Low Impact Development (LID) Policy, and the Green Street Demonstration Project.
Mr. Hamdan presented information on the Public Outreach Process. This item has been
presented to several boards and committees as well as a City Council Work Session.
Mr. Mapes presented an arterial streetscapes map. He also presented several photographs
showing existing and proposed arterial medians within the City, as well as standard arterial
medians, medians in roundabouts, and parkway landscaping for local and collector streets.
The purpose of the update includes the following:
New approach to “raise the bar”
Recognize the differences between arterials
Clarify components and details
Mr. Mapes explained the differences between native warm-season shortgrasses and turf-type
grasses.
Mr. Hamdan presented information on the LID Policy Update and the LID required alternatives
considered:
On-site construction of LID required for public and private development projects
Required but with an option to pay fee in lieu of construction
Incentive Based Alternatives (fee based and Climate Wise program)
Mr. Hamdan presented highlights from the July Water Board presentation and the August City
Council Work Session. Council doubted that using incentive based LID policies would yield a
significant implementation:
Requiring a 50 percent minimum treatment of stormwater runoff using LID technologies
as a starting point
Continue collaborative efforts with Colorado State University (CSU) regarding this
project
Support for staff recommendation on all four related projects
LID policy based on a minimum of 50 percent requirement combined with an incentive
beyond 50 percent
Council requested staff’s recommendation on the policy.
Proposed LID Criteria and Policy Update:
Minimum of 50 percent of lot area to be treated by LID-type device/technology
Minimum of 25 percent permeable for added parking areas
Designed alternative (equal or better standard)
ATTACHMENT 3
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, November 15, 2012
Incentive based approach for LID level beyond the minimum 50 percent
Mr. Hamdan presented examples for parkway, rain garden, and median applications. He also
presented a diagram on the parking lot application for O’Dell’s Brewery expansion and shared
initial costs versus life-cycle costs. Maintenance costs will be reduced.
Highlights from the discussion:
A board member asked for clarification on the motion since the LID Policy Update and
Streetscape Standards were combined for tonight’s meeting. Mr. Haukaas stated staff is
only asking for a recommendation on the LID Policy.
A board member questioned if there will be an option to buy out of doing LID onsite in
the same way as regional ponds. Mr. Haukaas stated this has been discussed. That option
is not always feasible; however, the equal or better standard is feasible.
A board member expressed appreciation for staff’s work on the project.
A board member asked about the challenges with older neighborhoods. What is the
lifespan for streetscapes construction? Mr. Haukaas stated this is driven by development.
Most pavement rehabilitation projects are focused on driving surfaces. There are corridor
studies that will look at improvements. Mr. Mapes also stated a team will be assembled to
push some initiatives.
A board member asked about maintaining new types of landscapes. Will this involve the
same amount of labor? Mr. Mapes stated there needs to be an increased skill level to
maintain the perennials, shrubs, etc.
A board member questioned what type of properties the statement “a minimum of 50
percent of Lot Area to be treated by LID-type device/technology” refers to. Mr. Hamdan
stated this applies to both public and private properties.
A board member questioned if there an opportunity for private development could lead
the way on City property to get the medians in place. Is the City receptive to the idea of
partnerships with developers to meet the equal or better standard? Mr. Hamdan stated
typically public and private properties are separated.
A board member questioned the LID criteria related to impervious surface area. The
board member stated there should be clarification for the definition of impervious. Staff
is working with the City Attorney’s Office on the language.
A board member asked about the expected response on the new standards. Mr. Hamdan
stated that since the updated criterion was adopted last year, there has been good response
on the projects.
A board member asked about the current stormwater fee. Mr. Haukaas stated this is based
on an impervious percentage and calculated on case by case basis.
Discussion on the motion:
A board member stated he does not normally approve of code updates requiring higher initial
costs, but since the life-cycle costs will be reduced, he is in favor of the motion.
Board Member Brunswig moved that the Water Board recommend approval by City
Council of Ordinance “B” as attached, adopting the updated City of Fort Collins LID
Policy and requiring LID Criteria to be incorporated into the City Code and the
Stormwater Criteria Manual as appropriate, for all new development and redevelopment.
Board Member Hans seconded the motion.
Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, November 15, 2012
A board member stated he would like staff to keep the option open related to “Fee in Lieu of
Construction.”
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Excerpt from
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 17, 2012
Low Impact Development (LID) Policy
Basil Hamdan, Engineer in the Utilities’ Master Plan & Floodplain Administration
Division, discussed the Stormwater Low Impact Development (LID) recommendations
that would establish standards requiring a minimum amount of green infrastructure for
new development/redevelopment.
The LID recommendations are one part of the Green Streets and Stormwater Site
Development Initiative that combines four related projects:
o Updating Streetscape/Landscape Standards
o Updating street classifications
o Creating Low Impact Development (LID) Standards.
o Creating a Green Street demonstration project that tests the elements from the
other three projects.
The Green Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiative addresses:
o Enhanced design standards for landscaping in medians and parkways
o Alternative street designs to support active modes of travel such as bicycling
and walking
o Integrated systems of stormwater management
o Aesthetic and functional enhancements
Best Management Processes are currently used to reduce the pollutant content of a
stormwater discharge. The Low Impact Development (LID) policy would treat and
control stormwater at its source, and before it hits storm sewers, therefore reducing
the need for large structural Best Management Practices (BMP).
o The goal of a LID is to mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology for smaller
storms by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and
detain runoff.
Council asked staff to prepare a LID policy based on a minimum of 50% treatment of
stormwater runoff using LID technologies, combined with an incentive based for
going beyond 50%.
Proposed LID criteria would be part of “Ordinance B” and apply to public projects
and private development with:
o Minimum of 50% of lot area to be treated by LID type device/technology
(Bio-Swale/Bio-Cell, etc.)
o Minimum 25% permeable for added paved areas like parking lots
o Designed alternative (equal or better standard)
o Incentive based approach for LID level beyond the minimum 50% (Fee
reduction and ClimateWise)
o Application example - water runs off street through plantings that can handle
our climate and drought.
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 4
Discussion
John Bartholow: Are these recommendations for new streets? (Yes, however there
will not be many new streets coming. There are retrofit options when reconstruction
activities like paving take place.)
Paul Nastu: What about making streets smaller? (It is not in the LID motion. We
would change streets standards later.)
Harry Edwards: Is it appropriate for the NRAB to make recommendations to Larimer
County? (Fort Collins’ street standards are within the Larimer County Standards.)
Paul Nastu: This would be a significant investment by developers. Would it apply to
all developers? (The LID standards would not require them to go to the full extent.
There would be minimums. This is only for new development. Any new
development pays a stormwater impact fee at the time of development and then a
monthly fee based on the amount of impervious surfaces it has. Using Low Impact
Development techniques might reduce a house’s stormwater fee if they reduce runoff
from their site.)
Joe Piesman: I am concerned there will be less visibility for bicyclists if you put
more tall trees at intersections. (The LID standards will require a narrowed median
and low shrubs at intersections for good line of sight.)
John Bartholow moved and Harry Edwards seconded the following motion:
The Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends adoption of “Ordinance B” by City Council,
adopting the updated City of Fort Collins Low Impact Development policy, by amending the City
Code and the Stormwater Criteria Manual as appropriate.
Motion passed unanimously
BE A GOOD STEWARD: Protect & Respect your Parks, Trails & Recreation Facilities
Call Meeting to Order: Rob Cagen called the meeting to order 5:33pm
Streetscape Standards & Guidelines Update – Pete Wray, Senior City Planner
There are four related projects for the 2012 Streets & Stormwater Site Development Initiatives; that relate to the overall
design of City streets. 1) LCUASS – Streetscape Design Standards & Guidelines update (to Council on December 18,
2012); 2) LCUASS – Street Classifications & Cross-section Design (2013); 3) Low Impact Development Standards
(December 18, 2012); and 4) Street Demonstration Project (2014)
Since the Streetscape Standards were first adopted in 2001, several factors led to the need for an update. The existing
standards from 2001 are too general. There is no inclusion of hardscape design components. Over the years we have not
seen a high level of design. There is no strategic targeting of investment and maintenance is not tied to the design. The
purpose of the design update is to in design quality based on City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan vision and
policy direction to have attractive streets that are recognized as world class. Staff has also received direction and City
Management to “Raise the Bar” in overall design quality and maintenance for new standards. An interdepartmental staff
team developed the new standards and this same team will continue to meet to coordinate future streetscape design and
monitor completed projects to ensure successful outcomes. The updated document includes a map that identifies arterial
streetscape types and levels of investment. The new standard for arterial medians reflects more variety of plant material
selection and coverage with flexibility in choice of perennial-garden style and shrub-garden style design. Other design
elements include wood mulch, river cobble, boulders, site features and low walls. An example of a recently competed
project using the new standard is the median at Harmony and Lemay. For all streets, two turf grass types are allowed with
parkway landscaping in addition to street trees including cool season turf grass and native warm season short grass. For
local streets, an alternative to turf grass is allowed that includes low shrub and perennial plantings. Gateway intersections
reflect the highest level of investment. Harmony and College is the most recent example of a gateway intersection
incorporating these new standards. Applications for Low Impact Development are referenced in the updated document as
well.
As a characterization of the projected cost increment to implement the new streetscape standards in comparison to existing
standards for installation and maintenance of new medians, the following costs are highlighted:
Ex. Standard Cost:
1. Install: $23.00/Sq. Ft. ($184,000 per 1/8 Mile)
2. Maintenance: $.16/Sq. Ft. ($1,280 per 1/8 Mi.)
New Standard Cost:
1. Install: $26.00/Sq. Ft. ($208,000 per 1/8 Mi.)
2. Maintenance: $.33/Sq. Ft. ($2,640 per 1/8 Mi.)
3. Annual Perennial replacement (Approx. $900)
Two Parks Budget offers were recently funded for the 2013-2014 budget cycle including Offer 90.1 (Median
Maintenance), and Offer 99.2 (Median Renovations).
We would welcome a recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Board.
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
5:30 p.m.
Council Liaison: Kelly Ohlson Staff Liaisons: J.R. Schnelzer, 970-221-6301
Craig Foreman, 970-221-6618
Bob Adams, 970-221-6354
Chair: Rob Cagen
Phone: 970-689-7559 (home) / 970-482-3971 (work)
ATTACHMENT 5
1
Discussion
Board – What department is going to maintain these new medians?
Staff – Parks will. They have been a part of the team.
Board – What happens if five years from now no funding is available to maintain these medians? They will start to look
bad and then what happens?
Board – Were the new streetscape standards a part of the offers that were approved?
Staff – Yes
Board – Was there any type of survey data available from the citizens to find out if they found these new medians
desirable?
Staff – There’s been no citizen survey, but public support as part of the Plan Fort Collins process supported the vision and
policy direction in City Plan and the Transportation Master Plan describing a higher level of design and maintenance for
streetscapes.
Board – If this is already funded are you going to Council to just say, “Here it is”?
Staff – the updated document will be considered by Council for adoption. Over the past two years we have been working
on further defining what “world-class design” looks like, as directed by City Management, so I believe we have support.
Board – There are two pieces to this, the cost to create and then the long-term cost to maintain; cost which over time
continues to escalate. With all the needs we have, is this something that is really needed?
Staff – Yes, this is an important project and this update reflects the expectation to raise the bar. The new standards will
result in an incremental increase in construction and maintenance costs. There are constants with the median design such
as the trees and hardscape features and although there is a higher initial investment, the lifecycle cost to maintain the
planting in the medians should go down over time.
Board – I think this is money well spent. The improvements at College and Willox area are a great example that will have
a big impact.
Board – The concern is maintenance and replanting of medians has been difficult to fund during budget downturns.
Staff – We will be monitoring and testing plants to see what does the best in these locations, and will be doing the best
maintenance we can based on available resources.
Board – Is the City funding retrofits?
Staff – Yes, but we have a priority list and these will be phased in over time. There is not sufficient funding for current
medians to be redone to meet the new standards, so it will be a long time before all the medians meet the design standard.
Board – What about new development, will developers be responsible for the frontage of the project?
Staff – Yes.
Board – Since trees are a part of the new design standards has Forestry been involved?
Staff – Yes, Tim is a team member giving input on plant adaptability.
Board – Were trees included in the budget?
Staff – Yes
Board – Will there be irrigation designed to handle watering needs during a drought?
Staff – As you know we have drip irrigation for the trees in parks for time of drought, and in some medians, so I’m sure
we’ll have some system in place in the new median design.
Board – When would implementation of the new standards take place?
Staff – Some are already taking place, but officially it will be January 15, 2013.
Board – Having no further discussion, do we have a motion?
Board – I don’t have a motion, but I would say I support the new standards, as long as Council is made aware of the
concern for continued funding for maintenance.
Motion made by Dawn Theis on the Ordinance to Update Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards
Motion:
The Parks & Recreation Board supports design guidelines that enhance and represent world-class community
Streetscape Standards and Guidelines and encourage Council to take special consideration of the following:
Ongoing funding for proper maintenance after 2014.
Strategies to support local businesses during implementation.
Crisis management strategies during climate or budget challenges.
Discussion: None
Vote - 7:1
2
The Board Member with the dissenting opinion offered the following:
While I heartily endorse having standards and upgrading the existing standards, I have concerns about the new standards that are
proposed. These concerns fall into two areas. First, once initial construction has been completed, the ongoing annual maintenance
costs are not inconsequential. An annual cost of $900 for every eighth of a mile just to replace dead plants will add up over time, and
that does not include the per foot cost of maintenance of the live plants and beds in the mediums. Second, water is always going to be
a concern to people living in Fort Collins; whether or not this coming year will be a drought year or not is irrelevant. Allocating a
scarce resource to plants in mediums seems problematic and potentially objectionable to citizens faced with rationing.
Before these standards are adopted, there should be some further study. Which streets are probably going to be brought up to the new
standards? What will be the annual maintenance costs for the City once the new standards are implemented? In addition, have low
water and/or no water options been thoroughly explored?
3
ORDINANCE NO. 151, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO APPENDIX C OF THE LARIMER COUNTY
URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS PERTAINING TO
“STREETSCAPE STANDARDS” FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, the Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines (“SDSG”) document was
initially adopted in 2001 and was made a part of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
to be applied inside the City; and
WHEREAS, the SDSG provides details for creating streets that are visually appealing as
public spaces and that contribute to the City's distinct identity; and
WHEREAS, City staff has prepared an update to the SDSG, now called the “Streetscape
Standards” for the City, which increases requirements for landscaping in arterial medians and
clarifies and updates information throughout the document; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amendments to the SDSG comport
with the principles and policies contained in City Plan, and are in the best interests of the City and,
accordingly, should be adopted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the update to Appendix C of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards
pertaining to “Streetscape Standards ” for the City, dated December 12, 2012, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted for inclusion in the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Stre
Decemb
Long Ra
281 Nort
Fort Col
970-221
fcgov.co
For addi
informat
eetsca
ber 12, 2012
nge Plannin
th College
llins, CO 80
-6376
om/plannin
itional copi
tion above
ape St
2
ng
Avenue
0524
ng
ies, please
.
tanda
download
ards
from our wwebsite, or contact us using the
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | i
Acknowledgements
City Council
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor
Kelly Ohlson, Mayor Pro Tem, Dist. 5
Ben Manvel, District 1
Lisa Poppaw, District 2
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4
Gerry Horak, District 6
Planning & Zoning Board
Gino Campana
Jennifer Carpenter
John Hatfield
Kristin Kirkpatrick
Brigitte Schmidt
Andy Smith
Butch Stockover
Project Staff Team
Pete Wray, Project Manager
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability
Officer
Sherry Albertson-Clark, Planning Manager
(Interim)
Kraig Bader, Standards Engineering
Manager
Tim Buchanan, City Forester
Laurie D’Audney, Water Conservation
Specialist
Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney
Basil Hamdan, Civil Engineer II
Becca Henry, Graphic Designer
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation
Planner
Dean Klingner, Civil Engineer III
Sheri Langenberger, Development Review
Manager
Amy Lewin, Transportation Planner
Steve Lukowski, Parks Supervisor
Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer
Michelle Provaznik, Director of the
Gardens on Spring Creek
Rick Richter, Engineering and Capital
Projects Manager
Bill Whirty, Manager of Parks
Ralph Zentz, Assistant City Forester
Tom Knostman, Pavement Engineer
Consultants
Ripley Design, Inc.
Daman Holland
Page | ii CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | iii
Table of Contents
SECTION 1
Purpose and Intent ................. 1
SECTION 2
Applicability & Use ................. 3
SECTION 3
Project Plan Submittal
and Review .......................... 5
3.1 STREETSCAPE PROJECT
DESCRIPTION REQUIRED .................... 5
SECTION 4
All Streets ............................ 7
4.1 STREET TREES ........................... 7
4.2 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING – TURF
-TYPE GRASS................................. 12
4.3 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING -
ALTERNATIVES TO TURF-TYPE GRASS ... 13
4.4 SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES
AT INTERSECTIONS ......................... 14
4.5 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT –
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ............. 15
SECTION 5
Arterial Streets .................... 19
5.1 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPES MAP ....... 20
5.2 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE
DESIGN: STANDARD ARTERIAL
STREETSCAPES - MEDIANS ................ 22
5.3 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE
DESIGN: STANDARD ARTERIAL
STREETSCAPES - PARKWAYS .............. 36
5.4 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE
DESIGN: ENHANCED TRAVEL
CORRIDORS (ETC’S) ........................ 36
5.5 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN:
OTHER SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS ....... 37
5.6 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE
DESIGN: CONSTRAINED CORRIDORS
AND SEGMENTS ............................. 38
5.7 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE
DESIGN: GATEWAY INTERSECTIONS ..... 38
5.8 ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE
DESIGN: COMMUNITY ENTRANCE
GATEWAYS (I-25) ........................... 41
SECTION 6
Collector And Local Streets ..... 43
6.1 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING ............. 43
SECTION 7
Maintenance Standards .......... 47
7.1 TREE MAINTENANCE AND
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ........... 47
7.2 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES .... 47
7.3 ACCEPTANCE OF NEW ARTERIAL
STREETSCAPE PROJECTS FOR
CITY MAINTENANCE ........................ 48
7.4 GENERAL MAINTENANCE
STANDARDS ................................. 49
Page | iv CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
SECTION 8
Irrigation Standards ............... 51
8.1 IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN .......... 51
8.2 MATERIALS STANDARDS ............... 52
8.3 INSTALLATION PREPARATION ........ 55
8.4 INSTALLATION PROCEDURES ......... 55
8.5 TESTING ................................. 59
8.6 COMPLETION SERVICES ................ 60
8.7 GUARANTEE/WARRANTY
AND REPLACEMENT ......................... 61
SECTION 9
Fine Grading And Soil
Preparation Standards ............ 63
9.1 GENERAL STANDARDS ................. 63
9.2 SUBMITTALS ............................. 63
9.3 MATERIALS STANDARDS ............... 63
9.4 ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS ....... 64
9.5 FINISH GRADING OPERATIONS ........ 64
SECTION 10
Grass Seeding Standards ......... 67
10.1 GRASS SEEDING ....................... 67
EXHIBIT A
List of Recommended Plants .... 71
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 1
SECTION 1
Purpose and Intent
Based on the City of Fort Collins’ vision
to create a vibrant, world class
community, these standards set forth a
coordinated approach to the design and
management of streets as visually
appealing public spaces that contribute
to Fort Collins’ distinct identity.
The term “streetscape” generally
encompasses the visual and pedestrian
environment of a street. These
streetscape standards involve parameters
for tree-lined streets and sidewalks,
other landscaping along street edges,
and landscaped medians in arterial
streets.
In addition to plantings, streetscapes
may also encompass various urban design
elements in certain settings. Examples
include special curb treatments and
median edges, low planter walls and
landscape walls, railings, bollards,
planter pots, stone features, public art,
pylons, specialty lighting, signal and light
pole treatments, specialty paving, transit
stops and furnishings, and the like.
Every streetscape project involves its
own context and constraints. Still, there
is a need for standards to set the bar for
level of quality and investment. These
standards provide a framework for
programming, budgeting, designing,
maintaining, and renovating various
incremental projects as part of a whole
approach.
Exact details must then be adapted to fit
and function with the unique context and
constraints which exist in every project.
The context and constraints include
existing conditions that are expected to
remain for the long term, and future
change planned or envisioned by the
City.
Page | 2 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 3
SECTION 2
Applicability &
Use
These standards apply to all projects
involving streetscapes in the City right-
of-way including:
Private development projects.
City capital projects.
Any other miscellaneous
maintenance and renovation
projects and efforts.
Private development and public capital
projects may involve construction of
new streets, and/or changes to existing
streets.
The standards are intended to be used
by:
Staff, in the design and
management of City streetscapes
over time.
Landscape architects and designers.
Developers and decision makers in
the development review process.
Property owners, where plans and
activities involve streetscapes.
Citizens, City Councils, and staff, in
discussions involving streetscape
issues.
Page | 4 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 5
SECTION 3
Project Plan
Submittal and
Review
Streetscape projects that are part of
development applications follow a
standard City development review
process, which will include
collaboration with staff on streetscape
design.
City capital projects involving
streetscapes are reviewed
administratively by interested City
departments in an internal process of
collaboration and routing of plans.
3.1
STREETSCAPE PROJECT
DESCRIPTION REQUIRED
For streetscapes to be successful, it is
important for City staff in multiple
departments to have a clear
understanding of the design intent,
assumptions, and the needs for
maintenance, monitoring, and
replacements of plants or other
components.
A project description is needed to
supplement technical project plans.
The purpose is to prompt designers and
staff to record the whole story of the
streetscsape project.
3.1.1 Streetscape Project Description
required.
All streetscape projects involving
landscaping and urban design elements
shall include a Streetscape Project
Description developed by City staff in
collaboration with any project
consultants, upon completion of design.
The description shall:
Be concise and avoid technical
jargon.
Include relevant commentary in
addition to objective facts and
information.
Describe the design intent,
assumptions, and maintenance and
renovations that will be needed
over time to realize the design
intent.
Note all aspects of the project from
initial grading and soil preparation,
to irrigation systems, to planting
and establishment procedures, to
management and maintenance.
Note outstanding issues that need to
be monitored over time.
Examples of topics to be addressed
include:
Page | 6 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Plant species with a limited track
record in streetscapes that warrant
monitoring.
Mulches that need replenishing or
clean-up.
Urban design features that may
need touch ups, replacements,
stocking of parts, or other
maintenance and renovations.
Any other information useful for
future understanding and
management of the streetscape.
3.1.2 Project Statement File.
Staff shall maintain Project Statements
for streetscapes on file.
CITY OF F
SECTIO
All S
The follo
street c
where s
planning
alternat
area.
4.1
STREET
Rows of
are the
of conti
Street tr
multi-fu
that:
Defin
provi
abut
Provi
stree
glare
Provi
pede
vehic
Provi
signs
winte
FORT COLLIN
ON 4
Street
owing stand
lassificatio
pecific are
g document
tive standar
T TREES
street tree
fundament
nuity in cit
rees can be
unctional pu
nes the stre
iding a unif
ting develo
ides canopy
ets and side
e and summ
ides a buffe
estrians on
cles in the
ides space
s, and for s
er.
S STREETSCA
ts
dards apply
ns city-wid
as have ap
Page | 8 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
4.1.2 Species groupings within tree
rows.
To the extent reasonably feasible,
street tree rows in landscape areas,
whether inside or outside of the
sidewalk, shall be in groupings of three,
five, or more of a single species. The
intent is to provide a degree of species
diversity within a deliberate, repeating
design pattern.
Designers are encouraged to arrange
changes in species to reflect roadway
conditions, such as open stretches of
roadway between access points,
stretches approaching intersections and
driveways, and/or changes in adjoining
land use.
Plan view illustration
of street trees
showing groupings.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 9
4.1.3 Street trees in sidewalk
cutouts.
If a project involves a new sidewalk
that must be attached to the curb due
to unique constraints or context, then
the sidewalk width shall be wide
enough to incorporate planting cutouts
with tree grates to the maximum
extent feasible.
To the maximum extent feasible,
such sidewalks shall be 12-15 feet
wide with cutouts at least 25 square
feet at 30- to 50-foot spacing.
Larger cutouts with more than 25
square feet are encouraged.
In all cases, trees in sidewalk
cutouts shall be located at least 8
feet away from buildings and offset
from building entrances.
If such an attached sidewalk has an
abutting landscape area, then 8 feet
shall be the minimum width in
which canopy trees shall be
provided in sidewalk cutouts.
The minimum area of any sidewalk
cutouts shall be 16 square feet,
using 4x4-foot tree grates. Larger
cutouts with more than 16 square
feet of area are encouraged, for
example 4x6-foot or 4x9-foot tree
grates, to support tree health.
8-foot sidewalk with 4’x4’ tree grates, where there is
an abutting landscape area.
The soil surface in a sidewalk cutout
shall be level with the bottom of
the sidewalk slab. Trees shall then
be planted with the top of the root
ball 1-2 inches above the soil
surface.
All tree grates shall be installed per
manufacturer’s instructions.
Frames shall be set in a true, flat
plane to prevent rocking of the
grate. The grate or a template shall
be set in the frame before concrete
is poured to ensure the final
installation is square and flat.
Grates shall be of a pedestrian-safe
ADA-compliant style with slot
openings 3/8-inch or less.
A spacing interval up to 50 feet shall
be permitted for street trees in
grates where abutting commercial
buildings face the street with no
intervening vehicle use area
between the street and the
building.
Page |
4.1.4 Tr
sidewal
preclud
sidewal
Where a
curb and
canopy s
reasona
an area
the side
This stan
unusual
planting
Any such
coordina
owners.
Examples
10
ree plantin
lks where
de parkway
lk cutouts.
a sidewalk i
d is less tha
shade trees
bly feasible
ranging fro
ewalk at 30
ndard shall
constraints
g in a parkw
h planting w
ation with a
of street trees
ng outside
existing co
y tree plan
.
is attached
an 8 feet in
s shall, to t
e, be estab
om 3 to 7 fe
to 40 foot
l also apply
s preclude
way.
will typical
abutting pr
outside of side
of
onstraints
nting or
to the
n width,
the extent
blished in
eet behind
intervals.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 11
4.1.7 Spacing from driveways.
No tree shall be planted closer than 8
feet from any driveway or alley.
4.1.8 Tree separation from utilities.
Landscape and utility plans shall be
coordinated. Following are the
minimum dimension requirements for
the most common tree/utility
separations.
40 feet between canopy shade trees
and streetlights. Fifteen (15) feet
between ornamental trees and
streetlights.
10 feet between trees and water or
sewer lines.
4 feet between trees and gas lines.
4 feet between trees and
underground electric lines shall be
provided to the extent reasonably
feasible.
Exceptions to these requirements may
occur where utilities are not located in
their standard designated locations, as
approved by the City Forester or the
Director. Tree/utility separations shall
not be used as a means of avoiding the
planting of required street trees.
8’ min.
D r i v e w a y
40’ min.
Canopy Shade
Trees
15’ min.
Ornamental
Trees
Tree separations from streetlights and
driveways.
Page | 12 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
4.2
PARKWAY LANDSCAPING – TURF-
TYPE GRASS
Turf-type grass in parkways provides a
multi-functional solution for
landscaped edges along city streets of
all classifications. Two main types of
turf-type grasses may be used in Fort
Collins streetscapes: cool-season
turfgrasses, and warm-season native
shortgrasses. Cool-season turfgrasses
include improved varieties of Kentucky
Bluegrass, Tall Fescue, Perennial
Ryegrass, and Wheatgrasses. Warm-
season native shortgrasses include
improved varieties of Buffalograss and
Blue Grama.
Efficiently irrigated, mowed cool-
season turfgrass provides a living green
edge to city streets over a long growing
season. The green edge, along with
street trees, is a unifying element that
helps define City streets as continuous
spaces, in conjunction with street
trees.
Cool-season turfgrass can be a
sustainable, functional landscape
solution consistent with “xeriscape”
and “water-wise” landscaping
principles. These principles recognize
cool-season turfgrass as an appropriate
use of water in high visibility, multi-
functional, high-use areas, and
parkways typically fit that description.
Cool-season turfgrass can be reasonably
drought tolerant, depending on the
species and improved variety.
Problems resulting from periods of
neglect are relatively easy to correct,
and the turf rarely, if ever, needs
replacement.
Non-gardeners and typical commercial
crews can readily maintain cool-season
turfgrass. It naturally inhibits weeds,
and mowing is an efficient way to
control weeds that do occur. It works
well in conjunction with street trees
with tolerance for shading. In winter,
dormant turf is easy to keep tidy and
trash-free. It tolerates foot traffic
better than any other living ground
cover.
Turfgrass parkways provide continuity and multiple
functions.
Blue Grama and Buffalograss have very
low irrigation and mowing needs. They
are active and green for a shorter
season than cool-season turfgrasses,
but have an attractive straw color
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 13
4.2.1 Requirements.
Section 5 includes parkway landscaping
standards for Arterial Streets. Section
6 includes parkway landscaping
standards for Collector and Local
Streets.
4.3
PARKWAY LANDSCAPING -
ALTERNATIVES TO TURF-TYPE
GRASS
Mulched planting beds can be an
acceptable alternative solution to
turfgrass for parkway landscaping in
some situations.
This alternative typically requires less
water than cool-season turfgrass. With
appropriate plant selection and proper
maintenance it can offer seasonal
interest and add character. While
maintenance needs can be less
frequent than a cool-season turfgrass
mowing regime, they can be more
complex and occasionally more time-
consuming as weeding, trimming,
mulching and replacing materials are
important to keep the plantings healthy
and attractive.
Mulched planting bed in the parkway limits
water use and can provide visual interest.
4.3.1 Where Appropriate.
Alternatives to irrigated turfgrass can
be an appropriate choice for property
owners abutting collector and local
streets, depending on whether the
parkway is governed by an approved
Development Plan. Alternatives can
also be appropriate for arterial street
projects in special plan areas that have
recommended alternatives.
4.3.2 Requirements.
Section 5 includes parkway landscaping
requirements for Arterial Streets.
Section 6 includes parkway landscaping
requirements for Collector and Local
Streets.
Page | 14 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
4.4
SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES AT
INTERSECTIONS
Sight distance generally refers to the
line of sight from a driver at an
unsignalized intersection to
approaching vehicles that the driver
needs to see in order to safely enter
traffic.
4.4.1 Requirements.
A visual sight distance triangle, free of
any structures or landscape elements
shall be maintained at street
intersections and driveways, as
required in Figure 7-16 in the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards.
Deciduous trees may be permitted to
encroach into the clearance triangle
provided that the lowest leaves shall be
at least six (6) feet from grade and are
spaced so that they do not obstruct line
of sight.
Site Distance Triangle concept.
Distance 1
Distance 2 (Depends on Speed)
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 15
4.5
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT –
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
In a “Low Impact Development” (LID)
approach to streetscapes, landscaped
parkways and medians are depressed
rather than raised, to help manage
stormwater runoff closer to the source.
Depressed landscape areas are
designed with special soil mixes,
corresponding plantings, and other
design techniques to infiltrate and
filter runoff, instead of concentrating
and conveying all runoff to centralized
detention and treatment facilities.
The City’s Stormwater Criteria Manual,
which governs the management of
stormwater in the city, describes
design, plant selection, and
maintenance techniques applicable to
streetscapes.
4.5.1 LID encouraged.
LID techniques and technologies are
encouraged whenever the drainage
patterns and the infrastructure allows
for such measures to be used.
4.5.2 Low Impact Development
streetscape projects.
In any streetscape where a Low Impact
Development approach is used,
Streetscape Standards shall be adapted
or modified as needed per the
Stormwater Criteria Manual.
Illustration of LID concepts in a parkway.
Page | 16 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Illustration of LID concepts in a parkway.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 17
Illustration of LID median concept with street runoff directed to a depressed median with a flush band
instead of curb and gutter.
Illustration of LID median concept with street runoff directed to a depressed median with special curb and
gutter inlets.
Page | 18 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF F
SECTIO
Arte
The city
and exp
combini
transpor
Besides
and utili
througho
Plan is t
public sp
space, a
impressi
resident
large ro
and conv
City of F
Arterial
the Dow
resident
in the Po
Downtown
Suburban
FORT COLLIN
ON 5
erial S
y’s arterial
ensive pub
ng virtually
rtation syst
the functio
ities, a per
out the Cit
the importa
pace. As h
arterials cre
ions, are ex
ts on a daily
le in determ
veying the
Fort Collins
streetscap
wntown core
tial areas, t
oudre Rive
n core.
residential a
S STREETSCA
Street
streets are
lic infrastru
y all utility
tems of the
onal needs
rvasive them
y’s Compre
ance of stre
high-visibilit
eate first
Page | 20 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5.1
ARTERIAL STREETSCAPES MAP
The Arterial Streetscapes Map
recognizes differences between various
arterials throughout the city. It
indicates where a “Standard Arterial
Streetscape” approach should apply,
and where other corridor segments and
gateway intersections warrant their
own tailored approach to streetscape
design and management.
The map works in conjunction with
design standards in the following
chapters to guide investment in
streetscapes throughout the city.
The types of Arterial Streetscapes
and Gateways are:
Standard Arterial Streetscapes.
Enhanced Travel Corridors.
Special Planning Areas.
Streetscapes constrained by
Existing Development.
Gateway Intersections.
Community Entrance Gateways
(at Interstate 25).
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 21
12.10.2012
Page | 22 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5.2
ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN:
STANDARD ARTERIAL
STREETSCAPES - MEDIANS
The primary focus of “Standard Arterial
Streetscapes” is on medians, including
the medians in roundabouts.
Median standards emphasize mixed
plantings of perennials, grasses, shrubs,
and tree groupings, with a mulched
ground surface. The intent of these
standards is to reflect Fort Collins’
western regional character with
regionally-specific plants suited to the
harsh roadway environment.
Planting compositions must include:
Varied plant forms, textures, and
foliage in addition to flowers.
Coordinated, repeating groupings of
plants to form an overall pattern.
Accent groupings to add detail and
variation within the overall pattern.
Related elements such as mulches
and boulders.
Illustration of standard arterial median landscaping approach.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 23
5.2.1 Median width measurements.
All references to median widths are
from face of curb to face of curb.
5.2.2 Median grading.
The ground surface in landscaped
medians shall be crowned with a high
point in the center, with slopes not to
exceed 7:1 or approximately 14
percent. This standard shall not apply
where a median has a cross slope due
to opposing traffic lanes and curbs
having different elevations, such that a
crown may not be feasible.
5.2.3 Median grading in
roundabouts.
The ground surface in center medians
in roundabouts shall be crowned with
slopes not to exceed 7:1 or
approximately 14 percent. The intent
of this standard is to increase the visual
prominence of landscaping, and work in
conjunction with planting and
hardscape elements to achieve year-
round screening of visibility across the
roundabout to a height of at least 4
feet.
5.2.4 Median planting general
approach.
Tree groupings and mixed plantings of
other plant types shall be established
and maintained in medians.
This standard shall not apply in the
following situations:
Trees shall not be planted in
medians less than seven feet
wide.
Medians less than three feet
wide shall be paved rather than
planted.
Page | 24 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5.2.5 Median tree groupings:
Canopy shade trees, ornamental
trees, and evergreen trees shall be
planted in groups of three, five, or
more to the extent reasonably
feasible. Open intervals shall be
provided between the groups.
Open intervals between tree groups
shall constitute 30-60% of the length
of a given median. These
percentages are intended to convey
a general proportion rather than a
precisely measured formula.
Determination of the open intervals
shall be based on the design intent
and growth assumptions for trees
over a given time frame.
Where median length allows,
repetition of tree groupings is
encouraged.
5.2.6 Tree separation from median
edges.
Separation of trees from concrete
edges shall be provided by designers as
needed based on assumptions for
growth and pruning over a given time
frame. The following minimum
separations shall be provided for tree
types as listed in Exhibit List of
Recommended Plants:
Large canopy trees – 2.5 feet.
Ornamental trees – 1.5 feet.
Large evergreen trees – 7 feet.
Small evergreen trees – 5 feet.
5.2.7 Evergreen tree
setbacks from face of
curbs.
Evergreen trees shall be set
back from the face of curbs:
Large evergreen trees – 9
feet.
Small evergreen trees – 7
feet.
5.2.8 Staggered median
tree groupings if space
permits.
Tree groupings shall be
staggered rather than aligned
in straight rows, where
median width permits a
stagger of at least 2 feet.
Example plan view of a median
showing tree groupings.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 25
5.2.9 Mixed plantings.
Mixed plantings of perennials,
ornamental grasses, shrubs, and
shrubby trees shall be planted and
maintained to cover at least 75% of the
median area within 5 years, based on
assumptions for growth and
maintenance of plants by the designer.
Mixed plantings shall be composed
of groups of at least 3 plants per
group, with each group composed of
a single species.
Mixed plantings shall be composed
for understory conditions at tree
groupings, and open conditions in
intervals between tree groupings.
Mixed planting in a newly planted median.
Mixed plantings shall be arranged in
an informal pattern rather than
formal rows or geometrically-shaped
groupings. The informal pattern
shall include coordinated, repeating
groupings of plants in an overall
composition, rather than random
placement. Plantings shall be
designed and maintained to span
the full width of the median at
maturity.
Mixed planting standards apply to
all medians 3 feet wide or wider.
Page | 26 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
This – informal
pattern, but with
repeated groupings to
create an overall
order in the design
pattern.
Not This – formal,
geometric pattern of
massed plantings. While
this kind of design
pattern is not the
“Standard Arterial
Streetscape” approach, it
may be appropriate for
special planning areas.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 27
5.2.10 Mixed plantings – two options
for intensity.
Two options for mixed plantings shall
be permitted:
Perennial Garden Style.
Shrub Garden Style.
Perennial Garden Style: This option
emphasizes the maximum degree of
planting intensity, color, and variety,
with perennials used for the full length
of a median. This results in a higher
number of different plant groupings
and a higher total number of plants to
achieve the required 75% plant
coverage.
Shrub Garden Style: This option allows
the use of larger shrubs and shrubby
trees to achieve the required 75%
coverage with a lower number of
different plant groupings and lower
total number of plants.
5.2.11 Perennial Garden Style
requirements.
An average of at least 4 groupings of
perennial or ornamental grasses, and 3
groupings of shrubs per 250 square feet
shall be planted and maintained.
Groupings shall be composed of single
species with at least 3 plants.
Illustration of Perennial Variety Style mixed planting, with open areas and tree groupings.
Page | 28 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5.2.12 Shrub Garden Style
requirements.
An average of at least 3 groupings of
shrubs per 250 square feet shall be
planted and maintained. Groupings
shall be composed of single species
with at least 3 plants.
In open areas at the ends of medians at
intersections, at least 4 perennial or
ornamental grass groupings and 3 shrub
groupings shall be planted and
maintained, with emphasis on color
and/or texture over a long growing
season.
Example of a mixed shrub planting with regionally
adapted species (not a streetscape).
5.2.13 Decision on options.
The option to be used in any project
shall be approved by the Director based
on consideration of the relative
importance of a given median to
community image, intensity of adjacent
land uses, the width and length of the
median, and City budget
considerations. In general, the
Perennial Garden Style is more
appropriate in higher-activity, mixed-
use areas. The Shrub Garden Style is
generally more appropriate in
residential and other lower-activity
areas.
Plan view
illustrations
comparing
perennial variety
concept
(on the left)
and shrub
variety concept
(on the right) .
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 29
5.2.14 Median noses and narrow
ribbons ‐ planting.
Median areas 3-7 feet wide shall be
planted with low mixed planting under
30 inches in height.
5.2.15 Plants and mulches in
conjunction.
Plant groupings shall be designed in
association with either cobble mulch or
organic mulch. Plants selected to
feature green leaves and flowers are
generally complemented by organic
mulch, while stone mulch can detract
from their effects. Stone mulch can
complement evergreens, other plants
selected to feature distinct forms or
textures, and xeric plants with grey-
green foliage.
When mulches are mixed, the patterns
shall be in sweeping curves, and not
rectangular blocks or strips along the
edge.
5.2.16 Mulches.
Organic mulch shall be used, either
solely or in combination with stone
mulch to add visual interest with a
design pattern. Organic mulch shall be
undyed shredded woody material. If a
combination is used, the pattern shall
be designed in conjunction with plant
groupings, and the pattern shall span
the full width of the median rather
than dividing the median lengthwise
into linear strips or lining the edge of
the median.
This - mulch pattern spans the median in a sweeping
curve.
Not this – mulch pattern in linear strips.
This – mulch pattern in sweeping curves designed
with the direction of travel in mind.
Not this – mulch pattern in linear strips.
Not this – mulch pattern in blocks.
Stone mulch, if used, shall consist of 2-
4-inch stone combined with groupings
of 4-12 inch or larger stone hand placed
as accents for visual interest and to
separate abutting organic and stone
mulches. Larger stone shall be placed
Page | 30 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
first, to be embedded, mingled, and
settled with the smaller stone rather
than loosely dumped.
Stone mulch placement example.
5.2.17 Boulders.
Boulders may be used to structure and
complement plant groupings. They
shall be designed and placed in
deliberate groupings in association with
the planting and mulch design pattern,
and any low walls or slopes. They shall
be placed prior to planting and
mulching, and slightly sunk into the
ground, to be embedded and mingled
with mulches and plantings. Permitted
boulders shall be tan Masonville
sandstone quarry blocks, rounded river
boulders, or weathered moss rock
boulders.
Boulder selection shall be based on
continuing an established theme, or
establishing a theme where none
exists.
Tan Masonville sandstone quarry blocks.
Rounded river boulders as part of a whole design
approach to plantings and mulches.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 31
5.2.18 Median hardscape – edges
and paving.
Hardscape treatments depend on
different median widths and different
contexts throughout the city, and shall
comply with the following
requirements:
A. In median areas that are at least 7
feet wide, a double curb edge shall
be installed where a project
includes 1) a new median, or 2) an
existing median that lacks splash
blocks or has splash blocks that
warrant replacement. The purpose
of this standard is to provide
additional depth for planting areas,
space for maintenance personnel,
an additional correction barrier for
vehicles leaving the roadway, and a
visual design that complements the
curb and gutter. Where a median
tapers to less than 7 feet, the
upper curb shall return across the
median to enclose the upper
landscape area.
Double curb design.
Illustration of double curb.
The following exceptions to the double
curb shall apply:
1) Sloped concrete splash blocks with
integral tan tint and exposed
aggregate finish shall be permitted
in lieu of a double curb if a median
project is located in a street
segment or area of the city where
existing splash blocks have a
previously established theme and
are expected to remain for a long
term.
Sloped splash block design.
6”
6”
6”
12”
Tan-tinted
concrete
Standard curb
and gutter
6”
6”
18”
6”
8”
Page | 32 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Sloped splash block design: existing Standard
Arterial Streetscape corridors throughout the city
include extensive segments with existing sloped
concrete splash blocks, per a former standard.
2) Where a median is less than 7
feet wide, the edge shall be a
standard 6-inch curb with no
double curb or splash block.
B. Median areas under 3 feet wide
shall be paved rather than planted.
Paving shall be rectangular
concrete or brick pavers set on a
concrete base.
The following exception to pavers shall
apply: where existing tan exposed-
aggregate concrete median paving
establishes a prevailing theme, it shall
be permitted for paving of medians
under 3 feet wide.
Tan exposed-aggregate concrete median paving.
Rectangular pavers set in a herringbone pattern.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 33
Narrow median area 3-7 feet
wide – mixed planting, no trees,
standard curb.
Median area 7 feet or wider –
mixed planting and ornamental trees to
provide a sense of pedestrian scale. Double
curb continues to crosswalk.
Narrow median area under 3 feet
wide – pavers, standard curb.
Page | 34 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5.2.19 Roundabout
planting and
hardscape:
Roundabout medians
in Standard Arterial
Streetscape areas shall
be developed and
maintained with tree
groupings and mixed
plantings in the
Perennial Variety
Style, with boulders
and a mulched ground
surface. Landscape
walls may be included
to reinforce the
pattern and provide
year-round structure
for plantings.
Apron paving and any
special curbs shall be
designed for visual
interest with tinted,
textured concrete,
pavers, or similar
material.
Design of each
individual roundabout
shall be unique unless
multiple roundabouts
are related in a pair or
group as part of a
single traffic
management project.
Design elements
include planting
themes, plant species,
apron paving, and
other hardscape
details.
Plan view of
roundabout components.
Mixed planting, trees,
mulches, boulders,
and landscape walls
in a coordinated
pattern
Specialty apron
paving in a
coordinated
pattern
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 35
Illustrations of roundabout landscaping approach with mixed planting, boulders, mulch and hardscape patterns all designed
in conjunction. Lower graphic shows the inclusion of landscape walls.
Page | 36 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5.3
ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN:
STANDARD ARTERIAL
STREETSCAPES - PARKWAYS
The City maintains most arterial street
parkways, with exceptions in a limited
number of situations where other
arrangements are made with another
entity. Turfgrass provides a range of
benefits as a solution to arterial street
parkways as described in Section 4.
The benefits describe are relevant for
all street classifications, but are
particularly relevant for arterials which
form a continuous city-wide framework
of public space.
5.3.1 Irrigated Turfgrass.
Parkways in Standard Arterial
Streetscapes shall consist of irrigated
turfgrass and street tree plantings as
described in Chapter 4.
Arterial street parkway.
5.4
ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN:
ENHANCED TRAVEL CORRIDORS
(ETC’S)
Standard Arterial Streetscape standards
may or may not be adequate and
appropriate for design and
maintenance of these corridors,
depending on unique circumstances in
each ETC.
These arterial corridors are intended to
evolve as a framework that
incorporates and supports high
frequency transit with special emphasis
on walkability and bicycling.
5.4.1 Tailored streetscape approach.
For streetscape projects where
previous ETC plans do not define a
streetscape approach, the Standard
Arterial Streetscape standards in
Section 5.2 shall be considered as the
minimum requirement for the level of
quality and investment.
Design and maintenance shall then be
adapted to unique circumstances in
each corridor as appropriate, based on
study of and response to:
1. Guiding policies for ETC’s.
2. Established precedents in the
corridor that are consistent with the
vision and policies for ETC’s.
Examples of permissible design
variations include:
3. Planting patterns to reinforce the
pattern of transit facilities.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 37
4. Hardscape elements – edge
treatments, paving, planters, and
the like, particularly where related
to transit stops and shelters.
5. Urban design amenities in a
coordinated program, particularly
including paving, furnishings, and
structures at transit stops and
shelters.
In all cases, design shall include
repeating elements to create a theme
for the corridor and avoid clutter of
unrelated elements.
5.5
ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN:
OTHER SPECIAL PLANNING
AREAS
Special planning areas have subarea
plans, corridor plans, or other planning
documents that recognize their unique
context and character. The level of
specific direction for streetscapes
varies among the plans.
These areas warrant their own
distinctive streetscapes with tailored
design and maintenance
characteristics, rather than the
Standard Arterial Streetcape.
5.5.1 Tailored streetscape approach.
For streetscape projects where plan
documents are not definitive, the
Standard Arterial Streetscape standards
in Section 5.2 shall be considered as
the minimum requirement for the level
of quality and investment, and may be
considered as a reference for design.
Design and maintenance shall then be
adapted by project designers and staff
based on study of and response to the
context and any established precedents
that are consistent with the vision and
policies for the area, and are thus
expected to remain.
Examples of permissible design
variations on the Standard Arterial
Streetscape include:
6. Distinct patterns of trees and other
plant groupings.
