Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/17/2012 - 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 July 17, 2012 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring August 7, 2012 as Neighborhood Night Out. B. Proclamation Declaring August 6-10, 2012 as Supply our Students Week. C. Proclamation Declaring July 28, 2012 as National Day of the Cowboy. D. Proclamation Declaring August 3-7, 2012 as Larimer County Fair and PRCA Rodeo Days. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. Recognition of Kierra Vaughan, Kinard Core Knowledge Middle School 8th Grade Winner of the Colorado Municipal League’s “If I were Mayor,...” Essay Contest. 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. 37) N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item. No. 42) 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 33. 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: ! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine ! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine ! Those of no perceived controversy ! Routine administrative actions. 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 5, 2012 Regular Meeting and the June 26, 2012 Adjourned Meeting. 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 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light & Power Fund and in the Water Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art in Public Places Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, appropriates $590,000 from the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserves in the Water Fund and Light & Power Fund for APP artist Ned Kahn to create unique educational art experiences as part of the exhibits at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The artist will begin working with the project team to develop unique, inspiring educational displays using the themes of water, sustainability and energy. $45,000 was previously appropriated in 2012 towards the design phase of this project. When completed, the final design concepts will be brought to Council for consideration and approval prior to fabrication and installation. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Water and Wastewater Funds to Relocate Certain Utility Facilities to Accommodate the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Proposed Construction of a New Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is working with the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department to design and construct a new five or six lane bridge over the Poudre River on Mulberry Street. At this time construction on the bridge is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2013. As the bridge design progressed, it was discovered that the Fort Collins Utilities Department has a 42-inch sanitary sewer and a 12-inch water main that cross under the river parallel to and adjacent to the existing bridge. Both the sanitary sewer and the water main are in conflict with the alignment of the new proposed bridge. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, appropriates funds from existing water and sewer funds to relocate utility lines in conflict with the proposed new CDOT Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. CDOT will reimburse the Utilities Department based on actual design, construction, and project management costs. 9. Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, annex and zone 17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O – Open in Larimer County to the south and west, as well as E – Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and POL – Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary as this property is not already in the District. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2012, Designating the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage, 621 East Locust Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, designates the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage at 621 East Locust Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of the property, Thomas Klender, is initiating this request. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue to the Fort Collins Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has leased the City-owned property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue since January 1977. The Authority constructed its administrative headquarters on the property 35 years Page 4 ago and is currently in the process of remodeling its headquarters. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, authorizes a new lease agreement which is necessary for the Housing Authority to secure permanent financing for this project. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 425 10th Street to the Museo de las Tres Colonias. The property at 425 10th Street was donated to the City in 2002 for a living history museum recognizing and remembering the contributions of Hispanics, Latinos, and Mexicans in Northern Colorado. Poudre Landmarks Foundation has leased the property since 2002 and has completed its renovation of the house. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, authorizes a new lease agreement with the Museo de las Tres Colonias and the Poudre Landmarks Foundation will relinquish all rights, title and interest in the original Lease Agreement dated July 18, 2002. 13. Items Relating to Implementation of the Outdoor Vendor Study. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code Relating to Outdoor Vendors. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2012, Amending Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code Regarding Licensing of Outdoor Vendors. Ordinance No. 057, 2012 amends the Land Use Code. A new section is added to Article 3, Supplementary Regulations for Outdoor Vendors. Article 4 has been amended by adding Outdoor Vendors as a permitted use in non-neighborhood zoning districts. Article 5 has been amended to add a new definition for “Outdoor Vendor”. Ordinance No. 058, 2012 amends Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding licensing and regulations for outdoor vendor businesses. The definition for outdoor vendors and exemptions has been revised, new definitions for outdoor vendor types have been added, and licensing requirements have been revised. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Police Radio Replacement Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 26, 2012, appropriates $1,054,889 saved by Police Services in the General Fund Reserve to purchase Police radio equipment to replace equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. The total cost to replace the equipment is approximately $1,694,181. The use of reserves, combined with funding in Police Services 2012 operating budget, will fund the purchase without having to obtain additional financing. The equipment will be procured via City purchasing regulations and procedures to ensure the City realizes all cost savings. Moving forward at this time with the vendor incentive will save approximately $275,000. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Stormwater Fund from Larimer County for Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater Improvements in the West Vine Basin. The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have agreed to supplement an existing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that addresses stormwater improvements within the West Vine Basin in northwest Fort Collins and portions of Larimer County. The supplemental IGA will allow the City and County to collaborate on the funding and construction of certain stormwater improvements in the West Vine basin. With the supplemental IGA, the City and the County are proposing to equally share engineering costs associated with the analysis and design of the West Vine Basin stormwater outfall channel (Outfall Channel) and the Forney stormwater detention pond (Forney Pond). This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 26, 2012, appropriates unanticipated revenue from Larimer County in the amount of $487,500 in the Stormwater Fund for analysis and design of specific West Vine Basin stormwater improvements. Page 5 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Drainage and Landscaping Easement and an Access Easement on City Property to Cornerstone Associates, LLC. Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the “Developer”) is planning a 1.97 acre affordable housing project called the Legacy Senior Residences PDP (the “Development”) located at 360 Linden Street. The Development requires off-site drainage and landscaping improvements and access improvements on adjacent City-owned property which is maintained as the Old Fort Collins Heritage Park, adjacent to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on July 10, 2012 by a vote of 5-0 (Horak and Poppaw absent), authorizes the conveyance of a 11,198 square foot non-exclusive drainage and landscaping easement and 321 square foot non-exclusive access easement from the City on the City property. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. This Ordinance appropriates $135,249 of Non-Profit Partner revenue, raised through fundraising efforts, to be used to construct exhibit walls and the digital dome infrastructure at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No.063, 2012 Approving a Grant Project with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to the Grant Project. This Ordinance appropriates $11,525 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and Environment. It would also transfer a matching amount of $11,525 from the 2012 General Fund and combine these in the Radon Program account. The Radon Program carries out radon risk-reduction activities identified in the current City Budget. 19. Items Relating to the Purchase of Six 35-foot Compressed Natural Gas Buses by Transfort. A. Resolution 2012-051 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for "FASTER" Grant Funding in the Amount of $384,000 to Serve as a Local Match Portion of Funding for the Purchase of Buses. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration in the Transit Fund for the Purchase of Six Buses. In 2011, the City of Fort Collins was awarded $1,920,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) capital funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the period 2012 - 2015 to cover 80% of the total expense ($2.4 million) to purchase six replacement Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses for Transfort's fixed route service. This CMAQ grant award has been transferred to FTA for disbursement and management. The City of Fort Collins was also awarded a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) FASTER grant in the amount of $384,000 to cover 80% of the required 20% ($400,000) local match to purchase the above mentioned six 35-foot CNG buses. The City of Fort Collins will contribute $96,000 from the Transit Fund to cover the remaining portion of the required 20% local match of the total $2.4 million to purchase six 35-foot CNG buses. An appropriation in the amount of $1,250,000 is already in place for bus procurement and staff requests an additional appropriation of $1,150,000 to equal the total project amount of $2,400,000. Page 6 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2012, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held in Conjunction with the November 6, 2012 Larimer County General Election. This Ordinance calls a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the November 6, 2012 Larimer County General Election, and preserves the opportunity for Council to place initiated or referred issues on the November ballot. If Council decides to place any measures on the ballot it would need to do so no later than at its September 4 meeting. If Council does not take final action by ordinance or resolution before the statutory deadline (September 7) to certify ballot language to Larimer County, the election will be cancelled and the provisions of this Ordinance will be of no further force and effect. This Ordinance does not submit a specific measure to the November 6, 2012 ballot. However, a group of citizens recently circulated an initiative petition proposing to reverse the ban on medical marijuana businesses, which was approved by the voters in November 2011. The certified petition is presented to Council this same date under Agenda Item #39. 21. Items Relating to the Historic Preservation Process. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2012, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 14 of the City Code Pertaining to Landmarks. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2012, Amending Section 2-277 of the City Code Regarding the Requirements for Membership on the Landmark Preservation Commission. These amendments to Chapters 2 and 14 of the City Code provide for an appeals process for determinations of eligibility; provide for an independent professional review of eligibility if a determination is appealed; give timely public notice to citizens early in the demolition/alteration review process about historic eligibility status and major alterations; and provide more specificity to board member experience requirements, ensuring compliance of Landmark Preservation Commission member appointments with Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. 22. Items Relating to Housing Leases for On-Site Housing Located on Natural Areas. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at Gateway Natural Area. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at Reservoir Ridge Natural Area. Natural Areas staff is recommending updates to four on-site housing leases, which must be approved by City Council. Natural Areas owns four houses at three natural areas, including Gateway Natural Area, Bobcat Ridge, and Reservoir Ridge. In all cases, employees provide a range of “on call” duties, including site security, visitor assistance, maintenance, and other duties outside of normal work hours without receiving “on call” pay. To compensate the employees for their requirement to respond to these “on call” duties when necessary outside of normal working hours the monthly rental rates are reduced by approximately 50% of fair market value. The fair market rental rates were determined by Real Estate Services, based upon recent rental comparisons. Similarly, the value of the employer-provided lodging is excluded from the employee’s income as the lodging is a condition of employment. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Waterline Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on City Property to the North Weld County Water District and the East Larimer County Water District. The North Weld County Water District and the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) have planned the North Weld – ELCO Water Transmission Pipeline (NEWT) Project to install an underground pipeline to connect the Soldier Canyon Water Filter Plant to the Districts’ distribution Page 7 systems. As part of this Project, the Districts are requesting a 40-foot wide waterline easement and a temporary construction easement across the northern portion of the City’s Water Treatment Facility property located on Laporte Avenue. The City has previously granted easements for this Project on other City properties. 24. Resolution 2012-052 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Forney Annexation. As the Owner and Applicant, Forney Industries has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of 22.82 acres located on the north side of LaPorte Avenue, approximately 1,280 feet east of North Taft Hill Road. The parcels are located in the I – Industrial Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is the T – Transition Zone District. The Transition District is “intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for development. The only permitted uses are those existing on the date the property was placed into this District.” No new development is allowed in the Transition district and Forney Industries has indicated that it has no intent to further develop at this time. The surrounding properties are currently zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) in the City to the east and west; Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL) in the City to the south and zoned I – Industrial in Larimer County to the north. 25. Resolution 2012-053 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 1. As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 1 is the first Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations, which are as follows: Kechter Annexation No. 1 0.130 acres Kechter Annexation No. 2 0.505 acres Kechter Annexation No. 3 18.644 acres Total for Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 19.279 acres Kechter Annexation No. 1 is located approximately 945 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. Annexation No. 1 is entirely within the limits of Kechter Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M- N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, east and west. 26. Resolution 2012-054 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 2. As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 2 is the second Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations. Kechter Annexation No. 2 is located approximately 925 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. Annexation No. 2 is entirely within the limits of Kechter Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M- N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, east and west. 27. Resolution 2012-055 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 3. As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 3 is the third Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations. Page 8 Kechter Annexation No. 3 is located approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. The Annexation No. 3 property contains one single-family residence and is in the FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, east and west. 28. Resolution 2012-056 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud and Larimer County for the Funding of the Regional Study Known as the North Front Range Transit Vision. In 2011, the City of Fort Collins was awarded funding from a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 5304 Grant to fund a portion of the regional study known as the North Front Range Transit Vision. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement between CDOT, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud and Larimer County. The North Front Range Transit Vision is examining the feasibility of consolidation of existing transit services in Colorado’s North Front Range area. The goal of the project is to provide cost-effective and efficient transit services in our broader service area, which is currently served by three different entities: Transfort, City of Loveland Transit (COLT), and Berthoud Area Transportation System (BATS); in addition, the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization operates a variety of vanpooling services (called VanGO) in addition to carpooling and other transportation services. Potential benefits of consolidation include: economies of scale/increased efficiency, equalization of resources and knowledge, standardized regional service, increased level of service and increased ridership, and reduced competition for federal funding. This Study will take place between now and early 2013, and will ultimately provide a recommendation based on Steering Committee and other stakeholder direction. 29. Resolution 2012-057 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This Resolution will adopt the recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds. 30. Resolution 2012-058 Adopting the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2012. The adoption of this Resolution will consolidate the eight amendments to the 2001 Restated General Employees’ Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) into a newly restated Plan effective January 1, 2012, make technical changes required by the federal Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) related to benefit limitations, and clarify that the Plan funds are held in trust by the General Employees’ Retirement Committee (the “Committee”) so as to facilitate compliance with federal law and the investment of the funds. On May 15, 2012, the IRS issued a favorable determination letter for the Plan, as amended, subject to the adoption of technical changes into a newly restated Plan document. Federal regulations require the adoption of the restated Plan within 90 days of issuance of the determination letter (not later than August 12, 2012). This Resolution is intended to accomplish this Plan restatement and also clarifies that the Plan funds are held in trust by the Committee. 31. Resolution 2012-059 Amending Resolution 2012-035, Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and the City’s Human Services Program. On May 15, 2012, City Council adopted several resolutions and ordinances, concerning allocation of City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Human Services Program (HSP)/Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG), and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program financial resources. Staff Page 9 has discovered an error in the name of a funded program in Resolution 2012-035, under the 2012 Human Services Program KFCG Funds Section, in the Table outlining funding allocations. The first line should read: $226 Catholic Charities: Senior Outreach. This Resolution corrects the error and restates the City Council's approved funding allocations. 32. Resolution 2012-060 Appointing Teresa Ablao as Temporary Judge and Authorizing the Execution of an Employment Agreement. The City Charter provides for the appointment of a temporary judge (commonly referred to as the Assistant Municipal Judge) to serve in the absence of the Municipal Judge. Gordon Esplin, who has served as the City’s Assistant Municipal Judge since 1989, is resigning. After advertising the position, reviewing application materials, and conducting interviews, Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane recommends that Teresa Ablao be appointed as the Assistant Municipal Judge, Ms. Ablao will be paid $75 per hour for her services, a rate comparable to what is paid by other municipalities to their Assistant Municipal Judges. 33. Resolution 2012-061 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions. This Resolution makes appointments to fill current vacancies on the Citizen Review Board, Economic Advisory Commission, and the Landmark Preservation Commission. END CONSENT 34. Consent Calendar Follow-up. This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. 35. Staff Reports. a. Mason Minute - Mason Street Conversion and Construction Impacts b. October 2011 Storm Clean-up - Mulch Madness c. Recognition of Larry Schneider for his involvement as co-founder of the Colorado Association for Roadway Maintenance. 36. Councilmember Reports. 37. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items. Page 10 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. 38. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2012, Amending the City of Fort Collins District- Precinct Map. (staff: Rita Harris; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) This Ordinance amends the City of Fort Collins District-Precinct Map in accordance with Article II, Section 1(c) of the City Charter and Chapter 7, Article III, Division 3 of the City Code. The District boundaries established in the amended map will be used for determining eligibility for City Council district offices for the April 2013 election and determining eligibility for any interim appointments to fill any City Council office vacancies which may occur after July 27, 2012. 39. Items Relating to the Possible Repeal of the Voter-approved Ban on Medical Marijuana Businesses and the Establishment of New Licensing Provisions for Such Businesses and Related Regulations. (staff: Rita Harris; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) A. Presentation of a Petition for a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance that Would Reverse the Ban on Medical Marijuana Businesses and Strictly Regulate, Control and Permit a Limited Number of State-authorized Medical Marijuana Businesses Within the City of Fort Collins and Establish Reasonable Restrictions on the Signage and Advertising of These Businesses to Match Community Needs. (No Action Needed) B. Resolution 2012-062 Submitting a Citizen-initiated Ordinance Dealing with Medical Marijuana Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on November 6, 2012, in Conjunction with the Larimer County General Election. The City Clerk’s Office received an initiative petition on June 19, 2012, which has been determined to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before the registered electors of the City at a special election. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must either (1) adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days; or (2) submit such proposed measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city. Pursuant to Article X, Section 4 of the City Charter, an initiated measure proposed by the registered electors of the City cannot be repealed or amended except by a subsequent electoral vote. Therefore, in this instance, Council cannot exercise the option to adopt the proposed ordinance because, in part, it repeals the measure approved by the voters in November 2011. Page 11 40. Consideration of Two Appeals of the Hearing Officer’s May 7, 2012 Decision to Approve the District at Campus West Project Development Plan. (staff: Ted Shepard; 5 minute staff presentation; 2 hour discussion) In January 2012, Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC, submitted a Project Development Plan for multi- family dwellings in the C-C, Community Commercial zone district. As proposed, the project consists of the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation of two public streets on the north side of West Plum Street for the purpose of constructing three new buildings, including a parking structure, containing 193 dwelling units on 3.34 acres. The parcel is between Aster Street on the east and City Park Avenue on the west. On April 5, 2012 and on April 23, 2012, the Hearing Officer conducted public hearings in consideration of The District at Campus West P.D.P. On May 7, 2012, after testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving the P.D.P. with one condition ensuring proper vacation of public streets. On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 19, Robert M. Meyer filed a Notice of Appeal, which was superceded by an Amended Notice of Appeal, filed May 29. Both appeals seek redress of the Hearing Officer’s decision. The ZTA appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(A) and 3.5.1. The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G). 41. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. (staff: Ted Shepard, Aaron Iverson; 5 minute staff presentation; 20 minute discussion) This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, makes a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2012 annual update of the Land Use Code. 42. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items. 43. Other Business. a. Motion to cancel the Tuesday, August 7, 2012 Regular Meeting for Neighborhood Night Out. 44. Adjournment. a. Motion to adjourn to Tuesday, July 24, 2012 for a possible executive session. 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. Kierra Vaughan Mr. Parker 3/18/12 Essay If I Were the Mayor… Although merely one woman addressed her concerns tonight, I'm sure there are others of you with the same questions. As mayor, I am here to answer and respond to those concerns accordingly. I know that our country has been facing economic hardships and different types of adversity, sometimes creating strain and resentment, but we (as a community and a country) will see it through, like we always do. Oftentimes certain things that we experience here in Fort Collins, Colorado can relate directly to our country's recession. Sometimes not. Sometimes that can result in anger, exasperation, and grief, as an effect of oftentimes drastic measures. I'm here to tell you that anything you have been feeling is completely relevant and significant to us. Our government is by the people and for the people, therefore your feelings and opinions are vital to us. However, allow me to address your statement directly, Miss. Firstly, let me inform you that I am aware our program is not perfect. We make mistakes, just like all other human beings on the planet. And I am sorry for any imperfection that may have affected you or your family directly. Although we may not be 100% right all the time, we strive for perfection. Every single decision we make is for the greater good of the people, (or what we may think the greater good truly is.) Every single decision is based on the effect it will have on the community as a whole. Not a single decision is influenced by greed or selfishness, it is all for you. Because that is not only our occupation, but our duty; to serve and protect the interest and well being of the people. Secondly, I am going to explain what we do and our exact purpose, in case some of you are unsure. Like I've said before, out purpose is the help the people. We do this by keeping the town running efficiently and by looking into the well being and the health of the community. We organize road systems to be built and repaired. Without our program the roads would be cracked and dangerous, causing accidents. Also, we provide the town with police and fire‐ fighter departments . Without said departments, our town would be an anarchy, no justification of the law, no help for the citizens when they need it. We help the economy by promoting businesses directly tied to Fort Collins. Without our aid, many businesses would go bankrupt and families would be left with nothing. When natural disasters occur, we are the first people to arrive at the scene and the last to leave, ensuring the safety of the people. Without that help, a flood or big freeze would leave the city in ruins, with nobody to clean up the mess. And most directly tied to you and your family ma'am , is our concern for the physical health (and recreation) of our town. We build pools and ice‐rinks, skate‐parks and playgrounds so that all ages of our citizens may enjoy each other's company and the pure joy of having a good time. Without such activities, children would grow up without experiencing some of the true treasures of being a kid. Children are young, innocent, and adventurous, and they need to enjoy their childhood to its full potential before the opportunity is missed. That time as a kid can never be recovered or relived. Lastly, I'm going to hint you in on a little secret about our job. We do so much for the town, but why? Why do we do the things that are done? Well, we do them because we care for every single one of you sitting out there listening to me. We care for the people without homes and without jobs. We care for those being oppressed when the law is broken against them or to harm them. We care about the lower class, the middle class, and the upper class. In our eyes there isn't much of a difference, and we act as a community, one entity, united. We care for the new infant being born right this minute and for the World War Two veteran holding his great grandchild for the first time. We do the job because we want everyone to be safe, healthy, well nourished, well protected, and to have the best time here in Fort Collins that is possible. This is my secret to you. We are running low on time, but I hope I have addressed your concerns to the best of my abilities. If you still have questions or are not satisfied with the answers, feel free to contact me. Thank you for attending this council meeting, especially the woman out there who spoke up. Hope we have been of service to you and your small children, ma'am. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the first Tuesday night in August is celebrated across the nation as National Night Out; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins, in conjunction with this national event, sponsors a unique community building program on August 7, 2012 called “Neighborhood Night Out;” and WHEREAS, Neighborhood Night Out provides a exceptional opportunity for residents throughout the city to join their neighbors in promoting community and safe neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins plays a vital role in assisting with neighborhood community building, crime prevention, and quality of life enhancement within Fort Collins by supporting “Neighborhood Night Out”; and WHEREAS it is essential that all citizens of Fort Collins be aware of the importance that their participation can have on the safety and enjoyment of their neighborhood; and WHEREAS, I, along with the entire City Council, encourage Fort Collins residents to help make our community a safe and enjoyable place to live, work, and play. NOW. THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, August 7, 2012, as NEIGHBORHOOD NIGHT OUT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, more than 8,400 Poudre School District students who qualify for the Free and Reduced Lunch program will likely struggle to purchase school supplies this year; and WHEREAS, the number of students who qualify for the Free and Reduced Lunch program has increased by 14% over the past year; and WHEREAS, currently only about half of the students who qualify are served by existing school supply programs and the need continues to increase; and WHEREAS, the “Supply Our Students” initiative is a collaborative effort comprised of representatives from Volunteers of America, Colorado State University, the OtterCares Foundation, Poudre School District, Concerned Larimer and Realities for Children; and WHEREAS, the intention of “Supply Our Students Week” is to raise awareness of the need for school supplies and to encourage donations so that all students have access to the supplies necessary to succeed. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim August 6-10, 2012 as SUPPLY OUR STUDENTS WEEK in Fort Collins and I urge all citizens of Larimer County to become actively involved in supporting the Supply Our Students Week through the campaign and donation of school supplies. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, throughout the history of the American West, cowboys and pioneers have played an important role in preserving Western heritage and culture; and WHEREAS, the spirit of the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, respect, and patriotism; and WHEREAS, there are approximately 800,000 cowboys and ranchers in the United States; and WHEREAS, cowboy traditions have been part of the American landscape and culture since 1523, and today’s cowboys and cowgirls continue to strive to preserve and perpetuate this unique element of America’s heritage; and WHEREAS, we recognize the role of cowboys in their selfless efforts to protect the state and county during wildfire season, their economic contributions, and their maintenance of our cultural heritage in Colorado and in Fort Collins. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim July 28, 2012 as NATIONAL DAY OF THE COWBOY in the city of Fort Collins. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the city of Fort Collins has been a major part of the Larimer County Fair and PRCA Rodeo and Colorado State University since its inception; and WHEREAS, the Fort Collins community supports the family concept as a way of life; and WHEREAS, the city of Fort Collins has been an integral part of the 4-H Community, CSU- Extension Programs and its family oriented activities; and WHEREAS, agriculture and livestock are a large part of the success of the Fort Collins community; and WHEREAS, the Larimer County Fair and PRCA Rodeo has provided a fun, safe, and productive environment for Fort Collins and visitors of the Fair. NOW THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins do hereby proclaim August 3-7, 2012, as LARIMER COUNTY FAIR AND PRCA RODEO DAYS in Fort Collins and encourage all citizens to attend the Larimer County Fair and PRCA Rodeo, as well as support the CSU-Extension Programs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 5, 2012 Regular Meeting and the June 26, 2012 Adjourned Meeting. June 5, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 5, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Horak Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Jensen, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Citizen Participation John Fye, 1405 Briarwood Road, stated he is the Republican candidate for the Colorado House of Representatives House District 53. He opposed the placement of a GPS tracking device by the Sheriff’s Office on a citizen’s vehicle. Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, thanked the City for the placement of downtown flowers and requested that the City enter into a partnership to renovate the horse-drawn school bus. He suggested term limits be removed or increased and suggested a retail sales tax be placed on internet sales. He promoted the legalization of all organic drugs, with heavy taxing and regulations. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Fort Collins Community Action Network, encouraged Council to adopt a resolution that urges Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. She read part of the suggested resolution. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, completed the reading of the suggested resolution regarding the Corporation Separation Movement. George Meyer, non-Fort Collins resident, discussed corruption within the City organization. Melanie Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive, supported the Corporation Separation Movement resolution. Sean Dougherty, Fort Collins resident, appreciated the accessibility of Council and staff and requested thorough vetting of the extension of term limits. 410 June 5, 2012 Stan Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive, supported the Corporation Separation Movement resolution. Sarah Burnett, 714 Gilgalad Way, opposed intense multi-family housing projects for which the City has no standards. She requested that Council schedule a work session to examine the issue and develop new standards. She suggested Council place a moratorium on these types of project until standards can be developed. Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, stated she was illegally arrested and wire-tapped by the Sheriff’s Office and that her son was inappropriately removed from her home. Bill Malinny, Fort Collins resident, continued on Ms. Lynne’s behalf. Jean Heintz, Fort Collins resident, continued on Ms. Lynne’s behalf and stated crimes were committed within City limits. Jim Hartman, Fort Collins resident, continued on Ms. Lynne’s behalf. Heather Meyer, 6738 Colony Hills Lane, discussed the large community need for United Way funding. Russ Harvey opposed the recent incident relating to Stacy Lynne and the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office. Debbie Carrow opposed the recent incident relating to Stacy Lynne and the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office. Maureen Paterson requested that Council investigate the situation relating to Stacy Lynne and her son. John Maulsby, Wellington resident, stated Stacy Lynne’s issues with the Sheriff’s Office began after she started to publicly discuss ICLEI. Betty Aragon, 140 2nd Street, opposed the Ride the Rockies event and the negative impacts of such event on the Buckingham neighborhood. Jeffery Martin, Fort Collins Board of Realtors president, discussed term limits and opposed the placement of the issue on the November ballot due to the cost of the election. Marcella Lozano, 212 East Lincoln, opposed the Ride the Rockies event due to its negative impact on the neighborhood. Elaine Bueno, 217 2nd Street, opposed events in and near the neighborhood surrounding the breweries. Naun Ruiz, 122 East Lincoln, opposed the Ride the Rockies event and suggested it be moved to another park. He stated traffic laws are not enforced on Lincoln Avenue. John Anderson, Fort Collins resident, supported the Corporation Separation Movement resolution. 411 June 5, 2012 Zach Heath, 135 South Sunset, supported the Corporation Separation Movement resolution. Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chief Executive Officer, discussed a poll conducted by the Board of Realtors and hoped the results helped add to the dialog regarding good governance. Dee Amick, 221 Park Street, supported Ms. Lynne and her fight for her son’s custody. Bill Miller, 322 Scott Avenue, supported the reversal of Citizens United ruling. Austin Motinhaupt supported Ms. Lynne and her fight for her son’s custody. Maury Wallace suggested Jaden Lynne was illegally abducted. Stacy Christine supported Ms. Lynne and her fight for custody of her son. Chuck Churchman, Denver resident, supported Ms. Lynne and her fight for her son’s custody. John Weiss discussed the Timothy Masters case and compared it to that of Stacy Lynne. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Weitkunat asked for staff input regarding the role of the City in County issues, specifically relating to the Stacy Lynne case. City Attorney Roy replied Council has the ability to make laws and policy for the City. The City Manager is the head of the City government and the Chief of Police answers to the City Manager. The Larimer County District court system is separate and apart from the City government, and the Council has no authority to overturn that decision. Additionally, the Council has no jurisdiction over Larimer County’s law enforcement activities. The City Police are empowered to enforce the penal laws of the state as well as the City, and if there is an allegation of criminal misconduct on the part of any person within the City limits, Police Services has the authority to investigate those allegations and the discretion to make a determination as to whether probable cause exists to present, in the case of state laws, potential prosecution to the District Attorney. It is the District Attorney, not the City, who is ultimately responsible for determining whether those kinds of crimes should be prosecuted. In considering the allegations that have been made, the potential role of the City government would be limited to the possibility of investigating and presenting to the District Attorney for potential prosecution, any criminal conduct that may have occurred on the part of any person within the city limits. Mayor Weitkunat asked about the questions regarding security, safety and enforcement near the breweries and about the Ride the Rockies event. City Manager Atteberry replied he and staff would conduct an after-event review with neighbors. Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the citizen comment regarding the lack of sidewalks in the neighborhood but the addition of a new bike path. She requested the City have adequate resources available for the neighborhood when the Ride the Rockies event occurs and asked if DUI charges apply to bicycles. City Manager Atteberry replied it is illegal to ride bicycles while under the influence. He stated an asphalt layer was put down for cyclists and walkers for safety reasons. Councilmember Kottwitz suggested staff follow-up with the neighborhood regarding the issue. 412 June 5, 2012 Councilmember Manvel also requested staff follow up with the neighborhood regarding events and enforcement surrounding the breweries. He supported the possible formation of a resolution regarding the Corporation Separation Movement, despite it being a national issue. Councilmember Poppaw agreed with Councilmember Manvel. Mayor Weitkunat opposed the consideration of such a resolution given it is a federal issue and its development would take staff time and resources. Councilmember Manvel noted the citizens who spoke have already drafted a potential resolution and stated he would support additional citizen participation. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested additional examination of the sidewalk issue in the Buckingham, Alta Vista, and Andersonville neighborhoods. City Manager Atteberry replied Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, will be heading up a team to examine the issue of neighborhood improvements in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed with Councilmembers Manvel and Poppaw regarding the possible consideration of a resolution relating to the Corporation Separation Movement. City Attorney Roy requested clarification as to the intent of the resolution. Councilmember Manvel replied the presentation of the citizen-suggested resolution is a good place to start the discussion. City Manager Atteberry noted Police Chief Hutto has heard the discussions this evening and the two will be meeting regarding the issue. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated work session time needs to be devoted to the multi-family housing issue and regulations. He suggested the formation of new regulations be fast-tracked. Councilmember Poppaw supported a moratorium to allow adequate time to look at the issue. Councilmember Manvel also supported a moratorium given the potential cumulative impact of several of these projects in a limited geographic area. Mayor Weitkunat noted the development of the Land Use Code in the 1990s resulted in intentionally-placed high density zoning along the CSU corridor. She expressed concern regarding revisiting the issue. Councilmember Troxell agreed with Mayor Weitkunat’s concerns and stated government intervention in market dynamics sometimes results in negative impacts. Councilmember Poppaw stated a moratorium would give staff and Council the ability thoroughly consider the issue. Councilmember Kottwitz supported gathering much public input regarding the issue, prior to creating a moratorium. 413 June 5, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted any projects currently in process would not be affected by a potential moratorium. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 1 and May 15, 2012 Regular Meetings and the May 22, 2012 Adjourned Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Turnberry Road Improvements Project, and Transferring Appropriations to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program. The Turnberry Road Improvements Project is a compilation of the City approved, developer required improvements along the three frontages of the Maple Hill, Brightwater Landings, and Richards Lake subdivisions. A new two lane arterial roadway east of the existing roadway between Country Club Road and Brightwater Drive will be constructed. In addition, a pedestrian underpass for a City Parks Trail will be constructed under Turnberry Road as part of this project. The project will also relocate and upgrade utility infrastructure, including the installation of storm sewer and street light improvements as per the approved development plans. Except for the pedestrian underpass which is funded by the Parks Planning Department and the relocation of a water main funded by the East Larimer County (ELCO) Water District, the project will be funded through developer contributions and the Street Oversizing Program. The improvements are in accordance with both the Master Street Plan and the Mountain Vista Subarea Plan. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2012, appropriates revenue for this project. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 042, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wild Plum Farm Annexation Numbers 1 and 2 to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2012, zones 3.96 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The requested zoning for these annexations is Urban Estate. Horse boarding facilities are an allowed use in the Urban Estate zone district. Additionally, as a condition on the requested Urban Estate zoning, staff is recommending the restrictions placed on the property at the County’s Special Review hearing are carried over as restrictions on the horse boarding facility use within the city. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2012, appropriates $43,319 for 2012 Cultural Development and Programming activities (Fort Fund) and 414 June 5, 2012 $145,407 for the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau (FCCVB) from unanticipated revenues and unspent appropriations in the General Fund Lodging Tax Reserves. Approximately $908,908 in Lodging Tax revenue was collected in 2011 that was distributed to the FCCVB (70%), Cultural Development and Programming – Fort Fund (25%), and Tourism Programming - Fort Fund (5%). After 2011 expenditures and miscellaneous revenue, there is unanticipated revenue and unspent appropriations of $43,319 for Cultural Development and Programming -Fort Fund and $145,407 for FCCVB available for activities in 2012. 10. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2012 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the City’s Human Services Program. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 045, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment Partnership Fund. C. Resolution 2012-037 Allocating Appropriated Monies from the 2012 Affordable Housing Fund for the Fort Collins Housing Authority’s Supportive Housing Project. Ordinance No. 044, 2012, appropriates the City’s FY 2012 CDBG Entitlement Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Ordinance No. 045, 2012, appropriates the City’s FY 2012 HOME Participating Jurisdiction Grant from HUD. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2012. Resolution 2012-037 will complete the 2012 spring cycle of the Competitive Process, by allocating City financial resources to the Fort Collins Housing Authority’s Supportive Housing project. The additional allocation addresses a $131,892 funding shortfall in currently available and allocated spring Competitive Process monies allowed for Council action on request and/or CDBG Commission recommendations for the Housing and Public Facility funding category. This action would fill the funding gap for the Housing Authority’s requested amount of $455,000 for its Supportive Housing project. 11. Items Relating to Rebates of Property Taxes, Sales Tax on Food, and Utilities. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2012, Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 25 of the City Code Relating to the City’s Property Tax Rebate. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2012, Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 25 of the City Code Relating to the Rebate of the City’s Sales Tax on Food. 415 June 5, 2012 The Finance Department currently administers three rebate programs for low income, senior and disabled residents. The rebates are for Property Tax, Utilities and Sales Tax on Food which were created in 1972, 1975 and 1985 respectively. Ordinance No. 046, 2012, will change the income qualification for the Property Tax rebate from 30% of area median income (AMI) to 50% of AMI to increase the number of senior and disabled residents that qualify and to align with the Sales Tax on Food rebate income qualifications and will update the application period to August 1st through October 31st. The income qualification for the Utility Refund will be changed from 30% of area median income (AMI) to 50% of AMI to allow for an increased number of senior and disabled residents to qualify and to align with the Sales Tax on Food rebate income qualifications. The application period will be updated to August 1 through October 31. No Code amendment is needed to make these changes because Code Section 26-613 states that applicants for utility rebates must meet the same qualifications requirements as applicants for property tax rebates. A Whereas clause has been added to Ordinance No. 046, 2012, that mentions that a utility refund program is available that follows the same guidelines as the property tax rebate guidelines. Ordinance No. 047, 2012, will update the rebate amount of Sales Tax on Food from $40 to $54 per member of qualifying household, index the rebate amount moving forward to the local CPI and will update the application period to August 1 through October 31. The Ordinances have been amended on Second Reading to add a provision that the City Manager will submit an annual report to City Council by March 31, 2013, reviewing the status of the programs, who is being reached and how participation in the programs has been increased. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2012. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 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. Although there has not been a great deal of oil and gas drilling in Larimer County until recently, the discovery of the resource-rich Niobrara formation in this region, and the increased use of horizontal hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and directional drilling increase the likelihood of oil and gas drilling in the City of Fort Collins. The State of Colorado has largely pre-empted the regulation of oil and gas drilling, even within municipal boundaries, but City staff is monitoring the recent legislative discussions as well as drilling activity, and proposes the development of regulations, and a moratorium on any oil and gas drilling until those regulations are adopted. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2012, establishes a moratorium until February 15, 2013 or upon the receipt by the City Council of a recommendation from City staff and legislative action taken by the City Council, whichever occurs first. 416 June 5, 2012 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light & Power Fund and in the Water Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art in Public Places Project. This Ordinance appropriates $590,000 from the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserves in the Water Fund and Light & Power Fund for APP artist Ned Kahn to create unique educational art experiences as part of the exhibits at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The artist will begin working with the project team to develop unique, inspiring educational displays using the themes of water, sustainability and energy. $45,000 was previously appropriated in 2012 towards the design phase of this project. When completed, the final design concepts will be brought to Council for consideration and approval prior to fabrication and installation. 14. Items Relating to the Water and Sewer Line Relocations Required to Facilitate the Construction of a New Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Water and Wastewater Funds to Relocate Certain Utility Facilities to Accommodate the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Proposed Construction of a New Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. B. Resolution 2012-038 Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Grant Agreement with Colorado Department of Transportation for the Funding of Design, Construction, and Project Management for State Highway 14 (Mulberry) Bridge- Related Utility Relocations. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is working with the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department to design and construct a new five or six lane bridge over the Poudre River on Mulberry Street. At this time construction on the bridge is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2013. As the bridge design progressed, it was discovered that the Fort Collins Utilities Department has a 42-inch sanitary sewer and a 12-inch water main that cross under the river parallel to and adjacent to the existing bridge. Both the sanitary sewer and the water main are in conflict with the alignment of the new proposed bridge. This Ordinance appropriates funds from existing water and sewer funds to relocate utility lines in conflict with the proposed new CDOT Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. The Resolution allows the City Manager to enter into a Grant Agreement with CDOT who will reimburse the Utilities Department based on actual design, construction, and project management costs. Relocation work will not proceed until authorization of work is issued by the CDOT project manager. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2012 annual update of the Land Use Code. 417 June 5, 2012 16. Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning. A. Resolution 2012-039 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Wood Street Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. This is a request to annex and zone 17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O – Open in Larimer County to the south and west, as well as E – Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and POL – Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary as this property is not already in the District. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2012, Designating the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage, 621 East Locust Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The owner of the property, Thomas Klender, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage at 621 East Locust Street. The property is eligible for designation as a Landmark under Designation Standards 2 and 3, for its association with significant persons and also for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue to the Fort Collins Housing Authority. The Housing Authority has leased the City-owned property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue since January 1977. The Authority constructed its administrative headquarters on the property 35 years ago and is currently in the process of remodeling its headquarters. To secure permanent financing for this project, a new lease agreement is necessary. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 425 10th Street to the Museo de las Tres Colonias. The property at 425 10th Street was donated to the City in 2002 for a living history museum recognizing and remembering the contributions of Hispanics, Latinos, and Mexicans in Northern Colorado. Poudre Landmarks Foundation has leased the property since 2002 and 418 June 5, 2012 has completed its renovation of the house. The new lease agreement will be with the Museo de las Tres Colonias and the Poudre Landmarks Foundation will relinquish all rights, title and interest in the original Lease Agreement dated July 18, 2002. 20. Resolution 2012-040 Naming the MAX Bus Rapid Transit Station located near Bay Farm, Natural Resources Research Center, Whole Foods and Mason Trail. MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) will serve two Transfort transit centers and twelve MAX BRT stations. MAX stations are named according to cross-street location. This methodology is based on best practices in transit operations as well as emergency response location identification. The station located near the Bay Farm/Natural Resources Research Center/Whole Foods/Mason Trail area is unique in that it is not directly related to a cross-street. In order to have a strong identity that is easy to remember and reflects the general vicinity of the station, staff recommends Spring Creek Station as the preferred option, per the City’s Administrative Naming Policy 2.6 (geographic location). 21. Resolution 2012-041 Making an Appointment of Steering Committee Members for the North Front Range Transit Vision Project. The Cities of Loveland and Fort Collins, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer County, and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) are conducting a study to develop a recommendation for regional decision making and funding structure for regional transit services. This study will take place between now and early 2013, and will ultimately provide a recommendation based on Steering Committee and other stakeholder direction. Each agency will have three representatives to serve on the Steering Committee which will include one elected official and two citizens. This Resolution confirms the appointment of Councilmember Ben Manvel and Fort Collins citizens Yvonne Myers and Gary Thomas, as Steering Committee members to direct the project’s progression and ultimately provide a recommendation based on the Steering Committee and other stakeholder direction. The citizen members recommended for participation on the Steering Committee have expressed an interest in Public Transportation or served as members of the Citizen Financial Advisory Committee during the 2009 Transfort Strategic Operating Plan. 22. Resolution 2012-042 Approving the Stipulated Determination of Vested Rights Between the City and Dry Creek, LLC. Dry Creek, LLC is the developer of Dry Creek Subdivision, First Replat, and has completed most of Phases Two and Three of the project, but the public sidewalks remain to be constructed. The plan expired on November 2, 2011. Accordingly, Dry Creek, LLC has filed an application for a Determination of Vested Rights under Division 2.13 of the Land Use Code and the City Manager and City Attorney agree that the application for Determination of Vested Rights should be granted. The proposed resolution would formalize the determination of vested rights. 419 June 5, 2012 ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Jensen. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Street Oversizing Fund, Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Street Oversizing Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Turnberry Road Improvements Project, and Transferring Appropriations to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 042, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wild Plum Farm Annexation Numbers 1 and 2 to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Cultural Development and Programming Activities and the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau. 10. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2012 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development Activities Utilizing Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and the City’s Human Services Program. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Community Development Block Grant Fund. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 045, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations Between Program Years in the Home Investment Partnership Fund. 11. Items Relating to Rebates of Property Taxes, Sales Tax on Food, and Utilities. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2012, Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 25 of the City Code Relating to the City’s Property Tax Rebate. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2012, Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 25 of the City Code Relating to the Rebate of the City’s Sales Tax on Food. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 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. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Deputy City Clerk Jensen. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light & Power Fund and in the Water Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art in Public Places Project. 420 June 5, 2012 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Water and Wastewater Funds to Relocate Certain Utility Facilities to Accommodate the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Proposed Construction of a New Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. 16. Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2012, Designating the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage, 621 East Locust Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue to the Fort Collins Housing Authority. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 425 10th Street to the Museo de las Tres Colonias. 28. Items Relating to Implementation of the Outdoor Vendor Study. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code Relating to Outdoor Vendors. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2012, Amending Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code Regarding Licensing of Outdoor Vendors. Mayor Weitkunat withdrew Item No. 12, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 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, from the Consent Calendar. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item No. 11, Items Relating to Rebates of Property Taxes, Sales Tax on Food, and Utilities, from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. 421 June 5, 2012 Councilmember Kottwitz requested additional information prior to Second Reading regarding mandated indoor bicycle parking, part of Item No. 15, First Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. Mayor Weitkunat stated the new regulation would require 80% of bicycle parking on multi-family lots to be enclosed. She questioned the 80% figure and the idea that a new solid structure would be required. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the development process for the land relating to Item No. 16, Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning. City Attorney Roy replied there is need for additional direction from Council regarding a proposed amendment to the Code to address the issue. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would first give staff the opportunity to bring the item forward, then he will try to obtain Council support for the issue, should that not occur. City Attorney Roy clarified this has to do with a County Letter of Map Revision-Fill being sufficient for development of properties that are subsequently annexed into the City. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson agreed. Councilmember Manvel supported the vesting in Item No. 22, Resolution 2012-042 Approving the Stipulated Determination of Vested Rights Between the City and Dry Creek, LLC. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry introduced Gordon Thibedeau, United Way Executive Director. Mr. Thibedeau, and Haley Katz, United Way Resource Development Manager, announced the City organization was ninth in giving within the County and stated City gifts had increased by 33%. Mr. Thibedeau, offered a special thanks to Crystal Shaffi and the City United Way committee. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Troxell reported on a Poudre Fire Authority event he attended with Councilmember Manvel at Fire Station #1 and commended the work of the firefighters. Mayor Weitkunat discussed the importance of the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport with regard to firefighting aircraft support. She announced a WWII event to be held July 6-7, 2012. 422 June 5, 2012 Ordinance No. 048, 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, Failed on Second Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Although there has not been a great deal of oil and gas drilling in Larimer County until recently, the discovery of the resource-rich Niobrara formation in this region, and the increased use of horizontal hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and directional drilling increase the likelihood of oil and gas drilling in the City of Fort Collins. The State of Colorado has largely pre-empted the regulation of oil and gas drilling, even within municipal boundaries, but City staff is monitoring the recent legislative discussions as well as drilling activity, and proposes the development of regulations, and a moratorium on any oil and gas drilling until those regulations are adopted. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2012, establishes a moratorium until February 15, 2013 or upon the receipt by the City Council of a recommendation from City staff and legislative action taken by the City Council, whichever occurs first.” Chester McQueary, 613 Princeton Road, opposed fracking and supported the Ordinance. Doug Flanders, Colorado Oil and Gas Association, opposed the Ordinance and requested that the City engage in an open dialogue with local operators and work within the local designee process to address concerns. He stated Colorado oil and gas rules are the toughest in the nation. Mary Griggs, professional environmental engineer for Prospect Energy, stated her job is to protect the environment at drill sites and she opposed the moratorium. Ward Giltner, Black Diamond Minerals co-founder, stated his company operates the Fort Collins field, which was originally part of unincorporated Larimer County. He opposed the moratorium, particularly with regard to the Fort Collins field. He stated fracking has been happening since the 1940’s. James Sack, 2945 Bassick Street, supported the moratorium citing a possible decrease in property values and an excessive use of water. Jon Eckstrom, Noble Energy, stated his company will invest $8 billion in the region and has paid millions in property taxes as well as community contributions. He opposed the moratorium. Steve Zelenack, 4098 Trouble Trail, stated one of the wells referenced is on his property, though it does not bother him. He stated drilling has to be done responsibly and using best practices. Mike Glenn, Noble Energy District Manager, appreciated Council’s examination of the issue and stated he has found a great deal of misinformation in other public meetings. He offered tours and education to Council to provide accurate information regarding the process. 423 June 5, 2012 Lesley Manring-Borchers, Greeley resident, stated Noble Energy’s jobs will be temporary and that they are not welcome in Greeley and Weld County. She stated there have been over a thousand spills or other incidents relating to fracking in Weld County. She supported permanent jobs relating to clean energy. Eric Jacobson, Noble Energy well engineering manager, stated environmental protection can co- exist with successful fracking. He stated the process uses less water than golf course irrigation. He stated the company has created real jobs for Weld County and has been a community contributor. He opposed the moratorium. Lynn Welker, QEP Resources, stated her company is a responsible corporate citizen and recommended communication between operators and City officials. She opposed the moratorium. Travis Yeh, Colorado Oil and Gas Association Research Analyst, suggested Council table the moratorium and do some research regarding robust Colorado oil and gas rules and regulations. Tom Hain, Fort Collins resident, supported the moratorium in order to allow time to investigate best practices. Councilmember Troxell asked what the City hopes to learn and accomplish during the moratorium. Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, stated best practices in other communities will be examined, and a process will be developed in terms of negotiating agreements with operators and establishing a permitting process that provides for inspection and impact management. She stated staff is interested in working with the operators and would like to be responsive in understanding the input from all citizens. Additionally, the City needs to find a mechanism to manage this process within its boundaries. Councilmember Troxell asked how the moratorium would help with these tasks and whether or not the local government designee process would be prevented by the moratorium. Cumbo stated a local government designee currently exists; this allows the City to be notified and comment if a permit application is presented. The County passes on applications that exist within the City’s Growth Management Area. Cumbo stated the work could be done without a moratorium; however, increasing regional pressure has required preparation. Councilmember Troxell asked if any permit inquiries have occurred since First Reading. Cumbo replied areas outside the City’s boundaries have been monitored by the Natural Areas Department. Loveland’s emergency ordinance was the result of an active application in the Centerra area. Councilmember Troxell noted the City’s Natural Areas within the County are not under the legal jurisdiction of the City. Mayor Weitkunat asked if there is any method or opportunity to work with Black Diamond regarding the existing well, separate from this Ordinance. Cumbo replied there are two different portions of the Code that could apply. If it is considered to be a new well, then the application would need to go through a development plan process. If it is an expansion of an existing well, it is an expansion of a legal non-conforming use, and requires a different City process. City Attorney Roy replied a rational basis for exempting an existing company from the moratorium needs to exist; an exemption would need to be able to be defended. 424 June 5, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked for clarification of staff’s recommendation on Second Reading of this Ordinance. Cumbo stated staff recommends approval of the moratorium. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 048, 2012, on Second Reading. Councilmember Kottwitz clarified the moratorium would not apply to the Soapstone Natural Area property, only to areas within city limits. She stated the comparison of this to Rocky Flats is misleading to the public and added that she would not support the moratorium. Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the moratorium as its implementation would not have much practical impact on the companies involved given there are no pending applications within the City limits. Councilmember Troxell asked how the state regulatory framework positively supports local decision making. Cumbo replied the local government designee system provides the opportunity to comment on applications; however, if an approved state permit exists, a local permit is essentially perfunctory. Councilmember Troxell requested comment regarding the stringent state government process that allows for local jurisdiction protections. Cumbo replied Fort Collins does not have enough experience to provide comment but there are other communities that have struggled with this issue in terms of the ability to manage permits on a local level. The interest in the moratorium will be to ensure the impacts are addressed. Councilmember Troxell asked about public education regarding drilling and fracking. Cumbo replied staff has been having conversations with Loveland and Longmont regarding implementing a public education process similar to theirs. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the moratorium could be ended at any time, once regulations are in place. City Attorney Roy replied a new Ordinance would need to be passed in order to end the moratorium as the current Ordinance provides for a eight month time period at the outside and would automatically end should necessary and appropriate regulations be adopted before then. Mayor Weitkunat asked if staff is pursuing oil, gas, and fracking information and processes regardless of the moratorium. Cumbo replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the moratorium implementation could be postponed until after the work session. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson replied he would prefer the moratorium occur prior to the work being scoped out by staff. City Manager Atteberry clarified the intent of the work session is to discuss process rather than substance, including engaging with the industry representatives. Councilmember Troxell noted an emergency moratorium could be enacted at a point in the future if the moratorium is not enacted with this Ordinance. City Manager Atteberry agreed that is an option but stated staff is still recommending implementation of the moratorium with this Ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated this is an extractive process and people need to defend the environment against the power of corporations. 425 June 5, 2012 Councilmember Manvel agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson. Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the moratorium given there are no pending applications or notifications. Councilmember Manvel asked about the possibility of continuing the item until it can be voted upon by the full Council. City Attorney Roy replied a motion could be made to continue the item to a date certain. Councilmember Manvel asked if he could vote against the moratorium and then move to reconsider at a later meeting. City Attorney Roy replied the moratorium could be brought before Council for reconsideration, either through a motion to reconsider the vote on Second Reading, or a motion to bring forward a new Ordinance. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Ohlson, Manvel and Poppaw. Nays: Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell. THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS. (Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Resolution 2012-043 Approving the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study, Authorizing Revisions to the Jefferson Street/SH14 Access Management Plan and Existing Intergovernmental Agreement, Directing Staff to Update the City’s Transportation Master Plan Capital Improvement Plan and Directing Staff to Pursue a New Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This Alternatives Analysis Study included the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson/SH14 and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue, and the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets. In response to concerns raised by community stakeholders and partnering agencies, City staff has revised the recommendation for the proposed intersection improvements at this intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue to be improvements to the existing signalized intersection, rather than the previous roundabout recommendation. City staff continues to recommends reconfiguring Jefferson Street from the existing four lane configuration to a “3-lane” street, with landscaped medians, on-street parking, pedestrian streetscape and urban design features from North College to Mountain Avenue. This corridor 426 June 5, 2012 alternative is agreeable to the City, CDOT, Downtown Development Authority, and Larimer County, and has strong support from the community. This Resolution will include the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report documenting the recommended preferred corridor and intersection alternatives as well as actions needed to amend the Jefferson/Riverside (SH14) Access Management Plan and Transportation Capital Improvement Plan to reflect these changes for Jefferson Street. Staff will also be seeking City Council support for entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT regarding the recommended changes for Jefferson Street. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study began in May 2010. This current planning process builds upon prior studies along the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor and provides more in-depth, detailed technical analysis and design to address City, DDA, and CDOT requirements. This Study has several purposes, including finding the most suitable solution to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street corridor, enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit, and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks along this busy arterial/highway road. The project seeks to balance interests among different agencies and organizations including the City, CDOT, DDA, Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Larimer County, adjacent railroads, local business/property owners, and the general public. The Jefferson Street project budget is comprised of a combination of City ($250,000), DDA ($500,000), and federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding ($1 million). The Alternatives Analysis study used approximately $400,000 of the project budget. The majority of the project budget ($1.3 million) will be used to fund final engineering and design of the proposed improvements. This project process included the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and intersection designs, roundabouts, and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and national best-practices. Through Project Management Team (PMT) and Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) meetings, the participating agencies have agreed to the following purpose statement that highlights the key goals for the project: The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The Corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections. Corridor Alternatives The project team has developed a set of conceptual alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor project to address the project purpose, goals, and objectives. 427 June 5, 2012 • The corridor alternatives include several “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North College Avenue and Mountain Avenue. The “3 lane” Options A and B include raised, landscaped medians. Option A includes a raised landscaped median along the full length of the corridor, with openings at the Jefferson/Linden intersection. Option B shows partial medians along the corridor with more openings at streets such as at Pine and Chestnut streets as well as at major driveways. The “3 lane” Option C includes designated on-street bicycle lanes instead of the medians (both the medians and bikelanes do not fit within the available corridor width). All of the “3 lane” options include two travel lanes in the northwest bound direction and one travel lane in the southeast bound direction. The determination for which direction has the two lanes versus the one lane was made based on traffic analysis as well as the need to maximize on-street parking opportunities along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street. The “3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design, and gateway improvements along the corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3 lane options allow for more functional on-street parking because there is enough width to provide a safety buffer area between the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The 3 lane options also allow for opportunities to improve the transit stops along Jefferson. • The project team has developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each direction on Jefferson Street between North College and Mountain Avenue. Due to the width required for standard travel lanes, there is limited space remaining for other project elements such as on-street parking, buffer areas, medians, transit stops, and/or streetscape improvements. • The team has also provided a combination “3 & 4 lane” option that includes 3 lanes between North College Avenue and Linden Street and then shows the 4 lane option between Linden and Mountain. • The cost of the corridor improvements is approximately $4.5 million. Table 1: Summary Overview of Corridor Alternatives Alternative Lanes Medians Bike Lanes Parking Streetscape Areas 3 Lane Alt - Option A Full Median 3 Yes Full Corridor No 36-38 Spaces Median, Sidewalk 3 Lane Alt - Option B Partial Median 3 Yes Partial Corridor No 36-38 Spaces Median, Sidewalk 3 Lane Alt - Option C Bike Lanes 3 No Yes 33 Spaces Sidewalk 4 Lane Alt 4 No No 38 Spaces Sidewalk Combination 3 and 4 Lane Alt 3/4 Yes Partial Corridor No 38 Spaces Median, Sidewalk Intersection Alternatives The project team has also developed two alternatives for both the Jefferson/Linden intersection and the Jefferson/Mountain intersection. 428 June 5, 2012 1. Jefferson/Linden intersection options include keeping the existing designated left turn lanes for vehicles to turn left off of Jefferson Street to Linden Street as well as an option that would remove the left turn lanes to create more opportunities for on-street parking and provide raised medians to serve as pedestrian refuge islands at the intersection. 2. Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include improvements to the existing signalized intersection as well as a roundabout intersection alternative. Table 2: Jefferson / Lincoln Intersection Alternatives Overview Alternative Cost Operating / Maintenance Cost Level of Service Air Quality Savings (Carbon Monoxide) Right-of- Way Signalized $2.7 million $3,600 per year for signals B No Change from Existing 2,000 sq. ft. Roundabout $4.3 to $5.3 million Depends on cost of RR gate arm B 495 KG/yr - Short Term 809 KG/yr - Long Term 6,000 sq. ft. Final engineering and design of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward in mid-2012 based upon approval of the recommendations by the City Council. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the securing necessary funding. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The cost of the recommended preferred alternatives, including both the corridor and intersection improvements, for Jefferson Street is approximately $7.2 million. Funding is currently available to complete the next phase of the design/engineering work for these improvements. Additional funding is need for the construction phase. Staff will continue to pursue potential local, regional, state, and federal funding opportunities to complete this important, long-term investment project for Downtown Fort Collins. The recommended Jefferson Street improvements will have a direct economic impact on over 35 businesses fronting Jefferson Street. The investment in the public infrastructure will support private investment along the corridor, which has a number of areas with potential for redevelopment and/or reinvestment. This project will also help strengthen the connection between Downtown, the River District, and the Lincoln Avenue corridor which are economic catalyst areas for the City. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Transforming this corridor from the existing four lane highway configuration to a more urban, pedestrian-oriented, context sensitive design solution will be a major enhancement for the Downtown environment and supports the City Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Downtown River District Plan goals for the heart of the community. The improvements to Jefferson Street will calm traffic traveling through the corridor improving the pedestrian environment and encouraging 429 June 5, 2012 the use of walking, biking, and transit access to/from the corridor which will result in air quality improvements. In addition, in response to City Council suggestions, staff has researched potential opportunities to address noise concerns along the corridor. One consideration is to explore the use of rubberized asphalt for the roadway paving along the corridor. This technique is used by other agencies to help reduce roadway noise. The specifics regarding this type of paving material will need further exploration during the engineering/final design phase of the Jefferson Street project. Other project elements to aid in noise reduction could include features to promote traffic calming, reduce speeding, and minimize vehicles accelerating and decelerating at the intersections and throughout the corridor. Improvements to the existing signalized intersection which will include amenities to address pedestrian-scale improvements, urban design, and entry way features in support of the quality Downtown experience we are seeking to achieve with this project in accordance with the community’s expectations and sustainability goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To be responsive to input received from partnering agencies as well as local and regional community stakeholders, City staff has revised its project recommendation for the preferred intersection alternative to be improvements to the existing signalized intersection rather than the roundabout option previously discussed with City Council in February 2012. City staff recommends improvements to the existing signalized intersection include amenities to address all modes of transportation, as well as urban design and entry way features in support of the quality Downtown experience. Staff continues to recommend the 3-lane corridor alternative for Jefferson Street from North College to Mountain Avenue. This corridor alternative is agreeable to the City, CDOT, Downtown Development Authority, and Larimer County as well as strong support from the community. Transforming this corridor from the existing four lane highway configuration to a more urban, pedestrian-oriented, context sensitive design solution will be a major enhancement for the Downtown environment and support City Plan and Transportation Master Plan goals for the future of the heart of the community. To move forward with the recommendations from the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study, staff recommends City Council approval of the following: 1. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report documenting the recommended preferred corridor and intersection alternatives. 2. Revisions to the Jefferson Street/SH14 Access Management Plan and existing Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation to reflect the 3-lane corridor alternative with raised, landscaped medians and on-street parking for Jefferson Street (SH14). 3. Directing staff to update the City’s Transportation Master Plan Capital Improvement Plan to include the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements per the Study recommendations. 430 June 5, 2012 4. Staff is seeking approval from City Council to pursue entering into a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with CDOT in order to implement the recommended 3 lane corridor improvements (if approved by City Council). CDOT has requested this new IGA with the City in order to support converting Jefferson Street from the existing four lane highway to the proposed “3-lane” configuration. The IGA would include specific performance measures for monitoring the Jefferson Street (SH14) corridor before and after physical improvements are constructed and identify inter-agency responsibilities for addressing any concerns and/or potential changes. If City Council approves staff pursuing this IGA, staff will continue working with CDOT to develop the specific IGA and bring this document forward for City Council approval at a later date (anticipated by September 2012). BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Staff presented information related to the Jefferson Project and proposed alternative to the following boards or commissions: Downtown Development Authority: February 9, 2012: The Downtown Development Authority voted to support the 3-Lane with a median alternative and the Roundabout alternative Transportation Board: February 15, 2012 and May 16, 2012: The Transportation Board voted to support the 3-Lane with a median alternative and improvements to the Signalized Intersection. Planning and Zoning Board: February 10, 2012: The Planning and Zoning Board voted to support the 3-Lane with a median alternative and improvements to the Signalized Intersection. Economic Advisory Commission: February 15, 2012: The Commission supported the 3-Lane with a median alternative and the Roundabout alternative A copy of the minutes from each board or commission is included as Attachment 2. PUBLIC OUTREACH The project team sought comments and input on the key tasks throughout the life of the project. See Attachment 3 for a list of the outreach completed during the project. Stakeholder Coordination This process included on-going coordination among multiple City departments, City boards and commissions, City Council, CDOT, DDA, Larimer County, and various interested community and corridor stakeholders, including but not limited to area property/business owners, residents, bicycle/pedestrian advocacy groups, trucking industry representatives, UPRR, and Public Utilities Commission representatives. Business and Property Owner Meetings One-on-one coordination was needed with affected business/property owners to determine the impacts and mitigation measures needed at each property. During the development and screening of alternatives, the consultant project manager and the City project managers provided outreach 431 June 5, 2012 to business/property owners along the corridor to update them on the status of the project and seek their input. After the final screening of alternatives, when a preferred alternative has been recommended, directly impacted business/property owners were contacted to follow up on questions and concerns related to the project and work through remaining details for particular sites along the corridor. Public Meetings Public meetings were held on June 2, 2011, October 17, 2011, February 16, 2012 and May 30, 2012 to actively engage the corridor property owners, businesses, residents, and general public in the process. The meetings were conducted as part of the public review process for the alternatives screening process and to help determine the preferred corridor recommendation. City Council and Board Meetings Presentations were made on behalf of the project to the City Council at their work sessions on August 9, 2011 and February 28, 2012. Updates were also provided to Boards and Commissions, including the Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, and DDA Board meetings throughout the Study process. The work session summaries are attached (Attachment 1).” Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning and Special Projects, introduced project team members and discussed the area of the project on Jefferson Street, between College Avenue and Mountain Avenue, which is also part of State Highway 14. She provided a brief presentation regarding the recommended improvements and stated the cost estimate for the project is approximately $7.2 million. Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, thanked Council and staff for work on the item urged Council to accelerate the timeline for the project. He expressed appreciation for the roundabout idea being eliminated. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the focus on these two city blocks demonstrates the City’s lack of proper prioritization. Matt Robenault, Downtown Development Authority Executive Director, expressed support for the recommended improvements, noting they will link the river district to the downtown area, and stated the Downtown Development Authority will spend $500,000 on the project. Carl Glasser, 215 Jefferson Street, stated he participated in the technical advisory committee as a representative of the Jefferson Street businesses. He supported the three-lane alternative and requested that the third lane be used for parking in the evenings and on weekends. Ray Burgener, Burgener Trucking, opposed any potential roundabout and commended the balance and work between the City and the trucking industry. Councilmember Troxell requested a description of the way in which the design accommodates the connection to the River district. Bracke replied the signalized intersection will have enhanced features for all modes of transportation. 432 June 5, 2012 Councilmember Troxell commended staff for work on the item. Councilmember Manvel asked when these improvements may occur. Bracke stated adoption of this Resolution and beginning the engineering phase will make the project more competitive for funding. Given the extensive engineering and utility coordination needed, the soonest the project could be done would be approximately 2015. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution 2012-043. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson appreciated hearing positive comments about staff and the City organization. Councilmember Manvel asked about the possible use of a lane for parking during off-peak hours. Bracke replied that option can be examined and evaluated. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to Implementation of the Outdoor Vendor Study, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code Relating to Outdoor Vendors. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2012, Amending Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code Regarding Licensing of Outdoor Vendors. These Ordinances address actions needed to implement the Outdoor Vendor Study staff recommendations. Ordinance No. 057, 2012 amends the Land Use Code. First, it adds a new section in Article 3, Supplementary Regulations for Outdoor Vendors. Second, it amends Article 4 by adding Outdoor Vendors as a permitted use in non-neighborhood zoning districts. Finally, it amends Article 5 to add a new definition for “Outdoor Vendor”. Ordinance No. 058, 2012 amends Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding licensing and regulations for outdoor vendor businesses. It revises the definition for outdoor vendors and exemptions, adds new definitions for outdoor vendor types, and revises licensing requirements. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION 433 June 5, 2012 Over the past several years, the types, products, and distribution of outdoor mobile vendors have evolved to include more options. Vendors have expressed the desire for the City to be more accommodating, with less restrictive license and permit requirements. On the other hand, the City has also received complaints from existing local merchants concerned about potential unfair competition from mobile vendors, and the need for a level playing field in licensing and permitting. In September 2011, staff was initially directed to evaluate the issues relating to food truck vendors, and whether potential changes may be warranted to the Outdoor Vendors section of the City Code, and related sections of the Land Use Code. In the course of the study, staff found the need to add other vendor types to the scope of the study. For example, transportation vendors such as pedicabs, conference bikes, horse-drawn carriages, and valet parking services were added for consideration in the study, as were non-food vendors such as holiday tree sellers and various non-profit fundraisers. Staff Assessment of Potential Options for Outdoor Vendors The staff team initially researched the relevant topics in other cities, both in Colorado, and across the nation (see Attachment 5). This assessment helped identify a range of options for staff to explore. Staff also reviewed existing Land Use Code and City Code requirements, resulting in recognition that these regulations significantly limited outdoor vendor operations within the City and appeared overly restrictive in certain ways. A range of alternative outdoor vendor options were developed and included in the on-line survey for feedback. Staff then developed draft recommendations that were presented at a public open house meeting on May 9, 2012. The proposed new requirements identified by staff involve new locations for food truck vendors to operate, distance buffers from existing restaurants and schools, and other operational requirements. Issues Resolved by Code Changes: • Existing City Code requirements currently restrict a license to one location, and do not allow vendors to operate within a public street. Certain food vendors would like to operate in multiple locations and offer their products directly from public streets. • Also, existing vendor licensing is currently only available for one-month periods. Vendors desire more efficient time frames of semi-annual or annual licensing. • The Land Use Code currently has one permitted use category that has been applied to outdoor food vendors – Fast Food Restaurant – but needs better clarification to distinguish between restaurants and outdoor mobile food vendors. In other words, a new definition of the use is needed to better recognize outdoor vendor types. • For private property, current Land Use Code standards treat many vendors as a principal use required to make site improvements under Change of Use requirements, due to the lack of any other provisions to specifically recognize outdoor vendors. This requirement is burdensome or prohibitive for vendors operating on a temporary basis. 434 June 5, 2012 • Vendors’ desire to operate from public streets raised questions about safety and impacts on other public right-of-way functions. • Vendors’ desire to operate food trucks in parks and neighborhoods raised questions about effects on the functions and livability of these areas. While outdoor food vendors desired to also operate within public parks, long-standing park policy does not support allowing these vendors inside parks on a regular basis, except authorized as part of special events. Vendors have been prohibited from conducting their business in parks in order to avoid commercializing them. Parks are intended to be places of respite from an often hectic and commercialized world and allowing vendors into them on a regular basis would undermine this purpose. Fundamental questions from existing business owners have been raised of potential competition and need for a level playing field, between brick and mortar restaurants, which bear costs and requirements of development, ownership, and maintenance of real property, and mobile food trucks. 1. Will the study ensure a level playing field between brick-and-mortar restaurants and mobile food trucks? Staff response: No, the two types of businesses fundamentally operate on slightly different playing fields. The proposed City requirements for mobile food trucks are an attempt to update and clarify the rules of operation for these uses, but they do not necessarily ensure parity with requirements for development, construction, and ownership of a restaurant building. There is one main similarity for comparison purposes. This is the fact that mobile food trucks are accompanied by a commissary kitchen, which involves development, construction, and property ownership requirements similar to those associated with a restaurant. However, various differences between the two types of businesses make it difficult or impossible to fully weigh overhead costs and requirements for purposes of comparing the playing field for competition. For example, the number of food trucks sharing in the costs of a commissary kitchen varies. Also, a mobile food vendor may operate out of a brick-and-mortar restaurant. 2. How will the study address potential competition between existing brick and mortar restaurants and mobile food trucks? Staff response: To some extent, competition for customers will remain between brick and mortar restaurants and mobile food trucks. Food trucks are currently allowed on private property. The recommendations from the study provide additional opportunities for food vendors to operate within the public right- of-way and on select public lots Downtown with limitations. The proposed requirements include a 200 foot separation between existing restaurants and food truck vendors citywide. This requirement will ensure a food truck operator can not vend within a half-block of the front entrance of an existing restaurant. In developing this recommendation, staff 435 June 5, 2012 looked at precedents in other cities’ requirements. Most of the cities reviewed have a separation distance in the range of 50 – 300 feet. Staff also conducted an on-line survey that tested different separation distances, and specifically asked restaurant businesses to respond to this issue. Most respondents selected no separation requirement. However, staff determined a moderate separation is still warranted to alleviate potential competition of food trucks vending close to restaurants. While the proposed separation requirement will not eliminate competition between food businesses, it will remove immediate impacts of mobile food trucks operating within close proximity and view from front entrances of existing brick and mortar restaurants. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES • Ordinance No. 057, 2012 Ordinance No. 057, 2012 amends the Land Use Code related to outdoor vendor regulations in Articles 3, 4, and 5. Article 3 - General Development Standards This proposed LUC amendment adds a new subsection to the Supplemental Regulations in Section 3.8 that will include outdoor vendor standards. These proposed standards would regulate location of operation, type of use, signage, operation, and compliance with related Municipal Code regulations. Article 4 - Districts For outdoor vendors on private property, the Outdoor Vendors use would be added to the list of permitted uses in all non-neighborhood zoning districts within Article 4 Districts, as an accessory/miscellaneous use. Article 5 - Terms and Definitions A new definition for Outdoor Vendors will be added to Section 5.1.2, Article 5 of the Land Use Code to describe all types of Outdoor Vendors operating in the City. • Ordinance No. 058, 2012 Ordinance No. 058, 2012 amends Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding licensing of outdoor vendors. The key City Code sections to be amended are as follows: • Section 15-381 incorporates new definitions for five outdoor vendor types, and includes a list of activities that are exempt from the outdoor vendor provisions of this section. • Section 15-382 describes license and operating requirements for outdoor vendors. • Section 15-383 combines two existing Code sections for application and license fee requirements. 436 June 5, 2012 • Section 15-385 includes revised standards for review and approval of outdoor vendor applications. • Section 15-386 includes bond requirements which may be modified or eliminated. • Section 15-387 includes requirements for issuance of an outdoor vendor license. • Section 15-388 includes general and specific requirements that restrict and govern the operation of outdoor vendors. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The revenue received in 2011 from outdoor vendor licenses and downtown concession agreements was $3,080. Based on the fact that the license fees will not increase significantly, the estimated revenue moving forward is $4,300 annually. The small increase is attributable to an assumed increase in vendors and the possibility for additional downtown concession locations. The administrative costs are not expected to increase dramatically as licenses will be issued for six months or annually instead of the current monthly licensing process. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS New regulations for outdoor vendors will provide additional options for locating mobile vending in Fort Collins, allowing customers more choice in purchasing food, goods and services, and other products. With outdoor vendors locating closer to where potential customers are, a reduction in travel distance to and from these vending locations is realized, along with a corresponding reduction in vehicle emissions. Food vendors in fixed locations can utilize propane heating systems as an alternative to vehicle engine and generator gas fuel use. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 17, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that City Council adopt Ordinance No. 057, 2012, making various amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code relating to outdoor vendors. The Council Finance Committee will consider these recommendations at its June 4, 2012 meeting. The minutes will be provided in the Council “Read-Before” packet on June 5, 2012. The Downtown Business Association Board held its monthly meeting on May 9, 2012. A staff presentation on the Outdoor Vendor Study was provided. A draft (unsigned) recommendation memo is included in Attachment 6. The final signed copy will be provided in the Council “Read-Before” packet on June 5, 2012. PUBLIC OUTREACH As part of the Study, staff met with existing and potential new outdoor vendors, business owners, and other interests to listen and learn about issues and ideas for new provisions relating to outdoor vendors operating in Fort Collins. 437 June 5, 2012 An on-line survey was administered between April 2 and May 4, 2012 which included 583 respondents (see Attachment 3). Notice of the public survey was distributed to outdoor vendors, the Downtown Business Association, Downtown Development Authority, Chamber Local Legislative Affairs Committee, and North/South Fort Collins Business Associations. Public notice was generated through press release, webpage postings, and local news media. The results of this survey provided important information for staff to assess potential options for outdoor vendor zoning use provisions, operational and other licensing requirements. Staff presented draft recommendations at a public open house meeting on May 9.” Pete Wray, Senior Planner, provided a brief presentation regarding the outdoor vendor study and the public outreach process. Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor, stated the existing regulations in the City Code and Land Use Code are limiting and restrictive, and are focused primarily on private property. Changes are being proposed to Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Land Use Code, to add general operating requirements, location regulations, use considerations, sign regulations, and definitions. Wray stated the bulk of the new requirements fall under the City Code changes. Those changes include definitions for outdoor vendor types and license and operating requirements. The outdoor vendor types have been listed as mobile food trucks, push carts, neighborhood mobile food vendors, miscellaneous good and services, and transportation related services. Staff is recommending a 200 foot separation between any brick and mortar restaurant and an outdoor vendor; however, this separation requirement would be void if the restaurant is closed, such as during late night hours. Ryan Martin, mobile food truck operator, commended staff on the regulations and supported the changes. Michael Murphy, Street Gourmet, supported the changes and regulations and complimented staff on its work. Councilmember Troxell noted there are sometimes purposeful co-locations between mobile vendors and brick and mortar restaurants; he asked if those opportunities will be precluded by these regulations. Jessica Ping-Small, Sales Tax Manager, replied those issues could be discussed prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Troxell asked if the PUC is involved in mobile food truck regulation. Wray replied the types of vendors managed by these regulations are not regulated by the PUC. Councilmember Manvel asked if the existing push carts downtown are affected by these changes. Ping-Small replied in the negative; those carts currently operate under a downtown concession agreement and will continue to do so. Additional downtown concession agreements on private lots are being proposed. Downtown concession agreements do not have the 200 foot separation requirement. Councilmember Manvel asked if sounds or music will be allowed in neighborhood food trucks. Ping-Small replied the City Code changes in the Ordinance require the trucks to follow all noise ordinances in terms of decibel levels. 438 June 5, 2012 Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would like to eliminate the 200 foot separation requirement. She asked if the fifteen minute maximum time in neighborhoods could be changed to allow for specific events in neighborhoods. Ping-Small replied vendors could apply for exemptions for specific events. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson commended staff’s work on the item and asked about County health inspections for the vendors. Ping-Small replied the Larimer County Health Department has been consulted and licenses will not be issued without an initial health inspection and approval from the County. The trucks will need to divulge their general locations in order to be found by health inspectors. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about requirements for cleaning sidewalks. Ping-Small replied the push carts do currently have a cleaning fee as part of their concession agreements. Mobile vendors will have regulations regarding cleaning up after themselves. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about regulations for engine idling. Wray replied the present Code language does not address time of idling for trucks. Most of the mobile food trucks turn off their engines, but do use generators to provide power. He stated the issue could be examined prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 057, 2012. Councilmember Kottwitz commended staff for work on the item and stated she is very impressed with the vetting. Councilmember Troxell commended staff on their thoroughness. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 058, 2012. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Atteberry stated Item No. 29, Resolution 2012-044, Adopting an Economic Health Strategic Plan for the City of Fort Collins could be postponed. Council agreed with the agenda change and the item was postponed to June 26, 2012. Resolution 2012-045 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement to Assist in the Operation and Maintenance of a Regional Crime Laboratory, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. 439 June 5, 2012 “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The members of the Northern Regional Laboratory Group (NRLG) are currently operating under an Intergovernmental Agreement titled “Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Shared Facilities and Forensic Operating Guidelines of the Northern Regional Lab Group”. The Agreement has been in place since November 2008. Since that time the NRLG has sought to combine the entire lab function in one location to improve the overall functionality of the group. In order to do so, a new Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) has been drafted to cover this change when is occurs. Weld County is seeking acceptance of this IGA and has submitted an RFP for land and construction of the building. All other entities involved in the regional lab have already signed this IGA. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The NRLG is comprised of the Fort Collins Police Services, Greeley Police Department, Loveland Police Department, Weld County on behalf of its Sheriff’s Office, the 8th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, Larimer County on behalf of its Sheriff’s Office and the 19th Judicial District Attorney’s Office. The NRLG was created to promote improved identification, collection, timeliness, quality, accuracy, consistency, court delivery and cost effectiveness of forensic services to the northern region of Colorado by pooling resources, information, expertise, equipment and money among the members. In November 2008 the Parties entered in to an intergovernmental agreement, entitled “Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Shared Facilities and Forensic Operating Guidelines of the Northern Regional Lab Group” to formally establish the forensic work group. Since then, Weld County, in cooperation with the other NRLG members, has sought to purchase or build a stand- alone facility that would act as a host facility for the NRLG and allow the NRLG to bring together in one location the various forensic disciplines among the Parties that currently are spread throughout various northern Colorado law enforcement agencies. On August 17, 2010, in anticipation of a potential purchase by Weld County of a building, or of land and the construction of a building for a regional forensics lab, Council adopted Resolution 2010- 050, that expressed the City’s intent to support Weld County’s application for grant funds. As Weld County moves forward with its commitment to purchase land and construct a building to host the NRLG forensic disciplines, the NRLG members seek to more fully commit to participation in the NRLG and the sharing of operation and maintenance costs. Weld County is ready to move forward with its commitment to the regional forensics lab and has submitted an RFP to purchase land and build a dedicated lab building. Construction of a building will assist in pooling resources, information, expertise, equipment and functionality among the members. This pooling will increase the speed and accuracy that critical evidence is analyzed in cases handled by Police Services. By leveraging of the resources provided by the other Regional Lab entities, this regional partnership offers enhanced forensic services to Fort Collins Citizens at a reduced cost to the City. The combined building will enhance the already increased service the City receives from the Regional Lab. By participating in the Regional Lab, Fort Collins provides only a portion of the forensic expertise needed for all criminal case investigation. Without participation in the Regional Lab, Police Services would need to increase current staffing levels as well as expend training costs to maintain staff knowledge in areas covered by other agency lab personnel. The 440 June 5, 2012 facility will house in one location all Northern Regional Laboratory Group (NRLG) members’ staff of forensic examiners. The purpose of this Resolution is to authorize the Mayor to enter into a new Intergovernmental Agreement for a combined laboratory. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The actual financial impact at this point is unknown. Estimates derived from comparable facilities do not exceed $75,000 per participating agency. Weld County has received earmark funding to cover two years of operating expenses. Fort Collins Police Services would submit for funding in future budget processes.” Police Chief John Hutto clarified this crime lab will not provide additional functionality, but will be a facility that will allow resources to be pooled and physically located in a single space. Operations and maintenance will be split between five different entities: the Larimer and Weld Counties, and the Cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Greeley. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office needs to provide more thoughtful treatment to citizens of Fort Collins. Councilmember Manvel asked about the building being used by the Weld County Coroner. Police Captain Don Vagge replied the building being built will house the Crime Lab, and some facilities for the Coroner are being considered; however, those will be managed separately. The operations and maintenance costs being discussed are to be only applied to the part of the building dedicated to the Crime Lab function. Councilmember Manvel asked about funding for the interior fittings. Captain Vagge stated there is an operating board for this facility, which would be making those types of decisions. Councilmember Manvel noted the agreement language appears to place Weld County in the decision-maker role and questioned the requirement that Fort Collins pay one-fifth of any costs deemed appropriate by other entities. Captain Vagge replied the governing board, which has been in place under the existing IGA since 2008, provides for equal voting rights regarding the functionality and services provided by the lab. Councilmember Manvel asked about the use of the new lab space at the Police Services building. Chief Hutto replied the lab space was never intended to be a full-service lab space. Councilmember Manvel requested input from the City Attorney regarding the lack of mention of shared governance in the agreement. City Attorney Roy replied he would need to examine the existing IGA and Council has the ability to continue the item to June 26th. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the agreement be cleaned up, even if passed by Council. City Attorney Roy suggested that if Council is comfortable accepting the uncertainty about the specific issue of decisions regarding interior finishes, he would recommend approving the item and revisiting it at a later date with an amendment. 441 June 5, 2012 Councilmember Manvel agreed with City Attorney Roy and asked that a revision be brought forth if necessary. Councilmember Troxell asked what agency is providing funding for the next two years. Captain Vagge replied both grants, totaling $800,000 were federal earmarked funds. Weld County has put forward $4 million for land purchase and building construction. Councilmember Troxell suggested staff examine the requirements of the grants regarding governance. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Resolution 2012-045. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Extension of the Meeting Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to extend the meeting past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to Rebates of Property Taxes, Sales Tax on Food, and Utilities, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2012, Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 25 of the City Code Relating to the City’s Property Tax Rebate. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2012, Amending Certain Sections of Chapter 25 of the City Code Relating to the Rebate of the City’s Sales Tax on Food. The Finance Department currently administers three rebate programs for low income, senior and disabled residents. The rebates are for Property Tax, Utilities and Sales Tax on Food which were created in 1972, 1975 and 1985 respectively. Ordinance No. 046, 2012, will change the income qualification for the Property Tax rebate from 30% of area median income (AMI) to 50% of AMI to increase the number of senior and disabled residents that qualify and to align with the Sales Tax on Food rebate income qualifications and will update the application period to August 1st through October 31st. The income qualification for the Utility Refund will be changed from 30% of area median income (AMI) to 50% of AMI to allow for an increased number of senior and disabled residents to qualify and to align with the Sales Tax on Food rebate income qualifications. The application period will be updated to August 1 through October 31. No Code amendment is needed to make these changes 442 June 5, 2012 because Code Section 26-613 states that applicants for utility rebates must meet the same qualifications requirements as applicants for property tax rebates. A Whereas clause has been added to Ordinance No. 046, 2012, that mentions that a utility refund program is available that follows the same guidelines as the property tax rebate guidelines. Ordinance No. 047, 2012, will update the rebate amount of Sales Tax on Food from $40 to $54 per member of qualifying household, index the rebate amount moving forward to the local CPI and will update the application period to August 1 through October 31. The Ordinances have been amended on Second Reading to add a provision that the City Manager will submit an annual report to City Council by March 31, 2013, reviewing the status of the programs, who is being reached and how participation in the programs has been increased. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 15, 2012. “ Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked why the utility rebates are coming from the General Fund and stated this item could have been designed better. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 046, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 047, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Weitkunat asked when Item No. 29, Resolution 2012-044, Adopting an Economic Health Strategic Plan for the City of Fort Collins, will be heard. City Manager Atteberry replied it will be the first business item on the June 26, 2012 agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to cancel the June 19, 2012 meeting, as permitted under Section 2-28(a) of the City Code, due to the Colorado Municipal League conference. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00 p.m. on June 26, 2012, in order to consider several items of additional business. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays: none. 443 June 5, 2012 THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11:03 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Deputy City Clerk 444 June 26, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:10 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, June 26, 2012, at 6:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Manvel. Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry recommended Council adjourn this meeting to July 10, in order to consider Item No. 6, First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- Exclusive Drainage and Landscaping Easement and an Access Easement on City Property to Cornerstone Associates, LLC. CONSENT CALENDAR 4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Police Radio Replacement Project. This Ordinance will appropriate $1,054,889 from the General Fund Reserve to help fund the replacement of Police radio equipment that has reached its useful life. The total cost to replace the equipment is approximately $1,694,181. The use of reserves combined with funding in Police Services 2012 operating budget will fund the purchase without having to obtain additional financing. The equipment will be procured via City purchasing regulations and procedures to ensure the City realizes all cost savings. 