7. Signature plant species.
8. Hardscape elements – edge
treatments, paving, low planter
walls or landscape walls, and the
like.
9. Urban design amenities such as
paving, street furnishings, and
transit stop shelters or other
themed structures in a coordinated
program.
In all cases, design shall include
Page | 38 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5.6
ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN:
CONSTRAINED CORRIDORS AND
SEGMENTS
These are arterial corridors and
segments where the Standard Arterial
Streetscape is not feasible due to
physical constraints of existing
development. Typically, both parkways
and medians are constrained.
Example of a constrained arterial (East Prospect).
5.6.1 Tailored streetscape approach.
Streetscape projects in these areas
shall incorporate aspects of a Standard
Arterial Streetscape to the extent
reasonably feasible. The allocation of
available space and the compromises
on each component of the street shall
be determined on a project-by-project
basis.
The most important aspects to consider
in the streetscape approach are safe
sidewalks and street trees as described
in Chapter 4.
5.7
ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN:
GATEWAY INTERSECTIONS
These intersections are exceptional
locations where the Standard Arterial
Streetscape should be augmented with
additional intensity of streetscape
development in any capital projects.
These locations warrant the highest
level of investment for design,
construction and maintenance.
The intent is to highlight entryways
into the city, and also edges of districts
within the city. The locations consist
of intersections, whether signalized or
roundabouts, extending outward as
appropriate to include medians
associated with the intersection.
5.7.2 Components.
Streetscape projects at gateway
intersections shall be enhanced with a
coordinated program of components
including at least four of the following:
Plantings of annual flowers in
beds or large pots.
Railings or low walls.
Bollards.
Pedestrian lighting/ other
specialty lighting.
Columns, pylons or other urban
design structures.
Signal or light pole treatments.
Color themes in repeated
components.
Special paving.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 39
Sculpture or other public art in
addition to the components
listed above.
Examples of enhanced gateway
components – annual flowers,
planter pots on plinths, railings,
pedestrian lights, public art pylons,
and tinted concrete paving.
Example of a median approaching a gateway intersection incorporating themed railings mingled with plant groupings.
Page | 40 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Illustrations of themed plantings, walls, median
planters, and specialty paving as exampes of
special treatments to mark an enhanced
gateway signalized intersection (above) and
gateway roundabout (below).
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 41
5.8
ARTERIAL STREETSCAPE DESIGN:
COMMUNITY ENTRANCE
GATEWAYS (I-25)
Interstate 25 interchanges act as major
community entrances, in conjunction
with the arterial streets leading into
Fort Collins from the interchanges.
Future improvements to the
interchanges are expected to include
gateway design features to reinforce
the community entrance role.
Design and management of any such
interchange improvements, and
and arterial streetscapes near the
interchanges, may present opportunities
for coordination.
For example, any interchange gateway
features may be appropriate to extend
westward along a segment of the
arterial streetscape. If such features
are not appropriate to be extended,
they may still influence, or be
influenced by, the character of the
arterial streetscape.
Example of enhanced gateway components at an I-25
Interchange, including stone walls and a themed planting design.
Page | 42 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 43
SECTION 6
Collector and
Local Streets
6.1
PARKWAY LANDSCAPING
Streetscapes on collector and local
streets typically consist of parkways
only. The primary intent for parkway
landscaping is to provide a setting for
street trees, and work in conjunction
with street trees for a number of
purposes:
Define streets as the framework of
public space within which individual
properties fit.
Contribute to the attractiveness and
visual interest of the street edge.
Mark the transition from public to
private space.
Blend public interests in street
infrastructure with interests of
abutting property owners who are
required to maintain these parkways
by City Code.
6.1.1 Two approaches.
Two main approaches to landscaping
parkways are permitted in collector and
local streets: turf-type grasses, and
mulched planting beds. The pros and
cons of each are discussed in Section 4.
6.1.2 New development landscape
plans.
Where a developer desires to offer non-
turf grass options to homeowners, the
landscape plan shall contain note and
drawings specifying options for non-turf
ground cover plantings, with consistent
mulch and a recommended plant
palette.
6.1.3 Approved development plans
govern.
For developments with approved
landscape plans, the parkway
landscaping must be in accordance with
the plan.
A Homeowners Association (HOA), or a
property owner with approval from the
HOA, may request a Minor Amendment
to an approved plan for parkway
landscaping.
6.1.4 Turf‐type grass.
Turf-type grass shall be permitted,
including both cool-season turfgrasses
and warm-season native shortgrasses as
discussed in Section 4. The choice of
grass species and variety can make a
major difference in water use needs,
ease of establishment, survival of the
grass, weeding, mowing, and renovation
Page | 44 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
6.1.5 Mulched planting beds.
Non-turf ground cover plantings shall be
permitted, including mulched planting
beds and ground cover plantings. With
an understanding of plant selection and
proper irrigation and maintenance,
these plantings can provide seasonal
interest with little water required.
Property owners are encouraged to
incorporate choices that provide a
degree of congruence with neighboring
properties in terms of mulches and
character of plantings.
6.1.6 Requirements for non‐turf
ground cover plantings:
A. Landscaping shall be designed,
installed and maintained so that at
least 50% of the area shall be
covered with live plant material
within 3 years from installation.
B. Plant materials shall be under 2 feet
tall if within 5 feet of a driveway
and under 3 feet tall in other areas.
Owners are encouraged to select
plants that maintain these height
limits with little or no pruning.
Combination of turf and planting beds in
parkway areas.
Mulched planting bed with a perennial garden
in a parkway.
Cool-season turfgrass parkway
congruent among properties along the
street, andalso congruent with
adjoining landscaping.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 45
C. Plant materials must not obscure
the line of sight for traffic or
obstruct the sidewalk. Plantings of
any height that obstruct the line of
sight or cause safety concerns may
be required to be kept trimmed to a
lower height or removed so visibility
is provided/maintained.
D. No fences or thorny/prickly plant
material are allowed.
E. In mulched planting beds, the soil
surface shall be 2-3 inches below
the curb and sidewalk to allow for
mulch to be contained. To avoid
clutter, no additional timbers,
concrete products, plastic or metal
edging, or similar material shall be
included.
F. Exception: if edging is needed to
keep turfgrass out of mulched
areas, perpendicular to the street,
such edging shall be flush or within
1 inch of the ground surface, so it is
not a visible element.
G. Plant materials and mulch must be
kept off the street and sidewalk.
H. Avoid cutting tree roots if
converting an established turf
parkway to a planting bed. Within a
tree’s dripline, minimize grade
change to protect the tree roots.
This – organic mulch, healthy plants, and stepping
stones if needed.
Not this – gravel that is not congruent with any other
portions of the streetscape, dead plants, weeds, concrete
products, and exposed fabric prevent this parkway from
contributing to the street as attractive public space.
Page | 46 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 47
SECTION 7
Maintenance
Standards
The purpose of this Section is to ensure
a consistent, high quality appearance
for all streetscapes, whether
maintained by the City, its agents, or by
private developers, businesses, or
individuals.
Given the high visibility of city
streetscapes, the public is able to
observe maintenance practices in the
field as well as the results of that
maintenance. The public perception of
a well-maintained landscape is
promoted by practices which benefit
the health of the landscape materials
and achieve a neat, well-cared for
appearance. Quality maintenance is a
function of workmanship, funding,
knowledge, and technique. These
standards attempt to ensure that all
streetscapes are cared for in a manner
which reflects the high esteem that
citizens have for these important public
spaces. Generally, all landscaping shall
be maintained in a healthy condition
throughout the growing season. A neat
and attractive appearance is essential.
Irrigation systems, structures, and
sidewalks shall be maintained to
represent the original integrity of the
design and installation.
7.1
TREE MAINTENANCE AND
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
7.1.1 Separate standards document.
A separate document, The City of Fort
Collins Tree Management Standards and
Best Management Practices, contains
the City’s standards for planting and
maintenance for all trees in the public
rights-of-way and apply whether the
work is performed for the City
contractually, by the City, or by private
entities or individuals. Exceptions to the
standards and practices require written
approval of the City Forester.
7.1.2 Permits for tree work.
A permit must be obtained from the
City Forester before any planting,
pruning, removal, or destruction of any
tree or shrub within the public right-of-
way of any street or sidewalk.
Businesses performing this work must be
licensed by the City. No tree shall be
cut back in such a manner that its health
will be impaired or it creates an unsafe
condition. An exception to this rule may
Page | 48 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
of the City Forestry Division to
manage, maintain, and replace on
all streets, regardless of who
maintains the surface.
B. Exception: some streetscape
projects include a warranty period
for establishment of newly planted
trees in which the project is
responsible.
C. Medians in arterial streets shall be
maintained by the City.
Exception: some streetscape
projects include a warranty period
for establishment of median
landscaping in which the project
is responsible.
D. Parkway landscaping on Collector
and Local streets shall be
maintained by the adjacent property
owner in accordance with City Code.
E. Parkway landscaping on arterial
streets shall be the responsibility of
the City if there is no individual,
organization, or homeowners’
association that prefers to maintain
them, or that can be fairly allocated
the maintenance responsibility
based on their unique benefit .
F. The following four other different
scenarios for planting and
continuing maintenance are possible
depending on circumstances:
1) The developer installs the landscape
and the City takes responsibility for
tree maintenance after a warranty
period for full tree establishment
during which time specific
obligations are met. The surface
(turfgrass, other plantings, mulches,
irrigation) must continue to be
maintained by the developer,
homeowners’ association, or other
responsible party.
2) The developer installs the landscape
and after meeting obligations during
the first two years, the City takes
responsibility for both tree and
surface maintenance.
3) The landscape is part of a Capital
Improvements Project and a
contractor does the landscape work.
The City is responsible for tree
maintenance and may or may not be
responsible for surface
maintenance.
4) Adopt A Median -- the City
encourages homeowners’
associations, business groups, and
other civic groups to take part in
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 49
the project that installed the
streetscape.
7.4
GENERAL MAINTENANCE
STANDARDS
7.4.1 Trash.
Trash shall be removed on a regular
basis.
7.4.2 Turf‐type grass.
Cool-season turfgrasses shall be
maintained at a 3-inch cut during the
growing season. Trimming shall be
concurrent with mowing, to match
height of open turf, around mowing
obstructions such as trees, curbs, and
vacuum breakers. Turfgrass shall be
edged concurrent with mowing when
needed to prevent growth over edges.
Visible clippings shall be removed from
sidewalks and streets.
Buffalograss and Blue grama shall be
maintained at a maximum height of 12
inches.
7.4.3 Shrubs.
Shrubs shall be pruned as needed to: 1)
achieve the design intent; 2) remove
dead or diseased branches; and 3)
support plant health and vigor. Dead
shrubs shall be removed and replaced
immediately. Shrubs shall not extend
over the curb or sidewalk.
7.4.4 Perennials.
Perennials shall be deadheaded and
trimmed throughout the growing season
as appropriate for the design intent for
each species. Depending upon design
intent, perennials and ornamental
grasses shall be cut back in late fall or
early spring prior to new growth. Dead
perennials shall be removed
immediately and replaced per the
design intent.
7.4.5 Annuals.
Planting of annuals in the spring shall be
in designated annual flower beds.
Annuals shall be regularly deadheaded
of spent blooms. Annuals shall be
removed in the fall after the first hard
freeze.
7.4.6 Mulch.
Mulch shall be replenished as needed to
maintain complete coverage of the soil
surface with a depth of 2-4 inches, with
careful placement and reduced depth as
needed underneath plants to avoid
burying leaves or tender stems.
7.4.7 Weeds.
All landscaped areas shall be kept free
of weeds and invasive grasses that are
Page | 50 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 51
SECTION 8
Irrigation
Standards
Proper watering systems help achieve
City goals and citizen expectations for
public spaces. Irrigation of parkway
and median plant material is necessary
to maintain a quality appearance and
long term health of streetscape
plantings.
It is the City’s intent to be a good
steward of water resources consistent
with “xeriscape” and “water-wise”
principles related to social,
environmental, and economic
sustainability.
All irrigation systems will be designed
to meet the needs of each unique
landscape by following best
management practices and up-to-date
technology. Without proper irrigation
design and maintenance, good
stewardship of the landscapes is not
achievable.
8.1
IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN
8.1.1 General design standards.
Irrigation design and installation shall
comply with the following general
standards:
A. Irrigation design shall be done by a
certified irrigation designer unless
otherwise approved by the Parks
Department.
B. Irrigation system design and
installation shall be monitored,
inspected, and approved by the
City Parks Division. Irrigation
systems shall be installed and
maintained so that irrigation
equipment will not spray onto any
streets, walkways, or features and
structures that could be damaged
by water.
C. The irrigation system must comply
with the International Plumbing
Code and with the City of Fort
Collins Electrical Code.
D. Any deviation in taps from the
approved construction plans must
be approved by City of Fort Collins
Utilities prior to installation. Any
water service line shall be
coordinated with City of Fort
Collins Utilities.
E. Any deviation in layout of the
irrigation system from the approved
construction plans must be
reviewed and approved by the City
Page | 52 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
I. All designs shall meet the industry’s
Best Management Practices from
the Irrigation Association and ALCC
(Associate Landscape Contractors
of Colorado).
J. Newly installed irrigation systems
shall be subject to water audits.
K. The minimum distribution
uniformity for spray heads shall be
.55; for rotor heads it shall be .65;
for stream rotors it shall be .75;
and for impact heads it shall be
.65.
L. Design considerations shall include:
1) shrub and perennial beds are to
be zoned separately from turf
areas; 2) sloped areas will have
separate zoning for heads at the
higher elevations from those at the
lower elevation; 3) areas with
different exposures are to be zoned
separately; and 4) In-head check
valves are to be used for all areas
adjacent to walkways and at the
bottom of berms and pond areas.
M. Xeric irrigation and drip systems
come in a wide variety of
configurations. The correct
application shall be approved for
each landscape design by the City
Parks Department.
N. Trees planted in non-turf irrigated
landscape areas require short-term
and long-term irrigation and should
be on individual or separate zones.
Supplemental emitters shall be
installed on top and around the
root ball for short term health.
Perimeter irrigation of the root ball
shall be installed for long term and
permanent irrigation.
O. The contractor shall install the
saddle for the PVC or AC pipe.
P. The backflow prevention device and
water meter shall meet the City of
Fort Collins standards, and the flow
meter shall be Data Industrial.
Q. A curb stop shall be installed
between the meter pit and the
backflow prevention device for
isolation purposes. The curb stop
shall be sleeved from the valve to
grade and covered with a round
valve box.
R. A blowout tube no larger than ¼”
shall be placed between the meter
pit-curb stop and the back flow
prevention device. The injection
port on the blow out tube shall be
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 53
D. No laterals shall be smaller than
1-inch pipe.
E. Trickle tubing shall be weather and
UV resistant material.
F. Polyethylene drip pipe shall be NSF
approved, SDR pressure-rated pipe,
only as approved for drip
applications.
G. Funny pipe shall be used only for
pop-up spray heads, and shall be
compatible with the elbows needed
for the sprinkler heads.
H. Lateral fittings shall be Schedule
40, Type 1, PVC solvent-weld, with
ASTM Standards D2466 and D1784.
I. Copper or cast bronze fittings,
soldered or threaded per
installation details shall be used for
all copper pipe.
J. Mainline fittings shall be ductile
iron for 3-inch and larger pipe; and
shall be PVC Schedule 80 for
smaller pipe.
K. Sleeving shall be ductile iron or
PVC pipe under all paved surfaces.
Sizes shall be a minimum of two
sizes larger than the pipe being
sleeved, but shall in no case be
smaller than 2-inch diameter pipe.
8.2.2 Valves:
A. Remote control zone valves shall be
electrically operated, appropriate
for the water supply, with manual
bleed device and flow control
stem. Valves shall have a slow-
opening and slow-closing action for
protection against surge pressure.
Brand and model shall be Rainbird
PE Series Remote Control Valves,
scrubber option with self cleaning
screen unless City specifies other
brand and model.
B. Valves used for two-wire system
shall be properly grounded per
manufacturers recommendation.
C. Drip valves, bubbler valves, and
micro-spray valves shall be
accompanied by pressure-reducing
devices matched with
recommended filters to assure
proper operation and reduced
failure of such equipment.
D. Isolation gate valves shall be
Kennedy 1571X or Matco #100M,
able to withstand a continuous
operating pressure of 150 psi.
Clear waterway shall be equal to
full diameter of pipe. Shall be
opened by turning square nut to
Page | 54 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Box sizes shall be as specified to
house one valve per box.
8.2.3 Control System:
A. Controllers shall have smart
controller technology and shall be
approved by the Parks Department.
The number of stations shall
include two extra stations for
possible future use. The controller
box shall be weather tight and
vandal resistant with locking
exterior disconnect. One Eicon
pigtail or compatible remote
controller pigtail shall be used for
each 12 stations.
B. The Control System Enclosure shall
be Hofman Model A242408LP with
A24P24 steel panel, Model A-FK1208
floor stand kit and AL-2BR lock kit,
or approved equal.
C. The surge protection shall be an 8-
foot copper grounding rod, #4 solid
copper wire, grounding buss
receptacle, ground terminal strip
and Irritrol SPD-587 surge protector
per manufacturer’s specifications
and details.
D. The master valve shall be normally
opened.
E. Control wiring shall be #14 solid
copper direct burial UF or PE cable,
UL approved, or larger, per system
design and manufacturer's
recommendations.
F. Five-wire systems shall have a
consistent color scheme
throughout: Red = live; White =
ground; Black, Blue and Green =
extra.
G. If two-wire systems are used,
approved shielded wire or
manufacturers recommended wire
shall be used.
H. Approved wire connectors and
water-proofing sealant shall be
used to join control wires to zone
valve wires. The wire connectors
shall be what each specific
manufacturer recommends. Two-
wire systems shall use
manufacturers specified wire per
warranty provisions.
8.2.4 Sprinkler heads.
All sprinkler heads shall be of the same
manufacturer as specified on the plans,
marked with the manufacturer's name
and model in such a way that materials
can be identified without removal from
the system. The City will specify
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 55
8.3
INSTALLATION PREPARATION
8.3.1 Utility locates.
Locate all utilities prior to trenching and
protect from damage. Required calls
shall include, but are not limited to the
following: City Parks Division, 221-
6660, for locates and 1-800-922-1987
for utility locates within the City of
Fort Collins. Contact other utilities as
required.
8.3.2 Preliminary inspection.
The Contractor shall inspect tap and any
existing irrigation system, as applicable,
prior to work.
8.4
INSTALLATION PROCEDURES
8.4.1 Water service connections
(taps):
A. Forty-eight hours prior to
connection, the contractor shall
contact the City of Fort Collins
Water Utilities, at 221-6700 to
schedule the work for water taps
and inspections. A minimum two
weeks prior notice shall be given to
the Water Meter Shop, 221-6759, for
installations which will require
meters and/or backflow devices
larger than 2 inches.
B. The contractor shall be responsible
for excavation, connection to
corporation stop at the water main,
providing and installing the saddle
for the PVC or A.C. pipe, making
the connection to the existing
water service, backfill and
compaction, and pavement /
shoulder / surface treatment
replacement as needed. Soldered
joints or fittings are permissible
above grade or inside a vault. No
solder, sealants, fluxes, pipe dope,
and other materials shall contain
any lead. All taps and installations
are subject to approval and
inspection by the City of Fort
Collins Water Utilities. Install
meter as specified in a precast
vault. Inspection of service line
(where appropriate), vault, water
meter and backflow is to be
coordinated with the City of Fort
Collins Utilities.
C. The contractor shall install a
winterization assembly downstream
of the meter vault a minimum of 6
feet away from the outside of the
meter vault on the copper pipe.
Page | 56 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
C. Trench depths for mainlines shall
be a minimum of 24 inches deep
from top of pipe to finished grade.
D. Trench depths for laterals shall be
a minimum of 16 inches deep from
top of pipe to finished grade.
8.4.3 Sleeving:
A. Wires shall be in separate sleeves
from pipe, and shall be 2-inch
minimum size pipe.
B. Sleeves shall have traceable marker
tape on upper side and both ends
for future locates.
C. Sleeves shall be installed at a depth
which permits the encased pipe or
wiring to remain at the specified
burial depth.
D. Boring for sleeving shall not be
permitted unless an obstruction in
a pipe path cannot be moved, or
pipe cannot be re-routed.
E. Any mainline installed in existing
sleeves at a greater depth than
adjacent pipe shall have a manual
drain valve at each end if the
sleeve is longer than 20 feet, or at
one end if the sleeve is less than 20
feet.
F. Sleeves shall be installed so ends
extend past edge of curb, gutter,
sidewalk, bikepath or other
obstruction, a minimum of 2 feet.
G. Sleeves shall be marked with an
“x” chiseled in walk (or other
surface) directly over the sleeve
location.
H. Sleeves shall be laid to drain at
minimum grade of 5 inches per 100
feet.
I. Sleeves shall be bedded in 2 inches
of fill sand and covered by 6 inches
of fill sand.
J. Sleeves installed for future use
shall be capped at both ends.
K. Sleeving shall not have joints unless
necessary due to length of sleeving
run. If joints are necessary, only
solvent welded joints are allowed.
L. Compaction of backfill for sleeves
shall be 95% of Standard Proctor
Density, ASTM D698-78. Use of
water (puddling) around sleeves for
compaction, is prohibited.
8.4.4 Pipe installation:
A. Teflon tape shall be used on all
threaded joints; only Schedule 80
pipe may be threaded.
B. Reducing of pipe size shall be done
with reducing insert couplings, at
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 57
before handling, and 24 hours
before allowing water in the pipe.
E. Backfill shall be free from rubbish,
stones larger than two 2-inch
diameter, frozen material and
vegetative matter. Backfill shall
not be placed in freezing weather.
If backfill material is rocky, the
pipe shall be bedded in 2 inches of
fill sand covered by 6 inches of fill
sand.
F. After puddling or tamping, all
trenches shall be left slightly
mounded to allow for settling.
G. Backfill shall be compacted to
proper densities depending on
whether the surface area over the
line will be paved or landscaped.
8.4.5 Thrust blocks:
A. Thrust blocks shall be installed
where PVC mainline 2.5 inches or
larger changes direction over 20
degrees.
B. Thrust blocks shall consist of a
minimum of one cubic foot of
concrete.
C. No concrete shall be allowed to
remain on pipe joints.
D. Wiring shall be placed away from
thrust blocks to avoid contact with
concrete.
8.4.6 Valve installation:
A. Valves shall be installed at least 12
inches from, and aligned with, with
adjacent walls or paved edges.
B. Automatic Remote Valves shall be
installed so that valves are
accessible for repairs. Make
electrical connections so as to allow
pigtail so solenoids can be removed
from the valve with 24 inches
(minimum) slack to allow the ends to
be pulled 12 inches above ground.
The zone wire should be coiled.
Flush completely before installing
the valve. Thoroughly flush piping
system under full head of water for
three minutes through furthest
valve, before installing heads.
C. The top of the valve box shall be
flush with the finish grade.
D. The valve assembly shall include the
ball valve and union per detail for
ease of maintenance and repair.
Valves shall be installed in valve
boxes per details.
E. Quick couple valves shall be
installed in 10-inch round locking
valve boxes. Valves shall be flush
Page | 58 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
all isolation valves; “DRGV” for all
drip system isolation valves; “QC”
for all quick coupling valves; “WA”
for all winterization assemblies;
“FM” for all flow meter assemblies;
and “MV” for all master valve
assemblies. Use a branding iron
stamp with 3-inch high letters.
H. Valve boxes shall NOT rest on
mainlines. Brick or other non-
compressible material shall be used
per details.
I. Valves shall be installed in boxes
with adequate space to access valves
with ease. Valves shall not be too
deep to be accessible for repairs. A
3-inch depth of ¾-inch washed
gravel shall be placed in the bottom
of each valve box with enough space
to fully turn valve for removal per
detail.
J. Six-inch valve boxes shall be limited
to wire splices, drip end caps, and
drains.
8.4.7 Head installation:
A. Heads shall be set plumb and level
with the finish grade. In sloped
areas, heads shall be tilted as
necessary to provide the full radius
spray pattern.
B. Lateral lines shall be flushed before
installing heads. Thoroughly flush
the piping system under a full head
of water for three minutes through
the furthest head, before installing
the heads. Cap the risers if a delay
of head installation occurs.
C. Pop-up heads along walks and
bikeways shall be bedded in a 6
inch layer of sand under the base of
the head. Heads that border
sidewalks and curbs shall be 1–1 ½
inches from the concrete.
D. Nozzles appropriate for best
performance shall be installed.
E. Nozzles and radius of throw shall be
adjusted to minimize overspray
onto hard surfaces.
8.4.8 Electrical connections:
A. New connections shall be approved
through the City of Fort Collins
Electric Utilities. Call 221-6700 to
obtain power information and
request connection. Actual
connection to transformer or other
power source will be done by the
City of Fort Collins Electric Utilities.
Work shall be coordinated and
scheduled by calling 221-6700.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 59
B. All exposed wiring to and from the
controller shall be encased in
galvanized metal conduit.
C. Exterior controllers to be installed
on a 6-inch thick concrete pad.
D. Controllers shall be installed per City
direction and manufacturers
specifications. Surge protection,
grounding rods and other accessory
components shall be included as
specified.
E. Wire markers shall be attached to
the ends of control wires inside the
controller unit. Label wires with the
identification number of the remote
control valve activated by the wire.
8.4.10 Wiring:
A. Wiring shall comply with City of
Fort Collins Electrical Code.
B. The power source shall be brought
to the controller via a ground fault
receptacle installed within the
controller casing.
C. Control wires shall be strung as
close as possible to the mainline,
consistently along and slightly
below one side of the pipe.
D. A minimum loop of 24 inches shall
be left at each valve and
controller, and at each splice, at
the ends of each sleeve, at 100-foot
intervals along continuous runs of
wiring, and changes of direction of
90 degrees or more.
E. Band wires together at ten (10)
foot intervals with pipe wrapping
tape.
F. Install common ground wire and
one control wire for each remote
control valve. Multiple valves on a
single control wire are prohibited.
Install three extra wires, as
specified, to the furthest valve on
the system and/or each branch of
the system.
8.5
TESTING
8.5.1 Testing requirements:
A. All tests shall be run in the
presence of staff from the City
Parks Division. Schedule all tests a
minimum of forty-eight hours in
advance. Repeat any failed tests
until full acceptance is obtained.
B. An operational test shall activate
each remote control valve from the
controller.
C. The contractor shall replace, adjust
or move heads and nozzles as
Page | 60 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
8.6
COMPLETION SERVICES
8.6.1 Requirements upon
completion of construction:
A. When project construction is
complete, the contractor shall
request a punchlist inspection for
construction acceptance from the
City Parks Division.
B. The system shall be demonstrated
to staff from the City Parks
Division.
C. Product ordering information shall
be provided to City Parks Division
staff including model numbers,
sizes and styles for all components.
D. Electronic as-built drawings shall
be provided.
E. Two sets of as-built drawings shall
be provided, showing the system
as installed with each sheet clearly
marked “As-built Drawings”, the
name of the project, and all
information clearly provided.
F. The as-built drawings provided shall
consist of one set of reproducible
mylars, no larger than 24" x 36",
and one set of all sheets reduced to
11" x 17", with each station color
coded, and each sheet plastic
laminated.
G. A completed backflow test for the
backflow prevention device shall be
provided by a licensed backflow
tester.
H. All excess materials, tools, rubbish
and debris shall be removed to
leave a cleaned-up site.
8.6.2 Warranty and maintenance
period:
A. A two-year warranty and
maintenance period provided by
the contractor shall begin upon
construction acceptance by the
City Parks Division.
B. The system shall be maintained in
optimal working condition for the
duration of the period between
construction acceptance and final
acceptance. Periodic adjustments
shall be made to achieve the most
effective and efficient application
of water.
8.6.3 Final acceptance:
A. The contractor shall schedule a
final acceptance inspection by the
City Parks Division at least thirty
days before the end of the one-year
maintenance period.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 61
C. The yearly backflow test report on
the backflow device shall be
submitted to the City Parks
Division.
8.7
GUARANTEE/WARRANTY AND
REPLACEMENT
8.7.1 Requirements.
For the period following construction
acceptance notice by the City, and
prior to final acceptance, all irrigation
materials, equipment, workmanship
and other appurtenances are to be
guaranteed and warranted against
defects. Settling of trenches or other
depressions, damages to structures or
landscaping caused by settling and
other defects shall be corrected by the
contractor at no cost to the City.
Repairs shall be made within seven
days of notification by the City Parks
Division. The guarantee and warranty
shall apply to all originally installed
materials and equipment, and to
replacements made during the
guarantee/warranty period.
Page | 62 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 63
SECTION 9
Fine Grading And
Soil Preparation
Standards
9.1
GENERAL STANDARDS
Soil preparation is a crucial part of
streetscape landscaping success.
Individual projects may require
specially tailored soil preparation,
beyond the scope of these minimum
standards, for sustainable health of
specialized plantings.
9.1.1 Soil testing.
Soils tests conducted by the CSU Soils
Lab must be completed and submitted
to the City for review; and
recommendations in the lab reports
shall be followed in all cases. Generally
this will include soil amendment and
fertilizer recommendations; and in some
cases, complete replacement of topsoil
may be required.
9.1.2 Topsoil required.
If a landscape area is undisturbed,
topsoil shall be stripped to a 6-inch
depth, or to topsoil depth as
determined by field inspection.
Stockpile and re-spread stripped topsoil
over landscape areas after rough grades
are established. If the site has been
disturbed, or sufficient topsoil is not
available, topsoil shall be imported to
achieve six 6-inch depth in all
landscaped areas.
9.2
SUBMITTALS
9.2.1 Soil Amendments.
Submit a representative sample and
written confirmation from the supplier
of soil amendment material
composition including: percent organic
matter, salts, nutrient composition and
trademark.
9.2.2 Topsoil.
Submit a representative sample and
written confirmation from supplier of
material composition including:
percent organic matter, salts, and
nutrient composition.
9.3
MATERIALS STANDARDS
9.3.1 Soil Amendment.
Premium 3, by A-1 Organics, or an
approved equal high quality composted
material containing a minimum of 50%
organic matter shall be required for all
soil amendment. The mixture shall be
free from clay subsoil, stones, lumps,
Page | 64 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
objectionable extraneous matter or
debris. No stones or other materials
over 2 inches in size shall be allowed.
Topsoil shall contain no toxic materials
and have an acidity in the range of pH
5.5 to pH 8.5.
9.3.3. Fertilizer.
Triple superphosphate with a chemical
analysis of 0-46-0 shall be incorporated
into soil along with soil amendment.
9.4
ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS
9.4.1 Utility locates.
All utilities shall be located prior to
trenching and shall be protected from
damage. Required calls shall include,
but are not limited to the following:
221-6660 for Parks Division locates and
1-800-922-1987 for utility locates.
9.4.2 Acceptance of rough grading by
other contractors.
The landscape contractor shall inspect
and confirm that any rough grading
from other contractors is per approved
plans, and allows for 6-inch minimum
depth of topsoil and specified soil
amendments.
9.4.3 Clearing and grubbing.
The contractor shall grub and remove
unsuitable woody and rock material
present in the surface grade.
9.4.4 Maintain drainage.
The contractor shall take precautions
to accommodate proper drainage and
flow during and after grading and soil
preparation.
9.4.5 Kill weeds.
Apply herbicide to areas where noxious
weed beds have been established and /
or where seed mix is to be planted.
Herbicide must be applied by certified
contractors at the rate recommended by
the manufacturer after proper
notification has been done in
accordance with the chemical
applicator's standards.
9.4.6 Rip planting areas.
Rip to 8-inch depth with agriculture
subsoiler in all areas to receive
plantings. Remove all objects greater
than 2 inches in diameter.
9.5
FINISH GRADING OPERATIONS
9.5.1 Topsoil placement shall include
the following procedures:
A. Spread 6 inches of topsoil over the
entire landscaped area and grade
to smooth and even lines. Establish
swales and drainage as required per
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 65
C. Trim finish grade elevations
adjacent to paved areas to one inch
below pavement finish grade.
Page | 66 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 67
SECTION 10
Grass Seeding
Standards
10.1
GRASS SEEDING
10.1.1 Seed Mixes.
Seed mixes shall be approved by the
City Parks Division based on the activity
to take place, planned irrigation
method and maintenance to be
performed in the area being seeded.
10.1.2 Pre‐approved Dryland Mix.
For temporary or permanent unmowed
and non-irrigated areas, the following
mix shall be permitted:
45% Blue Grama,
25% Buffalograss (treated), and
30% Little Bluestem.
10.1.3 Pre‐approved turfgrass mix.
For irrigated, mowed areas, the
following mixes shall be permitted: 1) a
blend of five turf type dwarf Tall
Fescues, or 2) a mix of Kentucky
Bluegrass varieties and up to 15%
Perennial Rye.
10.1.4 Submittals.
Certificates showing State, Federal or
other inspection showing source and
origin shall be submitted.
10.1.5 Seed quality.
Seed shall be of fresh, clean, new crop
seed composed of the varieties
approved by the City with tested
minimum percentages of purity and
germination clearly labeled on the
package. All seed shall be at least
99.9% free of Poa annua and all weeds.
10.1.6 Mulch for seeded areas.
Mulch depends on the slope of the
seeded area as follows:
A. For slopes 30% and less, native
grass straw without weed seed and
consisting of grasses as specified
for the seeded application shall be
used.
B. For slopes 30% and greater:
Hydromulch using Weyerhauser
"Silva-Fiber" mulch or approved
equal shall be used. The mulch
shall not contain any substance
which might inhibit germination or
growth of grass seed. The mulch
shall be dyed a green color to allow
metering of its application.
10.1.7 Tackifier.
Teratack III, or approved equal shall be
used.
10.1.8 Netting.
For slopes greater than 30%, Soil Saver
Page | 68 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
square foot of seeded area and rake
lightly into top 1/8 inch of soil just
prior to seeding operation.
10.1.10 Inspection.
The contractor shall inspect finish
grade and trim where needed to obtain
finish grades of one inch below
adjacent pavements. Verify positive
drainage away from all structures.
Verify or complete removal of rock and
debris larger than one inch from all
areas to be seeded.
10.1.11 Weather for seeding.
Seed shall not be sown in windy weather
or when ground is frozen or otherwise
untillable.
10.1.12 Methods for seeding:
A. A brillion type drill or hydraulic
seeding methods may be used.
Drill the seed in a manner such that
after surface is raked and rolled,
the seed has ¼-inch of cover.
B. Hydraulic seeding shall be used in
areas that are not accessible for
machine methods. A hydraulic
pump capable of being operated at
100 gallons per minute and at 100
pounds per square inch pressure
shall be used. The equipment shall
have an acceptable pressure gauge
and a nozzle adaptable to hydraulic
seeding requirements. Storage
tanks shall have a means of
agitation and a means of estimating
the volume used or remaining in
the tank. Do not seed and mulch in
the same operation.
10.1.13 Seeding rates.
The following rates of application shall
apply:
A. Dryland Mix – 12 pounds pure live
seed per acre.
B. Irrigated Mix – 9 pounds pure live
seed per acre for the Tall Fescue
blend, or 4 pounds pure live seed
for the Kentucky Blue/Perennial
Rye mix.
10.1.14 Mulching operations for
native grass mulch.
Mulch shall be applied at a rate of two
2 tons per acre within 24 hours after
seeding.
10.1.15 Hydromulching operations.
Wood cellulose fibers shall be evenly
dispersed by agitatation in water.
When sprayed uniformly on the soil
surface, the fibers shall form a blotter-
like ground cover that readily absorbs
water and allows infiltration to the
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 69
10.1.16 Mulch netting operations.
Mulched areas over 30% slope shall be
stabilized with netting. If the
contractor fails to net and subsequent
soil erosion occurs, the contractor shall
re-establish the finish grade, soil
preparation, seed bed, and apply
netting at no cost to the City.
10.1.17 Watering.
Immediately after seeding and
mulching, water the seeded area
slightly to a depth of 2 inches, but with
care so that no erosion takes place and
no gullies are formed. Water lightly
two times per day and keep the seeded
area moist until turf is established.
Sloped areas shall be hand watered
until turf is established to prevent
erosion. Water these areas more often
but for shorter periods of time.
10.1.18 Clean up.
All hydromulch and other mulch
materials shall be removed from all
plant materials, fences, concrete and
other areas except for the seed bed.
10.1.19 Protection of seeded areas
for establishment.
The contractor shall provide and install
barriers as required to protect seeded
areas from pedestrian and vehicular
damage. Signage shall be provided if
needed.
Page | 70 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 71
EXHIBIT A
List of
Recommended
Plants
The list below contains recommended
plant species for streetscapes. This list
will be monitored by staff as part of an
ongoing program with periodic updates
based on evaluation of success of
plantings over time.
Designers of individual streetscape
projects may propose plants not on the
list based on the design intent for the
particular project.
Page | 72 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
List of Recommended Plants
Last Amended 11.8.2012
Comments
Key:
Canopy Shade Trees
Acer negundo - Boxelder ‘Sensation’
Catalpa speciosa - Northern Catalpa Tolerant of alkaline soils; holds a strong
dominant leader; male tree so no
boxelder bugs
Celtis occidentalis - Northern Hackberry
Gleditsia triacanthos v. inermis - Honeylocust ‘Imperial,’
‘Shademaster’, ‘Skyline’
Wrap young trees
Gymnocladus dioicus - Kentucky Coffeetree ‘Espresso’
Quercus buckleyi - Texas Red Oak Many seed sources, not predictably cold
hardy
Quercus macrocarpa - Bur Oak Slow growing
Quercus muehlenbergii - Chinkapin Oak
Quercus robur - English Oak, Skymaster
Quercus shumardii - Shumard Oak From a northern source
Tilia americana - American Linden ‘Boulevard’, ‘Frontyard’,
‘Legend’, ‘Sentry’
Do not use in along roads that are treated
with deicing salts
Tilia cordata - Littleleaf Linden ‘Chancellor’, ‘Dropmore’,
‘Greenspire’, ‘Norlin’, ‘Olympic’, ‘Prestige’, ‘Shamrock’
Do not use in along roads that are treated
with deicing salts
Tilia x euchlora - Redmond Linden Do not use in along roads that are treated
with deicing salts
Tilia x flavescens - Glenleven Linden Do not use in along roads that are treated
with deicing salts
Ulmus davidiana - David Elm
Ulmus japonica x U. wilsoniana – Elm ‘Accolade’, ‘Triumph’ Use in smaller quantities
Ornamental Trees
Acer grandidentatum - Wasatch Maple
Acer tataricum - Tatarian maple ‘Hot Wings’, ‘Pattern
Perfect’
Crataegus crusgalli - Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn
Malus sp. - Crabapple 'Adams', 'Profusion', 'Radiant', 'Spring
Snow', 'Thunderchild'
Spring Snow' has some limited fireblight
problems.
Pyrus calleryana - Flowering Pear 'Aristocrat', 'Capital',
'Chanticleer', 'Cleveland Select', 'Redspire'
Quercus gambelli - Gambel Oak
Quercus alba x robur – Oak ‘Crimson Spire’
Syringa reticulata - Japanese Tree Lilac 'Ivory Silk'
CO native status as
determined by USDA
Plants Database
ti t t
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 73
Comments
Large Evergreen Trees
Picea Pungens - Blue Spruce 'Fat Albert', 'Baby Blue Eyes' Sensitive to salt.
Pinus nigra - Austrian Pine Only use in wide medians.
Small Evergreen Trees
Juniperus scopulorum - Rocky Mountain Juniper
'Cologreen', 'Moonglow', 'Wichita Blue'
Juniperus monosperma - Oneseed Juniper Very low water use
Picea pungens - Dwarf Blue Spruce 'Sester', 'Globosa',
'Montgomery'
Pinus mugho - Mugo Pine 'Tannenbaum'
Shrubby Trees/Large Shrubs
Acer grandidentatum - Bigtooth Maple
Quercus gambelli - Gambel Oak
Cercocarpus ledifolius - Curlleaf Mountain-Mahogany
Xanthoceras sorbifolia - Yellowhorn
Rhus glabra, R. glabra cismontana - Smooth Sumac, Rocky
Mountain Smooth Sumac
Deciduous Shrubs
Amelanchier alnifolia - Regent Serviceberry
Amorpha canescens - Leadplant Deadhead
Amorpha nana - Dwarf Leadplant Deadhead
Aronia arbutifolia - Red Chokeberry
Aronia melanocarpa - Chokeberry, Dwarf Iroquois Beauty
Artemisia tridentata - Tall Western Sage
Atriplex canescens - Fourwing Saltbush
Caragana pygmaea - Pygmy Peashrub
Caragana rosea - Rose Peashrub
Ceratoides lanata - Winterfat
Cercocarpus ledifolius - Curl Leaf Mountain Mahogany Can grow to be quite large with too much
water
Cercocarpus ledifolius intricatus - Little Leaf Mountain
Mahogany
Cercocarpus montanus - True Mountain Mahogany
Chamaebatiaria millefolium - Fernbush Deadhead
Chrysothamnus nauseosus nauseosus - Dwarf Blue
Rabbitbrush
Gets large with irrigation
Page | 74 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Comments
Chrysothamnus nauseosus albiculatus - Tall Blue
Rabbitbrush
Chrysothamnus nauseosus graveolens - Green Rabbitbrush
Caryopteris incana - Blue Mist Spirea Shear back after blooming, prune out
dead wood annually
Caryopteris x clandonensis - Dark Knight Spirea Used on Harmony project
Cotoneaster apiculatus - Cranberry Cotoneaster
Cotoneaster horizontalis - Rock Cotoneaster
Cytisus scoparius 'Burkwoodii' - Red Burkwoodii Broom
Ephedra equisetina - Bluestem Joint Fir
Ephedra viridis - Mormon Tea
Euonymus alatus 'Compactus' - Dwarf Burning Bush
Fallugia paradoxa - Apache Plume
Ligustrum vulgare 'Lodense' - Lodense Privet
Physocarpus monogynus - Mountain Ninebark
Physocarpus opulifolius - Ninebark
Potentilla fruticosa - Potentilla
Potentilla fruticosa davurica 'Prairie Snow' - Prairie Snow
Potentilla
Potentilla fruticosa 'Yellow Gem' - Yellow Gem Potentilla
Prunus besseyi 'Pawnee Buttes' - Creeping Western Sand
Cherry
Rhus aromatica'Gro-low' - Fragrant Dwarf Sumac Needs ample space
Rhus glabra cismontana - Rocky Mountain Sumac Needs ample space
Rhus trilobata 'Autumn Amber' - Creeping Three-leaf Sumac
Ribes aureum - Golden Currant
Ribes cereum - Wax Currant
Rosa x var. - Shrub Rose Remove deadwood each spring, many
will continue blooming if deadheaded.
Spiraea nipponica - Snowmound Spirea
Spiraea thunbergii - Mellow Yellow Spirea
Spiraea x vanhouttei - Vanhoutte Spirea
Symphoricarpos occidentalis - Snowberry
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus - Red Coralberry
Symphoricarpos x chenaultii - 'Hancock' Coralberry
Syringa meyeri - Dwarf Korean Lilac Looks best when deadheaded after
blooming
Syringa patula 'Miss Kim' - Miss Kim Dwarf Lilac Looks best when deadheaded after
blooming
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 75
Comments
Evergreen Shrubs
Juniperus chinensis - Chinese Juniper
Juniperus communis - Common Juniper
Juniperus horizontalis - Creeping Juniper
Juniperus monosperma - Oneseed Juniper
Juniperus scopulorum - Rocky Mountain Juniper
Picea pungens - Globe Spruce
Pinus mugo - Mugo Pine
Evergreen (Broad-leafed)
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi - Kinnikinnick
Arctostaphylos x coloradoensis panchito - Panchito
Manzanita
Euonymus kiautschovicus - Manhattan Euonymus
Yucca filamentosa - Adam's needle Yucca
Yucca glauca - Soapweed
Ornamental Grasses
Boutelous gracilis - Blue Grama Grass Winter interest; cut back in spring
Bouteloua gracilis - 'Blonde Ambition' Blue Grama Grass
Deschampsia caespitosa - Tufted Hair Grass
Festuca ovina glauca - Blue Fescue
Pennisetum alopecuroides - Fountain Grass This acts more like an annual
Schizachyrium scoparium - Little Bluestem
Sorghastrum nutans - Indiangrass
Perennials
Achillea filipendulina 'Parker's Variety' - Tall Yellow Yarrow Deadhead
Achillea 'Moonshine' - Moonshine Yarrow Deadhead
Asclepias tuberosa - Butterfly Weed
Agastache 'Coronado Red' - Coronado Red Hyssop Do not cut back until spring to promote
overwintering
Agastache cana 'Sonoran Sunset' - Sonoran Sunset Hyssop Do not cut back until spring to promote
overwintering
Agastache rupestris - Sunset Hyssop Do not cut back until spring to promote
overwintering
Artemisia frigida - Fringed Sage
Artemisia schmidtiana - Silver Mound Sage Cut back in mid-summer when sprawls
Page | 76 CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Comments
Artemisia versicolor - Sea Foam Sage
Coreopsis verticillata 'Zagreb' - Coreopsis Grows well in rocky, well drained soil
Echinacea purpurea - Purple Coneflower Deadhead, if too much irrigation, will get
root fungus
Echinacea purpurea 'White Swan' - White Coneflower Deadhead, if too much irrigation, will get
root fungus
Erigeron speciosus var. macranthus - Aspen Fleabane,
Aspen Daisy
Gailardia aristata - Native Blanket Flower Short lived
Geranium cinereum - 'Ballerina' Cranesbill
Geranium dalmaticum - Compact Rose Cranesbill Alpine and rock gardens, does not seed
out
Geranium endressii - 'Wargrave Pink' Pink Cranesbill Attractive to pollinators
Geranium himalayense 'Plenum' - Birch Double Cranesbill Very showy
Geranium x 'Johnson's Blue' - Blue Cranesbill
Geranium sanguineum - Bloody Cranesbill
Hemerocallis spp. - Daylily Deadhead, cut back in late fall
Hesperaloe parviflora - Red False Yucca Needs good drainage, don't use bark
mulch around crown, marginal hardiness
Lavandula angustifolia - Lavender Shear back after bloom, can have winter
dieback
Liatris punctata - Gayfeather, Dotted Blazing Star
Liatris spicata 'Floristan Violet' - Purple Gayfeather
Linum flavum 'Compactum' - Yellow Flax
Lychnis coronaria - Rose Compion Bennial, reseeds aggressively
Oenothera macrocarpa - Missouri Primrose Self sows
Penstemon pinifolius - Pineleaf Penstemon Shear back after bloom
Penstemon strictus - Rocky Mountain Pentstemon Deadhead
Persicaria affinis - Himalayan Border Jewel
Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm' - Black-Eyed Susan Other varieties may live longer
Salvia pachyphylla - Mojave Sage Marginal hardiness, needs excellent
drainage
Sedum 'Autumn Joy' - Stonecrop
Groundcovers
Alyssum montanum - Mountain Basket of Gold
Callirhoe involucrata - Winecups Self sows. Cut back after first flush of
blooms to promote new growth
Ceratostigma plumbaginoides - Plumbago Can die out in winter
Euonymus fortunei - Euonymus Invasive in some states
Polygonum reynoutria - Fleeceflower Considered invasive in many states; plant
where it can be contained
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STREETSCAPE STANDARDS Page | 77
ORDINANCE NO. 152, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AND THE FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL
TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS IMPLEMENTING
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2010, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No.
030, 2010, amending Section 26-492 of the City Code so as to declare that the purpose of the City
Stormwater Utility is to provide an integrated, sustainable stormwater management program that
reflects the community’s values of protecting and restoring the City’s watersheds, including the
Cache la Poudre River and its tributaries; and
WHEREAS, one element of such an integrated, sustainable stormwater management
program is the use of low impact development (“LID”) criteria to require and encourage more
distributed and landscaping-based stormwater runoff management and control that relies mainly on
filtration and infiltration to treat and manage stormwater runoff; and
WHEREAS, staff has worked extensively in recent years to research and evaluate LID
approaches and policies in other jurisdictions, as the basis for developing a recommended approach
to be used in Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, based on staff’s research and review, staff has recommended that LID criteria
be incorporated into the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual; and
WHEREAS, in addition, staff has recommended that the use of LID techniques and
technologies be recognized in the calculation of stormwater fees; and
WHEREAS, the Water Board considered staff’s recommendations at its regular meeting on
November 15, 2012, and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council adopt them; and
WHEREAS, the Natural Resources Advisory Board considered staff’s recommendations at
its regular meeting on November 26, 2012, and voted unanimously to recommend that the Council
adopt them; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the adoption and implementation of the
Ordinance will promote the purposes of the Stormwater Utility and advance the holistic and
integrated management of stormwater in Fort Collins by implementing desired LID technologies
and principles.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 26-512(1) of the City Code of the City of Fort Collins be
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 26-512. Stormwater plant investment fees established.
There is hereby imposed on each and every lot or parcel of land within the City with
respect to which any improvement creates an impervious surface covering more than
three hundred fifty (350) square feet of the lot or parcel, and the owners thereof, a
stormwater plant investment fee. The fee is deemed reasonable and necessary to pay
for a new development's share of the existing equity in the capital stormwater
facilities that have been installed for the protection of the health, safety and welfare
of the inhabitants of the City. The stormwater plant investment fee established herein
shall be determined using the base rate, the area of each parcel of land, and the runoff
coefficient of the parcel. The Utilities Executive Director shall determine the
stormwater plant investment fee that applies to each parcel of land as follows:
(1) Runoff coefficient. The runoff coefficient of each parcel of land shall be that
used in the engineering formula known as the rational method. The Utilities
Executive Director shall determine the runoff coefficient for each parcel of land
based on the following formula:
Runoff coefficient = [(percent effective impervious area) x 0.95] +
[(percent pervious area) x 0.20] + [(percent semipervious area) x 0.50)].
C = Percent Impervious Area x 0.95 + Percent Pervious Area
x 0.20 + Percent Semipervious Area x 0.50
Impervious shall mean roof, asphalt, cement, etc.
Pervious shall mean lawn, open space, etc.
Semipervious shall mean gravel, etc.
The following definitions shall apply for the purpose of such formula:
a. Percent effective impervious area shall mean the percentage of the total
parcel area determined to constitute the equivalent impervious area on a
parcel as calculated for the one-hundred-year, two-hour Fort Collins Design
Storm as defined in Volume 1, Chapter 4, of the Fort Collins Stormwater
Criteria Manual. The determination shall be made using the procedures and
methodology described in Volume 3, Sections 4 and 5 of the Stormwater
Criteria Manual.
b. Percent pervious area shall mean the percentage of the total parcel area that is
pervious, such as lawn, open space or planted areas.
c. Percent semipervious area shall mean the percentage of the total parcel area that is
semipervious, such as gravel areas.
Section 2 That Section (K) of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is hereby
amended to add a new subsection (3) after subsection (2), to read as follows:
-2-
(3) A new Section 3.1 is added, to read as follows:
3.1 Low Impact Development Criteria
Once the WQCV has been calculated in accordance with the specifications of Section 3.0
of this chapter, the total WQCV must be treated by one or more of the methods outlined in
Volume 3, Chapter 4, Treatment BMPs. In addition, the Low Impact Development (LID)
Criteria of this Section must be met. For the purposes of this Section, the LID methods and
techniques described in Volume 3, Chapter 1, Section 4.1, Runoff Reduction Practices,
together with any methods or techniques determined by the Executive Director to be
functionally equivalent, shall be considered LID techniques for the purpose of this Section.
(a) No less than fifty percent (50%) of any newly added impervious area
must be treated using one or a combination of LID techniques.
(b) In addition, no less than twenty five percent (25%) of any newly added
pavement areas must be treated using a permeable pavement technology
that is considered an LID technique.
If, in the judgment of the Executive Director, one or more requirements of this Section
cannot be met due to site engineering constraints, then a design alternative will be allowed,
provided that the design results in equal or better stormwater quality than would compliance
with the otherwise applicable requirement.
Section 3. That all subsections of Section (K) of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria
Manual after new subsection (3) be renumbered accordingly.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-4-
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Rick Richter
Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-118 Approving Fee Agreements Between the City and Certain Property Owners in the Community
Activity Center Adjacent to the Interchange at the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 6, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 117, 2012, establishing a special fee to be paid by the
owners of certain properties located west of Interstate 25 and within close proximity to the reconstructed interchange
at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. This ordinance included the option for the property owners
to elect to enter into a settlement agreement with the City and the Town of Windsor as outlined in the attached draft
agreements. The ordinance also required the property owners electing to enter into such agreement to notify the City
Manager in writing of their desire to do so on or before November 30, 2012, and that the agreements need to be
approved by the City Council on or before December 31, 2012.
To date, the City has received written notice from all of the properties within the City’s jurisdiction electing to pay the
fee pursuant to the terms and conditions of a written agreement with the City. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor
to sign the agreements with the property owners.
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 and construction phases. 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.”
On November 6, 2012, the City Council adopted on Second Reading, Ordinance No. 117, 2012, establishing a special
fee to be paid by the owners of certain properties located west of Interstate 25 and within close proximity to the
reconstructed interchange at the intersection of Interstate 25 and State Highway 392. On November 13, 2012, the
Town Board of Windsor adopted a similar ordinance establishing a special fee to be paid by certain properties located
east of the Interchange and within the Windsor town limits.
This ordinance included the option for the property owners to elect to enter into a settlement agreement with the City
and the Town of Windsor on the terms and conditions described in the ordinance.
The ordinance also required the property owners electing to enter into an agreement to notify the City Manager in
writing of their desire to do so on or before November 30, 2012, and that the agreements need to be approved by the
City Council on or before December 31, 2012.
To date, the City has received written notice from all of the properties within the City’s jurisdiction electing to pay the
fee pursuant to the terms and conditions of a written agreement with the City.
Adoption of Resolution No.2012-118 would authorize the Mayor to sign the settlement agreements.
December 18, 2012 -2- ITEM 15
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The approval of Resolution No.2012-118 will allow the City to recover 50% of the amounts the City has appropriated
for the construction of the I-25 Interchange and local improvements in the Interchange area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In 2008 the Fort Collins City Council and the Windsor Town Board adopted Joint Principles by resolution; the
environmental sustainability language below was part of those Principles.
Environmental Sustainability/Resource Protection: Ensure that interchange improvements occur
in such a way that it minimizes environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible and protects
the physical and natural environment in and around the interchange including but not limited to the
Fossil Creek Reservoir Area.
Subsequently, the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor have jointly agreed that the Project will mitigate wetland
impacts at a 3:1 ratio, this meaning that the estimated 0.4 acres of impacts from the Project will be mitigated with the
creation of 1.2 acres of new wetlands.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff of both municipalities held several stakeholder meetings most recently: April 21, 2011, August 10, 2011, October
27, 2011 as well as numerous individual meeting with stakeholder representatives.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
[_
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
RESOLUTION 2012-118
APPROVING FEE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND CERTAIN PROPERTY
OWNERS IN THE COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER ADJACENT TO THE
INTERCHANGE AT INTERSTATE 25 AND STATE HIGHWAY 392
WHEREAS, by adoption of Ordinance No. 117, 2012, (the “Ordinance”) on November 6,
2012, the City Council has approved the imposition of a special fee (the “Fee”) to be paid by the
owners of property within close proximity to the reconstructed interchange at the intersection of
Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 (the “Interchange”); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Fee is to help defray the costs incurred by the City in
providing local funding for the Interchange reconstruction; and
WHEREAS, Section 1(c)(1)a of the Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance No. 141, 2012,
identifies the amounts to be paid by the owners of the properties within the City, or that may be
annexed to the City, that are subject to the Fee; and
WHEREAS, under Section 2 of the Ordinance, as amended, any property owner whose
property is subject to the Fee has the option of paying the Fee by agreement, rather than under the
Ordinance, as long as: (1) such agreement contains the terms and conditions specified in said Section
2; (2) the property owner notifies the City Manager in writing on or before November 30, 2012 of
his or her intention to enter into the agreement; and (3) the agreement is approved by the City
Council on or before December 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, City staff has prepared the form of two agreements that meet the requirements
of Section 2 of the Ordinance, one for the owners of developed properties and the other for the
owners of undeveloped properties; and
WHEREAS, copies of those agreements are attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B” and
incorporated herein by this reference (the “Agreements”); and
WHEREAS, as of November 30, 2012, all of the property owners identified in Section 2 of
the Ordinance had notified the City Manager in writing that they wish to enter into the Agreement;
and
Whereas, the names and amounts to be paid by each such property owner under the
Agreement are shown on Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it is in the best interests of the City to approve
the execution of the proposed agreements between said property owners and the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to enter into agreements
with the property owners shown on Exhibit “C,” for payment of the amounts specified on such
exhibit.
Section 2. That the agreements to be executed by the Mayor shall be in substantially the
form shown on Exhibits “A” and “B,” with such modifications in form or substance as the City
Manager may, in consultation with the City Attorney, determine to be necessary or advisable to
protect the interests of the City and effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and the Ordinance.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th
day of December A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
- 1 -
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE FUNDING OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE
COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSTATE 25/COLORADO STATE
HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE
(UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY)
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2012, by and
between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”) and
________________________ (referred to hereinafter collectively as the “Property Owner”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (“the IGA”) concerning the funding and construction of
improvements to the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (“the Interchange”) and
related enhancements (the “Local Enhancements”), collectively referred to herein as the
“Improvements;” and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, the City Council later approved a
First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate
25/State Highway 392 Interchange (the “First Amended IGA”) restating and reaffirming those
provisions of the Original IGA that the City and the Town desire to remain in full force and
effect; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the special benefit that properties in close proximity to the
Interchange will realize from the construction of the Improvements, including the increased
capacity that the reconstruction and expansion of the Interchange will provide, the IGA states
that a fee will be imposed by the City and the Town upon such property owners to recoup at least
a portion of the funding that the City and the Town have contributed to make the Improvements
possible (the “Local Share”); and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as
a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town have
concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to
fifty percent (50%) of the Local Share; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner of a parcel of undeveloped real property in
the immediate vicinity of the Interchange; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Property Owner have informally agreed on the amount and
methodology for the assessment of the above-referenced fee, and by the terms of this Agreement
desire to formally agree to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
EXHIBIT A
- 2 -
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the
following definitions shall apply:
1.1. “Agreement” means this Agreement and its attachments.
1.2. “City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
1.3. “Corridor Activity Center” or “CAC” means that area described on Exhibit “A,”
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.4. “Development” shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 5.1.2 of the
City’s Land Use Code.
1.5. “Development Proposal” means any proposal to develop the Property under the
applicable laws and regulations of the City or Larimer County.
1.6. “Effective Date” means January 1, 2013.
1.7. “Fee” means the fee to be paid by the Property Owner under the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
1.8. “Foster Study” means that document with attachments prepared by Foster
Valuation, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.9. “Interchange” means the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 interchange.
1.10. “Interchange Improvements” means those improvements to the Interchange which
constitute the Project.
1.11. “Improvements” means the Interchange Improvements and the Local
Enhancements.
1.12. “Local Enhancements” means improvements to and near the Interchange that are
being constructed and maintained by the Town and/or City and that are not part of the Project.
1.13. “Project” means the construction by CDOT of a new Interchange at Interstate
Highway 25 and Colorado State Highway 392.
1.14. “Property” means that certain real property described on Exhibit “C,” attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
1.15. “Redevelopment Proposal” means any application for the redevelopment of the
Property.
1.16. “Town” means the Town of Windsor, Colorado.
- 3 -
SECTION 2. ASSESSMENT OF FEE
2.1 Assessment of Fee. The Property Owner agrees that there shall be a Fee assessed against
the Property in the amount of $________ to help defray the costs of the Improvements,
which amounts represents the Property Owners’ share of the cost of both the Interchange
Improvements and the Local Enhancements. The Property Owner hereby acknowledges
and agrees that the amount of the Fee is fair and reasonable in view of the special benefit
that the Property will receive from the Improvements, and the increased amount of
vehicular traffic that the future use of the Property will likely contribute to the
Interchange.
2.2 Payment of Fee. The entire amount of the Fee shall be payable in full as a condition of
the issuance of the first building permit for any improvements to be constructed pursuant
to an approved Development proposal for the Property; provided, however, that in the
event the approved development proposal and the subsequently issued building permit
are for less than the entire Property, the amount of the Fee shall be proportionally reduced
to reflect the amount of Property for which the building permit is issued, related to the
entire Property.
2.3 Interest on assessed amount. Interest on the amount of the Fee shall begin to accrue on a
compounded basis two (2) years after the Effective Date; provided, however, that there
shall be no interest due in the event that the Fee is paid in full during the first two-year
period. Once interest commences, it shall accrue at the rate of 2.35% per annum for a
period of eight (8) years. Thereafter, interest shall accrue at the rate of 3.05% and shall
continue at that rate until the Fee, plus all accrued interest, is paid in full. Once a year
during each year of the term of this Agreement, the Property Owners shall have the right
to prepay all or a portion of the Fee, including accrued interest thereon, by sending a
written request to the City for a statement of accrued interest to date.
2.4 Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement that may be construed to the contrary,
in the event that the total amount of fee revenues paid to the City and the Town by or on
behalf of the CAC Property Owners, either under the provisions of this Agreement or
under the provisions of Ordinance No. _____, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), equals or exceeds
the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), plus
interest accrued at the rate of 3.05% from the effective date of the Ordinance, all CAC
Property Owners shall be relieved of any further obligation to make the payments to the
City under this Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that all or a portion of the Fee may
remain unpaid.
SECTION 3. ONLY FEE TO BE ASSESSED
It is understood and agreed that the City and Town shall, for a period of at least twenty-five (25)
years from the Effective Date, assess no further fees or other charges upon the Property Owner
related to the Improvements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude
the City from charging development fees and costs generally applicable in the City and unrelated
to the Improvements. In the event that this Section 3, or any part thereof, is held by a court of
- 4 -
competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, then the Property Owner shall be
entitled, during the term of this Agreement, to offset any and all amounts paid pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement against any new fee or other charge related to the Improvements.
SECTION 4. NON-SIGNING PROPERTY OWNERS
The City and the Property Owner acknowledge that there are a number of other property owners
within the CAC who may choose not to sign this Agreement, although they have been afforded
an opportunity to do so, and that the governing bodies of the City and Town have each enacted
an ordinance within their respective jurisdictions imposing a separate fee upon such property
owners for the purpose of recovering their fair share of the cost of the Improvements (the
“Ordinance”). In the event that the City for any reason is unable to collect any portion of the fee
imposed by the Ordinance upon such other property owners, that failure shall not increase the
amount of the Fee due from the Property Owner under this Agreement, and the Property Owner
shall not be liable to the City for any portion of the other property owners’ share of the cost of
the Improvements.
SECTION 5. WAIVER AND RELEASE
In consideration of the concessions and compromises made by the City and reflected in this
Agreement, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees,
agents, successors and assigns, hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents and
assigns from, and waives, any and all present and future liability, claims, causes of action, losses,
costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever arising from or in any way relating to the construction
of the Improvements, including but not limited to the creation of the CAC benefit area, the
findings of the Foster Study, the methodology used by the City to calculate the Fee, or the
assessment of the Fee.
SECTION 6. AGREEMENT NOT AFFECTED BY COLLATERAL LITIGATION
The Property Owner has entered into this Agreement as an alternative to paying the fee imposed
upon CAC Property Owners by the adoption of Ordinance No. 117, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), as
permitted by the Ordinance. In the event that the fee imposed by the Ordinance becomes the
subject of litigation, the parties agree that the outcome of that litigation shall not in any way
affect the parties’ rights and obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that this
provision shall not be construed as preventing the parties from at any time amending the
provisions of this Agreement in the manner provided in Section 7.1 below.
SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS
7.1. Amendment. This Agreement is the entire and only agreement between the Parties
regarding the assessment of fees for the Improvements. There are no promises, terms,
conditions, or other obligations other than those contained in this Agreement. This Agreement
may be amended only in writing signed by the City and the Property Owner.
7.2. Severability. Except as provided in this Agreement, if any part, term, or provision of this
Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable,
- 5 -
such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision
of this Agreement and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if that part, term, or provision
was never part of this Agreement.
7.3. Colorado Law. This Agreement is made and delivered within the State of Colorado, and
the laws of the State of Colorado will govern its interpretation, validity, and enforceability.
7.4. Jurisdiction of Courts. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced
by any of the Parties to this Agreement for actions arising out of or relating to this Agreement
will be the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado.
7.5. Representatives and Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under
the terms of this Agreement will be in writing and may be given to the Parties or their respective
legal counsel by (a) hand delivery; (b) deemed delivered three business days after being
deposited in the United States mail, with adequate postage prepaid, and sent via registered or
certified mail with return receipt requested; or (c) deemed delivered one business day after being
deposited with an overnight courier service of national reputation have a delivery area of
Northern Colorado, with the delivery charges prepaid. The representatives will be:
If to the City: City Manager
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80524
With a copy to
City Attorney
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80524
If to the Property Owner:
7.6. Good Faith. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any requested
approval, acceptance, or extension of time, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and
will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay
any approval, acceptance or extension of time required or requested pursuant to this Agreement.
7.7. Authorization. The Parties affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into
and execute this Agreement, and all necessary action, notices, meetings, and hearings pursuant to
any law required to authorize their execution of this Agreement have been made.
7.8. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts,
each of which will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and
the same agreement.
- 6 -
7.9. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement
of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such
enforcement, are strictly reserved to the Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow
any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this
Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that no person and/or entity, other than the
Parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an
incidental beneficiary only.
7.10. Recordation of Agreement. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement in the office
of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado.
7.11. Execution of Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute any additional documents
and to take any additional actions necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROPERTY OWNER
By: ___________________________________
- 7 -
Legal Description goes here
- 1 -
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE FUNDING OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE
COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSTATE 25/COLORADO STATE
HIGHWAY 392 INTERCHANGE
(DEVELOPED PROPERTY)
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2012, by and
between the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”) and
________________________ (referred to hereinafter collectively as the “Property Owner”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on or about January 3, 2011, the City and the Town entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (“the IGA”) concerning the funding and construction of
improvements to the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange (“the Interchange”) and
related enhancements (the “Local Enhancements”), collectively referred to herein as the
“Improvements;” and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Ordinance No. 118, 2012, the City Council later approved a
First Amended Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate
25/State Highway 392 Interchange (the “First Amended IGA”) restating and reaffirming those
provisions of the Original IGA that the City and the Town desire to remain in full force and
effect; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the special benefit that properties in close proximity to the
Interchange will realize from the construction of the Improvements, including the increased
capacity that the reconstruction and expansion of the Interchange will provide, the IGA states
that a fee will be imposed by the City and the Town upon such property owners to recoup at least
a portion of the funding that the City and the Town have contributed to make the Improvements
possible (the “Local Share”); and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the fact that the Windsor and Fort Collins communities as
a whole will also benefit from the construction of the Improvements, the City and the Town have
concluded that the amount of the fee to be assessed against said properties should be limited to
fifty percent (50%) of the Local Share; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner of a parcel of developed real property in
the immediate vicinity of the Interchange; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Property Owner have informally agreed on the amount and
methodology for the assessment of the above-referenced fee, and by the terms of this Agreement
desire to formally agree to same.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
EXHIBIT B
- 2 -
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context, the
following definitions shall apply:
1.1. “Agreement” means this Agreement and its attachments.
1.2. “City” means the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
1.3. “Corridor Activity Center” or “CAC” means that area described on Exhibit “A,” attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.4. “Effective Date” means January 1, 2013.
1.5. “Fee” means the fee to be paid by the Property Owner under the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
1.6. “Foster Study” means that document with attachments prepared by Foster Valuation,
LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.7. “Interchange” means the Interstate 25 and State Highway 392 interchange.
1.8. “Interchange Improvements” means those improvements to the Interchange which
constitute the Project.
1.9. “Improvements” means the Interchange Improvements and the Local Enhancements.
1.10. “Local Enhancements” means improvements to and near the Interchange that are being
constructed and maintained by the Town and/or City and that are not part of the Project.
1.11. “Project” means the construction by CDOT of a new Interchange at Interstate Highway
25 and Colorado State Highway 392.
1.12. “Property” means that certain real property described on Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
1.13. “Redevelopment” shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 5.1.2 of the
City’s Land Use Code.
1.14. “Redevelopment Proposal” means any application for the redevelopment of the Property.
1.15. “Town” means the Town of Windsor, Colorado.
SECTION 2. ASSESSMENT OF FEE
2.1 Assessment of Fee. The Property Owner agrees that there shall be a Fee assessed against
the Property in the amount of $____________ to help defray the costs of Improvements,
which amount represents the Property Owner’s share of the cost of both the Interchange
Improvements and the Local Enhancements. The Property Owner hereby acknowledges
- 3 -
and agrees that the amount of the Fee is fair and reasonable in view of the special benefit
that the Property will receive from the Improvements, and the increased amount of
vehicular traffic that the use of the Property will likely contribute to the Interchange.
2.2 Payment of Fee. The entire amount of the Fee shall be payable as a condition of the
issuance of the first building permit for any improvements to be constructed pursuant to
an approved Redevelopment Proposal for the Property, but only if the amount of traffic
that will be generated by the Property, as redeveloped under such Redevelopment
Proposal, will increase by at least thirty-five percent (35%) the current volume of traffic
on Property as of the Effective Date. In order that the projected increase in traffic
generation under the Redevelopment Proposal may be determined for the purpose of this
provision, the Redevelopment Proposal shall include a traffic study if deemed necessary
by the Traffic Engineer of the City.
2.3 Interest on assessed amount. Interest on the amount of the Fee shall begin to accrue on a
compounded basis two (2) years after the Effective Date; provided, however, that there
shall be no interest due in the event that the Fee is paid in full during the first two-year
period. Once interest commences, it shall accrue at the rate of 2.35% per annum for a
period of eight (8) years. Thereafter, interest shall accrue at the rate of 3.05% and shall
continue at that rate until the Fee, plus all accrued interest, is paid in full. Once a year
during each year of the term of this Agreement, the Property Owners shall have the right
to prepay all or a portion of the Fee, including accrued interest thereon, by sending a
written request to the City for a statement of accrued interest to date.’
2.4 Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement that may be construed to the contrary,
in the event that the total amount of fee revenues paid to the City and the Town by or on
behalf of the CAC Property Owners, either under the provisions of this Agreement or
under the provisions of Ordinance No. ___, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), equals or exceeds
the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,550,000.00), plus
interest accrued at the rate of 3.05% from the effective date of the Ordinance, all CAC
Property Owners shall be relieved of any further obligation to make payments to the City
under this Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that all or a portion of the Fee may remain
unpaid.
SECTION 3. ONLY FEE TO BE ASSESSED
It is understood and agreed that the City and Town shall, for a period of at least twenty-five (25)
years from the Effective Date, assess no further fees or other charges upon the Property Owner
related to the Improvements; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to preclude
the City from charging development fees and costs generally applicable in the City and unrelated
to the Improvements. In the event that this Section 3, or any part thereof, is held by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, then the Property Owner shall be
entitled, during the term of this Agreement, to offset any and all amounts paid pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement against any new fee or other charge related to the Improvements.
- 4 -
SECTION 4. NON-SIGNING PROPERTY OWNERS
The City and the Property Owner acknowledge that there are a number of other property owners
within the CAC who may choose not to sign this Agreement, although they have been afforded
an opportunity to do so, and that the governing bodies of the City and Town have each enacted
an ordinance within their respective jurisdictions imposing a separate fee upon such property
owners for the purpose of recovering their fair share of the cost of the Improvements (the
“Ordinance”). In the event that the City for any reason is unable to collect any portion of the fee
imposed by the Ordinance upon such other property owners, that failure shall not increase the
amount of the Fee due from the Property Owner under this Agreement, and the Property Owner
shall not be liable to the City for any portion of the other property owners’ share of the cost of
the Improvements.
SECTION 5. WAIVER AND RELEASE
In consideration of the concessions and compromises made by the City and reflected in this
Agreement, the Property Owner, on its own behalf and on behalf of its officers, employees,
agents, successors and assigns, hereby releases the City, its officers, employees, agents and
assigns from, and waives, any and all present and future liability, claims, causes of action, losses,
costs or expenses of any kind whatsoever arising from or in any way relating to the construction
of the Improvements, including but not limited to the creation of the CAC benefit area, the
findings of the Foster Study, the methodology used by the City to calculate the Fee, or the
assessment of the Fee.
SECTION 6. AGREEMENT NOT AFFECTED BY COLLATERAL LITIGATION
The Property Owner has entered into this Agreement as an alternative to paying the fee imposed
upon CAC Property Owners by the adoption of Ordinance No. 117, 2012 (the “Ordinance”), as
permitted by the Ordinance. In the event that the fee imposed by the Ordinance becomes the
subject of litigation, the outcome of that litigation shall not in any way affect the parties’ rights
and obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that this provision shall not be
construed as preventing the parties from at any time amending the provisions of this Agreement
in the manner provided in Section 7.1 below.
SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS
7.1. Amendment. This Agreement is the entire and only agreement between the Parties
regarding the assessment of fees for the Improvements. There are no promises, terms,
conditions, or other obligations other than those contained in this Agreement. This Agreement
may be amended only in writing signed by the City and the Property Owner.
7.2. Severability. Except as provided in this Agreement, if any part, term, or provision of this
Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable,
such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, term, or provision
of this Agreement, and the rights of the Parties will be construed as if that part, term, or
provision was never part of this Agreement.
- 5 -
7.3. Colorado Law. This Agreement is made and delivered within the State of Colorado, and
the laws of the State of Colorado will govern its interpretation, validity, and enforceability.
7.4. Jurisdiction of Courts. Personal jurisdiction and venue for any civil action commenced
by any of the Parties to this Agreement for actions arising out of or relating to this Agreement
will be the District Court of Larimer County, Colorado.
7.5. Representatives and Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under
the terms of this Agreement will be in writing and may be given to the Parties or their respective
legal counsel by (a) hand delivery; (b) deemed delivered three business days after being
deposited in the United States mail, with adequate postage prepaid, and sent via registered or
certified mail with return receipt requested; or (c) deemed delivered one business day after being
deposited with an overnight courier service of national reputation have a delivery area of
Northern Colorado, with the delivery charges prepaid. The representatives will be:
If to the City: City Manager
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80524
With a copy to
City Attorney
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80524
If to the Property Owner:
7.6. Good Faith. In the performance of this Agreement or in considering any requested
approval, acceptance, or extension of time, the Parties agree that each will act in good faith and
will not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably withhold, condition or delay
any approval, acceptance or extension of time required or requested pursuant to this Agreement.
7.7. Authorization. The Parties affirm and warrant that they are fully authorized to enter into
and execute this Agreement, and all necessary action, notices, meetings, and hearings pursuant to
any law required to authorize their execution of this Agreement have been made.
7.8. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts,
each of which will be deemed an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and
the same agreement.
7.9. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement
of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such
enforcement, are strictly reserved to the Parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow
- 6 -
any claim or right or cause of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this
Agreement. It is the express intention of the Parties that no person and/or entity, other than the
Parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed any more than an
incidental beneficiary only.
7.10. Recordation of Agreement. The City shall record a copy of this Agreement in the office
of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado.
7.11. Execution of Other Documents. The Parties agree to execute any additional documents
and to take any additional actions necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
PROPERTY OWNER
By: ___________________________________
- 7 -
Legal Description goes here
GROSS DEVELOPABLE TOTAL TOTAL
LAND AREA LAND AREA FEE/SF FEE
ZONE A
86150-00-007 INTERSTATE LAND HOLDINGS, LLC 645,519 297,910 $0.28 $82,961
86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 186,550 186,550 $0.28 $51,950
ZONE B
86222-47-701&2 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 578,912 578,912 $0.21 $120,910
ZONE B - 1
86150-00-009 B3 VENTURES LLC 407,722 336,499 $0.21 $70,280
ZONE C
86150-00-005 FOSSIL POINT, LLC 1,026,879 955,151 $0.12 $110,828
86150-00-013 BURNETTE/YOUNG INVESTMENTS 939,698 587,429 $0.12 $68,160
86220-00-014 VPD392/PRATO, LLC 1,041,071 596,500 $0.12 $69,213
86222-47-701 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 244,668 81,404 $0.12 $9,445
86222-47-702 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 903,159 681,468 $0.12 $79,072
86220-00-017 VAN CLEAVE, TERRY/MARY 1,690,254 1,558,217 $0.12 $180,802
Larimer County Parcel # OWNER
EXHIBIT C
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Mike Beckstead
John Voss
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-119 Adopting an Updated City Investment Policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Interagency Loan Program is to support City services, missions, and values by making loans to
outside entities such as the Urban Renewal Authority and the Downtown Development Authority while maintaining
an adequate rate or return for the City.
The 2012 Updated Investment Policy includes the following significant changes:
1. A Purpose Statement was added to the Inter-agency Loan Program
2. The name changed from Inter-fund Borrowing Program to Inter-agency Loan Program
3. The loan must be evidenced by a promissory note
4. The interest rate is the higher of Municipal Bonds or Treasury Bill rate plus 0.5%
5. A nexus is not required for utility funds
6. Approval from oversight board is required
7. Maximum loan term is 25 years
8. Restrictions on total loans made to Governmental and Enterprise funds.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Inter-fund Borrowing Program was originally adopted in 2008 by Resolution 2008-121.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The updated policy will address guideline changes for how the City address the financing needs of related entities
that are supported by the City but do not possess the financial strength of the City of Fort Collins. In challenging
financial markets, the Inter-agency Loan Program may also enhance the yield the City earns on its investment
portfolio.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The City Council Audit and Finance Committee reviewed this policy on October 15, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Finance Committee meeting minutes from October 15, 2012
RESOLUTION 2012-119
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING AN UPDATED CITY INVESTMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 12, of the City Charter states that the cash balance of the City
shall be deposited or invested in a manner approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the types of securities in which City funds may be invested have been
established in Ordinance No. 108, 1988, as amended by Ordinance No. 090, 1993; and
WHEREAS, City Council believes it is in the best interests of the City to adopt an
investment policy that reflects current financial markets and provides guidance to the Financial
Officer on prudent investment practices that protect investment principal and maximize return on
City investments; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the City Council adopted Resolution 1990-044 authorizing a Cash
Management and Investment Policy which established guidelines and limitations to be followed by
City staff in managing the investment of City Funds; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 2008-121, the City Council adopted a revised Investment Policy
dated December 2, 2008 (“Investment Policy”) that reflects the current financial markets and
provides guidance to the Financial Officer on prudent investment practices to protect investment
principal and maximize return on City investments; and
WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the Investment Policy should again be updated
to include guidelines for the way in which the City should address the financing needs of related
entities that support the mission and values of the City but do not possess the financial strength of
the City; and
WHEREAS, City staff believes the best way to address the financing needs of related entities
supported by the City is by changing the Investment Policy’s Inter-Fund Borrowing program to the
Inter-Agency Loan Program, as contained in an update to the Investment Policy dated December
18, 2012 (the “Updated Policy”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated
herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Inter-Agency Loan Program will serve
the important public purpose of stabilizing the long term tax base of the City and providing
additional economic development benefits to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Financial Officer has determined that structuring the proposed inter-
agency loans in the manner described in the Updated Policy will ensure that the inter-agency loans
will constitute a reasonable investment for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the Updated Policy is hereby approved by the City Council.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th
day of December A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Investment Policy
(Operating Funds)
Original: April 17, 1990 (Resolution 90-44)
Updated: December 2, 2008 (Resolution 2008-121)
Updated: December 1, 2009 (Resolution 2009-109)
Updated: October 5, 2010 (Resolution 2010-065)
Updated: December 18, 2012 (Resolution 2012-119 )
EXHIBIT A
2
City of Fort Collins
Investment Policy
I. Policy
The City of Fort Collins, Colorado (the “City”) is a home rule municipality
operating under the City Charter. Article V, Part III of the City Charter assigns to the
Financial Officer the responsibility of investing City funds. Funds must be placed in
investments authorized by the City Council (“Council”). The Financial Officer will
administer the investment program to ensure effective and sound fiscal management.
It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in a manner which will provide
the highest investment return while protecting capital and meeting liquidity needs.
II. Scope
This policy is to establish guidelines for the efficient management of City funds
and for the purchase and sale of investments. This investment policy applies to the
investment of all general and special funds over which the City exercises financial
control, including operating funds, Poudre Fire Authority, the Downtown Development
Authority, Fort Collins Leasing Corporation and the Fort Collins Urban Renewal
Authority. For purposes of this policy, operating funds include:
General Fund;
Special Revenue Funds;
Debt Services Funds (unless prohibited by bond ordinance);
Capital Projects Funds;
Enterprise Funds;
Internal Service Funds;
Trust and Agency Funds; and
Any newly created Fund, unless exempted by Council.
Unless specifically provided for in the bond ordinance, all bond proceeds, bond
reserve funds and pledged revenues must be invested in accordance with the operating
funds guidelines set forth in this Investment Policy. Guidelines for investing the funds of
the City’s defined benefit plan shall be included in the Investment Policy for the General
Employees’ Retirement Plan, which is monitored and approved by the General
Employees’ Retirement Committee.
III. Investment Objectives
The City’s principal investment objectives, in priority order, are: legal
conformance, safety, liquidity, and return on investment. All investments shall be
undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall
portfolio.
1. Legal conformance
The investment portfolio will conform to all legal and contractual requirements.
3
2. Safety
Safety of investment principal and the preservation of capital are primary
objectives of the investment program. When making investment decisions, the
Financial Officer will seek to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall
portfolio by mitigating credit risk and interest rate risk.
a) Credit Risk: The Financial Officer will minimize the risk of loss of
principal and/or interest due to the failure of the security issuer or
backer by:
i. Limiting investments to the safest types of securities.
ii. Pre-qualifying financial institutions, securities brokers and
dealers, and advisors.
iii. Diversifying the investment portfolio to reduce exposure to any
one security type or issuer.
b) Interest Rate Risk: The Financial Officer will minimize the risk that
the market value of securities in the portfolio will fall due to changes
in market interest rates by:
i. Whenever possible, holding investments to their stated
maturity dates.
ii. Investing a portion of the operating funds in shorter-term
securities, money market mutual funds, or local government
investment pools.
3. Liquidity
The investment portfolio must be sufficiently liquid so as to meet all reasonably
anticipated operating cash flow needs. This is accomplished by structuring the
portfolio so that securities mature to meet cash requirements for ongoing
operations. Investments shall be managed to avoid, but not prohibit, sale of
securities before their maturities to meet foreseeable cash flow requirements.
Since all possible cash needs cannot be anticipated, the portfolio must consist
largely of securities with active secondary or resale markets.
4. Return on Investment
The investment portfolio will be designed with the objective of maximizing the
rate of return on investment while maintaining acceptable risk levels and
ensuring adequate liquidity. Return on investment is of secondary importance
compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. Investment
pooling may be used to maximize the City’s investment income. Interest
income, from pooling, will be distributed to the participating funds in proportion
to each fund’s level of contribution.
The Financial Officer will determine whether a security will be sold prior to
maturity. The following are examples of when a security might be sold:
a) A security with a declining credit rating may be sold early to minimize
loss of principal;
4
b) A security swap would improve the quality, yield, return, or maturity
distribution of the portfolio;
c) Liquidity needs of the portfolio require that the security be sold; or
d) The Financial Officer will obtain the best rate of return on investments
by taking advantage of market volatility and recognizing gains on a
portion of the portfolio.
IV. Standards of Care
1. Prudence
The City has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets of the City and to
invest funds appropriately. The standard of care to be used by City officials is
the “prudent person” rule as specified by CRS 15-1-304, which reads:
“Standard for investments: In acquiring, investing, reinvesting,
exchanging, retaining, selling, and managing property for the benefit of others,
fiduciaries shall be required to have in mind the responsibilities which are
attached to such offices and the size, nature, and needs of the estates entrusted
to their care and shall exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances
then prevailing, which men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in
the management of the property of another, not in regard to speculation but in
regard to the permanent disposition of funds, considering the probable income
as well as the probable safety of capital. Within the limitations of the foregoing
standard, fiduciaries are authorized to acquire and retain every kind of property,
real, personal, and mixed, and every kind of investment, specifically including,
but not by way of limitation, bonds, debentures, other corporate obligations,
stocks, preferred or common, securities of any open-end or closed-end
management type investment company or investment trust, and participations in
common trust funds, which men of prudence, discretion, and intelligence would
acquire or retain for the account of another.”
The Financial Officer and designees, acting within the guidelines of this
investment policy and written procedures, the City Charter and Code, all
applicable state and federal laws and after exercising due diligence, will not be
held personally liable and will be relieved or personal responsibility for an
individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, or for losses incurred
as a result of specific investment transactions or strategies. (CRS 24-75-601.4,
et seq.)
2. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest
City officers and employees involved in the investment process will refrain
from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution and
management of the investment program, or that could impair their ability to
make impartial decisions. Employees and investment officials must disclose
any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business.
They must further disclose any personal financial and investment positions that
5
could be related to the performance of the City’s investment portfolio. In
addition they must adhere to the rules of conflicts of interest as stated in Art. IV,
Section 9(b) of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
3. Delegation of Authority
The City Charter assigns the responsibility for the collection and investment of
all city funds to the Financial Officer, subject to direction from Council by
ordinance or resolution. The Financial Officer, subject to City Manager
approval, may appoint other members of the Finance Department to assist in the
investment function.
a) Administrative Procedures
i. The Financial Officer is responsible for all investment
decisions and activities, and must regulate the activities of
subordinate employees for the operation of the City’s
investment program consistent with this investment policy.
ii. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as
provided under the terms of this Investment Policy and the
procedures established by the Financial Officer.
b) Authorized Designees
i. The Financial Officer will maintain a list of individuals and
institutions that are authorized to transfer, purchase, sell and
wire securities or funds on behalf of the City.
ii. This list will be provided to the securities broker or dealer or
financial institution prior to the City conducting any investment
transactions with the institution.
c) Investment Advisors
i. The Financial Officer has the discretion to appoint one or more
investment advisors, registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisors Act of
1940, to assist in the management of all or a portion of the
City’s investment portfolio.
ii. All investments made through such investment advisors shall
be within the guidelines of this Investment Policy.
4. Investment Committee
The Investment Committee consists of the Financial Officer and at least 2 other
employees of the City that are knowledgeable in the area of governmental
investments. The Investment Committee, at the discretion of the Financial
Officer, may also include up to 2 private sector investment or banking
professionals. The purpose of the Investment Committee shall be to provide
advice to the Financial Officer regarding the operation of the investment
program.
6
V. Safekeeping and Custody
1. Authorized Securities Brokers and Dealers and Financial institutions
a) The Financial Officer will maintain a list of financial institutions
authorized to provide investment services. The Financial Officer will
also maintain a list of approved securities brokers and dealers. This
list may include “primary” dealers or regional dealers that qualify
under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15C3-1.
b) All financial institutions and securities brokers and dealers who wish
to provide investment services to the City must supply the following
(as appropriate):
i. Current audited financial statements;
ii. Completed securities broker and dealer questionnaire;
iii. Proof of National Association of Securities Dealers
certification and registration in the State of Colorado; and
iv. Certification of their review, understanding and agreement to
comply with the City’s Investment Policy.
c) If a financial institution or securities broker or dealer wishes to enter
into a repurchase agreement with the city, the institution must sign a
Master Repurchase Agreement approved as to form and content by the
City Attorney’s Office.
d) The Financial Officer must conduct an annual review of the financial
condition of authorized financial institutions and securities brokers and
dealers.
e) Investment transactions must be executed with an authorized financial
institution or securities broker or dealer except in the following
circumstances:
i. Commercial paper, banker acceptances and guaranteed
investment contracts may be purchased and sold directly from
the issuer;
ii. Mutual funds and money market funds may be purchased, sold
and held directly with the funds;
iii. Investments in local government investment pools may be
transacted directly with the pool; and
iv. Bond refunding and lease escrow agreements will be executed
as provided in the bond and lease documents.
f) The Financial Officer will establish a safekeeping agreement with an
approved financial institution to act as a third party custodian.
7
Investment securities will be held for the City by the custodian. When
applicable, the Financial Officer shall establish a separate securities
lending agreement with the custodian bank. The selection of the
City’s primary depository and primary custodian will be made through
the City’s competitive Request for Proposals process.
2. Delivery versus Payment
All trades will be executed by delivery versus payment to ensure that securities
are deposited in an eligible financial institution prior to the release of funds.
Securities will be held by the City’s third-party custodian as evidenced by
safekeeping receipts.
3. Internal Controls
The Financial Officer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal
control structure designed to provide reasonable assurance that the assets of the
city are protected from loss, theft or misuse.
VI. Suitable and Authorized Investments
As a home rule city, the City may adopt a list of acceptable investment
instruments differing from those outlined in CRS 24-75-601.1. Pursuant to Article
V of the City’s Charter the Council has adopted the following Ordinances and
Resolutions establishing the framework under which the Financial Officer must
conduct his duties: Ordinance 90, 1993; Ordinance 108, 1988, Resolution 85-134;
and Resolution 82-70. Council may adopt additional Ordinances or Resolutions
that require modification of these investment tools.
1. Eligible Investments
City funds may be invested in the following:
a) Any securities now or hereafter designed as legal investment for
municipalities in any applicable statute of the State of Colorado;
b) Interest-bearing accounts or time certificates of deposit, including
collateralized certificates of deposit and certificates of deposit through
the Account Registry Service, of financial institutions designated as
depositories for public moneys by the State of Colorado;
c) United States Treasury obligations for which the full faith and credit of
the United States are pledged for payment of principal and interest.
Such securities will include but not be limited to: Treasury bills,
Treasury notes, Treasury bond and Treasury strips with maturities not
exceeding five years from the date of purchase;
8
d) Obligations issued by any United States government-sponsored agency
or instrumentality. Maturities may not exceed five years from the date
of purchase;
e) Obligations issued by or on behalf of the City;
f) Obligations issued by or on behalf of any state of the United States,
political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. At the time
of purchase the obligation shall have an investment grade rating of not
less than AA- from Standard & Poor’s, Aa3 from Moody’s Investors
Service or AA- from Fitch Ratings Service;
g) Prime-rated bankers acceptances with a maturity not exceeding six
months from the date of purchase, issued by a state or national bank
which has a combined capital and surplus of at least 250 million
dollars, whose deposits are insured by the FDIC and whose senior
long-term debt is rated at the time of purchase at least AA- by
Standard and Poor’s, Aa3 by Moody’s Investors Service, or AA- by
Fitch Ratings Service;
h) U.S. dollar denominated corporate notes or bank debentures.
Authorized corporate bonds shall be U.S. dollar denominated, and
limited to corporations organized and operated within the United
States with a net worth in excess of 250 million dollars. At the time of
purchase the debenture or corporate note shall have an investment
grade rating of not less than AA- from Standard & Poor’s, Aa3 from
Moody’s Investors Service or AA- from Fitch Ratings Service;
i) Prime-rated commercial paper with a maturity not exceeding six
months issued by U.S. corporations. At the time of purchase the paper
shall be rated A1 by Standard and Poor’s and P1 by Moody’s Investors
Service. If the commercial paper issuer has senior debt outstanding,
the senior debt must be rated at the time of purchase at least AA- by
Standard and Poor’s or Aa3 by Moody’s Investors Service;
j) Guaranteed investment contracts of domestically-regulated insurance
companies having a claims-paying ability rating of AA- or better from
Standard & Poor’s at the time of purchase;
k) Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements. The structure of the
agreements (including margin ratios and collateralization) shall be
contained in the Master Repurchase Agreements. Repurchase
agreements shall include but are not limited to delivery-versus-
payment, tri-party and flexible repurchase agreements;
9
l) Local government investment pools authorized under the laws of the
State of Colorado with a rating of AAAm; and
m) Money market mutual funds regulated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission and whose portfolios consist only of dollar denominated
securities.
2. Repurchase Agreements
a) Before any repurchase agreements shall be executed with an
authorized securities broker or dealer or financial institution, a Master
Repurchase Agreement approved as to form and content by the City
Attorney’s Office must be signed between the City and the securities
broker or dealer or financial institution.
b) The Financial Officer will maintain a file of all Master Repurchase
Agreements.
c) In addition to the straight forward repurchase agreement, wherein the
financial institution or securities broker or dealer delivers the collateral
versus payment to the City’s custodian for a fixed term at a fixed rate,
the City may enter into other types of repurchase agreements which
may include but not be limited to flexible repurchase agreements, tri-
party agreements and reverse repurchase agreements.
d) Repurchase agreements must be collateralized as provided in
individually executed Master Repurchase Agreements at a minimum
of 102 percent.
e) Zero coupon instruments will not be accepted as collateral.
f) The collateralized securities of the repurchase agreement can include
but are not limited to: U.S Treasuries, Collateralized Mortgage
Obligations or Agency securities.
VII. Investment Parameters
1. Diversification and Asset Allocation
It is the intent of the City to diversify its investment portfolio. Investments shall
be diversified to eliminate the risk of loss resulting from over-concentration of
assets in a specific maturity, issuer or class of securities. Diversification
strategies and guidelines shall be determined and revised periodically by the
Financial Officer. The investments may be diversified by:
10
a) Limiting investments to avoid over-concentration in securities from a
specific issuer or business sector (excluding U.S. Treasury securities);
b) Limiting investment in securities that have higher credit risks;
c) Investing in securities with varying maturities; and
d) Maintaining a portion of the portfolio in readily available funds such
as local government investment pools, money market funds or short
term repurchase agreements to ensure that City liquidity needs are met.
The maximum investment allowable for each investment category as a
percentage of the entire portfolio is as follows (excluding collateral for
repurchase agreements):
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS ...................................................................... 100%
TREASURY SECURITIES ....................................................................................... 90%
GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED AGENCY SECURITIES .................................... 90%
REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS .............................................................................. 70%
CORPORATE NOTES OR BONDS* ...................................................................... 40%
BANK DEBENTURES* ............................................................................................. 25%
COMMERCIAL PAPER* ......................................................................................... 25%
BANKER’S ACCEPTANCES* ................................................................................. 25%
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS ................................................ 20%
MONEY MARKET FUNDS AND MUTUAL FUNDS……………………………15%
CD ACCOUNT REGISTRY SERVICE.....(MAXIMUM 50 MILLION)……......15%
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT ................................................................................ 15%
GUARANTEED INVESTMENT CONTRACTS ......................................................5%
* A maximum of 10 percent of the portfolio may be invested in any one
provider or issuer.