5. Items Relating to the Analysis and Design of Specific West Vine Basin Stormwater Improvements. A. Resolution 2012-046 Authorizing the Execution of a Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer County for the Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater Improvements in the West Vine Basin. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Stormwater Fund from Larimer County for Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater Improvements in the West Vine Basin. 445 June 26, 2012 The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County are proposing to supplement an existing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that addresses stormwater improvements within the West Vine Basin in northwest Fort Collins and portions of Larimer County. In 1997, the City and County entered into an IGA that addressed stormwater basin master plans for both the Dry Creek and West Vine basins. Except to the extent that the 1997 IGA addresses the development of a Dry Creek project to create a local improvement district and other related actions, the 1997 IGA is still in effect. The proposed supplemental IGA is drafted to allow the City and County to collaborate on the funding and construction of certain stormwater improvements in the West Vine basin and in light of circumstances that have changed since 1997. With the supplemental IGA, the City and the County are proposing to equally share engineering costs associated with the analysis and design of the West Vine Basin stormwater outfall channel (Outfall Channel) and the Forney stormwater detention pond (Forney Pond). 6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Drainage and Landscaping Easement and an Access Easement on City Property to Cornerstone Associates, LLC. Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the “Developer”) is planning a 1.97 acre affordable housing project called the Legacy Senior Residences PDP (the “Development”) located at 360 Linden Street. The Development requires off-site drainage and landscaping improvements and access improvements on adjacent City-owned property which is maintained as the Old Fort Collins Heritage Park, adjacent to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. In order to facilitate the installation of the planned improvements, the Developer has requested a 11,198 square foot non-exclusive drainage and landscaping easement and 321 square foot non-exclusive access easement from the City on the City property. 7. Resolution 2012-047 Approving Expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create Art for the North College Improvement Project. This Resolution approves expenditures of $68,025 for materials, fabrication, installation and contingency for a project with artist Andy Dufford of Chevo Studios to create five stone and metal monuments for the North College Improvement Project. 8. Resolution 2012-048 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District. This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2010 and 2011 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the “District”) in accordance with state law. The properties will continue to receive fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority. 9. Resolution 2012-049 Making Appointments to the Golf Board, Parks and Recreation Board, and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. This Resolution makes appointments to fill current vacancies on the Golf Board, Parks and Recreation Board and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. 446 June 26, 2012 10. Resolution 2012-050 Approving the Appointment of Wanda Nelson as City Clerk and Expressing Appreciation for the Interim Services of Rita Harris as Interim City Clerk. This Resolution approves the City Manager’s appointment of Wanda Nelson as City Clerk, replacing former City Clerk Wanda Krajicek, who retired in March 2012. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris. 4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Police Radio Replacement Project. 5B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Stormwater Fund from Larimer County for Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater Improvements in the West Vine Basin. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve all items not postponed on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Horak, Ohlson, Weitkunat, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz was not present in the Chambers at the time of the previous vote.) Resolution 2012-044 Adopting an Economic Health Strategic Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 15, 2011, City Council adopted revisions to City Plan, the City’s Comprehensive Plan. City Plan updated the economic health vision for the City to “a healthy and resilient economy.” The Economic Health Strategic Plan began in May 2011 funded through the Keep Fort Collins Great tax increase passed by the citizens in November 2010. The Economic Health Strategic Plan continues the evolution of the City’s previous economic health planning efforts from 2005 and 2010. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Fort Collins enjoys an economic, social, and environmental vitality that is the envy of many communities its size. The high quality of place attributed to Fort Collins comes from the lively historic downtown and the city’s impressive parks, trails, and open space networks. These community assets make Fort Collins an attractive community for both a well educated workforce and high tech industry. 447 June 26, 2012 Fort Collins includes a wide array of economic engines, including Poudre Valley Health System, Hewlett Packard and Woodward, employing almost 13,000 workers representing a diverse economic base. Combine these economic engines with a major land grant university in Colorado State University and the result is a burgeoning culture of entrepreneurship. This innovation ecosystem has produced a number of home-grown companies whose products now reach markets across the world, including New Belgium Brewery, Otterbox, Envirofit, and Spirae. The City implements a broad array of programs and services focused on preserving and enhancing economic health and resiliency. A brief history of these efforts includes: • Mid-2000s and earlier – Economic activities were not a specific focus; efforts centered on delivery of high-quality community assets such as parks, trails, and open space • 2005 – City Council embraced a new direction in response to the economic downturn of 2001-2003; City Council created the Economic Vitality and Sustainability Action Group, which sought to balance the community’s values of stewardship and quality of place • 2006 – City Council adopted an Economic Action Plan that defined the City’s more active role in Economic Health • 2011 – City Council adopted revisions to City Plan that articulates a series of Principles and Policies related to Economic Health In the past seven years, the Economic Health Office (EHO) has completed many of the items in the 2006 Action Plan, including a target industry study, a sales tax analysis tool, hiring an economic staff lead, improving the development review process, and creating an economic health communication plan. It has also adopted the principles and policies set forth in the City Plan. About the Plan In May 2011, the City, with the assistance of the TIP Strategies team, began work on the 2012 Economic Health Strategic Plan (EHSP). The EHSP is an extension of the City’s previous economic health planning efforts and represents the evolution of the City’s approach to Economic Health. The EHSP process started with a review of the public input collected as part of the Plan Fort Collins Initiative. This input was augmented with a targeted input strategy aimed at the City’s primary economic development partners and stakeholders. Through a series of interviews and focus groups that included 60 people, 2 stakeholder workshops, and a public open house, TIP and City staff gathered the input to inform this Plan’s understanding of Fort Collins, its culture, its values, and its priorities. From the first meeting, it was clear that this was not to be an ordinary plan. The Plan would need to reflect the unique community character of Fort Collins. Innovation and entrepreneurship, along with an emphasis on the local economy, would form the foundation of the Plan. Furthermore, the existing focus of the Economic Health Office was reinforced as business retention, expansion, and incubation. The City’s role in business attraction would focus on the proactive recruitment of companies that fill specific gaps in the target industry clusters. At the same time, the consulting team was tasked with providing a data-driven analysis to understand the economy, the regional workforce, and the city’s economic drivers. To create the 448 June 26, 2012 Plan, the team drew upon these sources of input, along with experience and knowledge of how other communities have tackled the issues that Fort Collins faces. The end result is the Economic Health Strategic Plan. The Plan presents a citywide - and community-driven - response to economic health. The intent of the Plan is to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness through leveraging community stakeholders and business relationships. It will require the support of stakeholders and a collaborative approach. This outcome creates a stronger EHSP because it recognizes the ability of the City to leverage community organizations and stakeholders invested in economic health. These include Colorado State University, the Small Business Development Center, Larimer County Workforce Center, Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation, Rocky Mountain Innosphere, UniverCity Connections, the Chamber, and many others. The final section of this Plan addresses implementation and outlines a series of tasks and community partners that might assit in implementation. Finally, the Plan also recognizes that numerous private sector stakeholders share an interest in the health and resiliency of the local economy. In many cases, these same stakeholders have a vested interest in the economic health of Fort Collins. A collaborative approach allows for the City to engage these stakeholders and ensure that the community’s values and character are conveyed in the Fort Collins story that is shared with an external audience. This engagement permits the City to influence economic outcomes and development patterns to a greater degree. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC HEALTH FRAMEWORK Guiding Principles “A Healthy, Resilient Economy” The collaboration of government, academia, companies, and non-profits is the foundation of this approach. 1. Create more and better economic opportunity for residents. 2. Diversify the tax base to help insulate Fort Collins from economic shocks. 3. Preserve Fort Collins’ unique quality of place and culture. Vision “Fort Collins will be a model city for economic health by cultivating quality of place, innovation, and stewardship.” The vision should be the unifying thread / theme across the principle projects, collaboration, research, and City policies geared toward promoting economic health in Fort Collins. Goals 1. Facilitate a stronger support network for existing employers, new businesses, and small business. 449 June 26, 2012 2. Enhance the innovation ecosystem and economy that supports companies at all stages and aligns with City goals. 3. Create a system for talent development, retention and recruitment that responds to and anticipates employers’ needs. 4. Develop community assets and infrastructure necessary to support the region’s employers and talent. IMPLEMENTATION The 2012 Economic Health Strategic Plan builds upon both the 2005 Economic Action Plan and the Plan Fort Collins comprehensive plan. The objectives and strategies laid out in this Plan are framed in realistic and manageable expectations. In keeping with the broader goals of the community, they also have the ability to be transformative by fostering local business and innovation. For this to occur, the City must embrace an organizational structure that will allow for the application of appropriate economic opportunities, track progress towards implementation, and monitor strategies. Organizational Structure Economic Health Office staff will enhance relationships with community partners to leverage the City’s resources for Plan implementation. Fort Collins is fortunate to have multiple service providers that can take the lead on many of the initiatives with the City playing a support role. There are approximately 15 full-time employees working in organizations related to economic development, including the Northern Colorado Economic Development Corporation, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, Rocky Mountain Innosphere, the Workforce Investment Board, the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Poudre River Public Library, and the Larimer County Small Business Development Center. By forging stronger, formal partnerships with these organizations, the City of Fort Collins can leverage its resources and free City staff to focus on strategic initiatives. The City of Fort Collins should formalize partnerships with memoranda of understanding and in some cases through contracts with organizations to provide economic health services. Many of the existing service providers have additional funding sources to supplement City funding. They also already have or are in a position to build the expertise needed to create more robust basic programs. Under this new model, the City will need to define its role and the role of its service providers in administering the economic health program. Staff’s recommendations for the role of the City are on the following pages. Next Steps Upon the adoption of the 2012 EHSP by the City Council, the City will initiate the implementation process. The steps for initiating the process are as follows: 1. Form an EHSP implementation team. 2. Designate a team leader for each strategy a. Evaluate resources needed to implement each strategy b. Create a work plan that prioritizes strategies, sets performance targets, and outlines what, if any, additional resources will be needed 450 June 26, 2012 3. Establish regular dates for the implementation team to meet 4. Adopt mechanisms and tools for tracking implementation progress, sharing information, and communicating. FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS As the City’s guiding document related to Economic Health activities, the Plan will have a significant impact on the community’s economy. Specifics are hard to quantify given the policy nature of the Plan. The Plan does not have an explicit impact on the finances of the City. However, it does call for the City to engage in several new aspects of Economic Health. These new efforts may impact the budget of the City. Any impacts will occur through the City’s Budgeting For Outcomes process. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS It is hard to quantify the explicit impacts of the Plan on the environment. However, the vision of the Economic Health Strategic Plan explicitly recognizes the need to balance the health and resiliency of the economy with quality of place and environmental stewardship. The Plan achieves this balance by focusing on innovation in target industry clusters such as Clean Energy and Water Innovation. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Economic Advisory Commission recommends adoption of the Resolution (Attachments 6 and 7). PUBLIC OUTREACH Through a series of interviews and focus groups that included 60 people, 2 stakeholder workshops, and a public open house, TIP and City staff gathered the input to inform this Plan’s understanding of Fort Collins, its culture, its values, and its priorities. A public open house was conducted on February 2, 2012. Approximately 30 citizens attended. A complete summary of public input is included in the appendix of the attached Plan.” Josh Birks, Economic Advisor, stated funding for the update to the Economic Action Plan was requested in the 2011-2012 budget cycle and work on the update started in May 2011. The Economic Advisory Commission and Council have been part of the update discussion throughout the process. The four key goals of the Plan are (1) to facilitate a stronger support network for existing employers, new businesses, and small business; (2) enhance the innovation ecosystem and economy that supports companies at all stages and aligns with City goals; (3) create a system for talent development, retention and recruitment that responds to and anticipates employers’ needs; and (4) develop community assets and infrastructure necessary to support the region’s employers and talent. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, expressed concern that this Plan does not address the correct issues which should be of concern to the City, such as community safety and street paving. 451 June 26, 2012 Mayor Weitkunat discussed the specific action items which were a part of the 2006 Economic Action Plan development. She requested a staff response to Mr. Sutherland’s comments. Birks stated the Plan does not specifically address community safety and street paving but the value of quality of place is a large part of the Plan. City Manager Atteberry stated quality of life and quality of services are the primary economic goals for the City. Mayor Weitkunat requested staff input regarding Mr. Sutherland’s comments about public resources to be used for outcomes in the Plan. Birks stated the Plan outlines the toolbox of available resources, but does not place specific dollar amounts on items as that is dependent on values created by particular projects in terms of tax increment financing. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution 2012-044. Councilmember Troxell commended staff for work on the Plan and expressed appreciation for the public-private collaboration aspects. He stated this is a strong Economic Plan for the City’s future. Mayor Weitkunat stated the Plan pulls on the strengths of the community. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Emergency Ordinance No. 065, 2012, Banning Open Burning in the City, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fire danger is at an all-time high, which is evident with the High Park fire and others in the State. Governor Hickenlooper and the Larimer County Board of Commissioners have implemented bans on open fire and the sales and use of fireworks. Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) staff has worked with the Governor and the Commissioners to impose these bans. By the adoption of the International Fire Code, the City of Fort Collins already bans the sales, use and possession of fireworks. The county-wide ban covers the areas within the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District; however, there is no ban imposed within the City that can be enforced by City personnel or the PFA. Staff feels that a citywide fire ban is necessary to ensure that provisions of the state-wide ban are applicable within the City and can be enforced by Police Services and the PFA, to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens and property. 452 June 26, 2012 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On June 14, 2012 Governor Hickenlooper issued an executive order banning open burning in the State of Colorado as a result of high temperatures, dry conditions, the High Park fire and numerous other reported wildfires burning in the state. This ban prohibits campfires, warming fires, charcoal grill fires at locations other than private residences and other activities that pose a significant risk of starting a fire. The Larimer County Board of Commissioners imposed a total ban of open fire and the sales and use of fireworks on June 19, 2012. The sales, use, and possession of fireworks in the City of Fort Collins have been banned since the ban was prescribed in the Fire Code over 20 years ago. Within the City and consistent with the county-wide and state-wide bans, the proposed fire ban would prohibit all open burning except for liquid-fueled or gas-fueled stoves, grills or fireplaces; wood-burning fireplaces contained within buildings; charcoal grills at private residences; and commercial, professional and municipal fireworks displays where specific written approval has been granted by the Fire Chief. This proposed City ban is more restrictive than the Governor’s Order in that it does not contain the exception for permanent fire pits or fire grates within developed campgrounds, picnic grounds, or recreation sites. Any fires (including charcoal grills) in those areas, including parks or natural areas, pose a significant risk as many of those areas abut open spaces where we do not have well irrigated grasses, but rather very dry native grass, that can be easily ignited with a single spark. There is also an increased risk within those areas of the charcoal or coals being left unattended and a subsequent wind may well spread the embers to combustible vegetation. Charcoal grills do pose a risk at private residences as well, but the risk is typically less. Most homes have well irrigated lawns and are surrounded by homes with well irrigated lawns. Further, experience shows that the use of charcoal grills at a home is usually attended and monitored by the homeowner and the coals properly disposed of. Commercial, professional and/or municipal fireworks displays would be allowed with specific written approval from the Fire Chief. The City Park fireworks display provides a safe environment for citizens to enjoy fireworks. The fallout zone of the fireworks as mandated in the national standards (we actually exceed the standards) includes irrigated lands, non-combustible surfaces and City Park Lake. Other commercial and professional displays will be inspected and approved or denied on a case-by-case basis by the Fire Chief. FINANCIAL/ECONOMIC IMPACTS No additional costs are anticipated.” City Manager Atteberry introduced Poudre Fire Authority Chief Tom DeMint and Fire Marshal Bob Poncelow. Chief DeMint stated this Emergency Ordinance would implement the statewide fire ban within the City of Fort Collins. He discussed the extreme fire danger throughout the local area and state. 453 June 26, 2012 Marshal Poncelow noted Larimer County has restricted all open burning. The City’s Ordinance would allow the use of gas or liquid fueled appliances, fires in fireplaces and structures, fires in charcoal grills at private residences, and commercial and professional fireworks displays. It would ban the use of charcoal grills in parks. Councilmember Poppaw asked if the City’s professional fireworks display is still supported, particularly given that fire resources are currently stretched and given that condoning the display could inadvertently cause citizens to believe private fireworks are acceptable. Marshal Poncelow replied commercial displays are allowed based on the national standards. It is likely off-duty crews would be on duty for the display at City Park. The Country Club is also planning a professional fireworks display and will hire its own off-duty firefighters for its display. Chief DeMint assured Council the City Park display meets and exceeds the national standards for safety. City Manager Atteberry noted the Poudre Fire Authority Board is also in support of allowing the display. Councilmember Troxell noted the Emergency Ordinance has only one reading and asked why it was being used rather than an Administrative Order. City Attorney Roy replied both options were discussed; however, the Chief was more comfortable having Council’s endorsement of the ban. Additionally, this Ordinance gives the Council the opportunity to authorize Police Services to enforce the ban, which would not have been available to the Chief administratively. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Emergency Ordinance No. 065, 2012. Councilmember Troxell asked about the ending time of the ban. City Attorney Roy replied the revised version of the Ordinance states that it can be rescinded in one of two ways: at the time the Fire Chief finds it is no longer necessary by filing a written notice to that effect in the Office of the City Clerk, or when Council amends or rescinds the Ordinance, whichever occurs first. City Attorney Roy read the Ordinance into the record. Councilmember Horak suggested that signage be placed at parks and natural areas regarding the fire ban and that fire staff or other officials be available to answer questions and provide information to citizens. City Manager Atteberry stated he would report back to Council tomorrow regarding the action plan. Mayor Weitkunat noted the Emergency Ordinance allows enforcement to take place. Councilmember Kottwitz requested additional assurance that the fireworks display would be cancelled should conditions warrant such a decision. Chief DeMint replied all national standards are exceeded for the City show; however, there are always risks involved. He assured Council the display could be cancelled at any time given changes in circumstances. Councilmember Poppaw asked how many PFA staff members typically attend the fireworks display. Marshal Poncelow replied overtime, off-duty crews will be utilized for the fireworks display. There 454 June 26, 2012 are currently no PFA employees working the High Park fire, though staff members could be called for other fires at any time. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chief DeMint provided a brief update regarding the High Park fire, which is currently at 87,250 acres in size with 55% containment. At this point, 257 homes have been lost. He thanked the firefighting crews from all over the country who have aided with the fire and thanked the community for its support. Councilmember Horak noted the decision to create Poudre Fire Authority has served the citizens well. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to cancel the July 3, 2012 City Council meeting as permitted under Section 2-28(a) of the City Code. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adjourn to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10, 2012, for the purpose of considering any additional business that may come before the Council at that time. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk 455 DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Ellen Martin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light & Power Fund and in the Water Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art in Public Places Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, appropriates $590,000 from the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserves in the Water Fund and Light & Power Fund for APP artist Ned Kahn to create unique educational art experiences as part of the exhibits at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The artist will begin working with the project team to develop unique, inspiring educational displays using the themes of water, sustainability and energy. $45,000 was previously appropriated in 2012 towards the design phase of this project. When completed, the final design concepts will be brought to Council for consideration and approval prior to fabrication and installation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 5, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 5, 2012 STAFF: Ellen Martin AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Light & Power Fund and in the Water Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art in Public Places Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $590,000 from the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserves in the Water Fund and Light & Power Fund for APP artist Ned Kahn to create unique educational art experiences as part of the exhibits at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The artist will begin working with the project team to develop unique, inspiring educational displays using the themes of water, sustainability and energy. $45,000 was previously appropriated in 2012 towards the design phase of this project. When completed, the final design concepts will be brought to Council for consideration and approval prior to fabrication and installation. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Section 23-303 of the City Code established the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserve Account, and designated it for use in acquiring or leasing works of art, maintenance, repair or display of works of art, and administrative expenses related to the Art in Public Places Program Through the integration of science, culture, and history, the exhibits at the new Fort Collins Museum of Discovery will inspire visitors to explore the future in the context of the present and the past. Exhibit themes represent the interests expressed by the community and those interests include water, energy and sustainability. Utility education staff has been actively involved in developing the content for the water, energy, and sustainability exhibits. These exhibits compliment Utility programs designed to educate community members, from school-age children to adults, about safety, natural resource conservation, water and energy-efficient choices and the importance of clean water and reliable energy. The Art in Public Places program, along with artist Ned Kahn will work with Utility and Museum staff to create unique educational art experiences incorporated onto the exhibit floor around themes such as safety, conservation and wise use of resources. The APP Guidelines allow for works of art to be located in both interior and exterior spaces. The program works with the project team to determine the goals and specific location for the artwork(s). Examples of APP interior works are at EPIC near the second ice rink, the art installation at the main entrance into Council Tree Library, and the recently placed artwork in the lobby of the newly renovated Lincoln Center. APP artists have previously developed exhibits, such as the Police Museum display in the main lobby of the Police Facility. City Code allows for Utility APP contributions to be used at non-Utility sites if the project is for a specific utility purpose that is beneficial to the rate payers. This project will aid the Utility purpose of educating community members around themes of concern to the Utility, such as safety, natural resource conservation, water and energy efficiency and the importance of clean water and reliable energy. The APP Selection Committee (APP Board and Museum Project team members, and Purchasing Department) selected Ned Kahn from a national call (RFQ) of 218 submissions. Ned Kahn started his career as an artist at the Exploratorium Museum in San Francisco in the early 1980s, creating interactive sculptures inspired by everything from wind and waves to black holes and galaxies. In recent years, he has collaborated with architects and designers on a number of large-scale public art projects throughout the world. Kahn states, “I am fascinated with the idea of an artwork becoming a scientific instrument, a detector of phenomena, and blurring the boundaries between art, architecture, science and nature”. His projects include an ocean wave powered fountain on a pier in the Los Angeles Harbor and a linear water feature powered by air rising from a parking garage exhaust vent in a park in San Francisco. He is currently fabricating a large rain-gathering vortex sculpture in Singapore. COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -2- ITEM 13 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance will appropriate prior year reserves in the amount of $590,000, with $390,000 from the Water Fund Art in Public Places Reserve and $200,000 from the Light & Power Fund Art in Public Places Reserve. Reserves are accumulated in these funds for future APP projects. There are sufficient reserves to fund this appropriation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The APP artist will collaborate with the project team on this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 16, 2012 meeting, the Art in Public Places Board recommended adoption of the Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Art in Public Places Board minutes, May 16, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 049, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE LIGHT & POWER FUND AND IN THE WATER FUND FOR THE FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF DISCOVERY ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROJECT WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Project will expand the educational experience of visitors by providing a broad array of scientific, cultural and historical exhibits in a single location; and WHEREAS, the City Council established the Art in Public Places (APP) program in 1995 to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation, and add value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art; and WHEREAS, the APP program is funded by setting aside one percent of all eligible city construction projects over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines; and WHEREAS, the APP Selection Committee has selected artist Ned Kahn to develop unique educational art experiences as part of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery exhibits using the themes of water, sustainability and energy; and WHEREAS, the projected cost of the materials, installation, and contingency for this APP project is $590,000; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the Water Fund - Art in Public Places Reserve ($390,000) and in the Light and Power Fund - Art in Public Places Reserve ($200,000) for this APP project; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, upon completion of the designs for the proposed exhibits, the City Council will have the opportunity, by separate resolution, to review the designs and approve the expenditure of the APP funds appropriated by this Ordinance, including determining whether the proposed project meets the City Charter and Code requirements for expenditure of Utility APP funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Water Fund the amount of THREE HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($390,000) for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art in Public Places project. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Light and Power Fund the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000) for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art in Public Places project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Jay Rose, Owen Randall Jon Haukaas AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Water and Wastewater Funds to Relocate Certain Utility Facilities to Accommodate the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Proposed Construction of a New Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is working with the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department to design and construct a new five or six lane bridge over the Poudre River on Mulberry Street. At this time construction on the bridge is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2013. As the bridge design progressed, it was discovered that the Fort Collins Utilities Department has a 42-inch sanitary sewer and a 12-inch water main that cross under the river parallel to and adjacent to the existing bridge. Both the sanitary sewer and the water main are in conflict with the alignment of the new proposed bridge. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, appropriates funds from existing water and sewer funds to relocate utility lines in conflict with the proposed new CDOT Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. CDOT will reimburse the Utilities Department based on actual design, construction, and project management costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 5, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 5, 2012 STAFF: Jay Rose, Owen Randall Jon Haukaas AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Water and Sewer Line Relocations Required to Facilitate the Construction of a New Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Water and Wastewater Funds to Relocate Certain Utility Facilities to Accommodate the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Proposed Construction of a New Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. B. Resolution 2012-038 Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Grant Agreement with Colorado Department of Transportation for the Funding of Design, Construction, and Project Management for State Highway 14 (Mulberry) Bridge-Related Utility Relocations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is working with the City of Fort Collins Engineering Department to design and construct a new five or six lane bridge over the Poudre River on Mulberry Street. At this time construction on the bridge is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2013. As the bridge design progressed, it was discovered that the Fort Collins Utilities Department has a 42-inch sanitary sewer and a 12-inch water main that cross under the river parallel to and adjacent to the existing bridge. Both the sanitary sewer and the water main are in conflict with the alignment of the new proposed bridge. This Ordinance appropriates funds from existing water and sewer funds to relocate utility lines in conflict with the proposed new CDOT Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. The Resolution allows the City Manager to enter into a Grant Agreement with CDOT who will reimburse the Utilities Department based on actual design, construction, and project management costs. Relocation work will not proceed until authorization of work is issued by the CDOT project manager. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION CDOT is replacing the Mulberry Bridge over the Poudre River due to its age and failing inspections. It has been declared to be both functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The bridge was built in approximately 1950 at a time when design standards and projected loadings were vastly lower than today. CDOT has stated that this is one of its worst bridges and highest priorities for replacement in Region 4. The new bridge is planned to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians on both sides. The existing pedestrian bridge (which also serves bicycles) will be disassembled. It consists of two spans. One span will be reset nearby just to the east of the Lemay Bridge over the Poudre River. This will reroute the Poudre River Trail over the Poudre, eliminate the on-street, two-way crossing on Lemay Avenue. The other span will be moved to storage for a future yet–to-be determined trail project. Utilities staff was contacted by the CDOT project team and asked to relocate the 42-inch sewer and the 12-inch water main out of the way of the new bridge. CDOT has agreed to have the Utilities Department utilize its own engineering consultant to prepare the design drawings and meet the permitting requirements for the project. CDOT has also agreed to allow the use of the Utilities’ on-call contractor. The water and sewer line relocation design is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012. The utility relocation construction will take place in February and March of 2013, well before the bridge construction. Under the terms of the Grant Agreement, CDOT has agreed to reimburse the Utilities Department for all design costs, project management costs, and construction costs. COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -2- ITEM 14 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This project facilitates the construction of a new bridge on Mulberry Street over the Poudre River which will enhance both public transportation and economic development opportunities in Fort Collins. In addition, the pedestrian trail system will be extended and improved in the vicinity of the bridge construction. Water and Wastewater Funds will be fully reimbursed for all design, construction, and project management costs. The estimate for design costs which was submitted to CDOT is $106,179, with 80% coming from the Wastewater Fund ($84,943) and 20% coming from the Water Fund ($21,236). The construction costs will be submitted to CDOT at the conclusion of the design phase and the original agreement will be amended to cover the reimbursement of the construction costs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no anticipated environmental impacts resulting from the relocation of the water and sewer mains. There will be no change in floodplain elevations and no fill will be placed in jurisdictional wetlands. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading and the Resolution. PUBLIC OUTREACH The utility relocation project will not result in any loss of utility services to the public. There is no traffic impact anticipated as a result of the utility relocation construction. There has been no public outreach in regards to the utility relocations. It is anticipated there will be considerable public outreach regarding the bridge design and construction as well as the trail system improvements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Existing water and sewer mains location map ORDINANCE NO. 050, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE WATER AND WASTEWATER FUNDS TO RELOCATE CERTAIN UTILITY FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BRIDGE OVER THE POUDRE RIVER AT MULBERRY STREET WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities currently has certain infrastructure (a 42-inch sanitary sewer and a 12-inch water main) that needs to be relocated to accommodate the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) proposed construction of a new bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street; and WHEREAS, the estimated total cost of the relocation is estimated to be $106,179, with 80% coming from the Wastewater Fund ($84,943) and 20% coming from the Water Fund ($21,236), which cost will be reimbursed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); 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 the fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Water Fund the sum of EIGHTY FOUR THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FORTY THREE DOLLARS ($84,943) to relocate utility facilities in conflict with the CDOT proposed construction of a new bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry street. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Wastewater Fund the sum of TWENTY ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED THIRTY SIX DOLLARS ($21,236) to relocate utility facilities in conflict with the CDOT proposed construction of a new bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry street. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Lindsay Ex AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, annex and zone 17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O – Open in Larimer County to the south and west, as well as E – Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and POL – Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary as this property is not already in the District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 5, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 5, 2012 STAFF: Lindsay Ex AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning. A. Resolution 2012-039 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Wood Street Annexation. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. C. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a request to annex and zone 17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O – Open in Larimer County to the south and west, as well as E – Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and POL – Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary as this property is not already in the District. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The property owner, Sidehill Investment LLC, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned O – Open in the Larimer County to the south and west, as well as E – Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and POL – Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is located within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. The only known issue with this annexation is the previously expressed concern by community members and one Councilmember with the LOMR-Fill (Letter of Map Revision-Fill) process that occurred while the property is still in the County. While the floodplain regulations for the Poudre River Basin generally match across the City and the County, the City conditions its approval of LOMR-Fill applications in a way that the County does not. In this instance, the LOMR-Fill was approved by the County and portions of the site have been removed from the floodplain prior to annexation. Remaining portions of the site that are in the floodplain will be required to comply with the City’s floodplain regulations. COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -2- ITEM 16 City limits from a common boundary with the McMurry Natural Area (December 2010) to the north, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: POL in the City of Fort Collins: McMurry Natural Area E: POL in the City of Fort Collins: Lee Martinez Park S: O in Larimer County: existing residential W: O in Larimer County: existing residential and horse stables E in the City of Fort Collins: City of Fort Collins Fleet Services The requested zoning for this annexation is the UE – Urban Estate Zoning District. There are numerous uses permitted in this District, subject to either administrative review or review by the Planning and Zoning Board. The City’s Structure Plan Map and Northwest Subarea Plan provide guidance that the subject 17.3443 acres should be zoned Urban Estate (U-E). In the Structure Plan, the subject property is designated as “Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors.” As noted in City Plan, “Open Lands, Parks, and Water Corridors are not intended to be parcel-specific designations, but rather general designations that follow major drainageways and other wildlife and water corridors” (page 96). Thus, the Structure Plan and City Plan suggest development in these areas should emphasize and acknowledge the influence and value of the river in any proposed development. The Northwest Subarea Plan (adopted in 2006) outlines that the subject property should be zoned Urban Estate (U-E) and further suggests that residential development on the subject property should be clustered (see the Framework Plan Map on page 12 of the Plan and Attachment 5 to this document). Thus, based on the guidance provided by the Structure Plan, City Plan, and the Northwest Subarea Plan, it is staff’s finding that this property should be zoned U-E. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary as this property is not already in the District. The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. Findings: 1. The annexation of this area is consistent with the policies and agreements between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. 2. The property meets the eligibility requirements included in State law to qualify for a voluntary annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 3. On May 1, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution 2012-030 that accepted the annexation petition and determined that the petition was in compliance with State law. The Resolution also initiated the annexation process for the property by establishing the date, time and place when a public hearing would be held regarding the readings of the Ordinances annexing and zoning the area. 4. The requested UE - Urban Estate Zoning District is in conformance with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. The annexation and zoning request is in conformance with the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS No direct financial impacts result from the proposed annexation and zoning. The property is developed at the present time, containing a mobile home park, although the majority of the mobile home park residents have relocated away from the site. COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -3- ITEM 16 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading and the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 17, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the annexation and zoning request on May 17, 2012 and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. The Board voted 6-0 to recommend that the property be placed in the Urban Estate Zone District and in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. The Board also suggested that staff investigate Code modifications addressing the need for properties removed from the floodplain, based on a LOMR-Fill process, to still be subject to the City’s regulations. City Floodplain staff has investigated this suggestion and is prepared to bring Ordinance language addressing this issue to Council at its request. The minutes from the May 17, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing are attached. PUBLIC OUTREACH Future Development – 912 Wood Street A conceptual review for the property at 912 Wood Street was held on January 9, 2012; Sidehill Investment LLC has indicated the desire to develop single-family residential dwelling units on the property. The City’s Structure Plan Map and Northwest Subarea Plan provide guidance that the subject 17.3443 acres should be zoned Urban Estate (U-E). The Northwest Subarea Plan further suggests that residential development on the subject property should be clustered (see the Framework Plan Map on page 12 of the Plan). Single-family residential units are a permitted use in the U-E Zone. Consistent with the Northwest Subarea Plan, the applicants are proposing to cluster the residential units, which is a use that is subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board. When clustering residential units in the U-E Zone, a minimum of 50% of open space must be preserved. A development review outreach meeting for this project has not been scheduled at this time, but is anticipated as the project moves forward. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. City Zoning Map 3. City Structure Plan Map 4. Annexation Map 5. Northwest Subarea Plan Land Use Framework Map 6. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 17, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 052, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE WOOD STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 2012-030, finding substantial compliance and initiating annexation proceedings, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the following described property, to wit: A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARINGS: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, WHICH IS ASSUMED BEAR S 00°04’30” E. SAID WEST LINE IS MONUMENTED ON THE NORTH END BY A 2.5” ILLEGIBLE ALUMINUM CAP IN A RANGE BOX AND ON THE SOUTH END BY A 3.5” BRASS CAP MARKED “BRADFORD” IN A RANGE BOX. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST ONE-SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, FROM WHICH THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION TWO BEARS S 89°58’24” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1323.93 FEET AND AGAIN N 00°04’30” W, A DISTANCE OF 1326.78 FEET; THENCE N 00°04'07" W, ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 291.09 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE MCMURRY NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: 1) THENCE N 88°03'51" E, A DISTANCE OF 170.61 FEET; 2) THENCE S 84°28'21" E, A DISTANCE OF 208.68 FEET; 3) THENCE S 67°34'38" E, A DISTANCE OF 201.58 FEET; 4) THENCE S 77°39'28" E, A DISTANCE OF 43.58 FEET; 5) THENCE S 65°58'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; 6) THENCE N 65°35'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 26.86 FEET; 7) THENCE S 77°39'28" E, A DISTANCE OF 30.31 FEET; 8) THENCE N 68°32'47" E, A DISTANCE OF 192.35 FEET; 9) THENCE N 84°06'06" E, A DISTANCE OF 164.90 FEET; 10) THENCE S 69°42'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 35.87 FEET; 11) THENCE S 63°52'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 165.62 FEET; 12) THENCE S 53°38'18" E, A DISTANCE OF 13.97 FEET; 13) THENCE S 23°54'48" E, A DISTANCE OF 133.15 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, AND THE WEST LINE OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF FORT COLLINS PLAT; THENCE S 00°03'45" E, ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 375.10 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30 ACRES OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S 89°58'24" W, ON SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1276.16 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ON SAID EASTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1) THENCE N 00°01'08" E, A DISTANCE OF 3.20 FEET; 2) THENCE N 89°58'52" W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; 3) THENCE N 00°01'08" E, A DISTANCE OF 276.00 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE S 89°58'52" E, ON THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, A DISTANCE OF 1.84 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE N 00°04'07" W, ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 61.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 17.3443 ACRES OR 755,516 SQUARE FEET. is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Wood Street Annexation, which annexation shall become effective upon completion of the conditions contained in Section 31-12-113, C.R.S., including, without limitation, all required filings for recording with the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Section 2. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City. Section 3. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -2- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- ORDINANCE NO. 053, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE WOOD STREET ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the property known as the Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to wit: A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BASIS OF BEARINGS: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, WHICH IS ASSUMED BEAR S 00°04’30” E. SAID WEST LINE IS MONUMENTED ON THE NORTH END BY A 2.5” ILLEGIBLE ALUMINUM CAP IN A RANGE BOX AND ON THE SOUTH END BY A 3.5” BRASS CAP MARKED “BRADFORD” IN A RANGE BOX. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST ONE-SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2, FROM WHICH THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION TWO BEARS S 89°58’24” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1323.93 FEET AND AGAIN N 00°04’30” W, A DISTANCE OF 1326.78 FEET; THENCE N 00°04'07" W, ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 291.09 FEET, TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE MCMURRY NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: 1) THENCE N 88°03'51" E, A DISTANCE OF 170.61 FEET; 2) THENCE S 84°28'21" E, A DISTANCE OF 208.68 FEET; 3) THENCE S 67°34'38" E, A DISTANCE OF 201.58 FEET; 4) THENCE S 77°39'28" E, A DISTANCE OF 43.58 FEET; 5) THENCE S 65°58'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 79.32 FEET; 6) THENCE N 65°35'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 26.86 FEET; 7) THENCE S 77°39'28" E, A DISTANCE OF 30.31 FEET; 8) THENCE N 68°32'47" E, A DISTANCE OF 192.35 FEET; 9) THENCE N 84°06'06" E, A DISTANCE OF 164.90 FEET; 10) THENCE S 69°42'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 35.87 FEET; 11) THENCE S 63°52'00" E, A DISTANCE OF 165.62 FEET; 12) THENCE S 53°38'18" E, A DISTANCE OF 13.97 FEET; 13) THENCE S 23°54'48" E, A DISTANCE OF 133.15 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER, AND THE WEST LINE OF THE ORIGINAL TOWN OF FORT COLLINS PLAT; THENCE S 00°03'45" E, ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 375.10 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30 ACRES OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S 89°58'24" W, ON SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1276.16 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ON SAID EASTERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1) THENCE N 00°01'08" E, A DISTANCE OF 3.20 FEET; 2) THENCE N 89°58'52" W, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; 3) THENCE N 00°01'08" E, A DISTANCE OF 276.00 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE S 89°58'52" E, ON THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE SERVICE CENTER 4TH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, A DISTANCE OF 1.84 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST HALF OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE N 00°04'07" W, ON SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 61.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 17.3443 ACRES OR 755,516 SQUARE FEET. Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above- described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Josh Weinberg AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2012, Designating the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage, 621 East Locust Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, designates the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage at 621 East Locust Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of the property, Thomas Klender, is initiating this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 5, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 5, 2012 STAFF: Josh Weinberg AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2012, Designating the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage, 621 East Locust Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owner of the property, Thomas Klender, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage at 621 East Locust Street. The property is eligible for designation as a Landmark under Designation Standards 2 and 3, for its association with significant persons and also for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Constructed circa 1908/1909, the residence was built by Charles Lory – president of Colorado Agricultural College (now Colorado State University) from 1909 to 1940 – for use as a family home and rental property. Additionally, the house was occupied by Major Roy Coffin, an instructor of geology at Colorado Agricultural College, in the early 1920s. In 1924, Coffin assisted his father and brother in the discovery of the Lindenmeier archeological site, recognized as a National Landmark. Furthermore, the building remains an excellent, intact example of Craftsman Style architecture, a popular architectural style throughout the first part of the 20th Century. The associated wood frame garage dates from the period of significance, and enhances the historical and architectural significance of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At a public hearing held on April 11, 2012, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standard (2), with Charles Lory, president of Colorado Agricultural College (now Colorado State University) from 1909 to 1940 and Major Roy Coffin, one of the discoverers of the Lindenmeier archeological site; and under Standard 3 as excellent examples of Craftsman Style residential architecture in Fort Collins, with high levels of physical integrity. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form and Agreement 3. Staff Report 4. Resolution 1, 2012, Landmark Preservation Commission, Recommending Landmark Designation of the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage at 621 East Locust Street. 5. Photos 6. Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, April 11, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 054, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE LORY/COFFIN/KLENDER RESIDENCE AND GARAGE, 621 EAST LOCUST STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK 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 within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated April 11, 2012, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") has determined that the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage have significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standard (2) for its association with Charles Lory and Major Roy Coffin; and Designation Standard (3), as excellent examples of the Craftsman Style residential architecture in Fort Collins, with a high level of physical integrity; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the Code and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property, Thomas Klender, has consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property'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 property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the property known as the Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage, and the adjacent lands upon which the historical resources are located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: The West 45 feet of Lots 17 and 18, and that portion of the East one-half of the vacated alley adjoining on the West of Lots 17 and 18 as described in Ordinance No. 25, 1925 recorded October 21, 2004 at Reception No. 20040102617, GILLETTE’S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 179, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark 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 City Code will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the City Code. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Ken Mannon Helen Matson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue to the Fort Collins Housing Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Housing Authority has leased the City-owned property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue since January 1977. The Authority constructed its administrative headquarters on the property 35 years ago and is currently in the process of remodeling its headquarters. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, authorizes a new lease agreement which is necessary for the Housing Authority to secure permanent financing for this project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 5, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 5, 2012 STAFF: Ken Mannon Helen Matson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue to the Fort Collins Housing Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Housing Authority has leased the City-owned property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue since January 1977. The Authority constructed its administrative headquarters on the property 35 years ago and is currently in the process of remodeling its headquarters. To secure permanent financing for this project, a new lease agreement is necessary. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION History On May 20, 1971, the Fort Collins City Council formed the Housing Authority in order to provide adequate housing for residents of the City otherwise unable to obtain such housing. The leased premises for this lease was a portion of City Park on West Mountain Avenue near the City Park Ball fields. The term of this lease is 40 years and terminates in 2017. New Lease Terms and Definitions In order for the Authority to obtain permanent financing, its financial institution is requiring that the terms of the current lease be amended, modified, extended, and collaterally assigned to the institution as security. Due to this, staff has negotiated a new lease agreement. An agreement has been reached on the terms of the lease. A summary of the lease definitions and lease terms is provided below: Lease Definitions • Leased Premises – the property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue that is currently leased to the Authority. • Authority’s Improvements – the building serving as headquarters and related fixtures installed by the Authority. Lease Terms • Tenant: The Fort Collins Housing Authority • Lease Term: The term of this lease is 40 years. •Rent: The rent for the lease term is $1,000 based on a rent of $25 per year. • Uses of the Leased Premises: The Authority may use the Leased Premises only as its administrative headquarters for providing housing services or other human services purposes. The Authority may not operate a for-profit business. • Maintenance: The Authority is responsible for the maintaining the Leased Premises, including the Authority’s Improvements and the grounds (including the park and open areas) at its sole expense. The City is responsible to maintain the shared parking area. • Alterations and Improvements: All alterations, additions and improvements to the Leased Premises must be approved by the City as owner of the property. COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -2- ITEM 18 • Lease Expiration for Termination: On expiration of the Lease, all improvements made by the Authority on the Leased Premises would become the property of the City, free and clear of any mortgages. • Utilities: The Authority will pay for all utilities used on the Leased Premises. • Subletting and Assignment: Except for the financing for the current project, the Authority may not sublet or assign without first obtaining the written consent of the City. • Shared Parking: The Authority may share with the City the use of 30 parking spaces near the Authority’s Improvements. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Authority has continued to provide support to the citizens of Fort Collins as directed by the Fort Collins City Council in May of 1971. Its current mission statement is “To provide and promote safe and affordable housing, economic opportunity and a living environment free from discrimination.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map ORDINANCE NO. 055, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 1715 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE TO THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the property located at 1715 West Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, legally described as Lot 1, Fort Collins Housing Authority Subdivision (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, on January 4, 1977, the City and the Fort Collins Housing Authority (the “Authority”) entered into a lease agreement for the Property for 40 years (the “1977 Lease”); and WHEREAS, the Authority is completing a remodeling project for its administrative headquarters located on the Property; and WHEREAS, in order for the Authority to obtain permanent financing for the remodeling project, the Authority’s lender is asking that the 1977 Lease be amended, modified, extended and collaterally assigned to the lender as security; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Authority have negotiated a new Lease Agreement, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for review (the “Lease Agreement”); and WHEREAS, key terms of the proposed Lease Agreement include the following: • The term of the Lease would be 40 years. • The Authority would pay rent in the amount of $1,000 for the 40 year term of the Lease. • The Authority’s lender would impose a lien on the Authority’s leasehold estate to secure its loan for the remodeling project. • The Authority would be responsible for all utility costs and for maintenance of the Property except for a parking area shared with the City. • If the Authority’s lender were to foreclose on the Authority’s leasehold interest, the Lender and any subsequent purchaser of the leasehold interest would assume the Authority’s obligations under the Lease and rent would be adjusted to a market amount. • Upon termination of the Lease the Authority’s improvements would become the property of the City; and WHEREAS, leasing the Leased Premises to the Authority for the uses described in the Lease Agreement serves the valuable public purpose of providing adequate housing for residents of the City otherwise unable to obtain such housing; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property owned in the name of the City provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that leasing the Property to the Authority pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement for the Property consistent with the terms of this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Property, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property being leased. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Helen Matson Kayla Ballard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 425 10th Street to the Museo de las Tres Colonias. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property at 425 10th Street was donated to the City in 2002 for a living history museum recognizing and remembering the contributions of Hispanics, Latinos, and Mexicans in Northern Colorado. Poudre Landmarks Foundation has leased the property since 2002 and has completed its renovation of the house. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, authorizes a new lease agreement with the Museo de las Tres Colonias and the Poudre Landmarks Foundation will relinquish all rights, title and interest in the original Lease Agreement dated July 18, 2002. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 5, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 5, 2012 STAFF: Helen Matson Kayla Ballard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-owned Property at 425 10th Street to the Museo de las Tres Colonias. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The property at 425 10th Street was donated to the City in 2002 for a living history museum recognizing and remembering the contributions of Hispanics, Latinos, and Mexicans in Northern Colorado. Poudre Landmarks Foundation has leased the property since 2002 and has completed its renovation of the house. The new lease agreement will be with the Museo de las Tres Colonias and the Poudre Landmarks Foundation will relinquish all rights, title and interest in the original Lease Agreement dated July 18, 2002. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This property was designated as a local historical landmark in August 2001 and the property was donated to the City in 2002. The property was originally known as the Romero House, but is now known as the Museo de las Tres Colonias. Poudre Landmarks Foundation and the specific committee, known as the Museo Amigos, raised the funds necessary to renovate the adobe family house. This renovation, which was completed in 2006, returned the house to its original 1927 four room adobe structure. Poudre Landmarks Foundation and Museo Amigos have agreed to divide their interests in the Museo. The new tenant, the Museo de las Tres Colonias, has received its non-profit status through its 501(c)(3) application to the Internal Revenue Service. The Poudre Landmarks Foundation is supportive of the Museo and the service it provides to the Fort Collins community and will continue to collaborate with the Museo in the future. The Museo will be available to the citizens of Fort Collins to have guided tours of the historic home and experience family life in the Tres Colonias (Andersonville, Buckingham, and Alta Vista) between the years 1927 and 1940. The Museo will also serve as a neighborhood resource center and the site for cultural events that represent the rich history of Hispanic Coloradoans. The intent of this lease is to have similar terms as the leases to Poudre Landmarks Foundation. The term of this lease is fifteen years at an aggregate rent of $75, or $5 per year. The City will be responsible for the maintenance of the exterior walls, foundation and roof of the house. The Museo will be responsible for maintenance and repair of the interior of the house and the Museo’s improvements. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Museo will pay for all costs associated with their programs. The City will pay the utility charges. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map ORDINANCE NO. 056, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 425 10TH STREET TO THE MUSEO DE LAS TRES COLONIAS WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of real property located at 425 10th Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, legally described as Lot 1, Block 12, Anderson Place (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property, which includes an adobe single-family house, was designated as a local landmark in August 2001; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 081, 2002, authorizing the lease of the Property to the Poudre Landmarks Foundation (the “Foundation”) for a period of 15 years for the purpose of renovating the Property and opening it to the public as a museum; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2002, the City and the Foundation entered into a lease agreement for the Property (the “2002 Lease”); and WHEREAS, the Foundation completed the renovation of the Property in 2006; and WHEREAS, in 2010 a group of supporters of the Property formed a new non-profit corporation called Museo de las Tres Colonias (“Museo”), which has also received 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service; and WHEREAS, the Foundation and the Museo have agreed that the Museo should take over management of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Museo desires to lease the Property from the City, and City staff is recommending that the City lease the Property to the Museo for a period of 15 years for a total aggregate rental of Seventy Five Dollars ($75.00); and WHEREAS, leasing the Property to the Museo will serve the public purpose of preserving the Property as an important historic resource: a living history museum recognizing and remembering the contributions of Hispanics, Latinos, and Mexicans in Northern Colorado; and WHEREAS, upon execution of a new lease agreement between the City and the Museo, the Foundation will relinquish all right, title and interest in and to the Property under the 2002 Lease; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property owned in the name of the City provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that leasing the Property to the Museo pursuant to the terms of this Ordinance is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement for the Property consistent with the terms of this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Property, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property being leased. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Pete Wray, Peter Barnes Jessica Ping-Small AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT Items Relating to Implementation of the Outdoor Vendor Study. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code Relating to Outdoor Vendors. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2012, Amending Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code Regarding Licensing of Outdoor Vendors. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 057, 2012 amends the Land Use Code. A new section is added to Article 3, Supplementary Regulations for Outdoor Vendors. Article 4 has been amended by adding Outdoor Vendors as a permitted use in non- neighborhood zoning districts. Article 5 has been amended to add a new definition for “Outdoor Vendor”. Ordinance No. 058, 2012 amends Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding licensing and regulations for outdoor vendor businesses. The definition for outdoor vendors and exemptions has been revised, new definitions for outdoor vendor types have been added, and licensing requirements have been revised. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since First Reading, staff has continued to refine Ordinance No. 058, 2012, including minor text edits. The following proposed revisions are described below: 1. A definition of restaurants is added for reference (page 4). 2. Special Vending License (Section 15-382, page 5). Staff added additional clarification for determining if a special vending license will be issued by the Financial Officer. 3. Additional Requirements for Mobile Food Truck and Pushcart Vendors (page 11, 12, and 13). Vendors can not stop to vend within 200 feet of the front entrance of any restaurant, (when such restaurant is open to the public). This clarification will enable vendors to operate on a private lot or on-street parallel parking space with no separation of restaurants if they are closed. An existing restaurant that is open to the public may agree to a food vendor operating within the 200 foot separation. 4. A clause has been added to the definition of "outdoor vendor" in both Ordinance No. 058, 2012 and Ordinance No. 057, 2012, to clarify that an outdoor vendor giving away goods and services to the public is also within the scope of the definition. During First Reading, Mayor Pro-Tem Ohlson requested staff assess implications of food truck idling. A response from staff is provided in Attachment 2. In short, the proposed staff recommendation is to administratively encourage mobile food truck operators, at time of issuance of license, to park and vend after the vehicle motor is turned off. All existing food truck vendors staff contacted confirmed they do not idle vehicles to operate vending. When parked, vendors use a combination of pugged-in electrical power, batteries, gas generators, or propane for alternative power and fuel inside the vehicle to operate. Information to further educate vendors on impacts of excessive vehicle idling will be available at the Finance Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 13 ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 5, 2012 (w/o attachments) 2. Staff response to Mayor Pro-Tem Ohlson’s request relating to food truck idling COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 5, 2012 STAFF: Pete Wray, Peter Barnes, Jessica Ping-Small AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28 SUBJECT Items Relating to Implementation of the Outdoor Vendor Study. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code Relating to Outdoor Vendors. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2012, Amending Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code Regarding Licensing of Outdoor Vendors. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY These Ordinances address actions needed to implement the Outdoor Vendor Study staff recommendations. Ordinance No. 057, 2012 amends the Land Use Code. First, it adds a new section in Article 3, Supplementary Regulations for Outdoor Vendors. Second, it amends Article 4 by adding Outdoor Vendors as a permitted use in non- neighborhood zoning districts. Finally, it amends Article 5 to add a new definition for “Outdoor Vendor”. Ordinance No. 058, 2012 amends Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding licensing and regulations for outdoor vendor businesses. It revises the definition for outdoor vendors and exemptions, adds new definitions for outdoor vendor types, and revises licensing requirements. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Over the past several years, the types, products, and distribution of outdoor mobile vendors have evolved to include more options. Vendors have expressed the desire for the City to be more accommodating, with less restrictive license and permit requirements. On the other hand, the City has also received complaints from existing local merchants concerned about potential unfair competition from mobile vendors, and the need for a level playing field in licensing and permitting. In September 2011, staff was initially directed to evaluate the issues relating to food truck vendors, and whether potential changes may be warranted to the Outdoor Vendors section of the City Code, and related sections of the Land Use Code. In the course of the study, staff found the need to add other vendor types to the scope of the study. For example, transportation vendors such as pedicabs, conference bikes, horse-drawn carriages, and valet parking services were added for consideration in the study, as were non-food vendors such as holiday tree sellers and various non-profit fundraisers. Staff Assessment of Potential Options for Outdoor Vendors The staff team initially researched the relevant topics in other cities, both in Colorado, and across the nation (see Attachment 5). This assessment helped identify a range of options for staff to explore. Staff also reviewed existing Land Use Code and City Code requirements, resulting in recognition that these regulations significantly limited outdoor vendor operations within the City and appeared overly restrictive in certain ways. A range of alternative outdoor vendor options were developed and included in the on-line survey for feedback. Staff then developed draft recommendations that were presented at a public open house meeting on May 9, 2012. The proposed new requirements identified by staff involve new locations for food truck vendors to operate, distance buffers from existing restaurants and schools, and other operational requirements. Issues Resolved by Code Changes: COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -2- ITEM 28 • Existing City Code requirements currently restrict a license to one location, and do not allow vendors to operate within a public street. Certain food vendors would like to operate in multiple locations and offer their products directly from public streets. • Also, existing vendor licensing is currently only available for one-month periods. Vendors desire more efficient time frames of semi-annual or annual licensing. • The Land Use Code currently has one permitted use category that has been applied to outdoor food vendors – Fast Food Restaurant – but needs better clarification to distinguish between restaurants and outdoor mobile food vendors. In other words, a new definition of the use is needed to better recognize outdoor vendor types. • For private property, current Land Use Code standards treat many vendors as a principal use required to make site improvements under Change of Use requirements, due to the lack of any other provisions to specifically recognize outdoor vendors. This requirement is burdensome or prohibitive for vendors operating on a temporary basis. • Vendors’ desire to operate from public streets raised questions about safety and impacts on other public right- of-way functions. • Vendors’ desire to operate food trucks in parks and neighborhoods raised questions about effects on the functions and livability of these areas. While outdoor food vendors desired to also operate within public parks, long-standing park policy does not support allowing these vendors inside parks on a regular basis, except authorized as part of special events. Vendors have been prohibited from conducting their business in parks in order to avoid commercializing them. Parks are intended to be places of respite from an often hectic and commercialized world and allowing vendors into them on a regular basis would undermine this purpose. Fundamental questions from existing business owners have been raised of potential competition and need for a level playing field, between brick and mortar restaurants, which bear costs and requirements of development, ownership, and maintenance of real property, and mobile food trucks. 1. Will the study ensure a level playing field between brick-and-mortar restaurants and mobile food trucks? Staff response: No, the two types of businesses fundamentally operate on slightly different playing fields. The proposed City requirements for mobile food trucks are an attempt to update and clarify the rules of operation for these uses, but they do not necessarily ensure parity with requirements for development, construction, and ownership of a restaurant building. There is one main similarity for comparison purposes. This is the fact that mobile food trucks are accompanied by a commissary kitchen, which involves development, construction, and property ownership requirements similar to those associated with a restaurant. However, various differences between the two types of businesses make it difficult or impossible to fully weigh overhead costs and requirements for purposes of comparing the playing field for competition. For example, the number of food trucks sharing in the costs of a commissary kitchen varies. Also, a mobile food vendor may operate out of a brick-and-mortar restaurant. 2. How will the study address potential competition between existing brick and mortar restaurants and mobile food trucks? Staff response: To some extent, competition for customers will remain between brick and mortar restaurants and mobile food trucks. Food trucks are currently allowed on private property. The recommendations from the study provide additional opportunities for food vendors to operate within the public right-of-way and on select public lots Downtown with limitations. The proposed requirements include a 200 foot separation between existing restaurants and food truck vendors citywide. This requirement will ensure a food truck operator can not vend within a half-block of the front entrance of COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -3- ITEM 28 an existing restaurant. In developing this recommendation, staff looked at precedents in other cities’ requirements. Most of the cities reviewed have a separation distance in the range of 50 – 300 feet. Staff also conducted an on-line survey that tested different separation distances, and specifically asked restaurant businesses to respond to this issue. Most respondents selected no separation requirement. However, staff determined a moderate separation is still warranted to alleviate potential competition of food trucks vending close to restaurants. While the proposed separation requirement will not eliminate competition between food businesses, it will remove immediate impacts of mobile food trucks operating within close proximity and view from front entrances of existing brick and mortar restaurants. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES • Ordinance No. 057, 2012 Ordinance No. 057, 2012 amends the Land Use Code related to outdoor vendor regulations in Articles 3, 4, and 5. Article 3 - General Development Standards This proposed LUC amendment adds a new subsection to the Supplemental Regulations in Section 3.8 that will include outdoor vendor standards. These proposed standards would regulate location of operation, type of use, signage, operation, and compliance with related Municipal Code regulations. Article 4 - Districts For outdoor vendors on private property, the Outdoor Vendors use would be added to the list of permitted uses in all non-neighborhood zoning districts within Article 4 Districts, as an accessory/miscellaneous use. Article 5 - Terms and Definitions A new definition for Outdoor Vendors will be added to Section 5.1.2, Article 5 of the Land Use Code to describe all types of Outdoor Vendors operating in the City. • Ordinance No. 058, 2012 Ordinance No. 058, 2012 amends Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding licensing of outdoor vendors. The key City Code sections to be amended are as follows: • Section 15-381 incorporates new definitions for five outdoor vendor types, and includes a list of activities that are exempt from the outdoor vendor provisions of this section. • Section 15-382 describes license and operating requirements for outdoor vendors. • Section 15-383 combines two existing Code sections for application and license fee requirements. • Section 15-385 includes revised standards for review and approval of outdoor vendor applications. • Section 15-386 includes bond requirements which may be modified or eliminated. • Section 15-387 includes requirements for issuance of an outdoor vendor license. • Section 15-388 includes general and specific requirements that restrict and govern the operation of outdoor vendors. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The revenue received in 2011 from outdoor vendor licenses and downtown concession agreements was $3,080. Based on the fact that the license fees will not increase significantly, the estimated revenue moving forward is $4,300 annually. The small increase is attributable to an assumed increase in vendors and the possibility for additional COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -4- ITEM 28 downtown concession locations. The administrative costs are not expected to increase dramatically as licenses will be issued for six months or annually instead of the current monthly licensing process. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS New regulations for outdoor vendors will provide additional options for locating mobile vending in Fort Collins, allowing customers more choice in purchasing food, goods and services, and other products. With outdoor vendors locating closer to where potential customers are, a reduction in travel distance to and from these vending locations is realized, along with a corresponding reduction in vehicle emissions. Food vendors in fixed locations can utilize propane heating systems as an alternative to vehicle engine and generator gas fuel use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 17, 2012 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to recommend that City Council adopt Ordinance No. 057, 2012, making various amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code relating to outdoor vendors. The Council Finance Committee will consider these recommendations at its June 4, 2012 meeting. The minutes will be provided in the Council “Read-Before” packet on June 5, 2012. The Downtown Business Association Board held its monthly meeting on May 9, 2012. A staff presentation on the Outdoor Vendor Study was provided. A draft (unsigned) recommendation memo is included in Attachment 6. The final signed copy will be provided in the Council “Read-Before” packet on June 5, 2012.. PUBLIC OUTREACH As part of the Study, staff met with existing and potential new outdoor vendors, business owners, and other interests to listen and learn about issues and ideas for new provisions relating to outdoor vendors operating in Fort Collins. An on-line survey was administered between April 2 and May 4, 2012 which included 583 respondents (see Attachment 3). Notice of the public survey was distributed to outdoor vendors, the Downtown Business Association, Downtown Development Authority, Chamber Local Legislative Affairs Committee, and North/South Fort Collins Business Associations. Public notice was generated through press release, webpage postings, and local news media. The results of this survey provided important information for staff to assess potential options for outdoor vendor zoning use provisions, operational and other licensing requirements. Staff presented draft recommendations at a public open house meeting on May 9. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation 2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 17, 2012 3. On-line survey results and open-ended comments 4. Summary of comments from May 9, 2012 public open house meeting 5. Table 1, comparison of outdoor vendor regulations from other Cities 6. Downtown Business Association Board meeting draft recommendation memo, May 9, 2012 7. Downtown Development Board meeting minutes, May 10, 2012 8. Economic Advisory Commission Memo, May 30, 2012 June 25, 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 Outdoor Vendor Study Staff Response to Outdoor Mobile Food Truck Vendor Vehicle Idling Impacts On June 5, during first readings of Ordinances to regulate outdoor vendors, Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson asked about the impacts from mobile food truck idling and what the City could do about the issue. Staff agreed to provide a response to this request at Second Reading. Pete Wray coordinated with Environmental Services staff to assess options for addressing impacts of food truck idling in the City relating to air quality. Staff initially contacted ten available existing mobile food truck vendors operating in the City to learn about their power needs. Of the ten vendors contacted, nine of these vendors do not idle vehicles during vending operations. These food truck vendors park their vehicle, turn off the engine, and then use alternative power and fuel sources, such as available adjacent building electrical hook-up, batteries, natural gas, and gasoline generators. The one ice cream truck vendor business contacted, currently operating 55 trucks between Castle Rock and Fort Collins, confirmed that vehicles idle to some extent depending on the situation. If a vehicle is part of a special event, or parked to vend to multiple customers, they will typically turn off vehicle. The ice cream freezers do not need the vehicle to run to keep the freezers operating. The owner stated that most drivers typically turn off the truck engine if parked longer than a few minutes to save gas. Examples of existing vendors heating/cooling operations:  Cupcake Cruiser: has no need for power for heating or cooling food and reports that the vehicle is turned off immediately upon stopping to serve customers. Nighttime lighting is provided by battery-powered lights.  