2. Investment Maturity and Liquidity
a) A portion of the portfolio should be continuously invested in readily
available funds such as local government investment pools, money
market funds, or short-term repurchase agreements to ensure that
appropriate liquidity is maintained to meet ongoing obligations. The
City must at all times maintain 5 percent of its operating investment
portfolio in instruments maturing in 120 days or less.
11
b) Reserved funds may be invested in securities exceeding 5 years if the
maturities of such investments are made to coincide as closely as
possible with the expected use of funds.
c) The weighted average final maturity limitation of the total portfolio,
excluding pension funds and long-term reserve funds, will not exceed
3 years.
d) The City may collateralize repurchase agreements with longer-dated
investments, final maturity not to exceed 30 years.
VIII. Inter-agency Interfund Borrowing Loan Program
1. Purpose
The purpose of the Inter-agency loan program is to support City services,
missions, and values by making loans to outside entities such as the Urban
Renewal Authority and the Downtown Development Authority while
maintaining an adequate rate of return for the City.
21. Eligible Applicants
City funds may be borrowed in the following scenarios:The following are
examples of situations in which City loans to outside agencies may be
appropriate:
a) An entity that was created wholly or in part by the City and is in a
fledgling stage and does not yet have an established credit history to
access the capital markets. Examples include the Urban Renewal
Authority, RMI2, etc.
b) An entity related to the City desires to issue debt that will be repaid
over a timeframe that the market does not value efficiently;would be
unrealistic for a private lender. Examples include bonds issued by the
Downtown Development Authority for less than 10 years.
c)A period of significant market uncertainty exists and as a result the
City’s investment portfolio earns yields that are significantly less than
those the City would pay on bonds it issues.
d)c) Any other purpose thatsituation in which the Council deems it
appropriate to meet the financing needs of an entity that is engaged in
services that support the mission and values of the City.
32. Program Guidelines:
a) The borrowing entity must have request approval from any Board or
Commission that provides oversight to themits governing body.
12
b)City Council must then review the request and approve the amount of
the borrowing and the related terms related to the financing.
b) The loan must be evidenced by a promissory note.
c) There must be a reasonable probability of repayment of the loan from
an identifiable source such as TIF revenues.
d) The interest rate assigned to the borrowing loan must be the higher of
would be based upon the Treasury Note or Municipal Bond of similar
duration (3 year, 5 year, etc.), plus 0.5.%, subject to the following
minimum (floor).
FLOOR - Minimum Loan Rates
Term Rate
0 – 5 years 2.75%
6 – 10 years 3.25%
11 – 15 years 3.75%
16 – 25 years 4.00%
e) The loans must be limited to 25 years.
c) City Council must review the request and approve the amount and
terms and conditions of the loan.
f)
g) Loans of Utility reserves must be reviewed by either the Energy Board
or Water Board in advance of City Council consideration, and must
meet the following additional criteria:
the City Council must make a formal finding that the funds
will not be needed for utility purposes during the term of the
loan, and that the terms and conditions of the loan represent a
reasonable rate of return to the Utility; and
(i)
(ii) utility rates must not be increased for the purposes of funding
the loan.
d)The interfund borrowing would be viewed as an investment of
either the General Fund or other governmental funds unless
nexus existed to assign the borrowing to one or more of the
Utility funds.
43. Limit on Funds available for Loan Interfund Borrowing Program
13
In order to preserve the overall portfolio’s ability to respond to the
liquidity needs of the City, the funds available to be used by this program
would be limited
a) Governmental Funds: Total loans shall not exceed to no more than
25% of the aggregate cash and investments balance of the
governmental funds (ie.i.e., General Fund and , Special Revenue
Funds, Capital Project Funds and Internal Service Funds).
b) Enterprise Funds: Total loans shall not exceed 5% of the aggregate
cash and investments balance in the enterprise funds (i.e. Utility
Funds and Golf Fund).
c) Operating and capital needs of the loaning funds shall not be
significantly impaired by these loans.
d) Loans should not impact the loaning funds compliance with minimum
fund balance policies, timing of intended uses, etc.
IX. Reporting
1. Methods
The Financial Officer will prepare an investment report on a quarterly basis. In
addition, a comprehensive investment report may be published on the City’s
website on an annual basis. All investment reports will be submitted in a timely
manner to the City Manager.
2. Performance Standards
The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the parameters
specified within this Investment Policy. The Financial Officer will establish a
benchmark yield for the City’s investments equal to the average yield on the
U.S. Treasury security which most closely corresponds to the portfolio’s actual
weighted average maturity. In order to determine the actual rate of return on
any portion of the portfolio managed by an investment advisor, the Financial
Officer must include all of the advisor’s expenses and fees in the computation of
the rate of return.
3. Marking to Market
The market value of the portfolio will be calculated at least quarterly and a
statement of the market value will be included in the quarterly investment
report.
X. Policy Adoption
14
This Investment Policy will be reviewed at least every two years by the Investment
Committee, City Manager and the Financial Officer and may be amended by Council
as conditions warrant. The Investment Policy may be adopted by Resolution of the
Council.
Prepared by: ___________________________ Date: _________________
Effective Date: ____________________
Appendix A: Listing of Authorized Personnel
(Separation of Duties)
This information is available at the City of Fort Collins Finance Department.
Appendix B: Authorized Financial Institutions
This information is available at the City of Fort Collins Finance Department.
19
Appendix C: Glossary of Investment Terms
Agency: A bond, issued by a U.S. government-sponsored agency. The offerings of these
agencies are backed by the U.S. government, but not guaranteed by the government since
the agencies are private entities. Such agencies have been set up in order to allow certain
groups of people to access low cost financing, especially students and first-time home
buyers. Some prominent issuers of agency bonds are Student Loan Marketing
Association (Sallie Mae), Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). Agency bonds are usually
exempt from state and local taxes, but not federal tax.
Average Life: The length of time that will pass before one-half of a debt obligation has
been retired.
Bankers’ Acceptance: A short-term credit investment which is created by a non-
financial firm and whose payment is guaranteed by a bank. Often used in importing and
exporting, and as a money market fund investment.
Benchmark: A comparative base for measuring the performance or risk tolerance of the
investment portfolio. A benchmark should represent a close correlation to the level of
risk and the average duration of the portfolio’s investments.
Book Value: The value at which a security is carried on the inventory lists or other
financial records of an investor. The book value may differ significantly from the
security’s current value in the market.
Broker: An individual who brings buyers and sellers together for a commission.
Cash Sale/Purchase: A transaction which calls for delivery and payment of securities
on the same day that the transaction is initiated.
Certificate of Deposit (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a
certificate.
Collateralization: Process by which a borrower pledges securities, property, or other
deposits for the purpose of securing the repayment of a loan and/or security.
Commercial Paper: An unsecured short-term promissory note issued by corporations,
with maturities ranging from 2 to 270 days.
Coupon Rate: The annual rate of interest received by an investor from the issuer of
certain types of fixed-income securities. Also know as the “interest rate”.
20
Credit Quality: The measurement of the financial strength of a bond issuer. This
measurement helps an investor to understand an issuer’s ability to make timely interest
payments and repay the loan principal upon maturity. Generally, the higher the credit
quality of a bond issuer, the lower the interest rate paid by the issuer because the risk of
default is lower. Credit quality ratings are provided by nationally recognized rating
agencies.
Credit Risk: The risk to an investor that an issuer will default on the payment of interest
and/or principal on a security.
Current Yield (Current Return): A yield calculation determined by dividing the
annual interest received on a security by the current market price of that security.
Debenture: A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.
Delivery versus Payment (DVP): A type of securities transaction in which the
purchaser pays for the securities when they are delivered either to the purchaser or to
their custodian.
Diversification: A process of investing assets among a range of security types by sector,
maturity, and quality rating.
Duration: A measure of the timing of the cash flows, such as the interest payments and
the principal repayment, to be received from a given fixed-income security. This
calculation is based on three variables: term to maturity, coupon rate and yield to
maturity. The duration of a security is a useful indicator of its price volatility for given
changes in interest rates.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): A federal agency that insures
deposits in member banks and thrifts up to $100,000 ($250,000 through 12/31/2013).
Federal Funds: Funds placed in Federal Reserve banks by depository institutions in
excess of current reserve requirements. These depository institutions may lend fed funds
to each other overnight or on a longer basis. They may also transfer funds among each
other on a same-day basis through the Federal Reserve banking system. Fed funds are
considered to be immediately available funds.
Federal Funds Rate: The interest rate that banks charge each other for the use of
Federal funds.
Government Securities: An obligation of the U.S. government, backed by the full faith
and credit of the government. These securities are regarded as the highest quality of
investment securities available in the U.S. securities market.
21
Green Investments: Mutual funds that are considered “ethical investments.” These
funds screen companies to ensure that they have sound environmental practices such as:
maintaining or improving the environment, industrial relations, racial equality,
community involvement, education, training, healthcare and various other environmental
criteria. Negative screens include but are not limited to: alcohol, gambling, tobacco,
irresponsible marketing, armaments, pornography, and animal rights.
Interest Rate Risk: The risk associated with declines or rises in interest rates which
cause an investment in a fixed-income security to increase or decrease in value.
Investment-grade Obligations: An investment instrument suitable for purchase by
institutional investors under the prudent person rule. Investment-grade is restricted to
those obligations rated BBB or higher by a rating agency.
Liquidity: An asset that can be converted easily and quickly into cash without a
substantial loss of value.
Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP): An investment by local governments in
which their money is pooled as a method for managing local funds.
Mark-to-Market: the process whereby the book value or collateral value of a security is
adjusted to reflect its current market value.
Market Value: Current market price of a security.
Master Repurchase Agreement: A written contract covering all future transactions
between the parties to repurchase and reverse repurchase. Establishes each party’s rights
in the transaction.
Maturity: the date on which payment of a financial obligation is due. The final state
maturity is the date on which the issuer must retire a bond and pay the face value to the
bondholder.
Money Market Mutual Fund: Mutual funds that invest solely in money market
instruments (short-term debt instruments, such as Treasury bills, commercial paper,
bankers’ acceptances, repurchase agreements, and federal funds).
Mutual Fund: An investment company that pools money and can invest in a variety of
securities, including fixed-income securities and money market instruments. Mutual
funds are regulated by the investment company Act of 1940 and must abide by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure guidelines.
National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD): A self-regulatory organization of
brokers and dealers in the over-the-counter securities business. Its regulatory mandate
includes authority over firms that distribute mutual fund shares as well as other securities.
22
Net Asset Value: The market value of one share of an investment company, such as a
mutual fund. This figure is calculated by totaling a fund’s assets which includes
securities, cash, and any accrued earnings, subtracting this from the fund’s liabilities and
dividing this total by the number of shares outstanding. This is calculated once a day
based on the closing price for each security in the fund’s portfolio.
No Load Fund: A mutual fund which does not levy a sales charge on the purchase of its
shares.
Portfolio: Collection of securities held by an investor.
Primary Dealer: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily reports of
market activity and positions and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight.
Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT): A company that buys, develops, manages and
sells real estate assets. Allows participants to invest in a professionally managed
portfolio of real-estate properties. The main function is to pass profits on to investors;
business activities are generally restricted to generation of property rental income.
Repurchase Agreement (Repo): An agreement of one party to sell securities at a
specified price to a second party and a simultaneous agreement of the first party to
repurchase the securities at a specified price or at a specified later date.
Reverse Repurchase Agreement: An agreement of one party to purchase securities at a
specified price from a second party and a simultaneous agreement of the first party to
resell the securities at a specified price to the second party on demand or at a specified
date.
Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act: Applies to all money market mutual funds
and mandates such funds to maintain certain standards, including a 13-month maturity
limit and a 90-day average maturity on investments, to help maintain a constant net asset
value of one dollar ($1.00).
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): Agency created by Congress to protect
investors in securities transactions by administering securities legislation.
Total Return: The sum of all investment income plus changes in the capital value of the
portfolio. For mutual funds, return on an investment is composed of share price
appreciation plus any realized dividends or capital gains. This is calculated by taking the
following components during a certain time period. (Price Appreciation) + (Dividends
Paid) + (Capital Gains) = Total Return
Treasury Bills: Short-term U.S. government non-interest bearing debt securities with
maturities of no longer than one year.
23
Treasury Bonds: Long-term U.S. government debt securities with maturities of more
than ten years. Currently, the longest outstanding maturity is 30 years.
Treasury Notes: Intermediate U.S. government debt securities with maturities of two to
ten years.
Tri-party Repurchase Agreement: In a “normal repurchase” transaction there are two
parties, the buyer and the seller. A tri-party repurchase agreement adds a custodian as the
third party to act as an impartial entity to the repurchase transaction to administer the
agreement and to relieve the buyer and seller of many administrative details.
Weighted Average Maturity (WAM): The average maturity of all the securities that
comprise a portfolio.
Yield: The current rate of return on an investment security. Generally expressed as a
percentage of the security’s current price.
Yield Curve: A graphical representation that depicts the relationship at a given point in
time between yields and maturity for bonds that are identical in every way except
maturity. A normal yield curve may be alternatively referred to as a positive yield curve.
Yield-to-Maturity: The rate of return yielded by a debt security held to maturity when
both interest payments and the investor’s potential capital gain or loss are included in the
calculation of return.
Zero-Coupon Securities: A security that is issued at a discount and makes no periodic
interest payments. The rate of return consists of a gradual accretion of the principal of
the security and is payable at par upon maturity.
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-120 Making Appointments to Various Boards, Commissions, and Authorities of the City of Fort
Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Vacancies currently exist on various boards, commissions, and authorities due to resignations of boardmembers and
the expiration of terms of current members. Applications were solicited during September and Council teams
interviewed applicants during October, November, and December. This Resolution appoints members to fill current
vacancies and term expirations.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Section 1 of this Resolution makes 7 appointments to 6 boards and commissions to fill current vacancies with terms
to begin immediately. Names of those individuals recommended to fill current vacancies have been inserted in the
Resolution with the expiration date following the names.
Section 2 of this Resolution makes 46 appointments to 21 boards and commissions to fill expired terms to begin on
January 1, 2013. Names of those individuals recommended to fill expired terms have been inserted in the Resolution
with the expiration date following the names.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Vacancies were advertised during September and October in the Coloradoan and on fcgov.com.. Flyers were also
mailed to various diverse population groups/organizations, service organization, major employers, board and
commission members, active applicants (applicants on file during 2012) and term limited boardmembers. 89
applications were submitted to fill 53 vacancies.
RESOLUTION 2012-120
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND AUTHORITIES
OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, vacancies currently exist on various boards, commissions, and authorities of
the City due to resignations by board members and due to the expiration of the terms of certain
members; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make appointments to fill the vacancies which exist
on the various boards, commissions, and authorities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the following named persons are hereby appointed to fill current
vacancies on the boards, commissions, and authorities hereinafter indicated, with terms to begin
immediately and to expire as set forth after each name:
Commission on Disability Expiration of Term
Rose Luna December 31, 2015
Thomas Klender______________ December 31, 2014
Parks and Recreation Board Expiration of Term
Scott Sinn December 31, 2016
Retirement Committee Expiration of Term
Rodney Albers December 31, 2015
Senior Advisory Board Expiration of Term
Lawrence Bontempo December 31, 2016
Water Board Expiration of Term
Andrew McKinley December 31, 2015
Youth Advisory Board Expiration of Term
Thomas Lamont Long May 31, 2016
Section 2. That the following named persons are hereby appointed to fill expired terms
on boards, commissions, and authorities hereinafter indicated, with terms to begin January 1, 2013
and to expire as set forth after each name:
Air Quality Advisory Board Expiration of Term
John Shenot December 31, 2016
Tom Moore December 31, 2016
Jim Dennison December 31, 2016
Citizen Review Board Expiration of Term
James O’Neill II December 31, 2016
Vikas Malaiya December 31, 2016
Commission on Disability Expiration of Term
Mike Devereaux December 31, 2016
Michelle Miller December 31, 2016
Cultural Resources Board Expiration of Term
Theadora (Tedi) Cox December 31, 2016
Jan Gilligan December 31, 2016
Jesse Solomon December 31, 2016
-2-
Downtown Development Authority Expiration of Term
Bevin Parker December 31, 2016
Cheryl Zimlich December 31, 2016
Wyne O’dell December 31, 2016
Economic Advisory Commission Expiration of Term
Ann Hutchison December 31, 2015
Glen Colton December 31, 2015
Golf Board Expiration of Term
James Snyder December 31, 2016
Housing Authority Expiration of Term
David Bye December 31, 2017
Sue Beck-Ferkiss December 31, 2017
Human Relations Commission Expiration of Term
Mary Lipscomb Lyons December 31, 2016
Faith Sternlieb December 31, 2016
Preety Sathe December 31, 2016
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Expiration of Term
Trudy Haines December 31, 2016
Ed Reifsnyder December 31, 2016
-3-
Landmark Preservation Commission Expiration of Term
Alexandra Wallace December 31, 2016
Belinda Zink December 31, 2016
Natural Resources Advisory Board Expiration of Term
Harry Edwards December 31, 2016
Parks and Recreation Board Expiration of Term
Jessica MacMillan December 31, 2016
Brian Carroll December 31, 2016
Planning and Zoning Board Expiration of Term
Gerald Hart December 31, 2016
Emily Elmore December 31, 2016
Retirement Committee Expiration of Term
Angelina Sanchez-Sprague December 31, 2016
Senior Advisory Board Expiration of Term
Katherine Pullen December 31, 2016
Transportation Board Expiration of Term
Olga Duvall December 31, 2016
Rita Pat Jordan December 31, 2016
-4-
Water Board Expiration of Term
Duncan Eccleston December 31, 2016
Heidi Huber-Stearns December 31, 2016
Katherine Liesel Hans December 31, 2016
Steve Malers December 31, 2016
Women’s Commission Expiration of Term
Suzzette Greany December 31, 2014
Catherine Douras December 31, 2016
Lea Hanson December 31, 2016
Jan Hawn December 31, 2016
Youth Advisory Board Expiration of Term
Pranaya Sathe _______________ May 31, 2016
Nathan Welch May 31, 2016
Zoning Board of Appeals Expiration of Term
Peter Bohling December 31, 2016
John H. McCoy December 31, 2016
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th
day of December A.D. 2012.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-5-
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-121 Excusing the Absence of Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz From Attendance at Meetings of the
City Council During the Period From November 8, 2012 Through January 15, 2013.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the City Charter, a Council seat is considered vacant if the Councilmember misses all regular and special
meetings for 60 consecutive days, unless excused by resolution of the Council. Due to illness, Councilmember
Aislinn Kottwitz was last able to attend meetings of the City Council on November 6, 2012, and will be unavailable
to resume such attendance until at least January 15, 2013. The resolution excuses her absences during that period
of time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
RESOLUTION 2012-121
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
EXCUSING THE ABSENCE OF COUNCILMEMBER AISLINN KOTTWITZ
FROM ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DURING
THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 8, 2012 THROUGH JANUARY 15, 2013
WHEREAS, under Article II, Section 18 of the City Charter, if a Councilmember fails to
attend meetings of the Council for 60 consecutive days, a vacancy is considered to exist in the office
held by such Councilmember, unless such failure to attend meetings is excused by resolution of the
Council; and
WHEREAS, due to illness, Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz was last able to attend
meetings of the City Council on November 6, 2012, and will be unavailable to resume such
attendance until at least January 15, 2013; and
WHEREAS, under these circumstances, the Council wishes to excuse Councilmember
Kottwitz from her absences during this period of time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that all absences of Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz from meetings of the City Council
occurring on or after November 8, 2012, and continuing through January 15, 2013, are hereby
excused by the Council.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th
day of December A.D. 2013.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2012, Amending Division 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing
of Applications for the Development of Property Not Yet under the Full Ownership and Control of the Applicant or
Developer.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Land Use Code (LUC) presently requires that all submittal requirements must be met before an application can
be processed. One of those submittal requirements is that the applicant must own or control all of the property that
is the subject of the application. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on December 4, 2012 by a vote of 4-1
(Nays: Ohlson; Weitkunat recused; Kottwitz absent) amends the LUC to give the Director discretion to
allow applications to proceed through the review process under certain circumstances even if not all of the subject
property is yet controlled by the applicant. The applicant would have to show that, at the time of application, the
applicant has ownership of, or the legal right to use and control, the majority of the property to be developed. The
Director would then have to determine that reviewing the application would not be contrary to the public interest, and
the applicant would need to agree not to record any documents related to the processing of the application until the
applicant had gained control of the entire property. The applicant would also be required to indemnify the City against
any third party claims related to the processing of the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Karen Cumbo
Laurie Kadrich
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 31
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2012, Amending Division 2 of the Land Use Code to Allow for the Processing of
Applications for the Development of Property Not Yet under the Full Ownership and Control of the Applicant or
Developer.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Land Use Code (LUC) presently requires that all submittal requirements must be met before an application can
be processed. One of those submittal requirements is that the applicant must own or control all of the property that
is the subject of the application. Staff recommends that the City Council amend the LUC to give the Director discretion
to allow applications to proceed through the review process under certain circumstances even if not all of the subject
property is yet controlled by the applicant. The applicant would have to show that, at the time of application, the
applicant has ownership of, or the legal right to use and control, the majority of the property to be developed. The
Director would then have to determine that reviewing the application would not be contrary to the public interest, and
the applicant would need to agree not to record any documents related to the processing of the application until the
applicant had gained control of the entire property. The applicant would also be required to indemnify the City against
any third party claims related to the processing of the application.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Currently the Section 2.2.3 (C) (1) of the LUC limits the Director from submitting applications to the Planning and
Zoning Board and/or Hearing Officers until such time as documentation is presented that the applicant “has the
requisite power, authority, clear title, good standing, qualifications and ability to submit and carry out the development
and/or activities requested in the development application.”. Further, Section 2.2.4 of the LUC states that an
application cannot be processed or presented to a decision maker until the Director determines that it is complete and
ready for review, and the determination of sufficiency cannot be based on the perceived merits of the development
proposal.
The intent of these provisions appears to be to avoid expending City resources on proposals that may never come
to fruition. In most situations, this makes sense. Sometimes, however, these requirements can cause unnecessary,
costly delays that may work to the detriment not only of the developer but also the City.
Therefore, staff is recommending that these LUC provisions be amended to allow for more flexibility in the
development review process and afford the Director more discretion in determining whether the review of a particular
development proposal can and should move ahead in advance of all submittal requirements being met.
Additionally, the fact that an application may be allowed to proceed through the review process will not entitle the
applicant to actually commence development of the proposed project unless and until all other relevant Land Use Code
provisions have been met, including the execution of a final plat and the issuance of building permits.
The denial of an incomplete application that has been allowed to proceed to the decision maker under the provisions
of this Section shall not cause a post denial re-submittal delay under the provisions of Section 2.2.11(D) (9).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. The LUC amendment will allow for more flexibility in
the development review process and afford the Director more discretion in determining whether the review of a
particular development proposal can and should move ahead in advance of all submittal requirements being met.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -2- ITEM 31
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
If approved on First Reading, the Land Use Code amendment will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board
at a special meeting in mid-December so that the Council would have the Board’s recommendation prior to Second
Reading on December 18.
ORDINANCE NO. 149, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING DIVISION 2 OF THE LAND USE CODE
TO ALLOW FOR THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY NOT YET UNDER THE FULL OWNERSHIP
AND CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT OR DEVELOPER
WHEREAS, Division 2.2 of the City’s Land Use Code (LUC) establishes certain
development review procedures for the processing of applications for land development that are
submitted to the City; and
WHEREAS, among those procedures are the submittal requirements contained in Sections
2.2.3 and 2.2.4; and
WHEREAS, LUC Section 2.2.3(C)(1) states that a master list of development application
submittal requirements is to be established by the City Manager and that such master list is to
include, at a minimum, documentation showing that the applicant “has the requisite power, authority,
clear title, good standing, qualifications and ability to submit and carry out the development and/or
activities requested in the development application”; and
WHEREAS, under LUC Section 2.2.4, an application cannot be processed or presented to
a decision maker until the Director of the Planning, Development and Transportation Service Unit
(the “Director”) determines that it is complete and ready for review; and
WHEREAS, these provisions are intended to alleviate the need for the City to expend City
resources on development proposals that may never come to fruition; and
WHEREAS, in certain instances, the foregoing requirements can cause unnecessary, costly
delays; and
WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that LUC Section 2.2.4 be amended to allow for
more flexibility in the development review process and afford the Director more discretion in
determining whether the review of a particular development proposal can and should move ahead
in advance of the foregoing submittal requirements being met; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the amendments recommended by staff are in the
best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 2.2.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended so as to read in its entirety
as follows:
2.2.4 Step 4: Review of Applications.
(A) Determination of Sufficiency. After receipt of the development application,
the Director shall determine whether the application is complete and ready for
review. The determination of sufficiency shall not be based upon the perceived
merits of the development proposal.
(B) Processing of Incomplete Applications. Except as provided below, if a
submittal is found to be insufficient, all review of the submittal will be held in
abeyance until the Director receives the necessary material to determine that the
submittal is sufficient. The development application shall not be reviewed on its
merits by the decision maker until it is determined sufficient by the Director.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if an application has been determined to be
incomplete because the information provided to the Director shows that a portion of
the property to be developed under the application is not yet under the ownership and
control of the applicant or developer, the Director may nonetheless authorize the
review of such application, and the presentation of the same to the decision maker,
as long as:
(1) the applicant, at the time of application, has ownership of, or the legal
right to use and control, the majority of the property to be developed
under the application;
(2) the Director determines that it would not be detrimental to the public
interest to accept the application for review and consideration by the
decision maker; and
(3) the applicant and developer enter into an agreement satisfactory in
form and substance to the City Manager, upon consultation with the
City Attorney, which provides that:
(a) until such time as the applicant has acquired full ownership
and control of all property to be developed under the
application, neither the applicant nor the developer will
record, or cause to be recorded, in the Office of the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder any document related to the
City’s review and approval of the application; and
(b) the applicant will indemnify and hold harmless the City and
its officers, agents and assigns, from any and all claims that
may be asserted against them by any third party, claiming
injury or loss of any kind whatsoever that are in any way
related to, or arise from, the City’s processing of the
application.
-2-
The denial of an incomplete application that has been allowed to proceed to the
decision maker under the provisions of this Section shall not cause a post denial
re-submittal delay under the provisions of Section 2.2.11(D)(9).
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich
Dan Weinheimer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2012, Establishing a Moratorium on the Acceptance or Processing of Land
Use Applications, Permit Applications, and Other Applications Seeking Approval to Conduct Oil and Gas Extraction
or Related Operations Within the City of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 4, 2012, Council considered regulation of oil and gas exploration and production and unanimously
voted to impose a six-month moratorium on the submission, acceptance, consideration and approval of any all
applications for City licenses, permits and other approvals related in any way to oil and gas uses within the City. The
moratorium will allow staff and Council time to further investigate the extent of the City’s authority to regulate such
uses. In order to give the newly seated Council time to consider the regulations to be developed during the
moratorium, staff is recommending that the moratorium be extended on Second Reading to seven months rather than
six.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Local governments have considered the use of moratoriums to postpone new oil and gas operations within their
jurisdictions, citing the need to craft and adopt local land use regulations and/or to allow the state to address its
rulemaking process as it relates to setbacks and water quality regulations.
Current State Efforts Related to Oil and Gas regulation
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) is currently considering amendments to existing and
proposed area of rulemaking: (1) water sampling and monitoring, and (2) addressing well setbacks and noise. The
City secured Party Status for both rulemaking hearings, making Fort Collins the only city with such status. Party
Status provides the City with an opportunity to submit written comments on the state’s proposals, recommend
alternatives, and a greater length of time to speak before the Commission.
Water Quality:
The proposal under consideration adopts an industry-sponsored voluntary program and makes that program
mandatory. Under this proposed program, baseline groundwater quality samples would be collected from two existing
groundwater features, such as permitted and registered groundwater wells or groundwater seeps and springs, which
are located within 1/2 mile of the surface location of new oil and gas well pads, or additional wells on existing well
pads. These samples will be collected before drilling begins. A second sample will be collected from each
groundwater feature within one to three years after drilling is completed. Fort Collins submitted comments on this
proposal, asking that additional samples are collected and for more frequent monitoring of water wells to ensure
water contamination does not occur. If the state’s rules on water quality monitoring are amended, the City may also
need to modify proposed Land Use Code regulations as presented in Option A or B or in development submittal
requirements.
Setbacks:
The state is reviewing its existing setback rules, with new rules anticipated by early 2013. Setbacks for new wells
from existing homes are an important consideration for several reasons – there is uncertainty about emissions from
well sites and the process of drilling and maintaining a well site could cause noise, traffic and lighting impacts. The
current setbacks for new wells are 150 feet from an occupied structure, 350 feet from a high density area and 500
feet from some structures like hospitals, schools, and nursing homes. Many groups recommend increasing the state
setbacks from homes to 1,000 or even 2,000 feet. At the Commission hearing on setbacks, the City of Fort Collins
will seek additional setback distance from occupied buildings, greater powers for residents in influencing site location
December 18, 2012 -2- ITEM 24
proposals, and protection for community assets like natural areas and parks.
December 18, 2012 -3- ITEM 24
City Council direction for additional work during moratorium
• Monitor COGCC and present City Council recommendations (attachment 2) during the rulemaking process
as described above. Incorporate, as needed, any changes into proposed Land Use Code (LUC)
amendments.
• Monitor COGCC and present City Council recommendations (attachment 2) to any relevant bills considered
during the 2013 State of Colorado Legislative Session, especially as any further legislation is considered
related to air or water quality.
• Develop maps that address the following:
N Identify the geological formations present within the City and the Growth Management Area
N Identify the locations of oil and shale gas deposits including the various formations
N Map the locations of all wells within those areas and locations currently seeking permits to drill and
include mineral ownership information where available
N Visually extend the setback criteria into the Growth Management Area
N Identify areas currently exempt from drilling, and areas that would be exempt if additional setback criteria
were adopted by the COGCC
• Evaluate the impact of proposed regulations on existing and future oil and gas operations and consider code
amendments as needed for addressing the differences in oil extraction compared to gas or methane
production. Staff should specifically consider whether soil gas testing is needed for both.
• Update the Best Practice Matrix dated August 27, 2012 to include LUC Option A and B as well as more
specific information on street maintenance, financial consequences, local impact fee, cultural resources,
reclamation, and water source disclosure.
• Propose an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County that ensures any oil and gas activity within
the GMA would be considered new development and as such annexed into the city and permitted under the
city’s development process.
• Negotiate and present a proposal for adopting an operator agreement with Prospect Energy, the owner and
operator of the Fort Collins Field.
• Re-engage the boards and stakeholder groups and seek their recommendations regarding the proposed LUC
amendments (Option A or Option B).
• Provide additional information regarding surface use agreements, especially as the agreement relates to
habitat fragmentation and restoration; include examples.
• Identify areas that may be considered for a Designated Outside Activity Area, and have setbacks from oil
and gas activities in alignment with High Density Area setbacks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. In addition, in order to give the newly seated
Council time to consider the regulations to be developed during the moratorium, staff is recommending that the
moratorium be extended on Second Reading to seven months rather than six.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - December 4, 2012
(w/o attachments)
2. Copy of Policy Motion, adopted December 4, 2012, regarding COGCC rule-making direction
3. Powerpoint presentation
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: December 4, 2012
STAFF: Laurie Kadrich
Dan Weinheimer
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulations.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2012, Amending the Land Use Code Pertaining to Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production Regulations (Option A or B).
AND/OR
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2012, Establishing a Moratorium on the Acceptance or Processing of
Land Use Applications, Permit Applications, and Other Applications Seeking Approval to Conduct Oil and Gas
Extraction or Related Operations Within the City of Fort Collins (Option C).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council directed staff to evaluate methods by which the City may regulate oil and gas exploration and production.
Since oil and gas operations are governed primarily by the state and federal governments, staff will provide an
overview of what regulations exist and where the City may be effective in both filling existing regulatory “gaps” and
strengthening existing regulations in order to better protect the health and safety of residents. Discussion includes
development review criteria, water and air quality, environmental protections, and emergency services. Staff also
presents information on non-regulatory ways to respond to residents’ concerns including options such as surface-use
and operator agreements, legislative advocacy, regional cooperation, and active participation in related state and
federal rulemaking processes.
Staff is providing three options for Council’s consideration:
• Option A: Dual-track development review process
• Option B: Single-track development review process
• Option C: Moratorium
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Existing oil and gas activity in the city:
Oil production is currently limited to the Fort Collins Field, located in the northeast portion of the city. The Fort Collins
Field is regulated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and has been in production since about
1925. In the City limits, the field consists of seven producing wells and seven injecting wells within the City limits, all
of which are managed by one operator. Four residential subdivisions have developed around the Fort Collins field,
with an additional subdivision planned in the area.
In addition to the Fort Collins field, well development has historically occurred southward along the I-25 corridor. There
are no active wells in this area today. As all wells were subsequently annexed into City boundaries, there have been
no permits issued to date in the City of Fort Collins.
Two recent developments may result in significant changes in oil and gas exploration in Larimer County. The first is
the successful exploration of the Niobrara formation, which lies deep under much of northeastern Colorado, and the
second is the advancing technology of hydraulic fracturing to extract the resource from within deeply located shale
deposits. This has raised considerable public concern.
Existing regulations
Because oil and gas exploration and production is regulated by the state in Colorado, local jurisdictions are limited
in their ability to control the location, procedures, and impacts of oil and gas drilling in and around their boundaries.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -2- ITEM 26
A combination of the state’s laws and several court cases have resulted in the preemption of local control over various
aspects of oil and gas activities, and the scope of that preemption is the subject of ongoing litigation..
Accordingly, existing oil and gas regulations in the Land Use Code are limited to a single paragraph in Section 3.8.14
and reads as follows:
“Any use that is not permitted under the provisions of Article 4, but that must be allowed because of
preemption by a sovereign jurisdiction or because of a court order, shall be processed as a Planning
and Zoning Board Review (Type 2 review) and shall be approved, with or without conditions, as
necessary to ensure that such use complies with all general standards as set forth in Article 3 and
zone district standards as set forth in Article 4 as are or may reasonably be interpreted to be
applicable to such use, provided that such standards are not preempted or ordered by a court not to
be applied.”
This section indicates that all oil and gas operations are subject to a Type 2, or Planning and Zoning Board review.
This paragraph also suggests that oil and gas operations are subject to the standards set forth in the Land Use Code,
to the extent that they are not preempted by the state.
DISCUSSION - Proposed Framework for Oil and Gas Operations:
As discussed above, the City has a shared authority with the state and other agencies for controlling how oil and gas
operations occur both above and below ground. Typically, the City’s Land Use Code serves as the primary mechanism
for land development in the City. However, because of the shared authority with the state, staff has identified a number
of methods to address specific community concerns and better address oil and gas operations at local levels. Staff
recommends that the City engage at the federal, state and regional levels, as well, to better affect regulations or ensure
compliance with regulations.
Federal
The federal level options are aimed at influencing the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies
to gain more stringent oversight of oil and gas operations. The EPA intends to have a new set of operating criteria
for oil and gas in place in 2015 and City of Fort Collins staff intends to comment on whether those policies are
implemented at a statewide or local level. Significant costs may be incurred by the City if implemented locally rather
than utilizing existing statewide resources.
In addition to influencing governmental agencies at the federal level, the City can also utilize federal research,
programs, and services to ensure oil and gas operations both within the City’s boundaries and at a regional level do
not degrade quality of life.
State
Colorado permits oil and gas activity through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). In
addition to the COGCC, two other state agencies have a role in oversight of oil and gas operations – the Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) and the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife
(DPW). CDPHE’s oversight is focused upon the potential and actual impacts of oil and gas activity on human health,
specifically with regards to air and water quality. The DPW, a sister agency of the COGCC under the Department of
Natural Resources, has oversight of habitat and wildlife protection.
The state-level options include the following opportunities for City involvement:
• Engage in stakeholder processes – As with the federal level engagement opportunities, the City can
participate in stakeholder processes to affect the rules at the state level that affect oil and gas operations.
• Local Government Designee – This tool establishes a staff representative who participates in the state’s
review of oil and gas applications and provides local comments onto the oil and gas applications at the state
level.
• Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the state – An IGA could allow for the City to have inspection
authority, which would increase the oversight of oil and gas operations within city limits.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -3- ITEM 26
• Advocating for legislative change – The City can engage in legislative discussions to influence the state
and other municipalities. Fort Collins’ Legislative Policy Agenda calls for supporting legislation to provide
communities with more tools to address the industry and more power over local land use.
• Designated Outside Activity Areas – This tool allows for an area, e.g., City Park, to receive the same 350-
foot setback that high density areas receive. The City applies for this designation through the state on areas
in the City that meet certain qualifications, e.g., a certain number of users per day or per year. Longmont has
successfully received approval for two City park complexes.
Regional
Regional solutions include addressing some impacts of oil and gas activity collaboratively with other local
governments. These collaborations include hiring a shared inspector to effectively balance the ability to inspect local
wells with the number of existing wells and anticipated activity. Staff initiated conversations with several jurisdictions
about sharing an inspector.
The regional level also presents a partnership opportunity with other municipalities, counties, and researchers to
address issues that go beyond our city borders, e.g., air quality. Intergovernmental agreements to share monitoring
resources and equipment for air quality are one tool the City could explore. From a research perspective, faculty at
Colorado State University is examining air emissions from well sites in Garfield County beginning in spring 2013
through fall 2015. The results of this study, funded jointly by the County and industry, are anticipated to provide a
better understanding of the toxicity of well emissions. Staff met with the faculty associated with this study, as well as
others at CSU who are examining air emissions and regional impacts from oil and gas operations, and will utilize the
lessons learned from these research efforts to recommend changes to local regulations.
Local
The local solutions include at least five mechanisms to address oil and gas operations to ensure community concerns
are addressed and residents’ quality of life is protected:
• Local Government Designee – This tool establishes a staff representative who participates in the state’s
review of oil and gas applications and provides local comments onto the oil and gas applications at the state
level.
• Operator Agreements – A negotiated agreement between the City and any operator wishing to conduct oil
and gas operations in the City. The agreement could include additional, prescriptive requirements such as
enhanced baseline and ongoing monitoring.
• Intergovernmental Agreement with the state – An IGA could allow for the City to have inspection authority,
which would increase the oversight of oil and gas operations within city limits. It also provides opportunities
for partnering with our surrounding municipalities on a regional basis for inspection authority.
• Surface Use Agreements –A negotiated agreement between the landowner and any operator wishing to
conduct oil and gas operations providing another mechanism to obtain enhanced conditions.
• Land Use Regulations – A set of regulations and control mechanisms that are protective of public health and
the environment. The Land Use Code amendments before Council include Option A (a dual-track
development review process) and Option B (a single-track development review process). The regulatory
options are described in greater depth below.
Land Use Regulations – Review Processes
Two options are presented related to Land Use Code regulations:
• Option A: Dual-track development review process, which includes both an expedited and standard review
process
• Option B: Single-track development review process – This option combines the prescriptive criteria in the
expedited review track with the standard review process. Under this option, all development review
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -4- ITEM 26
applications would be processed under a single review track and required to meet the same criteria. All
decisions would be made by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The review processes for the dual-track development review processes are outlined in Table 1 below (see Table 2 for
the single-track review process). The Standard Review process requires the operator to locate a well and operate in
a manner that does not degrade quality of life (e.g., adjacent land uses, natural resources, water quality, air quality,
visual and scenic resources, etc.). The Standard Review process also requires operators to attend a neighborhood
meeting and a hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board, pursuant to the Type 2 standards currently outlined
in the Land Use Code. The regulations outlined in the Standard Review process however, are more goal-based than
prescriptive.
Alternatively, the Expedited Review process requires operators (who voluntarily choose this option) to meet specific,
objective criteria prescribed in the review process. By meeting these more prescriptive standards, staff proposes that
public comments only be taken in a written format and that the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood
Services has the final decision-making authority.
This dual-track review process is a model utilized by other local governments to address oil and gas development and
has achieved some success in engaging operators in meeting specific objective criteria.
Table 1: Option A: Dual-track review process, including the standard and expedited review processes, notice
requirements, and decision-making authority.
Element Standard Review Process
(Type 2 Review)
Expedited Review Process
(Basic Development Review)
Regulations Must locate a well and operate in a
manner that does not degrade
quality of life
Must meet ALL specific, prescriptive criteria
Notice
Requirements
Notification sent when an
application is received, prior to a
neighborhood meeting and prior to
the hearing
Notification sent when an application is received and
if an application is approved
Public Comments Written comments can be provided
prior to or at the public hearing
Residents and affected parties can
testify at the public hearing
Written comments can be provided after the
notification that an application has been received
Decision-making
authority
Planning and Zoning Board
approval
Director approval
Setbacks If not located on an existing well pad, all operations
must be 500’ from an occupied structure, water well,
Natural Area or City Park and 150’ from any property
line
Appeals Decisions are appealable to City
Council
Decisions can be appealed in District Court
Table 2: Option B: Single-track review process
Element Review Process
Regulations Must meet ALL specific, prescriptive criteria
Notice Requirements Notification sent when an application is received, prior to a neighborhood meeting and
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -5- ITEM 26
Appeals Decisions are appealable to City Council
Land Use Regulations – Proposed Standards
All new oil and gas operations will be subject to the requirements in either the standard review or expedited review
track, (Table 3) unless Option B is adopted by Council and then the standards in expedited review will prevail.
Common areas for oil and gas operators to address in submittals include air quality, water quality, and natural resource
protection. Within each area the standards differ based upon the review process. The conditions offered for standard
review consist largely of plans and information about proposals for preventing or mitigating community impacts.
Table 3: This table outlines the standards for air quality, water quality, natural resources standards, general
standards and reciprocal setbacks associated with both the standard and expedited reviews.
Regulation
Option A Option B
Standard Review Expedited Review
Air Quality
Minimize all emissions 95% VOC
(Volatile Organic
Compounds)
destruction
98% VOC destruction 98% VOC destruction
Flares and combustion
devices
-No open flares
-Automatic flame
ignition system
-No open flares
-Automatic flame ignition system
with surveillance
-No open flares
-Automatic flame ignition system
with surveillance
Pollution Prevention -Leak Detection
Program Required
-Air Quality Mitigation plan
required
- Leak Detection Program required
-Reduce methane emissions
during maintenance
-Air Quality Mitigation plan
required
- Leak Detection Program
required
-Reduce methane emissions
during maintenance
Containment Must ensure no
significant
degradation
Require Closed Loop Pitless
systems
Require Closed Loop Pitless
systems
Pneumatic Controllers Must ensure no
significant
degradation
Use no or low bleed devices Use no or low bleed devices
Electric Engines Required for
pumping units and
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -6- ITEM 26
Regulation
Option A Option B
Standard Review Expedited Review
Water Quality
Water Quality
Monitoring Plan
Must ensure no
significant
degradation of
water quality
Baseline monitoring within ½ mile:
-Sample four sites
-Sample multiple aquifers
-Sample up and down gradient
Baseline monitoring within ½
mile:
-Sample four sites
-Sample multiple aquifers
-Sample up and down gradient
Conduct Subsequent
Monitoring
Must ensure no
significant
degradation of
water quality
Monitor at same locations 1, 3, and
6 years after well completion
Monitor at same locations 1, 3,
and 6 years after well completion
Soil Gas Monitoring Must ensure no
significant
degradation of
water quality
-Monitor soil gas within 90 days of
well completion
-Results may trigger additional
groundwater monitoring
-Monitor soil gas within 90 days
of well completion
-Results may trigger additional
groundwater monitoring
Natural Resources
Natural Resources
Protection
Must ensure no
significant
degradation
-Must be set back 500 feet from a
waterbody, stream, wetland,
Natural Area or Park
-Compliance with all buffer
standards
-Cannot qualify if within 500 feet
of a waterbody, stream, wetland,
Natural Area or Park
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -7- ITEM 26
Regulation
Option A Option B
Standard Review Expedited Review
Noise Use an acoustically insulated cover to enclose the motor or engine
All production equipment used shall comply with the noise levels in our Municipal Code
in residential zones
Reciprocal setbacks – applies to future residential development proposals in proximity of oil and gas
operations
Abandoned and
plugged wells
Setback ranges from 20-50 feet from the abandoned and plugged well, based on
screening, berming, and fencing options
Any oil and gas well
that has not been
plugged and
abandoned
Setback ranges from 150-250 feet from all other wells, based on screening, berming
and fencing options
From a safety perspective, the minimum setback should never be less than 150’
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Adoption of the Land Use Code regulations, in either Option A or Option B will require interdisciplinary oversight in the
development review process beyond the typical development review process. For example, additional staff time from
representatives from Environmental Sustainability and Utilities will be required to evaluate the air and water quality
elements of any proposed oil and gas operation.
If Council indicates staff should continue to pursue the non-regulatory options, e.g., the Local Government Designee,
Intergovernmental Agreements for inspection authority, etc., then the financial requirements from the City will increase.
Funds for these efforts have been allocated through the 2013-2014 Budget (Offer 197.2 Oil and Gas Liaison).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
While the proposed Land Use Code regulations are designed to protect the City’s quality of life, sense of place, and
public health, oil and gas drilling within the city still could have significant impacts on air quality and water quality, and
there is also concern about the increased risk of spills and releases of hazardous materials due to an increase in use,
storage and transportation of such materials. In addition, there are high volumes of truck and heavy equipment
associated with oil fields.
In addition to these impacts, well pads and service roads are fragmenting wildlife habitat, on a massive scale in
northeastern Colorado and in other communities throughout the western United States. The City’s Natural Areas, both
within and outside of the City, are threatened by this fragmentation. While there is conflicting technical information
regarding air and water quality threats, there is little doubt that oil and gas drilling would negatively affect the
environment in the community and does not support the City’s goals for sustainability.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff presents the following options to the Council for consideration:
Option A: Dual-track development review process
This option includes both expedited and standard review.
• The expedited review track requires operators to meet specific, objective criteria and agree to increased
setbacks, e.g., 500 feet from an occupied structure, water body, natural area, or City park and 150 feet from
any property line. By electing to meet these more prescriptive standards, a public hearing and neighborhood
meeting are not required. Instead, notification is provided when an application is received, and if an
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -8- ITEM 26
application is approved. Written comments can be submitted to the Director during the review process. The
Director has the final decision-making authority.
• The standard review track requires the operator to locate a well and operate in a manner that does not
significant degrade our quality of life. All standard review applications are subject to a neighborhood meeting
and a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. All Board decisions are appealable to the City
Council.
Option B: Single-track development review process
This option combines the prescriptive criteria in the expedited review track with the standard review process. Under
this option, all development review applications would be processed under a single review track and be required to
meet the same criteria. All decisions would be made by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Option C: Moratorium
Local governments have considered the use of moratoriums to prevent new oil and gas operations within their
jurisdictions, citing the need to craft and adopt local land use regulations and/or to allow the state to address its
rulemaking process as it relates to setbacks and water quality regulations.
Current State Efforts Related to Oil and Gas regulation
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is currently addressing its rules by considering amendments to
water sampling and monitoring as well as addressing well setbacks and noise. The City secured Party Status for both
rulemaking hearings, making Fort Collins the only city with such status and providing the City with an opportunity to
submit comments on the state’s proposals, recommend alternatives, and a greater length of time to speak before the
Commission.
The state is reviewing its existing setback rules. New rules are anticipated to be in place early in 2013. Setbacks for
new wells from existing homes are an important consideration for several reasons – there is uncertainty about
emissions from well sites and the process of drilling and maintaining a well site could cause noise, traffic and light
impacts. The current setbacks for new wells are 150 feet from an occupied structure, 350 feet from a high density area
and 500 feet from some structures like hospitals, schools, and nursing homes. Many groups recommend increasing
the state setbacks from homes to 1,000 or even 2,000 feet. The City of Fort Collins will seek additional setback
distance, greater powers for residents in influencing site location proposals, and protection for community assets like
natural areas and parks.
Water quality is another area that the Commission is currently addressing. The proposal under consideration adopts
an industry-sponsored voluntary program and makes that program mandatory. Under the program, baseline
groundwater quality samples will be collected from two existing groundwater features, such as permitted and registered
groundwater wells or groundwater seeps and springs, which are located within 1/2 mile of the surface location of new
oil and gas well pads, or additional wells on existing well pads. These samples will be collected before drilling begins.
A second sample will be collected from each groundwater feature within one to three years after drilling is completed.
If the state’s rules on water quality monitoring are amended, the City may also need to modify proposed Land Use
Code regulations as presented in Option A or B or in development submittal requirements.
Staff also requests direction on suggested state, regional, and “other” local options, including:
• Engage in stakeholder processes
• Continue with Local Government Designee
• Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the State for inspection authority
• Pursue an intergovernmental agreement with the County for the GMA
• Advocate for more legislative change
• Consider entering into an operator agreement with the producer of the Fort Collins Field
• Develop a “model” surface use agreement that can be used for any city-owned lands
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -9- ITEM 26
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
City staff presented the proposed Land Use Code regulations and associated non-regulatory options to numerous City
boards and commissions.
Formal recommendations were made by the Water Board (8-1), the Natural Resources Advisory Board (6-1), and the
Air Quality Advisory Board (7-0) to support the Standard (Type II) and Expedited (Basic Development Review)
processes and associated regulations.
The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted 6-0 to support the use of standard review when considering
applications on City-owned Natural Areas. The Board further recommended a six month temporary moratorium on new
oil and gas applications to provide staff with additional time to develop additional options.
While the Air Quality Advisory Board indicated support for the Standard and Expedited review, the Board also
expressed additional non-regulatory options that staff should pursue. These recommendations are included in
Attachment 14.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A multidisciplinary City staff team worked to develop an understanding of the oil and gas industry, community concerns
related to industry practices, and the statewide regulatory processes in place. This group researched industry
exploration and extraction practices, working closely with peer municipalities throughout the Front Range to identify
and incorporate the best practices of other Colorado municipalities into local regulation of the industry. The research
process included local focus group meetings, formation of an Oil and Gas Advisory Committee that included
representatives from eight City boards and commissions, talking with state experts and meetings with Colorado State
University professors and researchers, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission staff, and the local oil and
gas operators.
The Oil and Gas Advisory Committee was created to gather input from a diverse group of boards and commissions.
The group met three times as public meetings and provided input to staff on draft regulations. The Committee included
self-selected representatives from eight City boards and commissions, including the Air Quality Advisory Board,
Economic Advisory Commission, Energy Board, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, Natural Resources
Advisory Board, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and Water Board.
Staff conducted meetings with small groups of interested citizens. Residents of the Hearthfire subdivision met with
staff and continued to communicate over the course of the project. Outreach included a focus group with
representatives of local environmental groups before and after the development of draft regulations. Staff met with
Don’t Frack the Fort, a group generated by mutual concern over hydraulic fracturing in the community, four times.
Staff attended numerous public meetings on the subject of oil and gas development hosted by other groups.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Maps associated with Oil and Gas activity
2. Council Work Session Summary, August 14, 2012
3. Matrix comparing best practices of communities
4. Oil and Gas Manual*
5. Oil and Gas Development Review Guide*
6. Advisory Group Summary
7. Letter to Larimer County
8. Public Comments
9. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, November 1, 2012
10. Water Board minutes, October 18, 2012
11. Water Board memo re: proposed Land Use Code regulations
12. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, October 10, 2012
13. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, November 14, 2012
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
December 4, 2012 -10- ITEM 26
14. Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, October 17, 2012
15. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, October 15, 2012
16. Air Quality Advisory Board minutes, November 19, 2012
17. Powerpoint Presentation
(*NOTE: Attachment 4, Oil and Gas Manual, and Attachment 5, Oil and Gas Development Review Guide, are
draft documents and only illustrate Option A, the dual-track review process. If Option B is adopted by Council,
the documents will be revised accordingly.)
ATTACHMENT 2
1
1
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145,
2012, Establishing a Moratorium on Oil
and Gas Extraction
Laurie Kadrich, Director, Community Development &
Neighborhood Services
Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager
City Council Hearing
December 18, 2012
2
Moratorium Summary
• First Reading adopted December 4, 2012
• 6-month duration; 12-28-12 to 6-30-13
• Within the City;
– Or on City-owned Parks and Natural Areas
Purpose to study impacts, gather new information
• New rules: Colorado Oil and Gas Commission
• Changes and/or amendments to Land Use Code
ATTACHMENT 3
2
3
Current Efforts Oil & Gas Regulation
Colorado Oil and Gas Commission
• Topics:
– Water Sampling and Monitoring
– Well setbacks and noise
• Hearings scheduled; November, December and
January, 2013
• City has rule-making status
4
Summary of City Council rule-
making direction
• Council direction passed December 4, 2012
Notice and meeting required
1000’ setback from residential & further study
Local control to reduce setback
Industrial zoning or others
Prohibited in natural areas and parks
3
5
Recommendation
• Staff Recommends that City Council adopt
Ordinance No. 145, 2012 on 2nd Reading
ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OR
PROCESSING OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS, PERMIT APPLICATIONS,
AND OTHER APPLICATIONS SEEKING APPROVAL TO CONDUCT
OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION OR RELATED OPERATIONS
WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the oil and gas industry is important to the
Fort Collins community, and also recognizes the important of minimizing, through appropriate
regulation, the adverse impacts that oil and gas exploration and extraction or any other industry
may have on the health, safety, and welfare of the City and its citizens; and
WHEREAS, there has been growing interest in the exploration of oil and gas resources
underlying portions of the City, including property owned by the City; and
WHEREAS, oil and gas exploration, extraction, production, transportation and related
operations and activities, including, without limitation, all those oil and gas activities regulated by
the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (collectively AOil and Gas Uses@) may
negatively impact Fort Collins citizens and the use and integrity of local water supplies and water
infrastructure, air quality, roads and transportation infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure, land
resources, wildlife and aesthetic values; and
WHEREAS, the health and safety issues presented by the exploration for and extraction of
liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon resources and related activities may not be adequately addressed
in the City's zoning and land use regulations and it is imperative that those regulations be reviewed
in light of current regulatory best management practices consistent with the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (ACommission@) Rules and with industry technologies to determine
whether they are sufficient to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, or whether different or
additional regulations are necessary to address the impacts of such activities; and
WHEREAS, if land use applications, permit applications, or any other applications for Oil
and Gas Uses are approved within the City limits before City staff and the City Council have an
opportunity to thoroughly examine the impact of such uses and take all steps necessary to protect
the public health, safety, and welfare, irreparable harm may be done to the residents of the City;
and
WHEREAS, municipalities throughout Colorado are struggling to address the potential
adverse impacts of proliferating Oil and Gas Uses in urban and suburban environments on their
citizens= health, safety, and welfare, and several municipalities have enacted moratoria to allow a
period of time to evaluate those impacts of Oil and Gas Uses in order to assess and determine the
appropriate local regulation of such; and
WHEREAS, although staff has, at the direction of City Council, been diligently
researching best practices in this area and has prepared proposed new regulations, additional
research and review are necessary in order for the City Manager and City Attorney and their
-2-
respective staffs to clarify the extent of the City=s legal authority with regard to local regulation of
such Oil and Gas Uses and to formulate any recommended amendments to the City Code to deal
with those uses in an appropriate manner; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is presently engaged in a rule making proceeding that may
result in new regulations being established; and
WHEREAS, in preparing its regulations, the City should consider such new rules as may
be promulgated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the imposition of a six seven-month moratorium on the submission,
acceptance, consideration, and approval of any and all applications for City licenses, permits and
other approvals related in any way to Oil and Gas Uses within the City, except on existing well
heads, will allow City staff and the City Council the time needed to further investigate the extent of
City=s authority to regulate such uses, to consider any new regulations adopted by the Commission,
and to develop and implement appropriate regulations; and
WHEREAS, six seven months is a reasonable period of time and is no longer than
necessary for the City to determine the extent to which Oil and Gas Uses may be locally regulated
and to properly investigate, develop, and, if appropriate, adopt and implement any local
regulations related to Oil and Gas Uses in Fort Collins in order to protect and preserve the public=s
health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, existing Oil and Gas Uses in Fort Collins will not be unduly prejudiced by the
imposition of such a moratorium, since the ongoing operation of such uses will not be prohibited
or terminated by this moratorium; and
WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-25-216 provides that the City has “full
police power and jurisdiction and full municipal control and full power and authority” to manage,
control, and improve and maintain any parks acquired by the City outside of the City’s municipal
limits; and
WHEREAS, the City’s natural areas that are open to the public fall within the purview of
Section 31-25-216 C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the City Council has further determined that this moratorium
should apply to all City-owned parks and natural areas outside of the City limits.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the preceding recitals contained in this Ordinance are hereby adopted
and incorporated by reference as findings of fact of the City Council.
-3-
Section 2. That the City Council further hereby finds as follows:
a. That the submittal of land use applications, permit applications, or
applications requesting approval to conduct oil and gas exploration, extraction, and related
operations and activities within the City limits may be imminent, and that the City=s existing
regulations in this area do not adequately take into consideration current industry technologies so
as to properly mitigate the impacts of these types of activities, to protect and preserve the public
health, safety, and welfare.
b. That a six seven-month moratorium on the acceptance or processing of any
land use application, permit applications, or any other application requesting approval to conduct
oil and gas exploration, extraction, and related operations and activities within the City limits, is
necessary and reasonable for the purpose of studying the impacts of these types of uses and new
rules expected to be promulgated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and
determining whether additional land use and zoning regulations are necessary to protect and
preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.
Section 3. That, to address this situation, there is hereby imposed, as of midnight
December 28, 2012, a moratorium on the acceptance or processing of any land use application,
permit application, or any other application requesting approval to conduct an Oil and Gas Use
within the City limits and within any City-owned parks or natural areas outside of the City limits
that are open to the public; provided, however, that this moratorium shall not apply to applications
to conduct maintenance operations on oil and gas wells existing in the City as of December 4,
2012. This moratorium shall terminate as of midnight June 30 July 31, 2013, or on such earlier
date as may be established by the City Council by ordinance.upon the receipt by the City Council
of a recommendation from City staff and legislative action taken thereon by the City Council,
whichever shall first occur.
Section 4. That this Ordinance shall control over any conflicting ordinance of the City,
but only to the extent of the conflict.
Section 5. That if any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance
is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affecting the
validity or constitutionality of and shall be severable from the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each
part or parts hereof irrespective of the fact that any one part or parts may be declared
unconstitutional or invalid.
-4-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 4th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 18th day of December, A.D.
2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 18th day of December, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Karen McWilliams
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2012, Designating the Whitcomb Street Historic District as a Fort Collins
Landmark District, Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Whitcomb Street Historic District contains 14 properties, which, together, form a cohesive entity associated
historically, architecturally, and developmentally with the 100 block of South Whitcomb Street. The proposed district
is generally bound on the north by Mountain Avenue, on the south by Oak Street, and by alleys on the east and west
sides. It consists of the twelve properties that comprise the 100 Block of South Whitcomb Street and two properties
historically associated with the 100 Block of South Whitcomb Street, now addressed as 601 West Mountain Avenue
and 612 West Oak Street. The period of significance dates from the oldest construction in 1889, to 1940, when the
newest of the historic dwellings was built on the last subdivided lot, seventy-two years ago.
Owners of ten of the fourteen properties have consented in writing to establishment of the Whitcomb Street Historic
District, desiring to protect their investments from redevelopment activities and to become eligible for financial
programs available to historic properties. Owners of four properties are in opposition to the district, preferring to not
have additional restrictions placed on their properties, including review of exterior alterations or demolitions.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
At the April 11, 2012 Landmark Preservation Commission meeting, Mr. Kevin Murray formally submitted an application
for the Whitcomb Street Historic District, on behalf of himself and other property owners within the proposed district.
Subsequently, the Commission held hearings to consider the proposed district on August 8, 2012 and on October 10,
2012.
At its October 10, 2012 hearing, the Landmark Preservation Commission found that the area proposed for designation
forms a cohesive unit; that a large percentage of the primary historic resources within the district are contributing to
the district; that the district contains a preponderance of integrity, and that the district is historically and architecturally
significant to Fort Collins under all three Standards. The Commission voted 7-0 to adopt Resolution No. 3, 2012,
recommending that Council approve the designation of the Whitcomb Street Historic District as a Fort Collins
Landmark District.
All of the properties comprising the Whitcomb Street Historic District, with the exception of a new residence at 122
South Whitcomb Street, currently under construction, qualify for designation under Standards 1 and 2
(social/developmental history and significant people). Under Standard 3 (architecture), all of the properties qualify
except for 122 South Whitcomb and the dwelling at 113 South Whitcomb Street, significantly altered through a pop-up
addition circa 1994.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Recognition of the Whitcomb Street Historic District as a Fort Collins Landmark District enables owners of the thirteen
contributing properties to qualify for federal, state and local incentive programs available only to designated properties.
Additionally, based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, and the experience of the Sheely Drive Historic
Landmark District, it is likely that all property owners, including the owners of the new residence at 122 South
Whitcomb Street, would see an increase in property value following landmark district designation. Clarion Associates
attributed this increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that
designated properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark; and the assurance
of predictability that design review offers.
December 18, 2012 -2- ITEM 25
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its October 10, 2012 hearing, the Commission by a vote of 7-0, adopted Resolution No. 3, 2012, recommending
that Council designate the Whitcomb Street Historic District as a Fort Collins Landmark District.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff has held several meetings with owners of the Whitcomb Street District properties and interested citizens,
including two Neighborhood Meetings, on August 30, 2012 and October 8, 2012, and numerous individual and small
group meetings. Meetings were also hosted by Whitcomb Street property owners, including two attended by Historic
Preservation staff, on May 15, 2012, and in June, 2012. Additionally, an email list of all property owners and interested
citizens was maintained, and all were copied on pertinent emails and correspondence.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Landmark Preservation Commission Resolution No. 3, 2012
2. Nomination for Landmark District Designation of the Whitcomb Street Historic District
3. Staff Report, October 10, 2012
4. Memorandum from Sherry Albertson-Clark, CDNS Interim Planning Director, dated October 2, 2012
5. Letters presented to LPC at its October 10, 2012 Hearing
6. Letter of Support from Senator John Kefalas
7. “What is a Historic District?” Informational sheet prepared by Historic Preservation staff
8. Minutes of October 10, 2012 Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing
9. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
Revised 09-2004 Page 1
Fort Collins Landmark District Designation
LOCATION INFORMATION:
District Name: Whitcomb Street Historic District, consisting of the following properties:
105 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
108 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
112 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
113 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1 and 2)
117 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
118 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
121 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
122 South Whitcomb Street (Not Contributing)
125 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
126 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
129 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
130 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
601 West Mountain Avenue (Individually Designated Fort Collins Landmark, and Contributing
to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
612 West Oak Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
Legal Description: See attached Boundary Discription and Exhibits for the legal description of the
proposed district. The District includes all primary residences and secondary buildings located within the
described district boundary.
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
FORM PREPARED BY:
Name and Title: Kevin Murray, Owner, Empire Surveys
Address: PO Box 245, Bellvue, Colorado 80512
Phone: (970) 493-3499 Email: empire@verinet.com
Relationship to Owner: Owner of 117 South Whitcomb Street
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
ATTACHMENT 2
Revised 09-2004 Page 2
TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES
Individual Landmark Property Landmark District
Explanation of Boundaries:
The boundaries of the area being proposed as the Whitcomb Street Historic District correspond to the
legal description attached to this document. This Fort Collins Landmark District will encompass fourteen
properties, which together form a cohesive unit historically, architecturally, and developmentally
associated with the 100 block of South Whitcomb Street. The proposed district is generally bound on the
north by Mountain Avenue, on the south by Oak Street, and by alleys on the east and west sides.
SIGNIFICANCE
Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort
Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation:
Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of history;
Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history;
Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Whitcomb Street Historic District is historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard
Number 1, for its association with the development and social history of Fort Collins. Research into the
property owners and tenants indicate that this block is particularly reflective of historic upper middle class
residential life in Fort Collins. Its association with prominent residents, such as County Commissioner
Aaron Kitchel, brothers Judge Horace I. Garbutt and Attorney Newton C. Garbutt, City Constable William
T. Shortridge, Representative Thomas J. Montgomery, and Deputy Assessor (later County Assessor)
Stewart C. Case, for whom Stewart Case Park is named for, makes the district significant under Fort
Collins Landmark Standard 2. Additionally, a prevalence of the residential dwellings within the district,
including the individually designated Queen Anne residence at 601 West Mountain Avenue, are
architecturally significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard 3.
The proposed landmark district provides a representative collection of Late 19
th
and Early 20
th
Century
one- and two-story residences and historic outbuildings, with a mix of Queen Anne, Craftsman and
Minimal Traditional architecture. The period of significance dates from the oldest construction, in 1889, to
the newest built in 1940 on the last subdivided lot. During this span of dates, especially between the
period from 1900 to 1930, the city experienced unparalleled growth and prosperity, which necessitated a
rapid expansion in land annexation and residential construction. The builders of the Whitcomb Street
residences designed these homes for upper middle class families. Many of these homes were inspired by
the high-style architectural details of adjacent houses on Mountain Avenue, but they understood that
modesty in size and style did not mean loss of comfort or individualistic details. The residents, too, as they
Revised 09-2004 Page 3
moved in and out of the neighborhood, perhaps also looked at those houses and aspired to a corresponding
higher socio-economic standard. The range of occupants is reflective of the social and demographic
changes during the first decades of the 20
th
century. Many of the early residents were locally prominent,
including Aaron Kitchel, Horace and Newton Garbutt, and Stewart C. Case, while later residents were a
mix of owners and renters who had a variety of occupations, such as salesmen, clerks, butchers,
mechanics, and students. The changes continue today, as most of the original homes have now been
restored to single-family, owner-occupied dwellings, prized once again for their historic character and
their proximity to the traditional center of the city. The proposed district is an important example of a
residential neighborhood in the core of Fort Collins that has evolved with the times, yet managed to retain,
nearly intact, its historic character.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The period between 1881 and 1909 was a time of significant growth for Fort Collins, with population
increases of 48.3% between 1880 and 1890, 51.8% between 1890 and 1900, and 168.9% between 1900
and 1910. Smart real estate investors saw the possibilities and rushed to plat new additions to the original
town site. One of these early annexations was the Loomis Addition of 1887, platted by pioneer
businessman Abner Loomis and his future second wife Malinda Maxwell. Bounded by Laporte avenue to
the north, Mulberry street to the south, Whitcomb street to the east, and Washington avenue to the west,
the 88-acre subdivision occupied a large area adjoining the western edge of the growing city. A significant
feature of the area is the Fort Collins Irrigation Canal, which curves through the east-central section of the
subdivision, crosses, and re-crosses Whitcomb Street at different points in its course. The Loomis
Addition was prime real estate, and sales agents of the time ran advertisements touting affordability and
easy payment terms. As an added incentive, potential buyers were promised the ultimate raffle prize of a
“$3,000 residence, with a full sized lot . . . . to purchasers of lots in the Loomis addition.” This
promotional house was located at 121 North Grant Street, and at the draw in May 1888, a newcomer from
Nebraska won the house (now down-graded to a value of $2,500) with all its modern conveniences. In
July 1887, the Fort Collins Courier reported that eighty lots had been sold since the beginning of June,
and by 1894, about fifteen houses dotted the northern and eastern edges of the addition.
The man who created the Loomis Addition was Abner Loomis, born December 17, 1829. His parents
moved the family from New York to Ohio in 1833, then to Iowa in 1840. Enticed by the gold rush in
California, young Loomis set out for the Pacific Coast in 1850 and remained there for the next decade. He
was one of many opportunists who relocated to Colorado during the Pike’s Peak excitement; he reached
the Rocky Mountains in early 1860, and moved again in June of that year to the Cache la Poudre valley.
Loomis, who prospected, freighted, farmed, and established a cattle ranch during the 1860s, was a
contemporary of Antoine Janis, and searched for gold in Colorado with Janis in the 1860s. Loomis made
enough at mining to buy land in Pleasant Valley, where he and his first wife Isabelle farmed and sold
surplus food to hungry – but distant – mining camps. He entered the cattle business in 1867, and became a
wealthy and successful rancher, eventually selling out in 1882 to concentrate his efforts on building up the
city of Fort Collins.
Loomis had become a Larimer County commissioner when the county was organized in 1864, and he held
that position for the next 11 years. An astute businessman, he was one of the founders of Poudre Valley
Bank, and became its president when W. C. Stover retired in 1894. Loomis held this position until his
sudden death in 1904 while in Denver taking a Turkish bath asthma cure. Loomis’ funeral was a day of
mourning in Fort Collins: the Fort Collins Weekly Courier reported that businesses all over town closed so
owners could pay homage, and no other funeral in Fort Collins had been attended by so many people. A
measure of Abner Loomis’ prominent position in city life is that not only did he have a subdivision named
Revised 09-2004 Page 4
after him, he also had a street. City streets running east-west typically bore names of trees or shrubs, while
streets running north-south bore names of prominent residents, including Whitcomb, Sherwood, Meldrum,
Howes, Mason, Remington, Matthews, Peterson, Whedbee, Smith, Stover, and Cowan. In the Loomis
subdivision, the trees and shrub streets remained the same, but the local names changed to those of
national significance: Lincoln, Grant and Washington. In 1900, Fort Collins City Council approved
Ordinance No. 3-1900 whereby Lincoln Avenue became Loomis avenue. This change may have been the
city’s solution to remove confusion with Lincoln Avenue on the east side of the city, but it may also have
been a gesture of respect for Loomis, the progressive pioneer and avid city booster.
Abner Loomis never lived in his subdivision, for his own substantial house was on desirable Remington
Street. Early advertisement campaigns suggest that the Loomis addition promoters had two sets of target
buyers: wealthy citizens or developers who could buy several lots for investment purposes, and
individuals seeking to build single houses on affordable land. While the 1887 advertisement for the
subdivision touted the area as the “Capitol Hill of Fort Collins,” the actual offer was more down to earth
and practical: “Lots will be offered cheap, and very easy payments.” Thus, wealthier citizens such as ex-
Alderman Peterman could buy many parcels and plan to “erect several cottages” on his properties, while
someone of more modest ambitions could buy a single lot, build a house on it, and either re-sell it or live
in it. The 100 block of South Whitcomb Street originally had 8 lots, and the building records for most of
them do not show who built or owned the houses and lots. However, the neighborhood -- at least in the
early years -- clearly had a mix of residents ranging from prominent men such as Commissioner Aaron
Kitchel (601 West Mountain), Judge Horace I. Garbutt (121 South Whitcomb) and Deputy Assessor (later
County Assessor) Stewart C. Case (117 South Whitcomb), to insurance agent F. A. Isbell (125 South
Whitcomb) and carpenter A. R. Klure and his milliner wife Ella (130 South Whitcomb). The presence of
local notables may have attracted other minor dignitaries to the street: Attorney Newton C. Garbutt
apparently lived next door to his brother the judge at 125 South Whitcomb; City Constable William T.
Shortridge owned and occupied 117 South Whitcomb briefly, before selling the “pretty brick cottage” to
Stewart C. Case; Representative Thomas J. Montgomery lived at 129 South Whitcomb until his wife
Helen’s suicide in 1904.
The 100 block of South Whitcomb housed respectable middle-class people in neat, stylistically
contemporary homes. Although the model house at 121 N. Grant had a value of $2,500 to $3,000, the
buildings on Whitcomb were smaller and more modest. Sidney J. Milligan, a prolific contractor during
the first years of the 1900s, built many frame and brick houses throughout the growing city, including 129
S. Whitcomb. Many houses Milligan built between 1902 and 1906 were 4 room frame cottages that cost
around $800, but he also built bigger 5 to 6 room houses with an average cost of around $1,300. The one
house that seems to have been an anomaly for him was the $3,500 “modern 10 room brick residence” he
built for Mr. and Mrs. S. Batterson at 402 East Oak, with a $700 brick barn on the property. 129 South
Whitcomb was one of Milligan’s $900 5-room frame cottages, and is representative of other dwellings on
the block. They were comfortable homes with abundant character and detailing with individualistic
touches inspired, perhaps, by grander houses on Mountain Avenue.
The notable citizens that originally occupied the block largely moved out during the first decade of the
20
th
century, and the block settled into a rhythm of family occupancy – some new owners, many more
renters – moving in and out at regular intervals. Also, the reconfiguration and subdivision of the original
large eight lots began early: the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of 1906 show secondary structures at 118 ½
South Whitcomb and 122 ½ South Whitcomb, and later (sometime during the 1910s) 113 South
Whitcomb was carved from the west end of the lot belonging to 601 West Mountain. The period between
1900 and 1910 saw Fort Collins population grow from 3,053 to 8,210, so perhaps the owners of the
Mountain Avenue property thought the demand for housing would continue. However, the city population
grew by just 545 people between 1910 and 1920, and there were no new annexations that decade; by
Revised 09-2004 Page 5
1918, both 118½ and 122½ South Whitcomb were gone. The 1920s were a growth period again, with
some “oil boom” years due to the establishment of Fort Collins and Wellington oil fields. The city added
twelve new subdivisions, and on the 100 block of South Whitcomb, property owners subdivided their own
lots. The owner of 601 West Mountain sold off another piece of the western end of the property, and it
became 105 South Whitcomb. Similarly, 112 South Whitcomb came out of the west side of 529 West
Mountain avenue, 612 West Oak was created from the north end of 129 South Whitcomb, and 520 West
Oak was carved from 130 South Whitcomb. The last subdivision on the 100 block took place around
1940, with 108 South Whitcomb built on another west side piece of 529 West Mountain. Many houses
have undergone additions and remodels, with most retaining their original character; one original house
(122 South Whitcomb) was demolished in the spring of 2012 and its site awaits construction of a new
residence. Today, after a period when many of the houses were rentals with high tenant turnovers, most of
the homes are now owner-occupied.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
The district contains houses that average middle class citizens would have lived in during the early 20
th
century in Fort Collins. These are not vernacular houses but planned structures with distinctive and careful
architectural styling. Stylistic details such as the decorative brickwork, windows, and imbricated shingles
show inspiration taken from the houses on Mountain Avenue, directly to the north of the Whitcomb
neighborhood.
The predominant architectural style is the Queen Anne, which was very popular between 1880 and 1910.
In Colorado neighborhoods these houses varied wildly from the very modest to the highly ornate. The
typical Queen Anne structure has a steeply-pitched hipped roof with one or more lower cross gables, at
least one of which is front-facing and one that is side-facing. Instead of the classic spindle work or
patterned masonry in the front-facing gable, the houses on the 100 block of South Whitcomb have
patterned imbricate shingles as decoration. The houses also have differing wall textures, a hallmark of the
style, and partial or entry-only one-story porches. Final elements include simple window and door
surrounds and dormers.
The oldest homes in the Whitcomb district are the Queen Anne houses, and they all have significant
character defining features that differ from house to house. The brick Queen Anne houses are 117, 121,
125, and 129 South Whitcomb, and 601 West Mountain on the northwest corner of the designation area.
Two of the brick homes (129 & 125) are covered with wood siding at present. Across the street on the east
side are three wood frame Queen Anne homes at 118, 126, and 130 (122 has been demolished, but was
also a similar frame Queen Anne style building). These houses share various combinations of the
following architectural elements:
Decorative brickwork
Sandstone foundation or sills
Hipped roof with lower cross gables
Multiple chimneys
Arched windows and/or paired windows
Imbricated shingles
The craftsmanship and distinctive patterns of the imbricated shingles and windows provide plentiful
variation, and help give each house its own unique character. Although the four brick and four frame
Queen Anne homes appear similar with offset front doors, prominent living room windows, decorative
upper windows, and 12/12 pitched roofs, each also has differences that define space and line, such as an
Revised 09-2004 Page 6
extended living room on one, or a lowered or raised roof line on another that shrank a room or allowed an
upstairs apartment.
Other residences on the block are constructed in the Craftsman Bungalow architectural style. The design
of the Craftsman home stressed comfort and utility, with the use of natural materials, open floor plans, and
bands of windows to take advantage of natural light. Craftsman homes were not elaborate or heavily
decorated but rather well adapted to the families that lived in them. Open living rooms with a fireplace
were common and made casual living easy. Typically, they were one or two story homes featuring low
gabled roofs (single or double gabled) with deeply shaded porches. Occasionally, art glass and beveled
glass was featured in select windows and doors.
In Colorado, this style commonly features:
Exposed rafter ends
Clipped gables
Knee brace at eaves
Half timbering
Large porch columns
Overhang eaves
A third type of residence on the block is the Minimal Traditional. Based loosely on the Tudor Revival
style that was popular during the 1920s and 30s, these simple homes were built in large numbers
immediately preceding and following World War II. They were economical choices for large tract-
housing developments and represent a transition from the established construction periods of the
Bungalow style and period cottage forms to early ranch homes. Characteristically, in this style, the narrow
deep footprint of the bungalow was transformed to a square, boxy plan with small rooms situated around a
core.
According to the Colorado Office of Historic Preservation and Archaeology, the Minimal Traditional style
is a relatively small, one-story building often with a predominant front facing gable section or gabled
covered entry, echoing Tudor features. Rather than the steeply pitched roof of its Tudor predecessor, the
Minimal Traditional roof pitch was low or intermediate with closed eaves and rake. A hallmark of the
style is the simplified façade featuring few architectural details other than decorative shutters. Typical wall
materials include cementitious and fiber shingles in an assortment of colors, brick (usually striated), wood,
or metal siding, typically a replacement material.
Some of the houses on the 100 block of South Whitcomb Street have been altered or modified over the
years. These modifications are usually limited to porch enclosures, rear additions, window alterations, and
dormer additions. As a whole, the alterations do not detract from the historic integrity of the individual
residences, nor the group as a district. The set of four brick Queen Anne homes all had dormer windows
that gave the illusion of a second floor, although they were in fact only attic spaces. Over the years, all
four attics have been remodeled into actual living spaces; the last remodel was in 2002 at 117 South
Whitcomb. All frame Queen Anne houses also had similar dormers, and they too have been remodeled
into living spaces. (See individual building descriptions for details).
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT INFORMATION
The 100 block of South Whitcomb Street lies between West Mountain Avenue to the north and West Oak
Street to the south. To the west is South Loomis Avenue and to the east is South Sherwood Street. South
Whitcomb Street is approximately 100 feet wide, typical of many early streets that were designed to
accommodate the wide turning radius of horse-drawn carriages. The physical street is bordered by curbs,
grassy mediums with trees or bushes, and four to five feet wide sidewalks. Abner Loomis must have
decided that north-south sidewalks did not need to be as wide as they had been, probably because they
Revised 09-2004 Page 7
were “feeder” sidewalks to the major east-west sidewalks that went downtown, or to the cemetery.
Because of this, the sidewalks on the west side of Whitcomb (in the new addition) were only four feet
wide, while the sidewalks on the east side (part of the original town plat) were five feet wide.
Additionally, the city blocks encompassing the 100 Whitcomb Street addresses have unpaved alleys. On
the east side of the 100 block, an alley runs north-south behind the lots. Another alley runs east-west,
between 113 South Whitcomb and 117 South Whitcomb, and is bisected by a north-south alley from West
Oak Street that runs behind the lots on the west side of Whitcomb.
Lots in the south portion of the block are approximately 50 feet wide and vary in length from 100 feet to
190 feet. Structures in the north section of the district are situated on irregularly shaped lots. The narrow
but deep lots of the 100 block allow for many facades in a small area with plenty of space behind each
house. Few properties have enclosed front yards, but many have privacy fences surrounding back or side
yards. All of the houses have front porches or porticos, with the exception of 129 South Whitcomb and
112 South Whitcomb, which simply have front stoops with roof covers. The houses follow a similar
setback from the street, which creates a pleasing uniformity. Similar house heights in the south section
also add to the visual rhythm. While the houses to the north of the district do not match in form, style, or
material, the street nevertheless has a pleasant, unifying feel and appearance, while maintaining individual
character and historic integrity.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. Pages 263 – 287.
Amick, Denise. Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form: Park Street Historic Neighborhood.
July 8, 2009.
Fort Collins Building Permit Files. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/
Fort Collins Building Record Files. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/
The Fort Collins Express, p 1, January 1, 1888, “Two residences in the Loomis addition.”
Fort Collins City Directories. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/
Historic Photographs. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/
405 Remington Street, H11696, black and white photograph of the Abner Loomis House located at 405
Remington Street being destroyed, April 26, 1980
Fort Collins Population Trends, 1880-2000. Fort Collins History Connection: An Online Collaboration of
the Fort Collins Museum and the Poudre River Public Library District. 2009. 9 July 2012.
<http://history.fcgov.com/archive/cityhistory.php>
Colorado Historic Newspaper Collection:
Fort Collins Courier, page 8, February 9, 1888
Fort Collins Courier, page 2, Thursday, June 1, 1893
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 5, May 26, 1887
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 1, June 2, 1887
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 1, July 28, 1887
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 1, May 17, 1888
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 2, May 31, 1900
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 3, January 2, 1902, “Fort Collins’ Splendid Building Record”
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 9, April 2, 1902
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 5, June 25, 1902
Revised 09-2004 Page 8
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 8, July 16, 1902
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 8, November 26, 1902
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 8, February 18, 1903
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 8, June 10, 1903
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 5, June 17, 1903
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 8, February 24, 1904
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 7, March 16, 1904
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 12, April 27, 1904
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 1, August 24, 1904, “Fort Collins in Mourning.”
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 4, Wednesday, August 31, 1904, “Revered in Life, Lamented in
Death.”
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 9, September 7, 1904
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 1, January 4, 1905, “New Homes for New People”
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, page 3, October 22, 1906, “Supreme Necessity of Experience in the
County Assessor’s Office.”
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, pages 1, 3, December 27, 1905, “A Seson of Great Prosperity for Fort
Collins Home Builders”
Cress, Dudley, Fort Collins Coloradoan, February 19, 1963, “Street Names Recall Early History.”
Colorado OAHP, Minimal Traditional, http://www.historycolorado.org/oahp/minimal-traditional
Fort Collins Time Line Pre-1860; Fort Collins Detailed Time Lines
Queen Anne, Styles, Colorado’s Historic Architecture & Engineering – Web Guide, History Colorado:
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/colorados-historic-architecture-engineering-web-guide
The Railroad Era, Colorado Agricultural College, and the Growth of the City, 1877-1900; Fort Collins
History and Architecture; Historic Contexts
Sanborn Map Company, Fort Collins, Larimer Co., Colorado, Sheet 6 [map], 50 ft to an inch. New York:
Sanborn Map Company, 1906. From the University of Colorado Boulder Libraries, University of
Colorado Digital Library, Building Colorado Story by Story: The Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
Collection. http://libcudl.colorado.edu:8180/luna/servlet/UCBOULDERCB1~21~21
Revised 09-2004 Page 9
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 105 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: SOUTH 25 FEET OF NORTH 105 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 270,
LOOMIS, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Crow Residence and garage
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Daniel Chester Lane Trust
Phone: (970) 407-1093 Email:
Address: 301 South Loomis
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The residence at 105 South Whitcomb first appeared in city directories in 1922, with student Homer R.
Crow, his wife Marvela, and another student named Frank C. Berry. The couple stayed until 1925 when
they moved to 705 Stover. Lloyd Regal, a stockman, and his wife Jennie moved in that same year.
Soloman Deines and his wife Lydia replaced the Regals in 1927, and in 1929, Ivan Johnson moved in with
his wife Grace. Mr. Johnson was a baker at the well-known Damm's Bakery, located in the Colorado
Building at 133 South College Avenue. In 1931, the Johnsons moved to 427 Canon Avenue and Mrs.
Grace E. Kennedy moved into the house. Widow of Charles Kennedy, Grace was a saleswoman for JC
Penney. Mrs. Kennedy moved to 130 West Laurel in 1933 and was replaced by Lucille H. Hankins, an
operator for Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Company. Three years later Ervin W. Stewart, a
mechanic for Andrews Auto Company, moved in with his wife Ruby. When the Stewarts moved to 417
West Myrtle in 1938, the Harts moved in to the house and became the longest residents to date. Thomas, a
deliveryman for Ricker Brothers, secured a permit from the city to enclose the front porch. In 1948,
Colorado A & M student Millard W. Ickes and wife Ivy were the owners, and they lived at the house with
three children. Otis Kilgore, a butcher at Fletcher’s market, moved into the house in 1952 with his wife
Elizabeth. Mr. Kilgore was listed as owner of 304 Park as well. New residents appeared again in 1954,
as John Q. Munro, a drilling crewmember for General Geophysical Company, moved in with wife
Revised 09-2004 Page 10
Marjorie and child. Two students replaced the Munros in 1956: Lourie G. and wife Jane W. Gaschke.
Just one year later William Lajaie, an agent with Rio Grande National Life Insurance, moved in with his
wife Doreen and their child. In 1959, Mrs. Alva G. Keithly took over ownership. Clara was a widow, and
stayed in the house until 1964, when city directories listed Goldie Waterhouse as the resident. Harry
Waterhouse was listed in 1966; this may represent a relation or may be a misprint. In 1968, John Janis
appeared, and then the house was vacant until 1976 when Dawna Fellows and Muriel Lewis moved in.
The next year Dawna Fellows moved to 324 Park and Pam Moore moved into the house. A year after that,
Emily Baker took over residence at 105 South Whitcomb, but was replaced by James Conley in 1979.
The house remained a rental but was owned by a Conley until 2011, when the current owner bought the
house.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1921
Architect/Builder: L. O. Bement
Building Materials: Wood Frame
Architectural Style: Bungalow
Description:
Constructed in 1921, this Craftsman Bungalow is a rectangular, one-story, front-gabled wood frame
building clad in white asbestos shingles, and sits on a concrete foundation. Roof features include wide,
overhanging eaves, exposed rafter ends, and sheet asphalt designed to look like individual shingles. A
brick interior chimney is located on the gable ridge. The primary (east) elevation features two triangular
knee braces, one on each end of the main gable. The primary elevation is broken into three bays and
contains a central entrance. The one-story, enclosed porch has a moderately pitched front gabled roof
mimicking the main gable, and has six craftsman-style multi-light windows on either side of the front
door. These windows feature three small lights over two tall lights, all vertical, and the middle window of
each set of three is a casement window, with the other two fixed. The north and south sides of the porch
contain windows identical in size, function, and number to those on the east. Two double-hung windows
flank the central door, which has three narrow, vertical lights in the upper half as well as a metal storm
door. A narrow concrete path ends in two concrete steps up to the porch.
The north elevation features two one-over-one double-hung windows with screens. The south elevation
has three distinct windows. From east to west, the first window is one-over-one double-hung, similar to
those on the north side, the second is a three vertical light hopper window, and the third is a single pane
fixed rectangular window. The rear (west) elevation features decorative triangular knee brackets identical
in appearance and location as those on the east elevation. The three windows are a four-by-four sliding
bathroom window, a three light vertical hopper, and a rectangular, single-pane fixed window.
A driveway on the north side of the house leads directly to a one-story, front gabled detached garage with
vertical wood plank barn doors. To the south, a three-foot, slatted-wood fence encloses a side yard and
attaches to the neighbor’s white picket fence. To the north is a short six-foot wooden privacy fence
connecting the house to the garage. The front lawn is grass with one large tree, and the perimeter
landscaping consists mainly of low shrubs and flowerbeds.
This 1921 house is characteristic of the Craftsman style and bungalow form, popular in Colorado between
1900 and 1930. Overlapping features of both the form and style are its front-gabled roof, wide eave
overhang, exposed rafter ends, and single story. Other Craftsman elements include the triangular knee
braces at eaves, distinct gabled porch roof, and divided upper window lights. Alterations include the porch
enclosure in 1938, cement basement in 1938, and a reroof in 2000. The front porch has gained historic
significance despite being an alteration due to its early construction. Overall, the house has maintained
good integrity and represents the simplicity of popular building forms appealing to the middle classes.
Revised 09-2004 Page 11
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form. November 2005. Recorders: Connie Barnett, Chris Case, Beryl Gabel
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. Building Permit Files.
11/5/1921; permit #864; owner: Bement, L. O.; permit for three-room frame bungalow
7/12/1938; permit #5356; owner: Hart, Thos M and Rachel; permit to enclose front porch
9/9/1938; permit #5451; owner: Hart, Thomas M.; permit for cement basement;
10/15/1990; permit #0901991; owner: Conley, Mike; contractor: Kahar Plumbing & Heating; permit to
install new water heater
12/08/2000; permit #B0017363; owner: Conley, Michael R; subcontractor: Atlas Roofing Systems; permit
to reroof
05/02/2011; permit #B1101841; owner: Trout, Sharon K; subcontractor: Benton Electric, LLC; permit for
service change (same amps)
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. City Directories.
1922 R. L. Polk Directory Co’s. Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory: p. 18: Berry Frank
C student
1956 Fort Collins (Colorado) City Directory, p. 45: Ganchke Lourie G (Jane W-student) student
1957 Fort Collins (Colorado) City Directory, p. 98: Lajoie William (Doreen C) agt Rio Grande Natl Life Ins
Fort Collins History and Architecture: Post World War I Urban Growth, 1919-1941
“The number of building contractors had expanded to thirty-six…Contractors included…L.O. Bement…”
History Colorado, "Architecture and Engineering Guides: Bungalow." Accessed June 14, 2012.
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/bungalow.
History Colorado, "Architecture and Engineering Guides: Craftsman." Accessed June 14, 2012.
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/craftsman.
Revised 09-2004 Page 12
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 108 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: SOUTH 10 FEET OF WEST 55 FEET LOT 5 & WEST 75 FEET OF NORTH 1/2
LOT 6, BLOCK 71, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Walsh Residence and garage
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Veronica and Jason Lim
Phone: (970) 377-0642 Email: vlim@earthlink.net
Address: 108 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Teach Piano/
Accordion lessons
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The lot for 108 South Whitcomb was carved from a lot on Mountain Avenue. The home was historically
occupied by middle-class families and individuals. The earliest record of residence in this home is that of
Kenneth Walsh and his wife Eva in the 1948 Fort Collins City Directory. Kenneth and Eva were important
members of the community and owned the "Palace Grocery and Market." Kenneth and Eva Bell
contracted the Deines Brothers to build the house in 1940. The pair resided at this address until at least
1966, during which time one of their mothers lived with them in the south bedroom. Kenneth was drafted
during World War II and was present at the Battle of the Bulge. After the war, he served as a butcher at
Steele’s Market on Mountain Avenue. Eva Bell worked at Gas Public Service of Colorado on Mountain
Avenue, where the Rio Grande Restaurant is now located. Eva Bell turned 100 on May 8
th
, 2012 and still
resides in Fort Collins at The Sterling House at Lemay Ave and Harmony. A widow named Grace Fortune
resided with the Walsh’s between 1952 and 1960. From 1968 to at least 1979, Arnold, an equipment
salesman, and Lucille Groth lived in the house. In 1980, the house was not listed in the city directories and
for the years following, the house saw a high turnover of occupants. In 1981 and 1982, Christopher and
Judy Mills were listed as occupants. From 1984 until 1988, a building contractor named Robert Moore
lived in the house. In 1989, David, a CSU employee, and Judy Ambrosich moved in and occupied the
house until at least 1992. The house was not listed in the 1992-93 city directories but was owned by Curtis
Gaddis Amason. The house was occupied by Paul Simpson from 1994 until1997. The house served as a
Revised 09-2004 Page 13
rental from 1999 through 2007. In 2008 the house was purchased by Veronica Lim, where she teaches
piano and accordion.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1940
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Wood Frame
Architectural Style: Tudor
Description:
This 1940 Minimal Traditional style residence is a rectangular, one-story, wood frame building with a
side-gabled roof covered in asphalt shingles. Roof features include a west-facing intersecting gable on the
south end. It has a concrete foundation and green cementitious shingle clad exterior. The primary
elevation is broken into five bays and contains an off-centered entrance to the south. The single-story,
portico style porch has three cement steps with iron railings on either side that lead to the front door. A
narrow concrete path leads from the sidewalk to the steps. Windows on the west elevation include one
large single pane picture window on the south side of the front door. This window shows markings of
replacing two double hung windows, in the same space. There is one pair of six-over-six double hung
windows adorning the other side of the entry and two smaller windows farther north of the entrance. The
interior ridge chimney is brick and located on the north side of the structure.
The south elevation contains three six-over-six double-hung windows and two one-by-one
basement windows with vertical panes. The east elevation has four six-over-six double-hung
windows, three one-by-one basement windows with vertical panes, and a patio with a 5’x 2’
escape window. It opens into the basement and is partially below ground, with a wooden
barrier built around the underground section. The 10’x 20’ cement patio has three iron posts
with scrollwork supporting the awning and covers about two-thirds of the east façade. The
north elevation has three six-over-six double-hung windows, a door with a single pane in the
upper half and wood storm door, and a small porch with three cement steps with an iron
railing on the east side leading to the door. There are 2’x 1’ rounded attic intake windows on
the north, west, and south elevations.
The garage measures 20’x 12’ and is situated to the northeast of the house, facing west,
accessed by a concrete driveway. Its exterior mimics that of the residence in both material
and color. It is one-story with an asphalt shingle, front-gabled roof and a large garage door
with twelve fixed panes in the upper half. There is extensive landscaping around the house aside
from the grassy front lawn, installed in 2008-09.
The Minimal Traditional style was popular immediately around the time of World War II as
an economical choice for families and a transition away from the bungalow to the ranch
home. The residence contains many elements typical of the form, including its single story,
small massing, and predominant front facing gable section with steep roof pitch and closed
eaves. Alterations include a reroof in 2001.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, November 2005, Recorders: R Koehler, R Morrow, L Westphal
History Colorado, "Architecture and Engineering Guides: Minimal Traditional." Accessed June 14, 2012.
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/minimal-traditional.
Revised 09-2004 Page 14
City of Fort Collins. http://citydocs.fcgov.com/?vid=2&cmd=search&scope=doctype&dt=PERMITS&dn=
Neighborhood+%26+Building+Services%2FZoning&q=108+WHITCOMB. Building Permits.
04/03/2001; permit #B0101672; owner: Amason, Curtis Gaddis, Jr.; contractor: Drennen Custom
Contracting; permit to reroof 9 squares
Revised 09-2004 Page 15
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 112 S South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: WEST 135 FEET OF SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 6, BLOCK 71, FORT
COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Lyons Residence and gargage
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: T. Scott Hickman
Phone: Email:
Address: 505 N. Big Spring Ste. 105
Midland, TX 79701
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The residence at 112 South Whitcomb first appears in two separate building permits on February 18,
1924. The first was a permit to build a four room frame house and the second to build a frame garage,
both listed under owner John W. Lyons. John was not listed after 1938, but Mrs. Inez Lyons still lived at
the residence and she filed a permit to reshingle the house on July 11, 1944. However, city directories
list L.R. and Helen Stewart at the residence in 1940. L.R. was a meat cutter at Wolfer Cahill Grocery. In
1952, Robert and Mabel Wright, both retirees, were listed as occupants. From 1954 to 1959, Mr. H.A.
McHone, another retiree, was listed at the residence with wife Beulah A. McHone. In 1960, Diana Lee
Deane, a student at CSU, was added as an occupant and the McHones were listed again in 1962. From
1970 to 1972, Beulah was listed as the only occupant. From 1975 onwards, the house was primarily
occupied by students. From 1990 to 1997, Elizabeth Johnson was listed as resident; she was also a co-
owner of the house. At the end of 2003, tenant Susan Ring received a home occupation permit for The
Animal Healer’s Quarterly, a professional office for art and writing in the production of a quarterly,
periodic journal. Another permit was filed on May 23, 2008 by Walter Hickman (Elizabeth (Libbie
Johnson) Hickman’s husband) to tear down the roof to the decking and reroof. Libbie (Johnson)
Hickman ran in long distance competition, in the Olympics, for the United States, in 2000. The current
owner is T Scott Hickman, Walter Hickman’s father, but the house serves as a rental. Libbie & Walter
now reside on Grant Street.
Revised 09-2004 Page 16
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1921
Architect/Builder: J. W. Lyons
Building Materials: Wood Frame
Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional
Description:
This early Minimal Traditional style residence is a rectangular, one-story, wood frame structure with an
asphalt shingle, side-gabled roof. Roof features include closed eaves and cornice returns on the gable
ends. It has a cement foundation and gray wooden horizontal siding. The primary elevation is broken
into three bays and contains an entrance on the north end. The front stoop has two cement steps and a
brick border that lead to a wooden front door and an aluminum screen door. Above the door is a hood
supported by brackets with a bracket console and triangular-filled gable with rounded arch. Windows
include two one-over-one. There are two chimneys: the first is a partially interior slope brick chimney
located on the west-facing slope on the northwest end of the house and partially exposed on the north
elevation, cutting through the roof. The second is an interior slope brick chimney, located on the east-
facing slope on the southeast end of the house.
The north elevation features two six pane windows, two basement windows, two six-over-one windows,
and one 2’x 3’ boarded-up window. The east elevation has two six-over-one windows. The south
elevation has two one-over-one windows, one six-over-one window, one nine pane window, and three
basement windows. This elevation also features one brown wooden door and an aluminum screen door.
The garage is located to the southeast of the residence, facing west, accessed by a cement driveway. It is
a single-story structure with an asphalt shingle, front-gabled roof and exposed rafter ends. There are two
wooden doors on the north side and one large garage door on the west side for vehicle access. There is
minimal landscaping, including a grassy front lawn and a flower bed on the southwest corner of the
residence.
The minimal traditional architectural style was popular immediately around the time of World War II as
an economical choice for families and a transition away from the bungalow to the ranch home. Common
elements of the style used at 112 South Whitcomb include its small massing, boxy appearance, single
story, rectangular plan, moderately pitched side-gabled roof, and closed eaves.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, November 2005, Recorders: R Koehler, R Morrow, L Westphal
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Building Permits.
2/18/1924; permit #270; owner: Lyons, J. W.; permit to build four-room frame house
2/18/1924; permit #274; owner: Lyons, J. W.; permit to build frame garage
7/11/1944; permit #7870; owner: Lyons, Mrs. J. W.; permit to reshingle
12/19/2003; Home Occupation permit; owner: Susan Ring, co-owner: Laura Inman; business name: The
Animal
Healer’s Quarterly (professional office for art/writing in production of a quarterly, periodic journal
5/23/2008; permit #B0803212; owner: Hickman, Walter; contractor: Affordable Roofing & Rmdl; permit
to tear down to decking and reroof
Revised 09-2004 Page 17
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. City Directories.
1959 Fort Collins Directory, page 117: McHone H. A. (Beulah A) retired
1960 Fort Collins Directory, page 71: Deane, Diana Lee studt CSU
1962 Fort Collins Directory, page 119: McHone H. A. (Beulah A) retired
History Colorado, "Architecture and Engineering Guides: Minimal Traditional." Accessed June 14, 2012.
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/minimal-traditional.
Revised 09-2004 Page 18
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 113 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: SOUTH 75 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 270, LOOMIS, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Jones Residence and garage
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Dylan and Catherine Rogers
Phone: Email:
Address: 113 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
This residence first appears in Fort Collins City Directories in 1902 under Amos and Della Jones, with
Amos teaching at Colorado Agricultural College. The directories list no one again until 1908 when
Thomas T. Brunton, a stone quarry worker, and his wife Gertrude are occupants. Directories list the next
new owner, Clara Van Slyke, in 1913, but she is soon replaced by the Remeles in 1917. In a 1909 issue
of the Fort Collins Weekly Courier, Mr. G. H. Remele of St. Paul was recognized for accepting a
position with the State Mercantile Company’s department store as a general salesman. The article
described him as an expert dry goods man, very pleasant to meet, and a fluent speaker of German,
Swedish, and other foreign languages. He later worked at Dodge Brothers Autos and Service Station.
Mrs. Elma Remele was highly active in the Fort Collins social scene, member of and sometimes hostess
to clubs such as the Semper Fidelis Club, the Golden Circle, and the Crepe Paper club. In addition to his
activities as a salesman, George was a member of the Commercial Club. In 1917, George and Elma were
living at 113 South Whitcomb and by 1919 they were residing at 222 Magnolia Street. Another two
years later, they had moved from Magnolia to 1121 West Mountain Avenue. W. B. Garrett is listed as
the owner on a permit to reshingle the house and add a new porch in June of 1925. Mr. Garrett was an
attendant at Northern Garage. He and his wife Allie were residents from 1919 until1948. During that
time, the house may have served as a rental. In 1929, William Tracy, the owner of 900 Elizabeth, was
listed as a resident. In 1936, both W.B. and Mrs. Catherine Stephens are listed. Just two years later,
Revised 09-2004 Page 19
W.B. is listed with George and Hazel Goldsberry. George was a salesman at Fort Collins Nash Motors,
and in 1940 he and his family moved to 616 West Olive. That same year, W.B. is listed with Dewey and
Delma Seaman. Dewey was a salesman at Pump Company and Delma was a clerk at the Meyer Store.
By 1948, Alex and Martha E Frank had moved to Whitcomb. He was listed either as a janitor or a
maintenance man at Colorado A&M and she was a food clerk at Safeway. The couple stayed until 1959
and then moved to 30 Circle Drive. Lloyd R. and Lulu B. Gillett replaced the Franks in 1960. Lloyd was
retired. In 1963, Mrs. Amelia Blehm took over ownership until 1979 when she took in two boarders,
Marlene Souders and her daughter Teresa. The next year Ardell and Merle Bush moved in, while
Marlene is listed as the owner of Ted’s Place at 6511 North US Highway 287. In 1981, Dan Briggs
moved in and took in boarder Jeff Olesen in 1985. Briggs is replaced by Susan J. Ferguson in 1986. In
1988, Susan sold the house to Kerry and Kirsten Howard. Kerry Howard was the building’s owner until
2005, during which time he replaced the furnace in 1991, added a full second story addition in 1994 with
three bedrooms, a full bath, and a family room, and installed a new air-conditioning unit in 2003. Sharon
Randazzo and Steve Skudler operated a musical CD production business from the home beginning in
2004. Current owner Dylan Rogers replaced the water heater in 2005, remodeled the kitchen in 2008,
and reroofed the garage in 2011.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1910 / remodel addition 1994
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Wood Frame
Architectural Style: Hipped roof box
Description: (Please include any special features of the property/surroundings, as well as dates and
descriptions of any additions or alterations to the buildings or structures.)
This Hipped-Roof Box style residence is a square, two story, wood frame building with a composition
shingle, hipped roof. Roof features include central intersecting gables on the west and east elevations,
two intersecting gables on the north and south elevations, and overhanging eaves. It has a concrete
foundation and is clad in horizontal vinyl siding. Historic photographs of the building show a central hip
chimney, but no evidence of the chimney remains. Each cross gable exhibits diamond-shaped imbricated
shingles of contrasting blue. The one story, full width enclosed porch matches the form of the historic
porch, evident in a 1925 photograph, with similar window and door placement but a hipped roofline
instead of a shed orientation. The single-light glass storm door is asymmetrically placed between seven
windows; the three to the south are casement windows of equal size and to the north are two smaller
casement windows and two casement windows identical to those to the south. There are three casement
windows on each side of the porch.
There are modern Palladian windows beneath four of the six cross gables, one on each elevation. Below
the window on the north elevation are two asymmetrically placed narrow casement windows,
approximately six feet tall. On the far west end of the north elevation is another slender casement
window two feet in height with a rectangular awning window just under the overhang of the second
story. Above these two windows is a small, square casement window under a small gable dormer. The
south side has three asymmetrically placed slender casement windows below the Palladian window: one
separate from the other two to the west, side by side. Farther to the west is a sliding one-by-one window
below a small cross gable and window identical to the north side. The west elevation features a one-by-
one window to the north of a slim half-light back door, both asymmetrically placed beneath the
Palladian window.
A narrow concrete path accesses the three concrete steps to the front porch. Flowerbeds surround the
porch foundation and one wooden trellis is located at each end of the porch. There is a three-foot white
picket fence connecting the north side of the house to the garage, extending east from the front of the
garage and north to the neighboring property. On the west property line is a six-foot slatted wood
Revised 09-2004 Page 20
privacy fence perpendicularly attached to the picket fence and running south to the alley and east to the
house, with a gate by the back door and shed. The privacy fence is situated next to the driveway of 609
West Mountain Avenue, creating a very small back and side yard for 113 South Whitcomb. Tall, thick
bushes run along side the south elevation and the alley and there are substantial trees in the front, side,
and back yards. The garage has a moderately-pitched, front-gabled roof with overhanging eaves and
exposed rafter ends and sits northwest of the house. It has asbestos shingles on the front (east) elevation
and horizontal plank wood on all other elevations. There is a small utility shed outside the rear door,
approximately eight feet tall and painted to match the residence and garage.
Due to extensive alterations to the original bungalow, the house retains no historical or architectural
significance. The house still exhibits its original floorplan and the front porch from 1925, but a recently
constructed second story diminishes most of the original one-story Craftsman Bungalow form.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Building Permits.
6/22/1925; permit #1134; owner: Garrett, W.B.; permit to reshingling house and new porch
10/11/1991; permit #0912776; owner: Howard, Kerry; contractor: Foothills Service; permit for furnace
replacement
2/21/1994; permit #0940495; owner: Howard, Kerry; permit for second story addition of 3 bedrooms full
bath and family room
09/12/2003; permit #B0306023; owner: Howard, Kerry Dana; subcontractor: Climatech Heating & A/C,
Inc.; permit to install AC
12/01/2004; Home Occupation License: Steve’s Musical Experience; owner: Sharon Randazzo and Steve
Skudler; business: producing musical CD’s
05/16/2005; permit #B0502280; owner: Dylan, Roger; permit to replace water heater
2/11/2008; building permit application #B0800798; owner: Dylan Eric Rogers; contractor: Sudbeck
Company Inc; subcontractor: Ray Electric, Northern Colorado Air, and Sudbeck Company.; permit to
remodel kitchen, adding approx 22 S.F. by adding a 2’ cantilever to south side of rear entryway. Moving
appliances and all new cabinets and finishes
03/21/2008; permit #B0800798 owner: Rogers, Dylan; contractor: Sudbeck Company; subcontractors:
Cleaver Electric, North Colorado Air; permit for kitchen remodel and addition of 22 sq ft to south side of
rear entryway
11/17/2008; letter of completion for building permit #B0800798: kitchen remodel & addition of 22 sq ft
(by adding 2’ cantilever) to south side of rear entryway install new cabinets and relocate appliances;
owner: Rogers, Dylan
10/14/2010; letter of completion for building permit #B1102614: tear off existing shingles to decking and
reroof garage only with Owens Corning Duration Shingles – 6 squares – provide required attic ventilation
– work performed by Duran Roofing; owner: Rogers, Dylan
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. City Directories.
1917 Courier’s Larimer County Directory, p 75: Remele, George H (Elma), slsmn
1919 Courier’s Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, p 18: 222 Magnolia, Remele G H
1948 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 54: Frank, Alex (Martha E) Janitor military Colo A&M
1950 Fort Collins City Directory, p 80: Frank, Alex (Martha-checker Safeway) jan Military Science Bldg
Colo A&M; Frank, James L.
1954 Fort Collins City Directory, p 49: Frank, Alex (Martha E-food clk Safeway) jan Colo A&M
1957 Fort Collins City Directory, p 74: Frank, Alex (Martha E clk Safeway) mtce Pub Sch
1959 Fort Collins City Directory, p 76: Frank, Alex (Martha clk Safeway) custdn Physical Plnt CSU
1960 Fort Collins City Directory, p 89: Gillett, Lloyd R (Lulu B) retired
1960 Fort Collins City Directory, p 84: Frank, Alex (Martha E checker Safeway) mtceman CSU, 30
Circle Dr.
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Historic Photographs.
Revised 09-2004 Page 21
Colorado Historic Newspaper Collection. http://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org.
“Mr. and Mrs. George Remele have moved from 222 West Magnolia to 1121 West Mountain.” Fort
Collins Courier, p 3, 09 23 1921.
“Mr. G.H. Remele of St. Paul…” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p 17, 05 12 1909.
“New Members Taken Into Commercial Club.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p 6, 04 12 1918.
Revised 09-2004 Page 22
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 117 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: LOT 12, BLOCK 270, LOOMIS, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Woods Residence and ancillary buildings
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Kevin and Suzanne Murray
Phone: (970) 484-6966 Email: kevinsuz@wildmail.com
Address: 117 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The Willits Map (1894) shows this house as one of four homes on the west side of South Whitcomb
street, although the first listing did not appear until the 1902 city directory with Frank T. Woods, of the
Larimer County Marketing Association, and his wife Rose. In April 1902, city constable William T.
Shortridge and his wife were in residence after renting out their home on Remington street. In June, the
Shortridges sold their house to chief deputy assesor Stewart C. Case. Two years later, F.K. Gifford and
his wife Maude were listed at the address. Mr. Gifford was a pastor for Unity Church and the couple
remained in the house until 1908. That same year William H. Randall, a member of the real estate
department of Northern Colorado Securities, moved in with his wife Florence. They only stayed one
year. In 1909, William H. and Amy Chipps moved into the house where they stayed until they relocated
to 1102 Mathews Street in 1917. That same year George E. Graham, a painter, moved into the residence
with his wife Mary. According to city directories, Graham retained ownership of the house until at least
1940, and by 1948 he is listed at 516 Mathews Street. George did some work on the front porch in 1925,
re-roofed the house in 1939, and is most likely the painter that moved his storefront from North College
Avenue onto the property. The other outbuildings were used for storage of the painter’s ladders and
other gear at this time, as told by an old employee to the Owner in 2002. During Graham’s stay, Harold
F. Bowen of Evans Bookstore is listed at the home in 1917 and George Graham is not. Two years later,
Mr. Graham appears again, and Mr. Bowen has moved to 9 Long Apartments with his wife Frances. In
1948, Guy M. Dedrick took over ownership. He and his wife Grace resided in the home with their four
Revised 09-2004 Page 23
children until at least 1957. Guy worked as a clerk at Steele's Cash Market then as a butcher for AJ
Market, while Gracie worked as a binder for Don-Art Printing. L. Verellen, a custodian at CSU, moved
in with his wife Clara in 1959. The 1975 directory lists Catherine E. Chismer along with the Verellens.
Catherine is absent in 1976, but is listed again in 1977 without the Verellens. In 1978 the house is listed
under Sara L. Bennett and N.M. Feddersen. In June of 1977, Caroline Urvater sold the home to Timothy
S & Janelle Allen. The next year Tim & Janelle Allen took up residence in the home and remained until
1981. In March 1981, Timothy & Janelle Allen turned the property over to Janelle Allen and her mother,
Elanor Wheat, of Trinidad, CO. Elanor Wheat then deeded the house to Janelle. The 1982 directory lists
Janelle Allen as residing. Kurt Tidmore of AM Project Management rented from Janelle Allen while
trying to purchase the house, and stayed until 1985 when David Swartz moved in for one year. The
house had two new tenants named Lane Dukart and Scott Sommers in 1987. Kevin Murray bought the
home from Janelle Allen in 1987. Kevin rented the home to different people till 1997, when he took up
residence. No one is listed again until Debbie Buchelle and David H. Collins in 1989 and they stayed
until 1991 when they are replaced by Wendy Sanem, one of three female renters. The 1993 directory
lists both W. Sanem and J. Anderson. Larimer County Assessor Property Information online lists Kevin
and Karen Murray on the deed to the house by that same year. In 2002, Mr. Murray remodeled the
home, retaining ownership to the present day. The house is now owned by Kevin & Suzanne Murray.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1894
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Brick, Stone, wood
Architectural Style: Queen Anne
Description:
This Queen Anne style residence is a central block plan with intersecting gable wing. It is a one and one
half story, wood frame structure with an asphalt shingle, hipped roof. Roof features include a tall central
hip and with two intersecting gable wings. It has a stone foundation and sandblasted, common-bond, red
brick exterior with patterned cream-colored shingles in the gables. The main façade is broken into two
bays and contains a northern entrance. The single story, partial-width and slightly inset porch is located
on the northeast corner of the house and is screened-in with textured wood shingle siding. The four
chimneys are brick: one ridge chimney on the central hip, one ridge chimney on the western gable
addition, one end chimney on the north elevation, and one end chimney of the south elevation. On each
of the end chimneys are decorative concrete corner pieces. To the south of the porch is an arched
window consisting of a single pane lunette over a single pane fixed window. A segmental pediment of
brick and concrete surrounds the window. Directly above the arched window is a 16-light fixed,
multicolored, stained glass window, framed in wood with corner blocks at its top corners. This window
was part of an older house and included in the original construction of the residence at 117 South
Whitcomb. Imbricated fishscale patterned wood shingles decorate the gable along with corner blocks at
the apex and ends. A skylight sits on the central hip.
The north elevation features a gable intersected by an end chimney, which was originally a windowless
dormer. This feature was changed in the 2002 remodel by increasing its height to match that of the
central hip. The brickwork of the chimney confirms this alteration with an inlaid cross pattern identical
to its neighbor at 121 South Whitcomb. On either side of the end chimney and under the gable are single
pane casement windows, both crowned with a wooden sunburst pattern. Imbricated diamond-shaped
wooden shingles surround the windows and fill the gable. On the east sides of the gable is a single
skylight and on the first level of the residence, on either side of the chimney, are two narrow one-over-
one double-hung windows. They have external storm windows and arched, pattern brick lentils and
stone sills. Beneath these windows are two basement windows, one of which is boarded up and the other
resting below a concrete repair. Farther to the west are two more windows: a one-over-one double-hung
window with a storm window and concrete sill and a single pane casement window with a stone sill.
Revised 09-2004 Page 24
The south elevation has an end chimney at the intersection of the front gable and the central hip which
cuts through the overhanging gable eave. The brick above the roof failed and previous owners reinforced
it with concrete stucco. Below the roof, decorative brickwork surrounds the chimney, including a large
square outlined in raised brick and filled in with alternating smooth and raised brick ends. To the west of
the chimney is an intersecting gable at a lower height than the central hip with similar decorative work
as the front gable. A pair of one-over-one double-hung windows is located beneath this gable with
screens and arched, pattern brick lentils and stone sills identical to those on the north elevation. The
south elevation continues westerly and is recessed from the central hip. A gabled dormer addition
intersects the south side of the rear gable, located beside a skylight, and features a one-by-one sliding
window. The gabled dormer features the same corner blocks and imbricate, diamond-shaped wood
shingles as the other gables. Under this rear gable is a partially enclosed mud porch with a hipped roof,
seemingly original. The porch extends around the corner to the west elevation and is clad in textured
vertical wood paneling with a single one-over-one double-hung window to the west.
The west elevation was altered in the 2002 remodeling. A rear hip that sat lower than the central hip was
changed to a pent-roof gable, featuring alternating plain shingles and imbricate diamond-shaped shingles
around a one-over-one double-hung window. An addition extended the historic rear porch. The addition
includes a single pane fixed window, horizontal wood siding, and a stone foundation that differs from
the original foundation. Four windows, all one-over-one double-hung, sit just below the eave and
another identical window is located on the north side.
The original Ice House resides in the back yard. The rectangular brick building faces east with two
doors, to allow ice removal. The drains are still noticeable in the bottom of the west wall.
An old storefront from College Avenue resides in the back yard too. This wood square faced store still
shows the lettering “WALLPAPERING AND PAINTING” under the correct light. The original
location is believed to be from the 200 block of North College Avenue, and moved to its present
location in 1947.
The ornate Queen Anne, a subset of the Victorian period, was popular in Colorado between 1880 and
1910. Typical elements of the Queen Anne style evident in this property include the central hipped roof
with intersecting gables, sunburst detailing, patterned shingles underneath the gables, textured siding,
and asymmetrical massing.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, November 2005. Recorders: C. Barnett, C Case, B Gabel
City of Fort Collins Building Permit Files. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/
City of Fort Collins City Directories. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p9, 2 April 1902
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p5, 25 June 1902
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p3, 22 October 1906
History Colorado Engineering and Architectural Guides: Queen Anne.
Revised 09-2004 Page 25
Larimer County Cterk records: Bk1777 pg 0226 -0229 (Deed of Trust); Bk 1880 Pg 312-313 (Note & Deed of
Trust Modification); Bk 2105 Pg582 Warranty Deed; Bk2105 Pg 583 (Quit Claim Deed).
Kevin Murray, Owner, recollections
Revised 09-2004 Page 26
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 118 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: NORTH 1/2 OF LOT 7, BLOCK 71, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Pierce Residence and ancillary buildings
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Lane C Kaley
Phone: (970) 420-6392 Email: laneckaley@yahoo.com
Address: 118 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Whitcomb Street Historic District is historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard
Number 1, for its association with the development and social history of Fort Collins. Research into the
property owners and tenants indicate that this block is particularly reflective of upper middle class
domestic life in Fort Collins. This association with early prominent residents, such as Aaron Kitchel,
Horace Garbutt, and Stewart C. Case, makes the district significant under Fort Collins Landmark
Stnadard 2. Additionally, a prevalence of the residential dwellings within the district, as well as the
individually designated Queen Anne residence at 601 West Mountain Avenue, are architecturally
significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard 3. 118 South Whitcomb is a good example of the
Queen Anne style with its sunburst detailing, patterned shingles underneath the gables, textured siding,
and asymmetrical massing. The house exhibits sufficient architectural significance to qualify
individually for Fort Collins Landmark Designation. It may also qualify as a contributing building in the
surrounding district, if locally designated, due to its exemplification of social trends. The house has
undergone alterations recently, yet they serve as an example of well-executed design compatibility.
Even with these alterations, the house is a well-preserved model of Queen Anne architecture with
patterned and multi-colored shingles underneath gables, spindlework in the porch frieze, multiple
gables, and asymmetrical massing.
Revised 09-2004 Page 27
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The house was built in 1903 but not listed in the city directories until 1908. Initially, the house was
occupied by middle-class families until the mid-1950s. Since then it has been occupied primarily by
students, however, periodically, the house seems to have been unoccupied. The house has usually been
occupied by more than one person and/or family at a time. In 1908, the house had three separate
occupants. From 1919 to 1939, the house was owned and occupied by John (a teamster for Rocky
Mountain Grain and C. Co.) and Jennie Pierce. Jennie was responsible for reshingling the house in 1936
and repairing the porches and foundation in 1939. Since approximately 1956 until the present, the
residence has been occupied by multiple renters and has been listed in the directories as student housing
and apartments. It was briefly listed as La Grange Apartments in 1957. Otherwise, the resident turnover
is very high, owing to its status as a rental. In 1965, Dorothy Jennings installed new plumbing and
heating. Lane C. Kaley, commencing in 1980, began extensive projects to renovate the house. In 1980
and again in 2004, he reroofed the house. Three skylights were installed in 1996. In 2005, Kaley poured
a new beam for the front porch, and reframed, re-decked, and reroofed the entire house. In 2007, he
removed the lath and plaster from the lower half of the house. The entire house was rewired and
plumbed in 2007, involving new insulation, sheetrock, painting and trim, new kitchen and bathrooms,
and reframing of the office window. Later the same year, a 27.25’ x 22’ detached garage was
constructed.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1903
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Wood Frame
Architectural Style: Queen Anne
Description:
This Queen Anne style residence is a rectangular, one and one half story, wood frame structure covered
by an asphalt shingle, hipped roof with intersecting gables. Roof features include lower cross gables and
cornice returns on the primary gable. It has a concrete foundation and wooden siding with multi-colored
shingles of beige, green, blue, and purple in the gables of the western elevation. The primary elevation is
broken into three bays and contains a southern entrance. The single story, partial-width porch is inset on
the southwest corner of the residence and has a hood with console and three ornamental wooden posts
and spindle ornamentation in a frieze suspended from the porch ceiling. The second story window is
located directly above the first story window and both are one-over-one double-hung with simple
wooden surrounds. Another window is located south of the entrance and is also one-over-one double-
hung with an unadorned surround.
Windows on the northern elevation consist of six one-over-one double-hung and one single pane
window with wooden frames and aluminum screens. There is a centered cross gable with cornice
returns. The eastern elevation has six one-over-one double-hung windows and a 17' x 10' wooden patio
with two wooden steps on both the east and south sides of the patio. There is a red-painted wood entry
door to the patio as well. The southern elevation has ten one-over-one double-hung windows and one
single pane window. The south side has a red-painted wood door and one wood step leading to the door.
There is a rectangular cement patio 8' x 15' in dimension in front of the door and a hood with brackets
over the door. The patio is surrounded by an unpainted wood fence.
The 8’ x 12’ one-story storage shed is located southeast of the residence. The shed is made of wood with
a hipped roof and exposed rafter ends of milled lumber. A boarded-up window is located on the west
side and the door is particle board. Landscaping consists of several trees and low plants around the
Revised 09-2004 Page 28
perimeter of the residence. A wooden fence extends south from the residence. There is also a recently
constructed two-stall garage/barn situated to the rear of the property.
The ornate Queen Anne architectural style, a subset of the Victorian period, was popular in Colorado
between 1880 and 1910. Typical elements of the Queen Anne style evident in this property are its
central hipped roof with intersecting gables, patterned and multi-colored shingles underneath gables,
spindlework in the porch frieze, multiple gables, and asymmetrical massing.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, November 2005. Recorders: R Kohler, R Morrow, L Westphal.
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Building Permits.
7/13/1936; permit #4324; owner: Pierce, Jennie; permit for reshingling
10/3/1939; permit #5967; owner: Pierce, Jennie; permit for repairs on porches and foundation
4/1/1965; permit #8977; owner: Dorothy Jennings; permit for plumbing and heating
6/20/1980; permit #02277owner: Lane C. Kaley; Contractor: John Hickman; permit to reroof
11/6/87; permit #28054; owner: Lane Kaley; contractor: Ted’s Electric; permit to change out old 60 amp
service to one 100 amp service and new panel
11/28/1994; permit #0943782; owner: Kaley, Lane; contractor: Glanz Electrical Contractors; permit to
upgrade electrical service to 125 amps and install dryer receptacle in basement
54/9/1996; permit #14270; owner: unintelligible; permit to install three skylights
5/28/2003; permit #B0303059; owner: Kaley, Lane C/Ann E; permit to replace existing sewer line
7/08/2003; permit #B0304157; owner: Kaley, Lane C/Ann E; permit to replace water line from meter to
house
8/2/2004; permit #B0404945; owner: Kaley, Lane C/Ann E; permit to tear off re-deck and shingle with 23
squares; double permit fee on owner for starting work prior to permit
1/24/2005; permit #B0404925; owner: Kaley Lane C/Ann E; permit to pour new grade beam for front
porch, re-frame and re-deck, re-roof entire house with 19 squares; stop work order issued – double fee
(roofing only) for starting prior to permit
2/8/2005; permit #B0500557; owner: Kaley, Lane C/Ann E; permit to replace furnace and water heater
3/23/2007; permit #B0701721; owner: Kaley, Lane C; contractor: Kaley Contracting Services; permit to
remove lath and plaster from lower half – house per electrical 2005 NEC
4/25/2007; B0702495; owner: Kaley, Lane C; contractor: Climatech Heating & A/C, Inc.; permit to
install 75K BTU 80% furnace, a 50K BTU 80% furnace, tankless water heater and electronic air cleaner
4/26/2007; permit #B0701720; owner: Kaley, Lane C; contractor: Kaley Contracting Services;
subcontractors: Liberty Electric, RPM Mechanical, LLC; permit to rewire and plumb entire house,
insulate, sheetrock, paint, trim, new kitchen and baths, reframe office window
12/18/2007; permit #B0707492; owner: Kaley, Lane C; contractor: Kaley Contracting Services;
subcontractors: Liberty Electric, Lane C. Kaley; permit for 27.25X22 detached garage
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. City Directories.
1917 Courier’s Larimer County Directory, p 72: Pindell Bert (Alice), firemn, and Pindell, Nellie
1952 Fort Collins City Directory, p 90: Mize Mary wtrs George’s Place (apt)
1954 Fort Collins City Directory, p 19: Joseph Russell Jr student Colo A & M
P 69: William B (Elaine M) slsmn Mont Ward
P 70: George Thomas student Colo A & M
P 71: Kledt Harold August student Colo A & M
1956 Fort Collins City Directory, p 17: Barnews Ronald E student (side entr)
P 33: Davidson William E student (side entr)
P 75: McFarlane Glen L student
1957 Fort Collins City Directory, p 12: La Grange Apartments
1960 Fort Collins City Directory, p 127: McKelvey Paul M (Nancy M) trk drvr
Revised 09-2004 Page 29
1968 Fort Collins Colorado City Directory, p 254: Macedo Ronald P student CSU
P 271: Mills Merle N retired
1969 Fort Collins Colorado City Directory, p 234: Martinez John Y retired
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Historic Photographs.
History Colorado Architectural and Engineering Guide: Queen Anne.
Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, (New York City: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984),
262-287.
Revised 09-2004 Page 30
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 121 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: LOT 13, BLOCK 270, LOOMIS, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Garbutt Residence and garage
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: David and Catherine Costlow
Phone: (970) 484-8423 Email:
Address: 121 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
This property first appears in the 1900 Census under Horace I. Garbutt and his wife Lucy. Horace was a
Civil War veteran in the Union army, and a member of the Garbutt family of the town of Garbutt,
Monroe County, New York. He and his brother Newton were partners in Garbutt & Garbutt Attorneys
at Law until late 1903, when Newton left the firm. It became Garbutt & Clammer Attorneys at Law and
served as the county firm. Horace was eventually elected judge. Mrs. Garbutt died unexpectedly in
1902, and Judge Garbutt and his daughter Lucy moved across the street in mid-1903. Spencer Farmer, a
local and prominent businessman, moved in from 1906 until 1962. He owned and operated a store at 104
East Moutain Avenue specializing in cigars, confections, stationary, books, and soft drinks, depending
on what was popular at the time. Eventually he opened a café at the site, around 1940. He lived at the
house until he passed away in 1962 and during his residency made several improvements and
alterations. He insulated the structure, built a garage, and built an addition to the house in 1947 and in
1948, he reshingled the porch. Both Farmer and Garbutt were founding members of Elks Lodge #804. In
1990, Dave Costlaw reroofed the structure. In 2004, he built a substantial two-story addition with
basement to the rear of the existing two-story house, and remodeled the kitchen.
Revised 09-2004 Page 31
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1894 / remodel 2004
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Brick/Stone
Architectural Style: Queen Anne
Description:
This Queen Anne residence is a roughly square, one-and-one-half story, wood frame structure covered
by asphalt shingled centrally hipped roof with intersecting front and side gables. Roof features include
intersecting cross gables and a gable situated on the central hip, along with varying shingle and siding
patterns underneath the cross gables. It has a concrete foundation and an exterior of stone covered in
stucco and shingles or siding in the upper half. The primary elevation contains an entrance to the south.
The one story, full width, enclosed porch has screen windows and a single door with a large pane glass
window and storm door, flanked by sidelights. The north side of the porch has three screened in
windows.
The exterior of the east elevation is covered in pink stucco and the gable is covered in two tone fish
scale wood shingles. The roof of the porch is in bad condition and looks to be currently covered in tar
paper. The front facing gable is covered in dark and light green fish scale shingles and features two half
arched windows with blue glass and decorative molding. The cornice is painted white with some
decorative molding on the top.
The exterior of the north elevation is pink and olive green stucco. The rest of the house has three one
over one pane double-hung windows with stone sills. The attached garage has four two pane fixed
windows on the north side. The cross gable is topped with a decorative end-wall chimney, which
exhibits decorative brick work in the shape of a cross and dentils. The rear addition has one four pane
fixed window and two half arch windows with decorative molding in the side gable. The side gable has
dark and light green fish scale shingles. The cornice line in the side gable is painted white with some
decorative molding at the top.
The exterior of the west elevation is olive green stucco. There are two gables each with decorative olive
and dark green fish scale wood shingles. There are two doors on this side: the first has a single large
fixed pane glass window and the second is a double door with each side consisting of four fixed glass
panels (eight total), and the upper section has an arched transom. Both doors access stone porches. There
are two nine paned hinged windows on the west side of the garage. The main building has two one-
over-one double-hung windows that flank the double doors. It appears that there will be one large
window with an arched transom along with one four over one pane double-hung window on the second
floor.
The south elevation is olive green stucco. Windows include: two six paned, wood frame fixed windows;
two ten paned hinged windows in wood frames with overhead transom set in a side gable; four one-
over-one double-hung windows in a bay; and four two-over-two hopper windows. All these windows
are on main floor of the building. The second floor has two one-over-one double-hung windows in
aluminum frames set in a side gable. The side gables have decorative wood and stucco work along with
white decorative cornices. There are two more chimneys, one end-wall and one interior. In addition to
the attached one stall garage, there is a detached one stall concrete garage, with a parapeted roof,
situated at the rear of the property and is accessed by the alley running along the rear of the property.
Revised 09-2004 Page 32
The ornate Queen Anne, a subset of the Victorian period, was popular in Colorado between 1880 and
1910. Typical features of this style shown in the residence are central tall hipped roof with intersecting
gables, patterned shingles, asymmetrical massing, and multiple gables.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, October 2005. Recorder: Ryan Graham
Bureau of the Census, 1900 Census. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census. (accessed June 01, 2012).
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. Building Permit Files.
4/14/1947; permit #9785; owner: Farmer Spencer; permit to insulate
5/24/1947; permit #9886; owner: Farmer Spencer; permit to build garage
12/11/1947; permit #10306; owner: Farmer Spencer; permit to build addition to house
3/27/1948; permit #10400; owner: Farmer Spencer; permit to reshingle porch
9/18/1980; permit #03675; owner: Mustain; permit to install wood stove
6/23/1987; permit #26892; owner and contractor: R. A. Mustain; permit to install new water service
9/23/1992; permit #0984050; owner: Costlaw, Dave; contractor: B & M Roofing; permit to reroof
4/26/2004; permit #B0307517; owner: Costlow, David/Catherine; subcontractors: Harris Electric,
American Services, Inc., Shelter Roofing, Pro Fab Framing, Inc., Irish Plumbing Renovations,
Commercial 1 Concrete; permit to build two story addition to back of house to include den on main level,
master bedroom on 2nd floor and unfinished basement, also remodel kitchen
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 27 February 1902
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p5, 17 June 1903
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, 8 July 1903
Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p11, 25 November 1903
History Colorado Architectural and Engineering Guide: Queen Anne.
http://history.poudrelibraries.org/archive/chamber/farmer.php
Revised 09-2004 Page 33
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 125 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: LOT 16, LESS WEST 50 FEET OF SOUTH 36 FEET, BLOCK 270, LOOMIS,
FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Isbell Residence
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Daniel and Heather Manier
Phone: (970) 416-5848 Email: hmanier@frii.com
Address: 125 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
Second in a series of four brick Queen Anne homes built in a row, this house was first occupied by F. A.
and Laura Isbell in 1902. Isbell was an insurance man. Newton Garbutt most likely lived at 125 South
Whitcomb after the Isbells. Horace Garbutt, Newton’s brother, lived next door at 121 South Whitcomb
until he moved across the street in 1903. Newton was one of the founders of the Garbutt & Garbutt law
firm. He made a new home in 1905 at 703 West Mountain, contracting J. B. Hall to build a six room,
modern frame cottage. By 1906, William C., a Civil War veteran, and Ella Dayton were residents.
William died before 1917 and Ella continued living at the house after becoming a widow. She
sometimes held “parlor meetings” of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union at the residence. In
1922, George, manager of Forrest Lumber Company, and Julia Johnson were listed. In 1925, residents
included George Douthitt, Nellie Tailor, and W. R. Shields. In 1927, Andrew and Sarah Wylie were
listed. Between the years 1923 and 1940, the Olivers made various alterations to the house. The Olivers
were possibly the actual owners while all others listed were merely renters. Alterations included repairs
to the house in 1923, a reroofing in 1927, glassing-in the porch in 1929, building an addition to the
porch in 1932, and another reroof in 1940. By 1929, Rebecca Oliver was a widow but continued living
at the address at least until 1940. Mattie Creed was listed in 1948. In 1954, the Church of Christ
occupied the house and was used as the pastor’s home. Two years later, Eugene and Peggy Stroh were
occupying the residence. Eugene was a truck driver for the cement factory north of Fort Collins. In
Revised 09-2004 Page 34
1957, P. R. and Elizabeth Smith were listed. Mr. Smith was a reverend and an inspector at the
Woodward Governor plant. Pastor Tom Coffee and Nancy moved in by 1960. The Coffees moved by
1962 to an address on Mulberry and the new residents were Alfred, a carpenter with Eagle Construction,
and Mary Mitchell. In 1963, Barry Trent of CSU Printing Services was listed. From 1964 until 1971, C.
W. and Helen Vest were residents. In 1969, Mrs. Freda Copper reroofed the house. Ralph and Gertrude
Osborn moved in soon after and in 1980, they reroof the front porch. In 1981, Paul and Pat Barker are
residents. Paul was an engineer for Engineer Resource Consultants and they stay until 1992. Tom
Deines and Laura Muat move in the following year. From 1995 to 2002, the home was used as a duplex
and then reverted back to a single-family residence. In 2005, Christine S. Hardy reroofs. In 2009, after
veterinarian students rent for several years, the Maniers move into the house. In 2011, Daneil J. Manier
added 360 square feet to the second floor, containing a bedroom and bathroom.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1894 / remodel 2011
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Wood, stone, concrete
Architectural Style: Queen Anne
Description:
This Queen Anne residence is a roughly square, one-and-one-half story, wood frame structure with an
asphalt shingle, hipped roof and intersecting front gable. Roof features include an east-facing cross gable
and overhanging boxed eaves with some guttering along the rear. It has a stone foundation with parge
coat and horizontal wood siding exterior. The primary elevation is broken into three bays and contains
an off centered entrance to the north. The front door, with a single pane of glass and four horizontal
panels, is reached by three cement steps with iron railings on either side. Windows include three one-
over-one single pane sliding windows, two on the first floor and one on the upper half-story. The interior
slope chimney is aluminum and located on the northwest slope of the roof.
The north elevation has a single one-over-one tub window with a double-hung window and two single
pane fixed windows, and one nine pane fixed window with aluminum frame on the first story. The west
elevation has three two-by-two sliding aluminum windows, five one-over-one double-hung windows,
and one door with a single fixed pane window. The south elevation is clad in yellow stucco, similar to
the rest of the house. There are two one-by-one sliding aluminum windows.
The south side of the residence has the remnants of a wrought iron fence. There is a stone masonry
retaining wall a couple feet high with vegetation planted next to the house. The sidewalk leading to the
residence is flanked by vegetation. The wooden storage shed has both horizontal and vertical wood
planking, painted yellow. Windows include two fixed pane on the west side, one with four lights and the
other a single pane. The gabled roof with exposed rafters has overhanging eaves.
The ornate Queen Anne, a subset of the Victorian period, was popular in Colorado between 1880 and
1910. Typical features of this style shown in the residence are multiple gables and asymmetrical
massing. Historic and architectural integrity is somewhat compromised. The front porch was enclosed in
1929, added on to in 1932, and reroofed in 1980. In 2011, a substantial addition was constructed on the
second floor, consisting of 360 square feet and containing a new bedroom and bathroom.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, October 2005. Recorder: R Graham.
Bureau of the Census, 1900 Census. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census. (Accessed June 01, 2012).
Revised 09-2004 Page 35
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. Building Permit Files.
1901; owner: Garbutt, N.C.; architect: Fuller; builder/contractor: Mellinger, James (builder); permit to
build six room frame on West Mountain
1905; owner: Garbutt, N.C.; permit to build frame barn at 703 West Mountain
5/10/1923; permit #108; owner: Oliver, Mrs.; permit for repairs to frame house
6/30/1927; permit #1734; owner: Oliver, Mr.; permit to reroof
3/8/1929; permit #2314; owner: Olivers, Mrs. R. J.; permit to glass in porch
5/24/1932; permit #3307; owner: Mrs. Rebecca; permit to build addition to porch
7/1/1940; permit #6254; owner: Oliver, R. J.; permit to reroof
8/18/1969; permit #13813; owner: Mrs. Freda Copper; contractor: Don Bridwell; permit to reroof
6/12/1980; permit #92109; owner: Mrs. Ralph Osborn; contractor: Sherry the Roofer; permit to reroof
front porch
6/8/2001; permit #B0103502; owner: Cole, Lester L./Ann M.; subcontractor: Courtesy Plumbing, Inc.;
permit for sewer line
9/19/2003; permit #B0306040; owner: Cole, Lester L./Ann M.; contractor: Mimm General Contractors:
permit to repair wall and foundation
10/5/2005; permit #B0505795; owner: Hardy, Christine S.; subcontractor: Schroder Roofing Company;
permit to reroof
9/1/2011; permit #B1102273; owner: Manier, Daniel J.; contractor: Char Construction, Inc.;
subcontractors: Lighten Up Electric Svcs., RPM Mechanical, LLC., Char Construction, Inc., Rocky Mtn.
Roof/Gtr., Valencia Construction; permit for addition of 360 square feet for a second floor addition to
existing 1124 square foot residence, consisting of a new bedroom and bathroom
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. City Directories: 1902 through 2004
Colorado Historic Newspaper Collection. http://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org
“City and Country.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p 5, 06 17 1903
“Fort Collins’ Splendid Building Record.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p 3, 01 02 1902
“From Tuesday’s Daily.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, p 7, 01 10 1906
Revised 09-2004 Page 36
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 126 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: NORTH 1/2 OF LOT 8, LESS PART LY EAST OF DITCH, BLOCK 71, FORT
COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Cunningham Residence and garage
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: John and Amy Volckens
Phone: (919) 225-9881 Email: jv@volkens.com
Address: 126 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The first residents listed at 126 South Whitcomb are John and Rosanna Cunningham in 1904. In 1910,
bookkeeper Clarence Moody was listed at the residence. J. E. and May Kircher were residents in 1913.
By 1917, students of Colorado Agricultural College move in to the residence. In 1922, Professor
William L. Burnett moves in with Eva, Raymond, Lois, and Grandma Rose. They stay until 1938.
Burnett would become State Entomologist and the Curator of the Colorado Agricultural College
Museum. He is responsible for a remodel in 1927 and a frame garage in 1932. In 1940, the Luggs are
listed but a permit to reroof is filed by W. E. Schlect for the residence. Schlect was listed as the owner
but may have simply been the contractor for the project. George, a carpenter, and Martha Earley are
residents for 20 years. In 1946, George enlarged the chicken house. The Wallace family moves in from
1964 to 1966. From 1968 until 1980, Dorothy Jennings and her children are listed, and she reroofs the
house in 1973. From 1980 until 1983, the house was used as an engineer’s office. Primarily, students are
residents until the current owners bought the house. At different times, there are apartments listed on the
main floor, the second floor, and in the basement. In 2002, Marc L. and Mary E. Teets reroofed the
house and replaced the furnace in 2005.
Revised 09-2004 Page 37
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1893
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Wood Frame, stone
Architectural Style: Queen Anne
Description:
This Queen Anne residence is a roughly square, one and one half story, wood frame structure with an
asphalt shingle, hipped roof. Roof features include intersecting cross gables, cornice returns on the
gables, wide overhanging boxed eaves, and some guttering over the porch. It has a stone foundation,
parged over, and asbestos siding. Wood fishscale shingles are found underneath the gable. The main
façade is broken into three bays and contains an entrance to the south. The one story, partial-width inset
porch has overhanging eaves, two columns, and a wooden railing. The door is a modern aluminum door
flanked by a non-historic hexagonal window, and there is a large fixed pane picture window to the north
under the prominent front-facing gable. In the upper part of the gable is a single one-over-one double-
hung window.
The south elevation had two one-over-one double hung windows and a single one-over-one double-hung
window in the cross gable, which is clad in wood fishscale shingles. The east elevation features two one-
over-one double-hung windows, one with six lights and one with four lights. The back entryway has a
pyramidal shed porch with two four-by-four support posts. There is a modern aluminum door with a
fixed six-light window and two skylights in the roof. The north elevation has four one-over-one double-
hung windows. A shed dormer is covered in wood fishscale siding and features two one-over-one
double-hung windows. There are two chimneys present. A small front gabled one stall garage is situated
to the rear of the northern elevation. It has lapped wood siding and hinged solid doors.
The ornate Queen Anne, a subset of the Victorian period, was popular in Colorado between 1880 and
1910. This residence features typical hipped roof with cross gables, overhanging eaves, and pattern
shingles.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, October 2005. Recorder: R Graham
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. Building Permit Files.
10/3/1927; permit #1826; owner: Burnett, W.L.; permit to remodel
10/8/1932; permit #3390; owner: Burnett, W.L.; permit to build frame garage
9/3/1940; permit #6325; owner: Schlect, W.E.; permit to reroof
6/14/1946; permit #9244; owner: Early, George; permit to enlarge chicken house
5/31/1973; permit #20067; owner: Dorothy Jennings; contractor: Frank Neckel; permit to reroof
9/16/2002; permit #B0205812; owner: Teets, Marc L/Mary E; subcontractor: R&T Roofing; permit to
reroof
2/14/2005; permit #B0500664; owner: Teets, Marc L/Mary E; subcontractor: Yeti Mechanical; permit to
replace furnace
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. City Directories: 1902 through 2004.
History Colorado, "Architecture and Engineering Guides: Queen Anne." Accessed June 14, 2012.
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/queen-anne.
Revised 09-2004 Page 38
Revised 09-2004 Page 39
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 129 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: EAST 123 FEET OF LOT 17, BLOCK 270, LOOMIS, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Montgomery Residence and garage
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Ginny Cross
Phone: (970) 221-4457 Email: ginnycross@mail.com
Address: 129 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The residence at 129 South Whitcomb first appears in the 1900 census. T. J. Montgomery is listed with
his wife Helen and her brother, Charles Lunn, at the address. In Fort Collins Building Records, the
residence is first listed in a 1901 permit to build a five room, one story frame structure, under owner J.
A. Rutledge and builder S. J. Milligan. Thomas Jefferson Montgomery is listed as the owner until 1904.
He was born in 1849 in Illinois and moved to Colorado in 1866 at the age of 16 to live with his uncle,
W. A. H. Loveland. Montgomery was a skilled telegraph operator, supervising posts in areas such as
Fort Sedgewick, Colorado Junction, and Laramie. He moved to Fort Collins on October 22, 1875 to
serve as telegraph operator of the railway station. In 1881 and 1883, he was elected County Clerk and he
filled a vacancy as a State Representative from 1902 to 1903. A blacksmith named Simmons moved in
from 1908 until 1911, living with his family, who were from England according to the 1910 Census. By
1913, A. D. and Alice Jillson were listed. From 1917 until 1919, an oil man by the name of E. T.
Williams resided at the address with his wife Edna. C. M. Smith was a resident in 1928 and was
responsible for building a garage on the lot in November of that year. Gordon J. Poe is the owner staying
more than a couple of years, moving in by 1944. Poe remodeled in 1944 and 1945 and reshingled the
house in 1947. From 1952 to 1956, a professor of Horticulture at Colorado A&M named Winnifred
Holley moves in with his wife Jennie. Richard Smith moves in around 1959 and stays until 1964. Smith
was a state patrolman and his wife was a bookkeeper. William Darveau and his wife made
miscellaneous repairs in 1975 and reshingled the garage in 1976. Mostly students of the university were
Revised 09-2004 Page 40
residences until the current owner, Virginia E. Cross, bought the house in 1977. Virginia enlarged the
upstairs dormer in 1979, reroofed in 2001, and replaced the water heater in 2002.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1896
Architect/Builder: SJ Milligan
Building Materials: Brick, Stone
Architectural Style: Queen Anne
Description:
This Queen Anne residence is a square, 1 ½ story, wood frame structure with an asphalt shingle, hipped
roof. Roof features include a forward-facing intersecting cross gable with molded cornice line and
overhanging eaves. It has a stone foundation and wooden eight-inch horizontal siding. The main (east)
façade is broken into two bays and contains an off-centered entrance to the east. The front stoop consists
of four concrete steps leading to a single panel front door and screen door with a shed roof overhang.
Windows include a pair of wood frame six-over-one double-hung with storm windows and an aluminum
one-over-one double-hung window underneath the gable containing an air-conditioning unit.
The north elevation has three windows: one single-pane fixed window and two wood framed six-over-
one double-hung with storm windows. The west elevation has three single-pane fixed windows and a
central panel door with a single-pane fixed window. A flat roof covers the rear enclosed porch. The
south elevation has two wood frame, single-pane fixed windows with storm screens and a shed dormer
with a single one-by-one aluminum frame sliding window.
A two stall garage is present to the west of the residence. The building mimics the residence in
materials, style, and detailing, as it features a front gabled roof, exposed rafter ends, and multi-light
windows.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, October 2005. Recorder: R Graham.
Bureau of the Census, 1900 Census. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census. (accessed June 01, 2012).
Bureau of the Census, 1910 Census. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census. (accessed June 01, 2012).
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. Building Permit Files.
1901; owner: Rutledge, J.A.; builder/contractor: Milligan, S.J. (builder); permit to build five room, one
story frame
11/1/1928; permit #2255; owner: Smith, C.M.; permit to build garage
8/31/1944; permit #7967; owner: Poe, Gordon; permit to remodel
6/2/1945; permit #8365; owner: Poe, Gordon; permit to remodel
8/12/1947; permit #10067; owner: Poe, Gordon J.; permit to reshingle house
6/23/1975; permit #23576; owner and contractor: William Darveau; permit to repair?, support beams,
electric service, repair plumbing under pipe
5/14/1976; permit #25419; owner and contractor: Mrs. Wm Darveau; permit to reshingle garage
1/16/1979; permit #63264; owner: Virginia E. Cross; permit to enlarge present dormer window in upstairs
bedroom to approx. 50” X 24”
1/4/2001; permit #B0100053; owner: Cross, Virginia; subcontractor: CJ Roofing Company; permit to
reroof
7/29/2002; permit #B0204718; owner: Cross, Virginia; subcontractor: Allen Plumbing & Heating; permit
to replace water heater
Revised 09-2004 Page 41
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. City Directories: 1902 through 2004.
History Colorado, "Architecture and Engineering Guides: Queen Anne." Accessed June 14, 2012.
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/queen-anne.
History of Larimer County Colorado by Ansel Watrous. Pg 271.
Revised 09-2004 Page 42
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 130 S South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Legal Description: WEST 100 FEET OF SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 8, BLOCK 71, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Klure/Williams Residence and garage
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Agnes York and Patricia Wilbarger
Phone: (970) 482-4852 Email: nyork@verinet.com
Address: 130 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The residence at 130 South Whitcomb first appears in city directories in 1904 with A.R. and Ella Klure,
a carpenter and milliner, respectively. The residence did not appear again until 1909, when Clark J.
Sarchet and his wife Rosetta are listed. Sarchet was a cigar salesman at the Northern Hotel Newsstand.
The Sarchets would move to 801 Laporte Avenue. William F. Dunham, a machinist, replaced the
Sarchets in 1913 wit his wife Catherine. Dunham switched to mining by 1917 and the couple moved to
1006 Laporte Avenue in 1922. The next resident at 130 South Whitcomb was Robert M. Strang, a
secretary for the Moody-Warren Commercial Company. Born in Glasgow, Scotland on December 23,
1887, Strang moved to Timnath in 1896 with his family. He later married Dora M. Willis. He was an
important member of the Fort Collins commercial scene as the founder of the Strang Grain Company at
157 North Mason, a major supplier of Fort Collins' sheep-producing industry. In 1920, he was listed on
a building permit as constructing a garage at the property. In 1931, he purchased a grain elevator from
Moody-Warren which was the tallest building in the city until the advent of the high rise. This elevator
occupied the land that is now the parking lot of the current courthouse on Mason Street. Strang sold the
structure in 1969 and it was razed in 1983. Strang moved from the property on Whitcomb to 507
Mathews Street, where he lived until his death at the age of 87. His daughter-in-law Annie, widow of
James, remained as householder from 1936 until1940, during which time she installed fencing and re-
shingled the house.
Revised 09-2004 Page 43
In 1940, the Williams family moved to Whitcomb. Andrew was the press room foreman of the Express
Courier, and he lived with his wife Lillias and three children, Patricia, Agnes, and Archibald. Mr.
Williams was responsible for some house remodeling in 1947 and the porch enclosed the following year.
Andrew became a carpenter that same year, and Lillias would become the receptionist for Dr. Anderson
in 1952. William A. Robinson, a student at Colorado A&M, was listed at the residence in 1954, possibly
a tenant in the converted garage. He moved two years later to a property on Locust. The Williams’ still
own the residence today.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1889
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Wood Frame, Stone, Concrete
Architectural Style: Queen Anne
Description:
This quaint Queen Anne house is located just north of the intersection of South Whitcomb Street and
West Oak Street. It is a one-and-a-half-story hipped roof central block with intersecting gable wing
resting on a concrete foundation. The house is covered with off-white horizontal wood siding,
surrounded by eaves boxed with cream beveled wood paneling. Each gable features the same beveled
paneling and enclosing pent-roofs intersected by one-over-one double-hung windows as well as
imbricated fish scale patterned shingle decorations sandwiched between alternating plain shingles in
matching cream color. There is one chimney at the rear of the house above the kitchen. The front facade
features an asymmetrically placed spindlework porch that extends off the south side and rests on a
concrete slab foundation. The ceiling of the porch is made of the same paneling as the beveled areas
around the gables and eaves. It is painted a sky blue color in accordance with superstitious beliefs
dictating that the color would keep ghosts from entering the home. The spindlework porch support to the
right of the front door has been replaced with a plain white post. A screen door has been added and the
front door appears to have been replaced. To the north of the porch there is a one-over-one double-hung
window with an exterior screen symmetrically placed below the gable. There is a modern skylight in the
hipped roof above the front porch and to the south of the gable. The north elevation features a shed
dormer addition in the gable end with an overhanging eave and exposed rafter ends. There are two
windows, side-by-side, that appear to have been originally identical. The right window has an eight light
awning panel over a two-over-two horizontal paned double-hung window. The left window appears to
have lost its eight-light awning panel, revealing the two-over-two double-hung interior window, with a
single pane screen sitting in front of the lower half of the double-hung window. Below the shed dormer
is a one-over-one double-hung window with an exterior storm window and a decorative stained glass
panel hung inside. To the east is a six-by-six awning window. Further to the east is a six-over-one
double-hung window.
The south elevation features a distinct stained glass parallelogram window just east of the front porch.
Placed symmetrically below the gable is a three- sided bay with its own roof. There is three-over-one
awning window flanked by two one-over-one awning windows, all with exterior screens. In between the
three windows is the same paneling as the porch ceiling, beveled eaves, and gables, only diagonally set.
To the east of the bay is a window of four lights, irregularly shaped and placed, under a sheet metal
awning, put in circa 1947. There is another skylight in the central hip to the east of the gable. The east
elevation features a closed-in mud porch and a shed dormer addition above. The dormer has an
overhanging eave with exposed rafter ends, similar to the dormer on the north side, with two one-over-
one double-hung windows and exterior screens set side-by-side. The mud-porch has an exterior screen
door and an interior half-light wooden door. To the south of the door is a two-over-two sliding window.
To the north of the screen door is a wooden door leading to the coal cellar. On the north side of the mud-
porch is a one-over-one fixed window. There is a two stall front gabled garage to the rear of the
residence that mimics the main building in materials and style.
Revised 09-2004 Page 44
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Survey, November 2005. Recorders: C Barnett, C Case, B Gabel.
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Building Permits.
5/10/1920; permit #515; owner: Strang, Robert; permit for frame garage
9/22/1936; permit #4465; owner: Strang, Annie R.; permit for reshingling
4/15/1935; permit #3915; owner: Strang, Anna; permit to build fence
4/7/1947; permit #9774; owner: Williams, A. C.; permit for remodeling
8/24/1948; permit #10763; owner: Williams, A. C.; permit to enclose porch
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org. City Directories.
History Colorado, "Architecture and Engineering Guides: Queen Anne." Accessed June 14, 2012.
http://www.historycolorado.org/archaeologists/queen-anne.
Revised 09-2004 Page 45
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 601 West Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Legal Description: NORTH 80 FEET OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 270, LOOMIS, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): The Kitchel Residence
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Susan Walker
Phone: (303) 710-1526 Email: suewalker@gmail.com
Address: 601 West Mountain Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The house at 601 West Mountain Avenue originally housed a prominent pioneer of the Fort Collins
community. Aaron Kitchel was born April 23, 1842, in Lake County, Indiana. In August, 1862, he
enlisted as a volunteer in the 23rd Iowa Infantry and served all through the war in many battles, being
wounded at Millikens Bend, serving in Sherman's March to the Sea, and receiving an honorable
discharge July 26, 1865, at Galveston, Texas. Mr. Kitchel married Mary Hart at Indianola, Iowa, in
1868. He came with his family to Colorado in 1879 and located on a homestead situated six miles east
of Fort Collins (at Highway #14 and east of I-25, the land is now the site of the Kitchel Farms
Subdivision). Mary Hart died in 1895 and Kitchel sold his farm and moved to Fort Collins. He remarried
in 1900, to Mrs. Mary Hamilton, who died in 1908. He was a successful farmer, served as a
Commissioner for Larimer County for three years, and was always one of its foremost and highly
respected citizens. Kitchel died November 6, 1910 of pneumonia at the age of 68. In the real estate
transfers listed in the Fort Collins Weekly Courier on Thursday, March 10, 1910, A. Kitchel transferred
his property, parts 1 and 2, block 270, Loomis add., for $4,000 to C. S. McCormick. George McCormick
is listed at the residence in 1917, although his name has been abbreviated significantly, appearing as
“Cormick G C”. George was a prominent member of business circles in Fort Collins as president and
general manager of the Express-Courier Publishing Company and a member of the Chamber of
Commerce committee. His wife Carrie was popular in the social scene, being a member of such clubs as
the Current Event Club, the Columbian Club, the M.Y.O.B. Club, and the Eastern Star Club, for which
she served as a delegate at a national convention in 1919. Beginning in 1919, Carrie is the sole resident
Revised 09-2004 Page 46
listed until at least 1939, due to what appears to be a nasty divorce, charging “extreme and repeated
cruelty,” in the spring of 1918. Carrie was awarded custody of the couple’s two children, Paul and Ruth,
monthly alimony, attorney fees, and ownership of the Mountain Avenue property. During her twenty
years at the residence, Carrie had a garage built and remodeled the porches. George McCormick
remarried less than one year later, on Friday, March, 28, 1919, to Mrs. Gertrude L. York of Denver. The
pair moved into 941 West Mountain Avenue, only a few blocks from his ex-wife. Mrs. Edith Coffman
was living in the residence as early as 1947. She filed a permit to enclose the porch and build a fence in
October of that year. A G. D. Graham, listed as the owner, also filed a permit, to remodel, in January
1947. Graham was either a resident between Mrs. McCormick and Mrs. Coffman or the contractor for
the remodeling project. A G. Graham, G. D. Graham, or George Graham is listed on no less than thirty
remodels, reshingling projects, repairs, additions, garages, and porch enclosures between 1924 and 1950,
one can assume he was a contractor for Fort Collins who also worked on 601 West Mountain Avenue. In
1950, students are listed at the residence. In 1969, an Evan Meloney is the sole resident of the property.
Owner Philip Risch hired a contractor for miscellaneous repairs in October 1980, including the
replacement of three doors and repairs of rotted woodwork, damaged screening, hardware, cabinetry,
and drywall. In 1983, Judy Purdue reroofed the property and in 1991, Ken Stacey replaced the water
heater. Susan M. Walker began extensive home renovations in 2001: she reroofed in 2001; repaired
interior water damage in 2004; rebuilt the south end of the main floor bedroom floor to include a full
bath two months later; built a new 244 square foot front porch in 2005; and demolished a wood shed at
the rear of the lot in 2011.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1890 / remodel 1992
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Brick, Stone
Architectural Style:
Description:
The Kitchel House is a vernacular masonry Queen Anne dwelling, built of brick with rough-cut stone
foundation, sills and lintels. The 11/2 story house is a good example of the eclecticism of the late
Victorian era, with many interesting stylistic characteristics. Although the basic plan is rectangular, this
house has an irregularly shaped appearance due to the hipped roof with another hip roof projecting from it,
dormers on three elevations, a substantial brick bay window on the east elevation, a wood projecting
entry on the west elevation, and a main entrance at the northeast front corner of the house that is
unusual in Fort Collins. Matching dormers on the north and west elevations are historic through-the-roof
dormers, while the east elevation dormer was added before 1948. Also, by 1948, the historic front porch
had been removed from the house and an overdoor and concrete stoop had been added to the front door at
the northeast corner entrance. In addition to the windows with rough-cut stone sills and lintels, other
windows have stone sills and brick segmental arches in the Victorian style. Houses situated on corners
were of higher design, importance, and detailing. This comer house retains its charm as a pioneer home of
Queen Anne design.
601 West Mountain Avenue exhibits the Queen Anne style characteristics in a steeply pitched hipped
roof of irregular shape; patterned shingles, bay windows, patterned masonry lintels, (and other devices
used to avoid a smooth-walled appearance); an asymmetrical fa9ade; and rough-cut stone and brick
masonry construction. Its smaller size warrants the "Cottage" definition.
The hipped roof has an intersecting elongated hipped roof extending from the rear elevation.
Dormers on the north and east elevations are through-the-roof, sharply pitched, and gabled, each with
narrow one-over-one double-hung windows with stone sills. A newer (existing in 1948 tax card)
gabled roof dormer sits on the east elevation with paired double hung window and no lintel or sill.
Revised 09-2004 Page 47
All dormers have patterned octagonal shingles. The entrance is located on the northeast corner with a
non-historic paneled door with carved ship. There are two doors on the south elevation. To the
southeast is a non-history, multi-light wood door and to the northeast is a wood door with four
panels and a segmental brick arch. The door on the west elevation is multi-light and non-historic.
On the north elevation are two cottage style check-rail windows with operable lower sash, stone sills
and brick segmental arch lintels. On the west elevation are two one-over-one windows with stone sills
and brick segmental arch lintels and a pair of windows with identical window surrounds. There is a
fixed glass window bisecting with an applied wood bar in the west entry addition. The south elevation
features two one-over-one windows with stone sills and brick segmental arch lintels at different heights.
The east elevation exhibits a single one-over-one window with stone sill and brick segmental arch
lintel. There is a square bay window with paired double-hung windows with rough-cut sandstone flat
sills and lintels and a steep hipped roof.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Building Permits.
7/7/1928; permit #2125; owner: McCormick, Carrie; permit for garage
7/6/1943; permit #7433; owner: McCormick, Carrie; permit to remodel porches
1/6/1947; permit # 9617; owner: Graham, G. D.; permit to remodel house
10/6/1947; permit #10190; owner: Coffman, Edith; permit to enclose porch; build fence
10/10/1980; permit #03923; owner: Philip Risch; contractor: William Warren; permit for miscellaneous
repairs: replacing 3 doors, repair rotted woodwork, repair screening, replace hardware, repair cabinetry,
repair drywall
8/17/1983; permit #11403; owner: Judy Purdue; contractor: FM Roofing; permit to reroof
6/14/1991; permit #0911573; owner: Stacey, Ken; contractor: Ladd Plumbing & Heating; permit for
water heater replacement
1/7/2001; permit #B0400046; owner: Walker, Sue; subcontractor: Advanced Roofing Tech; permit to
remove existing laminated shingles. Install new underlayment and 22 squares of class A laminated
shingles
2/20/2004; permit #B0400827; owner: Walker, Sue; contractor: A Custom Craftsman, LLC;
subcontractor Delaney’s Electric & Gibson heating & A/C, Inc.; permit for interior demo of water
damage – non structural only
4/6/2004; permit #B0401563; owner: Walker, Sue; contractor: A Custom Craftsman, LLC; subcontractor:
Delaney’s Electric, Gibson Heating & A/C, Inc.; permit to rebuild south end main floor bedroom floor
including full bath. Update ceiling joist above bedroom area
4/18/2005; permit #B0501360; owner: Walker, Susan M.; contractor: A Custom Craftsman, LLC;
subcontractor: ACC Roofing, Inc.; permit for new 244 sq ft front porch
3/21/2011; permit #B1100535; owner: Walker, Susan M.; permit to demolish existing 14’ X 12’ wood
shed at rear of property
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. City Directories.
1917 p 20: Cormick G C
1919 Courier’s Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, p 74: McCormick Mrs. Carrie
1933 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 47: McCormick Carrie Mrs.
1938 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 52: McCormick Carrie (wid Geo)
1939 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 52: McCormick Carrie (wid Geo)
1948 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 177: Cuffman Edith Mrs. T
1950 Fort Collins City Directory, p 124: Pusvaskis Eulalia stdt; p 53: Anzick Joyce, stdt
1969 Fort Collins Colorado City Directory, p 366: Meloney Evan
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Historic Photographs.
Revised 09-2004 Page 48
Colorado Historic Newspaper Collection. http://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org
“Chamber of Commerce committee member.” Fort Collins Courier, pg. 8, 11 30 1921.
“Columbian Club.” Fort Collins Courier, pg. 1, 02 09 1920.
“Eastern Star Honors Mrs. Carrie McCormick.” Fort Collins Courier, pg. 8, 07 03, 1919.
“Findings of Face in McCormick Divorce.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, pg. 2, 04 19 1918.
“George McCormick Ventures Upon The Matrimonial Sea.” Fort Collins Courier, pg. 8, 03 28 1919.
“Mr. and Mrs. McCormick Back From Long Auto Trip.” Fort Collins Courier, pg. 1, 06 17 1922.
"Mrs. Carrie McCormick Gust of the Current Event Club." Fort Collins Courier, pg. 4, 03 05, 1919.
“Officers and Committee of Semi-Centennial Association.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, pg. 28, 07 02 1914.
“Real Estate Transfers: A. Kitchel to C.S. McCormick.” Fort Collins Weekly Courier, pg. 16, 03 10 1910.
“The Wednesday afternoon meeting of the M.Y.O.B. Club held at the home of Mrs. Carrie McCormick.” Fort
Collins Courier, pg. 4, 02 20 1920.
Historic Landmark Designation Form, February 2004. Author: Carol Tunner
Landmark Preservation Commission Staff Report, February 15th 2004. Author: Carol Tunner
Virginia and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, (New York City: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984),
262-287.
Revised 09-2004 Page 49
LOCATION INFORMATION:
Address: 612 West Oak St.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Legal Description: WEST 67 FEET OF LOT 17 AND WEST 50 FEET OF SOUTH 36 FEET OF LOT
16, BLOCK 270, LOOMIS, FORT COLLINS
Property Name (historic and/or common): Van Sickle Rsidence
OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Ginny Cross
Phone: (970) 221-4757 Email: ginnycross@mail.com
Address: 129 South Whitcomb St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
CLASSIFICATION
Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing
Designation
Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register
Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register
Site Religious
Object Residential
District Entertainment
Government
Other
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
The 1906 Sanborn Map shows that the lot for 612 W Oak St was carved from the original lot of the
house at 129 S Whitcomb St. The residence first appears in the city directories in 1936. It appears to
have been built in 1930 for Sybil Van Sickle, the widow of Thomas Jefferson Van Sickle, a carpenter.
Mrs. Van Sickle was highly active during the 1910s and 1920s in the Women’s Relief Corps, serving as
assistant guard, senior vice president, and president. Previously, the Van Sickles resided at 114 South
Loomis in 1910, 315 East Magnolia in 1917, 409 Mathews in 1919, and 404 Whedbee in 1922. A
building permit filed was for a residence on August 21, 1930 under owner Sybil Van Sickle. However, a
Richard Standage was listed at the 612 W Oak address in 1936. Standage was a mechanic at Hall Motor
Co. and relocated to the house from 218 Remington Street. Mrs. Van Sickle is listed at 612 W Oak from
1938 to 1948, now a widow to Jefferson. Van Sickle was responsible for reshingling the house in 1945.
Also listed at the residence in 1948 was Mrs. Beulah F. Wright, a stenographer for Alden T. Hill. From
1954 until 1956, Alex R. Jarrett is listed at the residence. Jarrett was a tax consultant with an office at
109 East Mountain Avenue and an executive secretary at the Don-Art Corporation. In 1957, Louis J.
Prieskorn, an office manager, bookkeeper, and accountant at Poudre Valley Rural Electric Association,
Inc. moved in with his wife Elsie E. Poudre Valley REA, still in operation today, was founded in 1939
following an executive order to electrify rural America from President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Elsie was
a secretary, first at Lincoln High School and later at Lesher Junior High School. In 1960, the Prieskorns
Revised 09-2004 Page 50
are listed at the residence along with previous resident Alex Jarrett. The Prieskorns relocated to 1204
Pitkin Street in 1963. Today, the home is a rental owned by Virginia Cross, who also owns 129 South
Whitcomb Street. During Mrs. Cross’ ownership, the residence has been reroofed, the water heater
replaced, and electrical work done.
ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION
Construction Date: 1930
Architect/Builder:
Building Materials: Wood Frame, Concrete
Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow
Description:
This Craftsman style residence is a roughly rectangular, one-story, wood frame structure with an asphalt
shingle, gable roof. Roof features include brown shingles, overhanging eaves, along with exposed rafters
and gutters. It has a concrete foundation and four inch, tan wooden siding. The main façade is broken
into five bays and contains a western entrance, which is a solid ten panel wooden door with an
aluminum storm door. The single story, partial-width porch has a front-facing gable roof and eight-by-
eight square columns with one-by-one square rails. Windows include two central large single pane
pictures windows, a single one-by-one sliding aluminum frame window to the east, and two six-over-
one double-hung windows with wooden frames and storm screens on either side of the primary door. A
second door, a wooden four panel door with a fixed single pane window and aluminum storm door, is
located at the southeast corner.
On the eastern elevation are a single one-by-one aluminum frame window and three six-over one
double-hung windows with wooden frames, one of which contains an air conditioning unit. On the
northern elevation, there are three doors: one wooden door with a single pane fixed window and two
aluminum doors. There are four six-pane fixed windows, a single six-over-one double-hung window,
and two one-by-one aluminum sliding windows. There are also three porches, two wooden with steps
descending to ground level and one poured concrete with no hoods. A large shed wall dormer is found
on the northeast corner. On the western elevation are four windows: one three pane casement window
with wooden frame and screen; a single one-by-one aluminum sliding window with screen; and two six-
over-one double-hung windows in wooden frames with screens.
The house maintains good integrity. The only alterations have been two re-roofings, first in 1945 and
again in 2001. Also, it appears as though an attached garage on the eastern portion of the building has
been enclosed and still reads as the former location of a garage. Otherwise, the house remains much like
it was when it was first built in 1930.
REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION
Architectural Inventory Form, October 2005. Recorder: R Graham
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Building Permits.
8/21/1930; permit #2710; owner: Van Sickle, Mrs. Sybil; permit for residence
5/22/1945; permit #8341; owner: VanSickle, Sybil; permit for reshingling
11/06/2000; permit #B0015466; owner: Cross, Virginia; subcontractor: Allen Plumbing & Heating;
permit for water heater replacement
1/04/2001; permit #B0100052; owner: Cross, Virginia; subcontractor: CJ Roofing Company; permit to
reroof; remove 2 layers asphalt shingles and reroof with 25 year Tamko Heritage asphalt shingles
1/19/2001; permit #B0100255; owner: Cross, Virginia; subcontractor: Alger Electric Co.; permit for new
100 AMP panel and meter socket
Revised 09-2004 Page 51
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. City Directories.
1910-1911 Fort Collins City Directory, p 61: Van Sickle, Thos J (Sybil) carp 114 S Loomis
1917 Courier’s Larimer County Directory, p 87: Van Sickle Thomas J (Sybil) 315 E Magnolia
1919 Courier’s Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, p 102: Van Sickle Thos J (Sybil)
409 Mathews
1922 R. L. Polk’s Directory Co’s. Fort Collins, Loveland and Larimer County Directory, p 69: VanSickle
T Jefferson (Sybil) 404 Whedbee
1931 Polk’s p 77: Standage Harland S floormn Hall Motor Co 218 Remington
1936 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 70: Standage Richd mech Hall Motor Co.
1938 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 76: VanSickle Sybil (wid Jefferson)
1948 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 148: VanSickle Sybil (wid Jefferson)
1948 Polk’s Fort Collins City Directory, p 158: Wright Beulah F Mrs. Sten Alden T Hill
1954 Fort Collins City Directory, p 66: Jarrett Alex R Tax Consultant-Exec Secy the Don-Art Corp
1956 Fort Collins City Directory, p 59: Jarrett Alex R Acct & Sec Don Art Corp; office at 109 E
Mountain
1957 Fort Collins City Directory, p 121: Prieskorn Louis J (Elsie E) ofc mgr Poudre Valley R E A
1959 Fort Collins Directory, p 135: Prieskorn Louis J (Elsie E sec Lincoln High Sch) ofc mgr & bkpr
Poudre Valley
1960 Fort Collins City Directory, p 145: Prieskorn Louis J (Elsie E sec Lesher Jr High) accountant REA;
Jarrett, Alex R acct
1963 Fort Collins City Directory, p 177: Prieskorn Louis J (Elsie secy Lesher Jr High Sch) acct REA
1204 Pitkin
City of Fort Collins. http://history.poudrelibraries.org/. Historic Photographs.
Colorado Historic Newspaper Collection. http://www.coloradohistoricnewspapers.org.
"New Officers of the W.R.C.." Fort Collins Courier, pg. 3, 01 15, 1915.
"Women's Auxiliary to the G.A.R.." Fort Collins Courier, pg. 4, 01 26, 1922.
"Women's Relief Corps." Fort Collins Courier, pg. 5, 01 1, 1920.
"Women's Relief Corps Held Regular Meeting." Fort Collins Courier, pg. 2, 07 15, 1921.
"W.R.C. Honors Retiring President Mrs. Sybil Van Sickle." Fort Collins Courier, pg. 12, 12 16, 1921.
"W.R.C. Installs New Officers." Fort Collins Courier, pg. 6, 01 11, 1923.
Revised 09-2004 Page 52
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION
October 10, 2012
REVISED STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Proposed Whitcomb Street Historic District – Findings and Recommendation of
the Commission
STAFF CONTACT: Karen McWilliams and Josh Weinberg, Preservation Planners
APPLICANTS:
Daniel Chester Lane Trust, Owner, 105 S. Whitcomb Street
Veronica Leigh Lim, Owner, 108 S Whitcomb
Kevin M. Murray and Suzanne M. Murray, Owners, 117 South Whitcomb Street
Lane C. Kaley, Owner, 118 South Whitcomb
Daniel J. Manier and Heather M. Manier, Owner, 125 S. Whitcomb Street
John Albert Eggers Volckens and Amy Marie Miles Volckens, Owners, 126 S. Whitcomb
Virginia E. Cross, Owner, 129 South Whitcomb
Agnes E. York, Patricia Williams Wilbarger, et al, Owners, 130 S. Whitcomb Street
Susan M. Walker, Owner, 601 W. Mountain Avenue
Virginia E. Cross, Owner, 612 W. Oak Street
REQUEST: Official action on the proposed Historic Landmark District Designation
for the Whitcomb Street Historic District, consisting of the following properties:
105 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
108 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
112 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
113 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1 and 2)
117 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
118 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
121 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
122 South Whitcomb Street (Not Contributing)
125 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
126 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
129 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
130 South Whitcomb Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
601 West Mountain Avenue (Individually Designated Fort Collins Landmark, and
Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
612 West Oak Street (Contributing to the District under Standards 1, 2, and 3)
ATTACHMENT 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for the Commission to take official action on the proposed Whitcomb Street
Historic District, and to make a recommendation to City Council on the Commission’s findings.
The area being proposed as the Whitcomb Street Historic District contains fourteen properties,
which together form a cohesive unit historically, architecturally, and developmentally associated
with the 100 block of South Whitcomb Street. The proposed district is generally bound on the
north by Mountain Avenue, on the south by Oak Street, and by alleys on the east and west sides.
The period of significance dates from the oldest construction, in 1889, to the newest built
seventy-two years ago in 1940, on the last subdivided lot.
The Whitcomb Street Historic District is being nominated for Landmark District status under
three of the four Landmark Designation Standards. The nomination states that the Whitcomb
District is historically significant under Fort Collins Landmark Standard Number 1, for its
association with the development and social history of Fort Collins. Research into the property
owners and tenants indicate that this block is particularly reflective of residential middle class
and upper middle class history in Fort Collins. The District is additionally being proposed for
recognition under Standard 2, for its association with several early prominent Fort Collins
residents, including Aaron Kitchel, Horace Garbutt, and Stewart C. Case. Furthermore, a
prevalence of the dwellings within the district, including the individually designated Queen Anne
residence at 601 West Mountain Avenue, are architecturally significant under Fort Collins
Landmark Standard 3. The proposed landmark district provides a representative collection of
Late 19
th
and Early 20
th
Century one- and two-story residences and historic outbuildings, with
Queen Anne, Craftsman and Minimal Traditional architecture.
BACKGROUND: On April 11, 2012, an application for this Landmark District designation
was submitted by Mr. Kevin Murray, on behalf of himself and other property owners within the
proposed district. At that meeting, the Commission passed a resolution directing staff to
investigate the benefits of landmark district designation for this area. Staff then contacted all
property owners of record with information on the reasons and effects of this District Landmark
designation. The owners of ten of the fourteen properties have consented in writing to
establishment of the Whitcomb Street Historic District. Owners of four properties have also
responded, and have stated their opposition to the district.
At its August 8, 2012 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission held a hearing to
consider the proposed district. The Commission found that the proposed district is eligible for
Landmark District recognition, and scheduled the Designation Hearing to further consider
formation of this district. After the Commission scheduled the Designation Hearing, staff
provided notice pursuant to Municipal Code Section 14-22, “Notice of Hearing.” Staff also
prepared the attached report, reviewing the proposed designation according to Municipal Code
Section 14-23, “Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services Review.”
In addition to LPC hearings, Historic Preservation Staff met individually with neighbors,
interested citizens, and residents of the proposed historic district. Staff also held formal
advertised neighborhood meetings, as well as communicated with interested parties through
email.
Tonight, at this Designation Hearing, the Commission may vote to recommend approval of the
district, in whole or in part, may reject the district in whole or in part, or may modify the
proposed district. The Commission’s recommendation will then be forwarded to City Council.
The final decision on establishing a district is made by City Council.
RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS:
Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Landmark Preservation, provides the policies
and procedures regulating the Commission’s actions. Section 14-2, “Declaration of policy,” and
Section 14-3, “Purpose,” provide clear direction on the intent that Fort Collins protect, preserve
and enhance significant historical, architectural and geographical properties as a matter of public
policy.
Sec. 14-2. Declaration of policy.
(a) It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and
perpetuation of sites, structures, objects and districts of historical, architectural or
geographic significance, located within the city, are a public necessity and are required in
the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare of the people.
(b) It is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing
of this city cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural
and geographical heritage of the city and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of
such cultural assets.
Section 14-25, Hearing, states: “(a) At least five (5) members of the Commission shall conduct
the hearing. If at least five (5) members are not present, the members present may adjourn the
meeting to another date within two (2) weeks. If at least five (5) members are not present at such
adjourned meeting, the hearing shall be canceled and the designation procedure terminated. If
any hearing is continued, the time, date and place of the continuation shall be established and
announced to those present when the current session is to be adjourned. Such information shall
be promptly forwarded, by regular mail, to the owners of record as established and addressed
pursuant to Section 14-22.
(b) Reasonable opportunity shall be provided for all interested parties to express their opinions
regarding the proposed designation or designations. However, nothing contained herein shall be
construed to prevent the Commission from establishing reasonable rules to govern the
proceedings of the hearings or from establishing reasonable limits on the length of individual
presentations. The hearings shall be recorded and minutes provided to each City Council
member. Written presentations, including the report of the Department of Community
Development and Neighborhood Services, shall be included in the record of the hearing.”
STAFF ANALYSIS: Section 14-23 of the Municipal Code requires that the Department of
Community Development and Neighborhood Services review proposed local historic district
designations and provide written recommendations to the Landmark Preservation Commission in
regards to zoning ordinance, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the effect on the surrounding
neighborhood. Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Director, has prepared this report as an
attachment.
Staff has also further investigated the application’s boundary justification and finds it is valid and
congruent with national standards for determining boundaries of historic districts. In determining
the boundaries for the proposed historic district, the defined area included one recently
constructed non-contributing property. The non-contributing property is located in the middle of
the district boundary. As outlined in the National Park Service’s Bulletin on Defining Boundaries
for National Register Districts, “When such areas are small and surrounded by eligible
resources, they may not be excluded, but are included as noncontributing resources of the
property. That is, do not select boundaries which exclude a small noncontributing island
surrounded by contributing resources; simply identify the noncontributing resources and include
them within the boundaries of the property.”
Furthermore, all of the properties within the proposed district boundary, except for 122 South
Whitcomb, historically relate to the 100 block of South Whitcomb Street within its stated period
of historic significance, from the late 19
th
century to the late 1930s and early 1940s. The period
of significance stated in the application coincides with properties historically associated with
South Whitcomb Street, even though they might now be addressed on other streets. For example,
the application explains that the property currently addressed as 601 West Mountain was
originally much larger and addressed on Whitcomb Street. After being subdivided, the current
corner lot was addressed to face Mountain Avenue. Similarly, the application states that the lot at
612 West Oak was once part of 129 South Whitcomb Street.
This period of significance also encompasses three distinct construction periods, beginning with
Queen Anne style residences, continuing with Craftsman style homes, and concluding with the
Minimal Traditional style, which was popular before and during World War II. The property at
529 West Mountain, or the property outside the northeastern portion of the proposed district
boundary, was excluded from the district because it was constructed nearly ten years after the
last Minimal Traditional residence on the block. Before its recent demolition, the building was a
distinctive Ranch style home, representing the building period following WWII. For a variety of
reasons, the Ranch style was a significant departure from the preceding architectural styles of the
20
th
century.
The applicants have continued to investigate the history of their homes since the Commission
made its first resolution on the proposal in April, 2012. They have uncovered information that
purports to further connect the early homes of the proposed district to premier architect of early
Fort Collins History, Montezuma Fuller. See the attached document for more details.
COMMISSION ACTION: Municipal Code Section 14-26, Findings and recommendations of
the Commission, states: “The Commission shall act officially on each proposed designation
within thirty-five (35) days of the hearing. The Commission may approve, reject or modify any
proposal, but no proposal may be extended beyond the boundaries of the land described in the
original resolution unless the initiation and hearing procedure is repeated for the enlarged
boundaries. The Commission shall set forth in its records the findings of fact which constitute the
basis for its decision. If the Commission fails to act within the thirty-five-day period, the
designation shall be deemed to have been rejected and the designation procedure shall thereby be
terminated.”
Additionally, Section 14-27, Transmittal to City Council, states:(a) Within fifteen (15) days after
reaching its decision, the Commission shall transmit to the City Council its recommendation on
the designation of a landmark or landmark district, including the description of the property
involved and the findings upon which the recommendation was based. (b) If more than one (1)
property is involved in the designation procedure, the Commission may approve in part and
terminate in part. Each part shall then be treated as a separate action. In no event may any
property be added to the area described in the initiation resolution without instituting a new
designation procedure.
The Commission should approve, reject or modify the district proposal. The Commission, then,
shall state its findings of fact for the decision. Following official action, the Commission shall
transmit its recommendation on to City Council for Council’s consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application for Landmark District Designation of the Whitcomb Street Historic District,
with photographs and attachments
2. Draft Resolution
3. “The Influence of Montezuma Fuller on the Block of 100 South Whitcomb” –
information provided by applicants
4. Memorandum RE: Municipal Code Section 14-23 – Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim
Planning Director
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Landmark Preservation Commission
FM: Sherry Albertson-Clark, Interim Planning Manager
RE: Proposed Whitcomb Street Historic District
DT: October 2, 2012
Section 14-23 of the City Code requires that the Department of Community Development and
Neighborhood Services review proposed local historic district designations and provide written
recommendations to the Landmark Preservation Commission. The specific criteria from the Code for
this review are addressed below.
1. Relationship to Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan of the city: All of the 14
properties in the proposed Whitcomb Street Historic District are zoned N-C-M Neighborhood
Conservation Medium Density. This zone district is intended to preserve the character of areas
that are predominantly single-family and low-to-medium density multi-family housing. While there
are building design standards in place for this zone district, as well as general development
standards in the city’s Land Use Code, these standards have not always resulted in designs that
are perceived to be “in character” with the neighborhood. Also, they do not address smaller areas
within the larger zone district that may have their own unique character, such as in the proposed
Whitcomb Street Historic District.
In the City Structure Plan, the land use designation for the area is Low Density Mixed-Use, which
is primarily an area for “low density housing, along with other uses that serve the neighborhood
and are in harmony with the residential character”. The Vision of City Plan includes support for
the preservation of existing housing stock, with a particular emphasis on buildings or areas of
historic value. The Community and Neighborhood Livability Principle LIV 16 states that “the
quality of life in Fort Collins will be enhanced by the preservation of historic resources and
inclusion of heritage in the daily life and development of the City and community” and Policy LIV
16.5 states “Actively encourage property owners to designate their properties as historic
landmarks”. Principle LIV 17 notes that “Historically and architecturally significant buildings
Downtown and throughout the community will be valued and preserved” and Policy LIV 17.1
states “Preserve historically significant buildings, sites and structures throughout Downtown and
Planning, Development and
Transportation Services
Current Planning
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/currentplanning
ATTACHMENT 4
2
the community. Ensure that new building design respects the existing historic and architectural
character of the surrounding district by using compatible building materials, colors, scale, mass,
and design detailing of structures”.
2. Effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood: The area proposed for district
designation appears to be historically, architecturally, and developmentally a cohesive unit. It is
representative of Late 19th/Early 20th Century residences of Fort Collins and their associated
outbuildings. The proposed district includes structures of Queen Anne, Craftsman and Minimal
Traditional architecture and construction was between 1889 and 1940. Several of the structures
are architecturally significant. The proposed designation of this area as a local historic district is
expected to have a positive effect on the surrounding area, as other property owners, residents,
and the community as a whole benefit from the retention of the character of this area and see the
value of the protections offered by local historic district designation. There does not appear to be
a negative effect on the surrounding neighborhood, since this district designation is limited to a
specific area and is proposed with a vast majority of property owners supporting the designation.
3. Other planning considerations that may be relevant: As you know, Planning staff is working
on the East Side/West Side Character Study. This study was triggered by concerns of residents
in both areas that some new construction and remodels in these neighborhoods were not always
perceived as being in character with the neighborhood. Historic district designation for the
properties within the proposed historic district will provide a level of protection for the character of
the buildings and structures that does not currently exist for this area.
In summary, the proposal to designate this area along South Whitcomb Street (including 601
West Mountain and 612 West Oak) as a local historic district appears to be consistent with the
underlying zoning of N-C-M and the land use designation of the City Structure Plan. The
Principles and Policies of the City Structure Plan provide further support for landmark designation
and the preservation of historic buildings, sites, and structures. The proposed designation is
expected to assist in the retention and enhancement of the existing character and provide a
positive effect on the surrounding neighborhood and the community. Therefore, we recommend
that the Landmark Preservation Commission recommend approval of the proposed South
Whitcomb Street Local Landmark District.
ATTACHMENT 5
State Representative Member:
JOHN KEFALAS Finance Committee
Colorado State Capitol Health & Environment
200 E. Colfax Ave, Room 271 Committee
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol: 303-866-4569
Home: 970-221-1135
COLORADO
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
State Capitol
Denver
80203
October 10, 2012
Fort Collins Landmark Preservation Commission
Dear Commission Members,
As a long time resident living in Old Town West, I applaud my neighbors on the 100 block of South
Whitcomb for being pro-active in seeking historical designation. As I ride my bicycle around Old Town,
I have always admired the classic homes along that street.
Establishing this historic district honors the craftsmanship of those builders at the turn of the 20th Century
as well as these homeowners who are dedicated to preserving the history of Old Town West. I
respectfully encourage you to approve this district application.
Thank you for your public service.
.Sincerely,
John Kefalas
State Representative
House District 52
ATTACHMENT 6
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580
970.416.2740
970.224.6134- fax
fcgov.com
Planning, Development & Transportation Services
WHAT IS A HISTORIC DISTRICT?
A historic district is a defined grouping of buildings united historically by past events or
people, or by architecture and physical development, which are officially recognized by City
Council. Because of growth and change, it is unlikely that every house in a district will be
significant. Buildings within a district are described as being individually eligible, contributing,
or non-contributing:
Individually Eligible - Properties that have significance (historical and/or architectural)
and substantially retain their exterior integrity can not only contribute to a historic district, but
can apply for individual designation as a Fort Collins Landmark as well, if so desired.
Contributing - Buildings that would contribute to a district are architecturally and/or
historically significant resources that have experienced some alterations, which, while not
seriously damaging the historic character of the building, have notably altered its appearance.
These buildings and structures retain enough exterior integrity to contribute to a group of similar
resources (a district) but are not typically eligible for landmark designation on their own.
Non-contributing - Buildings or structures with little or no historical or architectural
significance, or that have endured numerous exterior changes, or both, are not eligible for
landmark designation. Although they are located within a historic district, they do not contribute
to the historic nature of the district.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LANDMARK DESIGNTION?
Landmark designation does not change the use of your property, which is established
by its zone district.
Further, designation does not require any alterations or changes to be made.
Landmark designation provides financial benefits to designated residential properties:
- The State Tax Credit program gives owners a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of 20% for all
approved costs, for both labor and materials. The work can also be interior and/or
exterior. Any designated building qualifies, including garages and outbuildings. This
program will cover nearly everything, including structural, electrical, plumbing and
wiring, porches, window repairs, storm windows, roofing, new furnaces and appliances,
and even the costs of finishing an unfinished basement. The 20% credit can be used over
ten years.
- The City’s Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program is a zero-interest matching loan of
up to $7,500 each year. It is for exterior work. Rehabilitation Loans and the State Tax
Credit funds may be used for the same work; for instance, a homeowner who is adding
storm windows could receive both a Rehabilitation Loan and State Tax Credits for the
windows.
- For the design of alterations, additions, or new construction, the City has implemented
a new program, the Design Assistance Program (DAP). If the owner selects a
professional from the DAP Master List, the owner can be reimbursed for up to $2,000 of
the costs for consultation and developing plans (but not actual construction costs). This
assistance is currently available to all Eastside/Westside Neighborhood owners,
regardless of the residence’s age or its eligibility for designation.
ATTACHMENT 7
1
Historic Preservation staff will assist you with preparing applications for the financial
programs.
Owners of designated properties receive free, no-obligation consultations with
architects, preservation contractors, structural engineers, and designers, on any issues
affecting your historic property, from lead paint, to stained glass windows, to options for
a failing foundation.
Landmark designation provides greater flexibility in meeting building codes and
development requirements.
Designation generally results in increased property values, by providing an element of
predictability and by ensuring that your neighbor does not affect your property value by
dramatically altering the character of his property.
Landmark designation does require the review of exterior alterations, demolition and new
construction within the district, using the national Secretary of the Interior Standards to
ensure compatibility. Nearly all residential work fits under the Standards for
Rehabilitation, which is defined as “the act or process of making possible a compatible
use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those
portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.”
The benefits and obligations of landmark designation stay with the property when it is
sold.
WHAT IF MY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS NON-CONTRIBUTING TO THE
DISTRICT? Buildings and structures that are non-contributing are able to take advantage of
many of the same benefits as individually eligible and contributing properties. Exterior
alterations, demolition and new construction to non-contributing buildings and properties are still
reviewed for their affect upon the other properties within the District.
HOW IS WORK REVIEWED? WHO REVIEWS IT?
Depending upon the extent of the work proposed, either staff or the Landmark Preservation
Commission (LPC) reviews the work. Staff consists of Historic Preservation Planners Josh
Weinberg and Karen McWilliams, and Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Director Laurie Kadrich. The LPC consists of nine members appointed by City Council, with
interest or experience in historic preservation or related fields. The criteria for approval are
found in Chapter 14, http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/municipal/chapter14.htm#articleIII.
These criteria reference the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which may be located at
http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/index.htm. Most work falls under the Standards for
Rehabilitation. While most alterations and additions are readily approved, the Standards could
affect the size and design of proposed work.
IS INTERIOR WORK REVIEWED? Work on the interior is reviewed only if the owner is
asking for financial incentives for that work. If so, the work is reviewed using the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards.
HOW LONG DOES THE REVIEW TAKE? LPC review occurs at its Regular Meetings (2nd
Wednesday of each month); staff reviews generally take only a few days.
HOW DOES DESIGNATION AFFECT RESALE VALUE? WILL MY PROPERTY
TAXES INCREASE? Property taxes reflect property value, and designated properties typically
increase in value. An example is the increased valuation of the homes in the Sheely Drive
2
Neighborhood Historic District, designated in 2000. Additionally, studies of historic districts in
Denver, Durango and Fort Collins, conducted by Clarion Associates, found that each time,
property values remained the same or increased after designation. This was attributed to the fact
that the future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that designated
properties are better maintained; the appeal of owning a recognized historic landmark; and the
assurance of predictability that design review offers.
WHAT IMPACT DOES DESIGNATION HAVE ON CONSTRUCTION?
Are additions and alterations allowed? Yes. While new construction may not qualify
for the financial programs, it is still allowed. Nearly all residential work fits under the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standard of Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is defined as “the
act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair,
alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its
historical, cultural, or architectural values.”
Am I required to make changes? No, there is no requirement that owners do work on
their building, unless it is in danger of becoming a hazard or significant architectural
features are in danger of being lost – what is commonly called “demolition by neglect.”
If this is the case, the city has minimum maintenance requirement, which requires that
buildings meet basic building code standards.
Will there be new architectural guidelines? There are no new architectural guidelines,
with one exception -- color, explained below. Staff and the LPC would review new
construction, additions or alterations on the exterior of the buildings using the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards, http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/index.htm. These
are the same criteria used for the Demolition/Alteration Review process, which reviews
new construction, additions or alterations to the exterior of all buildings or structures 50
years old or older.
What’s up with color? Because the codes apply to commercial as well as residential
properties, and the commercial Old Town District is very adamant that color be
regulated, paint colors are reviewed in a streamlined process. This process consists of
binders filled with a very large variety of paint materials and palettes. If the color is in
the binder and is not something egregious such as polka dots or all black, then the color is
approved by staff. If you want polka-dots or all black, then the decision is referred to the
LPC.
What if I want to tear down my house and build a new one? If your house was
determined to be contributing to the district, it is not likely that the LPC would approve
its being torn down without a very good reason.
What if it is damaged in a fire or flood? If the building is condemned, then it may be
demolished without any historic preservation review. If it is damaged extensively, the
LPC would consider how much of the historic building would remain after repairs. If
substantial repairs are needed, the building’s historic integrity of materials, design,
workmanship, feeling and association could be affected, and the building’s historic value
would be lost. If that’s the case, it is the owner’s decision to repair or build new.
Can the financial incentives be used to modify or add on square footage? Yes. All
of the incentives can apply to work modifying, or rehabilitating, already existing space.
While most of the incentives do not go towards “adding on” square footage, the State Tax
Credits for Historic Preservation can be used to add considerable usable square footage
through paying for 20% of the costs of finishing or renovating a basement or attic.
3
Will this affect zoning? Are there different building codes? Landmark designation
does not change zoning or building codes except to add greater flexibility, through
exceptions for designated buildings in the International Building Codes, and the ability
for designated properties to utilize the Uniform Codes for Building Conservation.
Is there a new floor area ratio (FAR) requirement? No. FARs, and similar building
requirements are dictated by the zoning district your home is in.
Are landscaping projects affected by the historic designation? It depends. Only
landscaping projects that would significantly or “permanently” change the appearance of
the property would typically be reviewed, at either the administrative (staff) level or by
the Commission. Examples of a change that could need Commission review would be
adding a structure, such as a greenhouse; building a front driveway where one never
existed, or building large berms in the front yard that hide a portion of the house. Work
that would typically be reviewed at the administrative (staff) level would be adding a
fence or a drive in the rear yard. It’s often a matter of degree: while building a new
walkway using “less permanent” materials, such as stepping stones, might need staff
review, adding decorative stepping stones to a garden would not. Other examples of
work that wouldn’t normally be reviewed are planting or removing trees or shrubs,
building raised flower beds or planter boxes, or digging up the back yard for a garden.
WHAT NEW REQUIREMENTS SHOULD WE BE AWARE OF?
Interim Control: Interim control is a period of time during which a hold is placed on
building permits for demolition, alterations or construction on properties under
considered for landmark designation. This delay only affects work requiring a building
permit. The hold ends with Council’s decision on the designation or after 180 days,
whichever occurs first. The interim period for the proposed Whitcomb Street District
began on April 11, 2012, and will expire in October.
Please contact Historic Preservation staff with any questions or for additional information:
Karen McWilliams Josh Weinberg
kmcwilliams@fcgov.com jweinberg@fcgov.com
970-224-6078 970-221-6202
4
ATTACHMENT 8
1
1
Request for Designation of the Whitcomb
Street Historic District as a Fort Collins
Landmark District
2
Vicinity Map
ATTACHMENT 9
2
3
Whitcomb Historic District
4
Historic Districts in Fort Collins
3
5
6
4
7
8
127 S Whitcomb
129 S Whitcomb St
5
9
Why Want Designation?
• Financial Benefits
• Increased Property Value
• Predictability – Requires Review of
Exterior Alterations and Demolition
• Additions and Alterations are
Allowed
• Size and Design Can Be Affected
10
Consenting & Not Consenting
6
11
Summary of Landmark Preservation
Commission Action
• 4-11-12: Application for Landmark District
Designation
• 4-11-12: Adopts Resolution to Further
Investigate District
• 8-8-12: District is Eligible, Application Should
Proceed
• 10-10-12: Designation Hearing; Resolution
Recommending Council Approve District
12
Landmark Preservation Commission
Findings and Resolution
• The Boundary is Appropriate
• 13 of 14 Properties Eligible
• The District is Historically and Architecturally
Significant under 3 of 4 Designation Standards
LPC Adopted (7-0) Resolution Recommending
Council Approval of the Whitcomb Street Historic
District as a Landmark District
ORDINANCE NO. 153, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DESIGNATING THE WHITCOMB STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT
AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK DISTRICT PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a
public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks and landmark
districts within the City; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution dated October 10, 2012, the Landmark Preservation Commission
(the "Commission") has determined that the Whitcomb Street Historic District forms a cohesive
unit; that a large percentage of the primary historic resources within the district are contributing to
the district; that the district contains a preponderance of historical integrity; and that the district is
historically and architecturally significant to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standards
1, 2 and 3; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said district meets the criteria of
a landmark district as set forth in Section 14-5 of the Code and is eligible for designation as a
landmark district, and has recommended to the City Council that said district be designated by the
City Council as a landmark district; and
WHEREAS, the owners of ten of the fourteen properties comprising the district have
consented to, and desire such landmark designation; and
WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the district’s significance to the
community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and
desires to approve such recommendation and designate said properties as a landmark district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the Whitcomb Street Historic District, consisting of the following
properties located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado:
105 South Whitcomb Street; 108 South Whitcomb Street; 112 South Whitcomb
Street; 113 South Whitcomb Street; 117 South Whitcomb Street; 118 South
Whitcomb Street; 121 South Whitcomb Street; 122 South Whitcomb Street; 125
South Whitcomb Street; 126 South Whitcomb Street; 129 South Whitcomb Street;
130 South Whitcomb Street; 601 West Mountain Avenue; and 612 West Oak Street
and described as follows, to wit:
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN; CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER; STATE OF
COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 270 OF THE
LOOMIS ADDITION, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF SAID BLOCK
270 TO BEAR SOUTH, WITH ALL BEARING CONTAINED HEREIN
RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ACROSS THE RIGHT OF
WAY OF WHITCOMB STREET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY
OF WHITCOMB STREET, SAID POINT LYING 10 FEET NORTH OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6, BLOCK 71 OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF
THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID LOT 6, EAST, A DISTANCE OF 55 FEET;
THENCE PARALLEL TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WHITCOMB
STREET, SOUTH, A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID LOT 6;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20 FEET;
THENCE PARALLEL TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WHITCOMB
STREET, SOUTH, A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE, EAST, A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET;
THENCE PARALLEL TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WHITCOMB
STREET, SOUTH, A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH
LINE OF LOT 7 OF SAID BLOCK 71; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE,
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 55 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
LOT 7; THENCE SOUTH, A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID LOT 7; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT
7, EAST, A DISTANCE OF 7 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE LINE OF THE
ARTHUR DITCH; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID LINE OF THE
ARTHUR DITCH TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF
OF LOT 8 OF SAID BLOCK 71, SAID POINT BEING 126 FEET MORE OR LESS
EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WHITCOMB STREET;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, WEST, 26 FEET; THENCE PARALLEL
TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF WHITCOMB STREET, SOUTH, A
DISTANCE OF 50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE
OF OAK STREET AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 8, WEST, A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE CONTINUING WEST,
A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET ACROSS THE RIGHT OF WAY OF WHITCOMB
STREET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLOCK 270 OF THE LOOMIS
ADDITION; THENCE CONTINUING WEST, A DISTANCE OF 190 FEET TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 17 OF SAID BLOCK 270; THENCE
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 17, 16, 13, AND 12 OF SAID BLOCK 270,
NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
-2-
SAID LOT 12; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 12, EAST,
A DISTANCE OF 110 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 2 OF
SAID BLOCK 270 AND ITS EXTENSION, NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET
TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2; THENCE ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF LOTS 2 AND 1 OF SAID BLOCK 270, EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 3.037 ACRES
MORE OR LESS
be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark District in accordance with Chapter l4 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins.
Section 2. That the criteria in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code will serve as the
standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located
within the boundaries of the above described district will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter
14, Article III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Jessica Ping-Small
Jim Szakmeister
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2012, Amending Article IV of Chapter 15 of the City Code relating to Door-to-Door
Solicitation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 060, 2011, which took effect on May 27, 2011. It established a permit system
regulating residential door-to door solicitation. The City's goal in regulating door-to-door solicitation was to help protect
the safety and privacy of residents in their dwellings. Since implementing the permit system, staff has identified certain
changes that they recommend be made to the provisions to ensure that the permit system is working properly and
effectively, and also to allow staff to respond quickly and efficiently to violations of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2011, the “Green River Ordinance” was replaced to bring the City's regulations more in line with the approach that
many other Colorado cities had taken regarding residential solicitation. From an administrative perspective, the first
year of the ordinance has proceeded fairly smoothly. However, certain aspects surrounding an out-of-state solicitation
vendor in the summer of 2012 raised questions about the ordinance.
Under the Ordinance, residents have the following options for dealing with solicitors at their door:
• Post a "No Trespassing" or "No Solicitation" sign, which prohibits all door-to-door solicitation whether
commercial or non-commercial.
• Complete the online no-solicitation form, which prohibits commercial solicitations only.
• Take no action, which allows all commercial and non-commercial solicitation.
The following are the Sales Tax Office and Police Services statistics to date:
• 4,439 households have signed up online for the no-solicitation list.
• 44 companies have been issued two-year permits to solicit in the City of Fort Collins. Of the 44 companies,
7 have out-of-state addresses.
Licensing and Citation Statistics 2011 2012 YTD
Number of Calls to
Police Services
97* 114*
Total Citations Issued 17 22
Number of Repeat Offenders
(Issued 2 citations)
1 1
Number of Citations Issued to Solicitors with a
Permit
4** 4***
Number of Badges Suspended or Revoked 2 6
Number of Permits Suspended or Revoked 0 1
*The remaining calls were closed under the following circumstances: unable to locate; unfounded;
warning; gone on arrival.
**The badges in connection with 2 of these citations were suspended.
***The permit and badges in connection with all 4 citations were revoked.
December 18, 2012 -2- ITEM 26
There are currently three kinds of remedies available to the City for violation of the Ordinance:
• Suspension or revocation of the identification badge of individual solicitors.
• Suspension, revocation, or non-renewal of the permit; and/or
• Criminal prosecution of the solicitor(s) and/or permit holder.
Staff has met to discuss the Solicitation Ordinance and is recommending the following process improvements:
• A weekly report will be generated by Police Services itemizing all solicitation calls that will be sent directly to
the Sales Tax office, along with copies of all police reports and citations issued will be sent to Sales Tax for
monitoring of repeat offenders.
• The Sales Tax office will review the reports when received and take appropriate actions to warn, suspend,
or revoke the permit holders. This process will foster better communication between staff at the Sales Tax
Office and Police Services, and facilitate a quicker response time to handle violations.
• Tighter policies and procedures should be put in place, including criteria to determine how and when a permit
or badge holder will be suspended or revoked.
The criteria in the policies and procedures used to determine if a violation warrants a suspension or revocation will
include the following:
• Inadvertently vs. knowingly violating the Ordinance
• Repeated violations
• Prior warnings
• Any threatening, harassing or intimidating behavior
• Misrepresentation
• Likelihood of future violations
In addition, staff is making the following recommendations to amend the Ordinance:
• Clarify that the owners of multi-family dwellings and other buildings housing multiple occupants may post a
sign prohibiting solicitation on behalf of all such occupants.
• Authorize the Financial Officer to suspend a badge and/or permit.
• Require those that supervise solicitors to complete a criminal background check.
• Incorporate more clearly defined due process requirements.
• Limit the requisite criminal background check to the ten (10) years immediately preceding the permit
application.
• Eliminate the current requirement of a sales tax deposit.
• Add a misdemeanor offense for displaying a badge unlawfully after suspension or revocation.
• Add a provision requiring a $50 deposit for a badge, to be refunded at the expiration of the term of the badge
or upon revocation or voluntary relinquishment.
In addition to proposing these Code amendments, management staff will be working with the City Attorney’s Office
to review and possibly revise prosecution policies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On December 5, 2012, staff issued a letter to all permitted solicitation vendors notifying them of the proposed changes
to the City’s door-to-door solicitation ordinance.
December 18, 2012 -3- ITEM 26
In the spring of 2013, staff will initiate an outreach campaign which will educate citizens on the requirement to update
their inclusion on the no-solicitation list which will expire on the two- year anniversary of the ordinance in May of 2013.
The outreach will also educate citizens about the pending updates to the ordinance and provide a refresher on the
methods to stop solicitors from knocking on their door.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation
1
1
Door-to-Door
Solicitation Update
December 18, 2012
2
History/Provisions
City Council passed Ordinance No. 060, 2011 in May, 2011
• Replaced “Green River Ordinance”
• Established permit system regulating door-to-door solicitation
Key Provisions
• Commercial solicitors must have a permit to conduct door-to-
door sales within the City
• Individual solicitors or badge holders are required to complete
a criminal background check
• Non-commercial solicitations are not regulated. By law, non-
commercial solicitations include such things as religious and
political contacts, fundraisers for schools and other tax-exempt
organizations, and the sale of newspaper and magazine
subscriptions
• The permit is issued for two years
ATTACHMENT 1
2
3
Options for Citizens to “Opt Out”
• Post a "No Trespassing" or "No Solicitation" sign,
which prohibits all door-to-door solicitation whether
commercial or non-commercial
• Complete the online no solicitation form, which
prohibits solely commercial solicitation
• Take no action, which allows all commercial and
non-commercial solicitation
Posting a “No Trespassing” or “No Solicitation” sign is the
most effective way to prohibit solicitors.
4
Statistics
• 4,439 households have signed up for the no-
solicitation list online
• 44 companies have been issued a permit to solicit in
the City of Fort Collins
• Of the 44 companies, 7 have out of state addresses.
• 9 of the 44 companies list Fort Collins addresses
The majority of solicitation companies are not local to Fort Collins.
3
5
Statistics
Police Services and
Licensing Statistics To Date
2011 2012 YTD
Number of Calls to
Police Services
97* 114*
Total Citations Issued 17 22
Number of Repeat
Offenders
(Issued 2 citations)
1 1
Number Citations Issued to
Solicitors with a Permit
4** 4***
Number of Badges
Suspended or Revoked
2 6
Number of Permits
Suspended or Revoked
0 1
*The remaining calls were closed under the following circumstances: unable to locate;
unfounded; warning; gone on arrival.
**The badges in connection with 2 of these citations were suspended.
***The permit and badges in connection with all 4 citations were revoked.
The majority of citations issued have been to companies
operating without a valid solicitor permit.
6
Handbill Clarification
• A solicitor permit is required if a handbill,
advertisement or flyer is personally given to a
resident.
• If the handbill, advertisement or flyer is left on the
door without contacting the resident, a permit is not
required.
• No handbills or advertisements may be left at a
residence which has a "No Soliciting" or "No
Trespassing" sign.
Signing up for the “No Solicit” list online does not prevent
solicitors from leaving handbills if no personal contact is made.
4
7
Recommended Ordinance Changes
• Clarify that the owners of multi-family dwellings and other
buildings housing multiple occupants may post a sign
prohibiting solicitation on behalf of all such occupants.
• Authorize the Financial Officer to suspend a badge and/or
permit.
• Require those that supervise solicitors to complete a criminal
background check.
• Incorporate more clearly defined due process requirements.
• Limit the requisite criminal background check to the ten (10)
years immediately preceding the permit application; eliminate
the current requirement of sales tax deposit.
• Add a misdemeanor offense for displaying a badge unlawfully
after suspension or revocation.
• Add a provision requiring a fifty (50) dollar deposit for a
badge, to be refunded at the expiration of the term of the
badge or upon revocation or voluntary relinquishment.
8
Recent Policy and Procedure Improvements
• A weekly report generated by Police Services and sent to the
Sales Tax Office itemizing all solicitation calls – including
copies of reports and citations
• Improved communication between the Sales Tax Office and
Police Services
• Defined criteria to warrant suspension or revocation
• Criteria includes:
Inadvertently vs. knowingly violating the ordinance
Repeated violation
Prior warnings
Behavior – threatening, harassing or intimidating
Misrepresentation
Likelihood of future violations
Improvements will facilitate an expedient and efficient
response to permit holders that violate the ordinance.
5
9
Public Outreach Plan – Spring 2013
• Citizen education campaign
• 2 year anniversary of ordinance
• Majority of permits will expire spring/summer 2013
• Citizens will need to resubmit name and address
for online “No Solicit” list
• Refresher for citizens on how to ban solicitors from
private residences
Posting a “No Trespassing” or “No Solicitation” sign is the
most effective way to prohibit solicitors permanently.
ORDINANCE NO. 154, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 15
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
RELATING TO DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITATIONS
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2011, acting on the recommendation of the City Attorney’s Office,
the City Council replaced the City’s total ban on commercial door-to-door residential solicitation
with a permit system regulating such solicitation; and
WHEREAS, in implementing that permit system, City staff has identified certain changes
that they believe should be made to the provisions of Chapter 15, Article IV of the City Code, in
which the permit system has been established; and
WHEREAS, City staff has recommended these changes be made to ensure that the permit
system is working properly and effectively, and to allow staff to respond quickly and efficiently
when violations to the ordinance occur; and
WHEREAS, the effect of the amendments recommended by City staff would be to:
• clarify that the owners of multi-family dwellings and other buildings housing
multiple occupants may post a sign prohibiting solicitation on behalf of all such
occupants;
• authorize the Financial Officer to suspend a badge and/or permit;
• require persons who supervise solicitors to complete a criminal background check;
• incorporate more clearly defined due process requirements;
• limit the requisite criminal background check to the ten (10) years immediately
preceding the permit application; eliminate the current requirement of sales tax
deposit;
• add a misdemeanor offense for displaying a badge unlawfully after suspension or
revocation; and
• add a provision requiring a fifty (50) dollar deposit for a badge, to be refunded at the
expiration of the term of the badge or upon revocation or voluntary relinquishment;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it would be in the best interests of the City to approve
these changes so as to better protect the safety and privacy interests of City residents while, at the
same time, respecting the First Amendment and due process rights of solicitors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That Section 15-107 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended by the addition of a new definition “Supervising staff” which reads in its entirety as
follows:
Sec. 15-107. Definitions.
. . .
Supervising staff means any person who manages or supervises commercial
solicitors.
Section 2. That Section 15-108 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-108. All solicitation prohibited by posting of "No Solicitation" or "No
Trespassing" sign.
(a) No solicitor, whether commercial or noncommercial, shall enter or remain
upon any public or private premises in the City if a "No Solicitation" or "No
Trespassing" sign is posted at or near the entrance(s) to such premises. For the
purposes of this provision, the owner of a building that houses multiple dwelling
units, including, but not limited to a multi-family dwelling, fraternity or sorority
house, hotel, or motel, may post a sign at or near all entrances to such building that
face a public street or right-of-way and thereby prohibit solicitation at any dwelling
unit contained in such building.
(b) This provision shall apply to all solicitation including, without limitation, all
activities that are religious, charitable or political in nature and all solicitation.
Section 3. That Section 15-111 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-111. Application contents; fees.
(a) Each person applying for a door-to-door commercial solicitation permit shall
file with the Financial Officer an affidavit on a form supplied by the Financial
Officer stating:
(1) The full name, business address and business telephone number of the
applicant;
(2) Information regarding the business as required by the Financial Officer,
including, without limitation, its legal status and proof of registration with,
or a certificate of good standing from, the Colorado Secretary of State;
(3) A complete list of all persons to be authorized to solicit under the permit and
all supervising staff;
(4) For each person authorized to solicit under a permit and all supervising staff,
the following information:
-2-
a. Names, address, telephone number and date of birth;
b. A current copy of the persons' criminal background check, as
maintained by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, dated no more
than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the application;
c. A description of the individual including height, weight, color of eyes
and color of hair; and
d. The number and state of issuance of the individual's motor vehicle
operator's license or chauffeur's license, if any, or other state-issued
photo identification.
(5) A brief explanation of the nature of the solicitation activity that requires a
permit under this Division;
(6) If the applicant is a foreign corporation or an employee of such corporation,
the name, address and telephone number of an agent for process residing in
the state;
(7) Proof that the applicant has obtained a valid City sales and use tax license;
(8) Proof that the applicant has deposited the sales tax deposit or has received a
valid waiver of such sales tax deposit; and
(98) Any other information determined to be relevant by the Financial Officer.
(b) At the time of application, the applicant shall also submit a photograph of
each person to be authorized to solicit under the permit, taken no more than six (6)
months prior to the date of application, which photograph fairly depicts the
appearance of the proposed solicitor as of the date of application and which, in the
judgment of the Financial Officer, is suitable for reproduction on the identification
badge to be issued by the City.
(c) At the time of application, each applicant shall pay a fee in an amount
determined by the Financial Officer to be sufficient to defray the costs incurred by
the City in processing the application, plus an additional fee to defray the costs of
preparing and issuing an identification badge for each person to be authorized to
solicit under the permit, including the applicant. Said fees shall be nonrefundable.
(d) At the time of application, the applicant shall pay a $50 deposit for each
badge, to be refunded to the permit holder at the expiration of the term of the badge
or upon revocation or voluntary relinquishment.
Section 4. That Section 15-113 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby repealed
in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 15-113. Sales tax deposit.
-3-
(a) If at the time of filing the application the applicant has not maintained a City
sales tax license for at least the previous twenty-four (24) months, the applicant shall
deposit with the Financial Officer a sales tax deposit in the sum of two hundred fifty
dollars ($250.). The Financial Officer may waive the sales tax deposit upon a
showing that the applicant has maintained a City sales tax license for at least the
previous twenty-four (24) months and has a record of promptly paying any sales tax
due.
(b) Upon issuance of the solicitation permit and subsequent verification by the
City that the permittee has paid the sales tax due the City, the balance of the deposit
required under Subsection (a) of this Section, if any, shall be returned to the
permittee. If the permittee fails to pay the City's sales tax and does not seek return
of the sales tax deposit within ninety (90) days from the expiration of the permit, the
City Manager may declare the deposit forfeited and notify the permittee thereof at
the address shown on the permit. Forfeiture of the sales tax deposit, however, shall
not release the permittee from the obligation to remit the correct amount of sales tax
due.
Section 5. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by adding a new
Section 15-113, which Section reads as follows:
Sec. 15-113. Persons prohibited.
A person shall not be eligible for issuance of a permit or identification badge under
this Division if:
(1) Such person has been released within the ten (10) years immediately
preceding the application from any form of incarceration or court-ordered
supervision, including a deferred sentence, resulting from has been a convictedion
of any felony or Class 1 misdemeanor under the laws of the State of Colorado or an
equivalent offense under any federal, state, county or municipal law; or
(2) A permit or an identification badge previously issued to such person by the
Financial Officer under§ 15-110 has been revoked by the Financial Officer under
§§ 15-120 or 15-121 below.
Section 6. That Section 15-120 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-120. Suspension or rRevocation of identification badge.
The Financial Officer After written notice of no less than ten (10) calendar days and
a hearing if requested in writing by the badge holder within twenty (20) calendar
days after the date of mailing of such notice, the Financial Officer may suspend or
revoke the identification badge of any solicitor that has engaged in any unlawful
solicitation. The grounds for such suspension or revocation may include, but shall
-4-
not be limited to the following:
(1) Failure to solicit in a manner that is in compliance with the permit and the
provisions of this Division;
(2) Soliciting in such a manner as to constitute a menace to the health, safety or
general welfare of the public..
In the event the alleged conduct that is the basis for the suspension or revocation of
the identification badge is the subject of a pending criminal or non-traffic civil
citation, the Financial Officer may either defer his or her decision regarding
suspension or revocation until such citation has been resolved or immediately
proceed with the foregoing administrative action prior to the resolution of such
citation.
Section 7. That Section 15-121 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-121. Suspension, Nonrenewal or revocation or non-renewal of permit.
The Financial Officer After written notice of no less than ten (10) calendar days and
a hearing if requested in writing by the badge holder within twenty (20) calendar
days after the date of the mailing of such notice, the Financial Officer may suspend
or revoke the identification badge of any solicitor that has engaged in any unlawful
solicitation. The grounds for such suspension or revocation may include, but shall
not be limited to the following:
(1) Fraud, misrepresentation or false statement in the application for the permit
or any renewal application, including, without limitation, representations made as to
the criminal history of any person to be authorized to solicit under the permit;
(2) Failure to obtain a sales and use tax license as required by the City or to remit
any sales tax due the City;
(3) Failure to supervise solicitation conducted under the permit so as to
reasonably ensure that such solicitation is in compliance with the terms of the permit
and with the provisions of this Division; or
(4) Authorizing, condoning or knowingly tolerating any unlawful solicitation or
any solicitation conducted in such a manner as to constitute a menace to the health,
safety or general welfare of the public.
In the event the alleged conduct that is the basis for the suspension or revocation of
the identification badge is the subject of a pending criminal or non-traffic civil
citation, the Financial Officer may either defer his or her decision regarding
suspension or revocation until such citation has been resolved or immediately
-5-
proceed with the foregoing administrative action prior to the resolution of such
citation.
Section 8. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by adding a
section, to be numbered 15-122, and all subsequent numbers to be renumbered accordingly, which
Section reads as follows:
Sec. 15-122 Emergency summary suspension of identification badge or permit.
If reasonable grounds exist to believe that a permittee and/or badge holder has
engaged in illegal activity such that the public health, safety or welfare imperatively
requires emergency action, the Financial Officer may summarily suspend the permit
and/or badge pending the outcome of the proceedings set forth in Secs. 15-120 or 15-
121, as applicable.
The temporary suspension of a permit or badge without notice pending a hearing
shall be for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) days.
Section 9. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by adding a
Section, to be numbered 15-123, and all subsequent numbers to be renumbered accordingly, which
Section reads as follows:
Sec. 15-.123 Displaying a badge after suspension, revocation or non-renewal.
No person shall display an identification badge after it has been invalidated by
suspension, revocation, or non-renewal.
Section 10. That the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by adding a
Section, to be numbered 15-124, and all subsequent numbers to be renumbered accordingly, which
Section reads as follows:
Sec. 15-124 Promulgation of rules and regulations.
The Financial Officer may promulgate administrative rules and regulations to
effectuate the purposes of this Article.
-6-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-7-
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2012, Amending Section 2-483 of the City Code So as to Make the Conflict of
Interest Provisions Contained in Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter Applicable to the Members of the Board of
Commissioners of the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance would amend the City Code so that the ethical rules that apply to the City Council will also apply to
the URA Board of Commissioners. The City Council Ethics Review Board has recommended this change since, in
Fort Collins, the URA Board consists of the members of the City Council itself.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter contains certain conflict of interest rules that apply to all officers and
employees of the City. Under those rules, an “officer or employee” of the City is defined as “any person holding a
position by election, appointment or employment in the service of the city, whether part-time or full-time, including
a member of any authority, board, committee or commission of the city, other than an authority that is: (1) established
under the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes; (2) governed by state statutory rules of ethical conduct; and
(3) expressly exempted from (the Charter conflict of interest provisions) by ordinance of the Council.”
The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (“URA”) has been established by the City Council under the provisions
contained in Title 31, Article 25, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The statutory ethical rules that apply to
officers and employees of URAs are different than those contained in the Charter. Because City Code Section 2-483
presently exempts the URA from the provisions of Article IV, Section 9 of the Charter, the state statutory rules, rather
than Charter conflict of interest rules, apply to the officers are employees of the URA.
The state statutory conflict of interest rule most directly applicable to the URA is the rule contained in C.R.S. § 31-25-
104(3), which prohibits commissioners and other officers and employees of authorities and their immediate family
members from acquiring any interest in any project or in any property included or planned to be included in any
project, or from having any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract for materials or services to be furnished or used
in connection with any project. This state ethical rule is less restrictive than the conflict of interest rules contained
in the Charter, in that the Charter rules not only prohibit officers and employees of the City from having any financial
interest in decisions that may come before them but also from having any “personal interest” in such decision, as that
term is defined in the Charter.
Under state law, an authority may either be comprised of the members of the governing body that create the authority
or of other appointed members. In Fort Collins, the URA Board consists of the Council itself.
The City Council Ethics Review Board, which is authorized under City Code Section 2-569(c)(4) to propose any
revisions to the City rules of ethical conduct, has recommended that, in view of the fact that the City Council has
designated itself as the board of commissioners of the Authority, the City Code should be amended so as to apply
the same ethical rules of conduct to the Authority as apply to the Council. The ordinance would make that change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 155, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-483 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SO AS TO MAKE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVISIONS CONTAINED
IN THE CITY CHARTER APPLICABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE FORT COLLINS URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 9 of the City Charter and Section 2-568 of the City Code
contain certain ethical rules that apply to all officers and employees of the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 9(a) of the Charter and Section 2-568(a)(4) of the City Code define an
“officer or employee” of the City as “any person holding a position by election, appointment or
employment in the service of the city, whether part-time or full-time, including a member of any
authority, board, committee or commission of the city, other than an authority that is: (1)
established under the provisions of the Colorado Revised Statutes; (2) governed by state statutory
rules of ethical conduct; and (3) expressly exempted from (the Charter conflict of interest
provisions) by ordinance of the Council”; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (the “Authority”) has been
established by the City Council under the provisions contained in Title 31, Article 25, Part 1 of the
Colorado Revised Statutes; and
WHEREAS, such authority is governed by state statutory rules of ethical conduct and is
currently expressly exempted under Section 2-483 from the provisions of Article IV, Section 9 of
the Charter, so that the Charter conflict of interest rules do not apply to the members of the Board
of Commissioners of the Authority (the “Board”); and
WHEREAS, under C.R.S. Sections 31-25-104(2)(a) and 31-25-115(1), the board of
commissioners of an urban renewal authority may either consist of five to eleven members
appointed by the governing body of the municipality, not more than one of whom may be an official
of the municipality, or it may consist of the members of the governing body itself; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2006, by adoption of Ordinance No. 048, 2006, the City Council
established the Authority and designated itself as the Board; and
WHEREAS, the state statutory conflict of interest rule most directly applicable to the
officers and employees of an authority is the rule contained in C.R.S. Section 31-25-104(3), which
prohibits commissioners and other officers and employees of authorities and their immediate family
members from acquiring any interest, direct or indirect, in any project or in any property included
or planned to be included in any project, or from having any interest, direct or indirect, in any
contract for materials or services to be furnished or used in connection with any project; and
WHEREAS, this state conflict of interest rule is less restrictive than the conflict of interest
rules contained in the City Charter, in that the Charter rules not only prohibit officers and employees
of the City from having any financial interest in decisions that may come before them in their
official capacities but also from having any “personal interest” in such decision, as that term is
defined in the Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council Ethics Review Board (the “Review Board”) is authorized
under Section 2-569(c)(4) of the City Code to propose any revisions to the provisions of the Charter
or Code or other regulations, rules or policies of the City pertaining to ethical conduct as the Review
Board may deem necessary and appropriate in the best interests of the City; and
WHEREAS, in Opinion No. 2012-2, the Review Board has recommended that, in view of
the fact that the City Council has designated itself as the board of commissioners of the Authority,
the City Code should be amended so as to apply the same ethical rules of conduct to both the
Authority and the Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that such amendment is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Section 2-483 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended so as to read
in its entirety as follows:
Section 2-483. Conflicts of interest.
The officers and employees of the Authority shall be governed by the applicable
rules of ethical conduct contained in state statutory rules of ethical conduct, and said
persons shall be expressly exempted from the provisions of Article IV, Section 9 of
the Charter and in Section 2-568 of the Code.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 18th day of
December, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 15th day of January, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
DATE: December 18, 2012
STAFF: Steve Roy
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28
SUBJECT
Resolution 2012-122 Accepting Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2012-3 of the Ethics Review Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review Board inquiries
regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical situations involving potential conflicts
of interest. On December 7, 2012, the Ethics Review Board met for the purpose of responding to an inquiry submitted
to the Board by Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmember Manvel. The question submitted is whether, in the Board’s
opinion, either of them has a conflict of interest in participating in upcoming decisions of the City Council regarding
the possible redevelopment of the Link-n-Greens property by Woodward, Inc. The Mayor and Councilmember Manvel
presented the question because of the proximity of their respective businesses to the redevelopment site. As required
by the Code, the Board has forwarded its opinion and recommendation to the full Council for its consideration. The
Board opinion indicates that neither Mayor Weitkunat or Councilmember Manvel has a conflict of interest in this
situation. Adoption of the Resolution would indicate that the majority of the Council agrees with the Board’s opinion
and recommendation.
RESOLUTION 2012-122
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ACCEPTING ADVISORY OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION NO. 2012-3
OF THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD
WHEREAS, the City Council Ethics Review Board is empowered under Section 2-569 of
the City Code to render advisory opinions and recommendations regarding actual or hypothetical
situations of Councilmembers or board and commission members of the City; and
WHEREAS, an alternate Ethics Review Board (the “Board”) was appointed by the City
Council by adoption of Resolution 2012-112 to consider inquires submitted by Mayor Karen
Weitkunat and Councilmember Ben Manvel as to whether they have a conflict of interest in
participating in decisions of the City Council pertaining to the possible redevelopment of the Link-n-
Greens property by Woodward, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Board met on December 7, 2012 to consider these inquiries and has issued
an advisory opinion that neither the Mayor nor Councilmember Manvel has a conflict of interest; and
WHEREAS, Section 2-569(e) of the City Code provides that all advisory opinions and
recommendations of the Board be placed on the agenda for the next special or regular City Council
meeting, at which time the City Council shall determine whether to adopt such opinions and
recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the opinion and recommendation of the Board
and wishes to adopt the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that Opinion No. 2012-3 of the Ethics Review Board, a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A,” has been submitted to and reviewed by the
City Council, and the Council hereby adopts the opinion and recommendations contained therein.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 18th
day of December A.D. 2012.
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-Compliance with all buffer
standards
Existing Vegetation Minimize
disturbance
Preservation of
existing vegetation,
mitigation requirements
Preservation of
existing vegetation,
mitigation requirements
General Conditions that apply to all oil and gas operations, regardless of the review track selected
Emergency Response Must have a plan in compliance with the International Fire Code
- Include emergency contact information for the operator
- Trigger/threshold levels identified to determine when a state of emergency
should be declared
- Spills shall be immediately reported
- Establish a process for the operator to notify neighbors regarding risks and
establish a communication process
Transportation - Access roads and access points shall be provided, reviewed, and approved by the City
- A traffic impact analysis shall be submitted; all street frontage shall be improved in
accordance with the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, including street
trees, sidewalk, curb and gutter
- Transportation fees and securities, i.e., bond or letter of credit, provided to ensure no
damage to City streets, including any access routes
Lighting Except during drilling, completion or other activities where worker safety is a concern, all
lighting shall be fully shielded and not spill off the site
Spills Chemical spills and releases shall be reported in accordance with local, state, and
federal laws
Chemical Disclosure All Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) shall be provided to the City and Emergency
Personnel
compressors
Required for pumping units and
compressors
Required for pumping units and
compressors
Green Completions
Must ensure no
significant
degradation
Capture gas during completion or
use completion combustion
devices rather than flare or vent
Capture gas during completion or
use completion combustion
devices rather than flare or vent
Air Quality Monitoring Must ensure no
significant
degradation of air
quality
Baseline and well completion
monitoring required, and additional
post-completion testing may be
required if changes in air quality
are identified
Baseline and well completion
monitoring required, and
additional post-completion testing
may be required if changes in air
quality are identified
prior to the hearing
Public Comments Written comments can be provided prior to or at the public hearing
Residents and affected parties can testify at the public hearing
Decision-making
authority
Planning and Zoning Board approval
Setbacks If not located on an existing well pad, all operations must be 500’ from an occupied
structure, water well, Natural Area or City Park and 150’ from any property line
ATTACHMENT 1
underlying soil. Cellulose fiber mulch
shall be added with the proportionate
quantities of water and other approved
materials in the slurry tank. All
ingredients shall be mixed to form a
homogenous slurry. Using the color of
the mulch as a metering agent, spray
apply the slurry mixture uniformly over
the seeded area. Apply with tackafier
used at a rate of 120 pounds per acre.
Unless otherwise ordered for specific
areas, fiber mulch shall be applied at
the rate of 2,000 pounds per acre.
Hydraulic mulching shall not be
performed in the presence of free
surface water resulting from rains,
melting snow or other causes.
jute netting or approved equal shall be
used. Netting shall be stapled with No.
11 gauge steel wire forged into a 6-inch
long U-shape, and painted for visibility
in mowed areas.
10.1.9 Fertilizer.
Fertilizer. Fertilizer with a formula of
18-46-0 shall be used on all areas to be
seeded. Apply 8 pounds per 1,000
plans.
B. Evenly distribute soil amendment
at rate of 3 cubic yards per 1,000
square of area, or 1-inch depth over
the entire area to be prepared.
Modify the rate if a soil test
recommends otherwise. Till
amendments into top 6 inches of
soil. Compact to a firm, but not
hard density (80% of Standard
Proctor Density at 2% optimum
moisture). Evenly distribute triple
superphosphate fertilizer at the
rate of 15 pounds per 1,000 square
feet. Modify the type and rate if a
soil test recommends otherwise.
plants or roots, sticks, weed stolons,
seeds, high salt content and other
materials harmful to plant life. The
compost shall be coarsely ground with
an even composition and have an acidity
in the range of pH 5.5 to pH 7.0. All
material shall be sufficiently
composted such that no original source
material used is recognizable.
9.3.2 Topsoil.
Topsoil must be taken from a well
drained, arable site and shall be
reasonably free of subsoil, stones,
clods, sticks, roots and other
B. The contractor shall provide
operating keys, servicing tools, test
equipment, warranties/guarantees,
maintenance manuals, and the
contractor's affidavit of release of
liens. Submittal of all these items
must be accompanied by a
transmittal letter and delivered to
the City Parks Division offices
(delivery at the project site is not
acceptable.)
needed to obtain acceptable
performance of the system as
directed by staff.
D. The contractor shall replace
defective valves, wiring or other
appurtenances to correct
operational deficiencies.
B. All work other than actual
connection, including access to the
transformer box where applicable,
shall be supplied by the contractor.
C. All materials shall be provided by
the contractor. When working near
any City electric facility, prior
coordination and approval is
required.
8.4.9 Controller Installation:
A. Controllers shall be installed in an
above-ground location suitable to
prevent vandalism and provide
protection from adverse weather
conditions, and per City direction.
completely before installation.
Thoroughly flush the piping system
under a full head of water for three
minutes through the furthest valve.
F. Isolation gate valves shall be
installed in the valve box.
G. Valve boxes shall be branded with
the following codes: “SV” and the
controller valve number per as-built
plans for all remote control valves;
“DV” for all drain valves; “GV” for
least 6 inches beyond the last tee
of the larger pipe.
C. PVC lateral pipe shall be snaked
from side to side within the trench.
D. Cut pipe ends shall be cut square
and deburred. Pipe ends shall be
cleaned before using primer and
solvent cement. Pipe ends shall be
joined in a manner recommended
by manufacturer and in accordance
with accepted industry practices.
Joints shall cure for 30 minutes
D. Copper pipe shall be soldered so
that a continuous bead shows
around the joint circumference.
Insert a dielectric union wherever a
copper-based metal (copper, brass,
bronze) and an iron-based metal
(iron, galvanized steel, stainless
steel) are joined.
8.4.2 Pipe trenching:
A. Install pipe in open-cut trenches of
sufficient width to facilitate
thorough tamping/ puddling of
suitable backfill material under and
over pipe.
B. Trenches shall be as straight as
possible, but when a bend of 20
degrees or more is necessary,
proper fittings shall be used to
reduce stress on the pipe.
brands and models to match other
equipment in use in public systems in
the vicinity. Gear driven rotor heads
shall be Hunter or approved equal.
Pop-up spray heads shall be Hunter,
Rainbird, or approved equal. All heads
should have pressure regulating device
integrated in them to maintain proper
operating pressure. They also shall
have anti water draining valves to avoid
water waste when not in operation.
(Example: Rain Bird 1804 PRS/SAM
heads. A minimum of 4” pop-up is
required.)
the left (wheel opening is
unacceptable).
E. Manual drain valves shall be ¾-inch
ball valve with tee handle, Watts
#B-6000, or approved equal.
F. Quick coupler valves shall be 1-inch
brass, Rainbird #5RC units with
rubber cover. Supply 1-inch brass
key for Rainbird 55K.
G. Spears True Union ball valves shall
be installed upstream of the
remote control zone valve.
Equivalent substitutes shall be
accepted.
H. Valve boxes shall have matching
locking cover which shall be
Carson, Pentex or approved equal.
sweated on, attaching a female
adapter with a threaded brass plug.
S. A blowout tee shall be installed
immediately downstream of the
backflow prevention device.
8.2
MATERIALS STANDARDS
8.2.1 Pipe:
A. Copper shall be type K rigid
conforming to ASTM Standard B88.
B. Mainline shall be Class 200 PVC,
NSF approved. If 3 inches or
larger, use ringtite pipe.
C. Laterals shall be Class 200 PVC, NSF
approved.
Parks Division prior to or during
installation.
F. The irrigation system shall be
designed to provide full coverage
and matched precipitation rates.
G. Lateral piping shall be sized based
on flow demands in gallons per
minute (gpm); with velocities not
to exceed 5.5 feet per second.
H. Xeriscape principles shall be
utilized in the design of the
irrigation system.
not part of the design intent. Weeding
may be done manually or by the use of
herbicide and or pre-emergent. The use
of any restricted herbicides or soil
sterilants is prohibited. In accordance
with Best Management Practices, the
effectiveness of the herbicide shall be
monitored.
the Adopt-A-Median program.
Contact the City Parks Division at
221-6660 for further information.
7.3
ACCEPTANCE OF NEW ARTERIAL
STREETSCAPE PROJECTS FOR
CITY MAINTENANCE
7.3.1 Streetscape installed to City
standards.
Any new streetscape landscaping not
designed and installed to these
standards may be rejected by the City
Parks Division for inclusion in its
maintenance program. Developers and
City capital projects shall notify the
City Parks Division and conduct a walk-
through with Parks and Forestry Division
staff at the end of the warranty period.
Any defects in the landscaping or
irrigation system shall be corrected by
occur to provide emergency relief of an
immediate danger to persons or
property. Any such emergency
procedures must be reported promptly
to the City Forester with plans for
completion or follow-up work submitted
for approval. See the City of Fort Collins
Tree Management Standards and Best
Management Practices for details on
acceptable pruning practices.
7.2
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
Maintenance responsibilities vary among
different street types, and also with
specific circumstances of abutting
properties.
7.2.1 Maintenance responsibilities
standards and requirements:
A. Street trees located on the City
right-of-way are the responsibility
requirements.
repeating elements to create a theme
for the area and avoid clutter.
Custom-tailored streetscape with parkway and
median details as part of a whole planning approach
to a street segment in Campus West.
xperienced
y basis, and
mining the
civic inten
s.
pes vary wid
e, to subur
to the Natu
r valley.
area.
APE STANDARD
ts
e complex
ucture,
and
e city.
for traffic
me
ehensive
eets as
ty public
by all
d play a
character
tion of the
dely, from
ban
ural Areas
DS
e
Poud
Som
incl
corr
man
high
and
cros
hum
and
The
urba
aspe
Med
dre River vall
me arterials
lusion of me
ridors and i
naging traff
h-visibility
provide a
ssing the ro
manize the
add beaut
ey are a hig
an design,
ect of the C
ians in a roun
ley.
s are disting
edians alon
in roundabo
fic, median
space for la
refuge for
oad. Media
scale of a w
ty and civic
ghly visible
and thus a
City’s stree
ndabout.
P a
guished by
ng street
outs. Besid
ns provide v
andscaping
pedestrian
ans can
wide street
c identity.
mainstay o
re a major
etscape eff
a ge | 19
the
des
very
g,
ns
t,
of
forts.
when dormant. They can offer a
beautiful alternative to cool-season
turfgrasses with their fine textures and
soft gray-green color. They require full
sun and significant weed control to
maintain a high quality appearance in
city landscapes. They do not tolerate
shady spots, high levels of foot traffic,
or overwatering. They are not as
competitive with weeds, and weeds
stand out in contrast to the texture and
color of the grasses.
y where
tree
lly require
roperty
ewalks.
C
4.1.
inte
The
app
spac
grow
spec
side
tree
uniq
4.1.
Orn
subs
whe
prev
CITY OF FORT
.5 Adjustm
ervals.
e Director o
prove or req
cing interva
wth habits
cies, for sa
ewalk, and
es or other
que to the
.6 Overhea
amental tr
stitution of
ere overhea
vent norma
COLLINS STR
ment of spa
or the City
quire larger
als to bette
of differen
afe use of t
to better f
existing co
location.
ad power
rees may be
f the canop
ad lines and
al growth a
REETSCAPE ST
acing
Forester m
r or smaller
er fit the
nt street tre
he street o
fit with exis
onditions
line conflic
e planted in
py shade tre
d fixtures
and maturit
TANDARDS
ay
r
ee
or
sting
cts.
n
ees
ty.
ts that set
rds tailored
es along str
tal, unifying
ty streetsca
e considere
ublic infras
eet as disti
fying frame
opments.
y shading a
ewalks to re
mer heat bu
er between
the sidewa
roadway.
for streetli
now storag
APE STANDARD
y to all
de, except
pplicable
forth
d to the
reet edges
g element
apes.
ed as
structure
nct space,
ework for
along
educe
uild-up.
n
alk and
ights and
ge in
DS
Stree
4.1.
Whe
from
Lari
Stan
shal
40 f
the
Stree
et trees in an a
.1 Tree pla
erever the
m the curb
imer Count
ndards, row
ll be plante
foot interva
curb and t
et trees in a loc
arterial parkway
anting in p
sidewalk is
in accorda
ty Urban Ar
ws of canop
ed in the pa
als, centere
the sidewal
cal street parkw
P
y.
parkways.
s separated
ance with th
rea Street
py shade tre
arkway at 3
ed between
lk.
way.
age | 7
d
he
ees
30 to
n
Reasons and concepts for all project
decisions including planting,
irrigation, mulches, boulders,
hardscape, and urban design
elements.
Plant species needing pruning or
trimming, specific weeding control
practices, annual clean-up, dividing
or periodic replacing to achieve the
intent.
7486 N LEAD MAINTENANCE SPECIALIST
7490 N RESOURCE RECOVERY CHIEF
7492 N EQUIPMENT OPERATOR SPECIALIST
Revised 112112 Page 13
8968 Y ELEC SYS DESIGN AND IT MGR TE12 3,423.12 4,099.54 4,775.96
8970 Y STANDARDS ENGINEERING MGR 7,416.75 8,882.33 10,347.92
89,001.00 106,588.00 124,175.00
Revised 112112 Page 10