Umami: heating and cooling needs powered by a portable gas generator (6500Watt Honda) while serving customers.  Primal Echo: uses a propane tank to run the stove and battery power for the electric water pump and refrigerator.  Taquria: runs a gasoline generator (10,000 Watt Rigid) exclusively while they are parked on North College for their food prep and lighting needs.  Waffle Lab: Uses available electricity from adjacent business hook up. Based on the contacts made with existing vendors, aside from ice cream trucks, most food truck operators do not idle their vehicles during vending. However, the concern of vehicle idling in general is an important issue in the City. Staff is prepared to educate vendors at time of issuance of license about the benefits of not idling vehicles when parked to vend. This voluntary compliance method is consistent with current practices citywide including the “Breathe Easy Campaign.” AIS Attachment No. 2 Page 2 June 25, 2012 The intent of the Campaign is to encourage motorists to turn off engines when not moving for a period of time for locations such as at intersections and train crossings. Since the City does not have an Idling Ordinance presently, staff are not recommending requiring food truck vendors to not idle. A larger discussion is needed to look at all types of vehicle travel throughout the City beyond just food vendors such as grocery delivery, parcel post companies, garbage truck operators, pizza deliveries etc. to determine whether a citywide idling ordinance is warranted.. Emissions Comparisons There are several variables that would impact the air emissions associated with various sources of power, include the load, the type of engine, etc. Estimates of emissions from portable generators vs. vehicle idling indicate that an idling vehicle is likely to emit more pollution than a generator. We anticipate most vendors will not run their equipment off of vehicle engine power for two reasons: running the vehicle engine is less fuel-efficient than using a generator and vehicle manufacturers indicate that extended idling can cause premature engine wear and increase maintenance costs. Vehicle Idling Regulations A review of state and local idling ordinances indicates that the vast majority have exemptions for running auxiliary equipment, which would make them not applicable to the issue of mobile food truck vendor use. Only Salt Lake County, UT, has an ordinance that appears to be applicable to this issue. They limit idling to 15 minutes except when it powers a refrigeration unit that is greater than 500 feet from a residence. This would therefore prohibit idling when in close proximity of residences. This could be applicable to the proposed Neighborhood Food Vendor License. The City of Minneapolis has an anti-idling vehicle Ordinance. The Ordinance restricts idling vehicles to no more than three minutes in a one hour period, with exceptions. This Ordinance may be a good template for the City of Fort Collins to use. Enforcement of such an Ordinance can be a challenge. Vehicle Idling in Fort Collins Fort Collins currently does not have any ordinance that restricts vehicle idling. The City promotes anti-idling to motorists via the “Breathe Easy ” campaign (See http://www.fcgov.com/breatheeasy/ ), that includes signage at railroad tracks, collaborative signage and messaging through Poudre School District, and print, radio, and billboard advertising, and Web and social media information. If directed by Council for air quality staff to pursue a citywide vehicle idling ordinance, a project of this magnitude will need to be included in future Service Area budget and work programs. Air Pollution Nuisance Ordinance Staff assessed how to respond to complaints of excessive air pollution if the situation arises with food truck vendors operating in the City. If needed, the general air pollution nuisance ordinance could potentially be invoked to address complaints. Section 20-1 of the Ordinance is highlighted below: AIS Attachment No. 2 Page 3 June 25, 2012 Sec. 20-1. Air pollution nuisances prohibited. (a) The emission or escape into the open air from any source or sources of smoke, ashes, dust, dirt, grime, acids, fumes, gases, vapors, odors or any other substances or combination of substances in such manner or in such amounts as to endanger or tend to endanger the health, comfort, safety or welfare of the public or to cause unreasonable injury or damage to property or to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of property or normal conduct of business is hereby found and declared to be a public nuisance. It is unlawful for any person to cause, permit or maintain any such public nuisance within the City. (b) No person shall cause or allow the emission of smoke exceeding twenty-percent opacity from any flue or chimney, except for a single fifteen-minute period for cold start-up. Any emission in excess hereof is hereby declared to be a nuisance and is prohibited. (c) After October 1, 1988, no person shall cause or allow, for the purpose of residential or commercial space heating, the burning of coal in a solid fuel-burning appliance, unless that appliance is designed to burn coal, and unless it is the sole source of heat for the building. No solid fuel-burning appliance shall be considered to be the sole source of heat if the building is equipped with a permanently installed furnace or heating system that is designed to use natural gas, fuel oil, electricity or propane, whether connected or disconnected from its energy source. (d) Except as is provided in Subsection (c) hereof, no person shall cause or allow the burning of any solid fuel in a solid fuel-burning appliance other than clean, dry, untreated wood or wood products, or other solid fuel products specifically manufactured for the purpose of space heating. Staff Recommendation:  Provide information at time of licensing, to encourage mobile food truck vendors to limit idling when serving customers (consistent with the current “Breathe Easy” campaign) in order to reduce impacts of emissions on air quality.  Educate vendors about the fuel-cost and engine-wear penalties of idling a vehicle engine to power vending operations, and to use alternative power and fuel sources (such as electricity, batteries, natural gas, and gasoline generators).  Use the Nuisance hotline to register complaints about mobile food truck vendors to track the volume and nature of complaints.  If needed, the general air pollution nuisance ordinance could potentially be invoked to address complaints (See Section 20-1 above for code language). 1 ORDINANCE NO. 057, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE RELATING TO OUTDOOR VENDORS WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, the Council is considering on this same date Ordinance No. 058, 2012, enacting amendments to City Code Chapter 15 to establish new and updated licensing requirements for outdoor vendors in Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, in connection with those amendments, City staff has identified and recommended certain modifications to the Land Use Code in order to establish outdoor vendors as a permitted use in certain zone districts and to set basic development requirements associated with such uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code and has made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That Section 3.8 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection 3.8.29 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3.8.29 Outdoor Vendor Regulations (A) Outdoor vendors shall be prohibited on undeveloped lots. (B) Outdoor vendors shall be considered as accessory uses in the zone districts in which they are permitted, provided they are on lots that contain a principal building wherein active operations are being conducted. Outdoor vendors that qualify as accessory uses shall not be subject to change-of-use 2 regulations which would otherwise require the properties on which they are located to be brought into compliance with the standards of this code. (C) Outdoor vendors located on lots wherein active operations in the principal building have ceased shall be considered principal uses and shall be subject to change-of-use regulations requiring that the properties upon which they are located be brought into compliance with the applicable standards of this code. (D) Signage for outdoor vendors shall be limited to signs placed directly onto the vehicle or cart used in connection with the business. (E) Outdoor vendors shall comply with all outdoor vendor regulations and standards contained in Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code of the City of Fort Collins. (F) An outdoor vendor shall be situated on a lot in such a manner that no aspect of its operation shall impede vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle circulation. Section 2. That the table contained in Section 4.16(B)(2)(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. ACCESSORY C MISC. Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center Accessory buildings BDR BDR BDR Accessory uses BDR BDR BDR Outdoor Vendor BDR BDR BDR . . . Section 3. That Section 4.17(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. 3 Section 4. That Section 4.18(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. Section 5. That Section 4.19(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. Section 6. That Section 4.20(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. Section 7. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B)(2)(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. ACCESSORY B MISC. I-25/SH 392 (CAC) General Commercial District (C-G) Wireless telecommunication equipment (not freestanding monopoles) Type 2 Type 1 Wireless telecommunication facilities Not permitted Type 1 Satellite dish antennas greater than 39" in diameter Not permitted Type 1 Accessory buildings BDR BDR Accessory uses BDR BDR Outdoor vendor BDR BDR Section 8. That Section 4.22(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. 4 Section 9. That Section 4.23(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. Section 10. That the table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2)(E) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. ACCESSORY B MISC. Riverside Area All Other Areas Wireless telecommunication equipment Type 1 Type 1 Wireless telecommunication facilities Type 1 Type 1 Satellite dish antennas greater than thirty-nine (30) inches in diameter BDR BDR Outdoor vendor BDR BDR Section 11. That Section 4.26(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. Section 12. That Section 4.27(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. Section 13. That Section 4.28(B)(1)(a) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 3 which reads in its entirety as follows: 3. Outdoor vendor. Section 14. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition AOutdoor vendor@ which reads in its entirety as follows: 5 Outdoor vendor shall mean any person, whether as owner, agent, consignee or employee, who sells or attempts to sell, or who offers to the public free of charge, any services, goods, wares or merchandise including, but not limited to, food or beverage, from any outdoor location, except for those activities excluded from the definition of Outdoor vendor in §15-381 of the City Code. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 058, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLE XIV OF CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING LICENSING OF OUTDOOR VENDORS WHEREAS, the City currently licenses outdoor vendors, pursuant to the provisions of Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code, but limits their operation to private property only; and WHEREAS, interest in the community in allowing outdoor vendors as a mode of delivery of foods and other goods and services has grown, in keeping with a similar national trend; and WHEREAS, City staff has conducted a general review of the treatment of outdoor vendors in the City’s codes and regulations, and as a result City staff has identified and recommended certain modifications to Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code to update and expand the licensing of outdoor vendors in Fort Collins and to establish related requirements; and WHEREAS, the City Council is considering on this same date Ordinance No. 057, 2012, enacting amendments to the Land Use Code in order to establish outdoor vendors as a permitted use in certain zone districts and to set basic development requirements associated with such uses; and WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing, the Council desires to amend Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the City Code as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 15-381 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-381. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Block face shall mean the portion of a street between two (2) intersections, including all on-street parking within such boundaries. Commissary shall mean a commissary that is approved as such under the laws and regulations of the State of Colorado and Larimer County that govern retail food establishments. Commissary-prepared shall mean prepared, cooked and assembled in a commissary, without further preparation, cooking or assembly after leaving said commissary. Food shall mean a raw, cooked, or processed edible substance, ice, beverage, or ingredient used or intended for use or for sale in whole or in part for human consumption. Licensee shall mean a person who has been issued a license under the provisions of this Article. Mobile food truck shall mean a motorized wheeled vehicle, or towed wheeled vehicle designed and equipped to serve food. Mobile food truck shall include both “hot trucks” upon which food is cooked and prepared for vending, and “cold trucks” from which only commissary-prepared, ready-to-eat or packaged foods in individual servings are handled. Mobile food truck vendor shall mean an outdoor vendor who operates from a mobile food truck. Neighborhood zone district shall mean one of the following zone districts, as established in Article 4 of the Land Use Code: Rural Lands (R-U-L); Urban Estate (U-E); Residential Foothills (R-F); Low Density Residential (R-L); Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N); Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M- M-N); Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (N-C-L); Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density (N-C-M); Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C- B); and High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (H-M-N). Neighborhood mobile food vendor shall mean an outdoor vendor operating in locations on streets that are in neighborhood zone districts from a mobile food truck or pushcart licensed for use in the retail sale or service of only commissary-prepared, ready-to-eat or packaged food in individual servings. Neighborhood mobile food vendor shall not include a vendor operating from a mobile food truck or pushcart on which food is cooked. Non-neighborhood zone district shall mean any zone district, as established in Article 4 of the Land Use Code, that is not a neighborhood zone district. Old Town Plaza shall mean the outdoor plaza area owned and managed by the Downtown Development Authority within the area bounded on the south by the northern edge of the Mountain Avenue right-of-way; on the west by the eastern edge of the College Avenue right-of-way; on the north and northeast by the southern and southwestern edge of the Walnut Street right-of-way; and on the east by the most westerly point at which the Walnut Street and Mountain Avenue rights-of-way intersect. Outdoor vendor shall mean any person, whether as owner, agent, consignee or employee, who sells or attempts to sell, or who offers to the public free of charge, any services, goods, wares or merchandise including, but not limited to, food or beverage, from any outdoor location, except that outdoor vendor shall not include a person who: -2- (1) Vends from private premises where the same or similar services or goods are also offered on a regular basis from an indoor location on such premises; (2) Vends from a public sidewalk pursuant to a City encroachment permit if the person vending also vends the same or similar services or goods on a regular basis from an indoor location on premises immediately adjacent to such location; (3) Vends directly and exclusively to manufacturers, wholesalers or retailers for the purpose of resale; (4) Vends by or on behalf of the City , or at an outdoor event sponsored by the City; (5) Vends from property owned by the City, if such vending is pursuant to a concession agreement or other agreement with the City or is pursuant to a facility-specific permit issued for operation at said facility by the City department authorized to issue such permits, such as a permit to operate in a park or recreation area or on a trail pursuant to § 23-203(d); (6) Vends from a public sidewalk within the Downtown Zone District, as defined and established in the Land Use Code, pursuant to a concession agreement with the City; (7) Vends from and within Old Town Plaza under a written license or other agreement with the Downtown Development Authority; (8) Vends at a yard sale ; provided, however, that this exception shall not apply to a person who has vended at five (5) or more previous yard sales within the preceding twelve (12) months; (9) Vends as part of an auction conducted pursuant to a license issued by the City under Division 2, Article IV of this Chapter; (10) Vends outdoor transportation services as a public utility under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission; and (11) Vends food or catering services at an individual private residence for a private event. Outdoor vendor of miscellaneous goods and services shall mean an outdoor vendor who offers miscellaneous goods or services to the public on private property. Outdoor vendor of miscellaneous goods and services shall include, but not be limited to, Christmas tree lots, pumpkin patches, and other temporary outdoor holiday sales; -3- vehicle windshield chip repair; temporary car wash events; and temporary non-profit fundraising sales. Outdoor vendor of transportation services shall mean an outdoor vendor (not regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission) who offers transportation services to the public. Outdoor vendor of transportation services shall include, but not be limited to, vendors of valet parking services; transportation services by pedal power such as pedi-cab or conference bicycle services; horse-drawn carriage rides, or other means of transportation service offered for hire. Packaged shall mean bottled, canned, cartoned, securely bagged, or securely wrapped, whether packaged in a food establishment or a food processing plant. Packaged shall not include a product in a wrapper, carry-out box, or other nondurable container used to protect food during the service and receipt of the food by the consumer. Private shall mean any location that is not a public right-of-way, or public street, alley or sidewalk. Pushcart shall mean a mobile vending cart, pushcart, or trailer, that is not motorized or attached to a vehicle for towing, and that does not exceed ten (10) feet in length (excluding the length of the trailer hitch, if any), four (4) feet in width, or eight (8) feet in height. A pushcart may be used to cook and prepare food for vending, or to serve commissary prepared, ready-to-eat or packaged food in individual servings. Pushcart vendor shall mean an outdoor vendor operating from a pushcart. Ready-to-eat food shall mean food that is edible and that is in the form in which it is reasonably expected to be consumed without further washing, cooking, or additional preparation. Restaurant shall mean any drive-in restaurant, drive-thru restaurant, fast food restaurant, limited mixed-use restaurant, or standard restaurant, as the same are defined in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. Special vending license shall mean a temporary outdoor vendor license issued pursuant to § 15-382(c) for outdoor vending at an occasional, temporary event located solely on a single private lot when the event does not require the issuance of a special events permit under Chapter 23.5. Vend or Vending shall mean the sale, attempt to sell, or offering to the public of any services, goods, wares or merchandise. Yard sale shall mean the offering of goods for sale for no longer than a period of three (3) consecutive days, from an informal stand or display on an individual residential lot in a residential zone district by or on behalf of the owner or resident of the lot, provided that such owner or resident is not in the business of selling at -4- retail or wholesale the goods offered at the yard sale. Yard sale shall include, but not be limited to, yard sales, garage sales, lemonade stands, and bake sales. Section 2. That Section 15-382 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-382. License required. (a) It shall be unlawful for any outdoor vendor to engage in such business within the City without first obtaining a license in compliance with the provisions of this Article. (b) Any person who arranges for or allows one or more outdoor vendors to operate at a special event held pursuant to a license issued under Chapter 23.5 obtain must obtain an outdoor vendor license under this Article. Upon the issuance of such license, the outdoor vendors vending at such special event shall be relieved of the obligation to obtain individual licenses under this Article in order to operate as part of said special event. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 15-386 and § 15-387, the requirements applicable to outdoor vendors operating as part of a special event held under a license issued pursuant to Chapter 23.5 shall be determined by the Financial Officer on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the location, nature and scope of the special event, and any related circumstances. (c) The Financial Officer may issue a special vending license to a person responsible for an occasional, temporary event located solely on a single private lot when the event does not require the issuance of a special events permit under Chapter 23.5. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 15-386 and § 15-387, the requirements applicable to outdoor vendors operating as part of a special vending license event shall be determined by the Financial Officer on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the location, nature and scope of the special vending event, and any related circumstances. Any application for a special vending license shall meet all of the requirements for an outdoor vendor license, and be reviewed in the same manner, as set forth in this Article. Upon the issuance of such special vending license, aAn outdoor vendor operating within the terms of and as part of a special vending license shall not be required to obtain a separate outdoor vendor license for that operation.; provided, however, that aAny such special vending license shall be subject to the following restrictions and limitations: (1) No more than four (4) such licenses shall be issued for a specified property during any calendar year; (2) No more than four (4) outdoor vendors of any single vendor type may participate as part of a licensed event; (3) No more than a total of (8) outdoor vendors may participate as part of a licensed event; -5- (4) The number and type of outdoor vendors to be allowed as part of a licensed event shall be determined by the Financial Officer based on the specific circumstances of the proposed event, including, but not limited to the location of the event, the size of the lot where the event is held, the types of surrounding land uses and their proximity to the event, and any other potential impacts on public health, safety and welfare that the proposed event may have. (e) The application fee to be paid to the City for the issuance, modification, or renewal of any license pursuant to this Article shall be set by the City Manager pursuant to his or her authority to establish administrative fees in Chapter 7.5. Section 3. That Section 15-383 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-383. Application for license; license modifications. (a) An application for a license under this Article shall be submitted to the Financial Officer no less than five (5) working days prior to the first day of proposed operation. (b) A license may be issued under this Article for a period of either six (6) months or twelve (12) months, except that a special vending license as described in § 15-382(c) may be issued for a specified period not to exceed three (3) days. (c) A request for a modification of a license to add new vehicles, operations, locations or to modify other license restrictions or conditions, as applicable, shall be submitted to the Financial Officer and shall meet all of the requirements, and be reviewed in the same manner as, an application for a license hereunder. The term of a license may not be modified to extend beyond the originally applicable six (6) or twelve (12) month period. Section 4. That Section 15-384 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-384. Contents of application. (a) The application shall contain the following information: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant and, if other than the applicant, name, address and telephone number of the person managing or supervising the applicant's business during the proposed period of operation; and, if a corporation, the state under which it is incorporated, and appropriate evidence of good standing to do business in the state of Colorado; -6- (2) Type of operation to be conducted, including the particular type of service, goods, wares or merchandise to be sold; (3) A description of the design of any vehicle, pushcart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other structure or display device to be used in the operation by the applicant, including the size and color, together with any logo, printing or sign which will be utilized by the applicant, and the license plate and registration information for any vehicle to be used; (4) The proposed period of operation, if less than the entire six (6) or twelve (12) month license period; (5) The proposed hours and days of operation; (6) Each location on private property for which the application is made; (7) Written consent of the property owner if the location for which the application is made is on private property; (8) Proof of liability insurance as required by Subsection 15-387(c); (9) A plan of any location on private property for which the application is made, showing the location of all existing and proposed structures, access, equipment and parking; (10) Documentation of a sales and use tax license in good standing issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue, Larimer County, and the City; and (11) For the vending of food, documentation of regulatory approval as a retail food establishment by Larimer County. (b) The Financial Officer may request and require such additional information as he or she deems necessary in order to consider the application and make the required determinations as set forth in this Article. The time frame for review of any application shall be suspended during the pendency of any such request for additional information. Section 5. That Section 15-385 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-385. Review and approval. (a) Applications shall be considered individually and in chronological order as established by the date of receipt of a properly completed application. However, no application will be accepted for review more than sixty (60) days prior to the proposed period of operation. Within five (5) working days of the filing of an -7- application under § 15-384, the Financial Officer shall review such application and shall make a determination as to whether the application contains the required information and, if so, whether the issuance of a license is consistent with the requirements of this Article and compatible with the public interest. In making such determination, the Financial Officer shall consider the following factors and may consider other factors the Financial Officer considers necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public: (1) The degree of congestion of any public right-of-way that may result from the proposed use and the design and location of any operating locations on private property, including the probable impact of the proposed use on the safe flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Factors to be considered shall include, but not be limited to, the width of streets and sidewalks, the volume of traffic, and the availability of off-street parking; (2) The proximity, size, design and location of existing street fixtures and furniture at or near the specified locations, including, but not limited to, sign posts, lampposts, bus stops, benches, telephone booths, planters and newspaper vending devices; (3) The probable impact of the proposed use on the maintenance, care and security of the specified locations; and (4) The recommendations of the Policy, Planning and Transportation Services Director and the Community and Operations Services, insofar as the specified locations may affect the operation of those service areas, based upon the factors recited herein; and (5) The level and types of outdoor vendor activity already licensed for the specific locations proposed in the application, and the impacts that the issuance of a license may have on surrounding properties. (b) The Financial Officer shall also obtain the determination of the Zoning Administrator as to whether the proposed use conforms to the requirements of the Land Use Code as applied to any specified location. If the Zoning Administrator determines the proposed use is not in compliance with the requirements of the Land Use Code, the application shall not be approved. (c) If the Financial Officer determines that the issuance of a requested outdoor vendor license would be consistent with the requirements of this Article, with or without additional conditions, the Financial Officer shall issue the license, subject to any such conditions. If the Financial Officer determines that the issuance of an outdoor vendor license would not be consistent with the requirements of this Article, the Financial Officer shall notify the applicant of his or her determination in writing, with an explanation of the reasons for such denial. -8- Section 6. That Section 15-386 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 7. That Section 15-387 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered to be Section 15-386, and amended to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. 15-386. Requirements for issuance. (a) Each license shall be valid for only for the specific location or locations described on the face of the license. (b) In addition to the licensee's name, address and telephone number, the license shall contain the following: (1) The type of operation; (2) The period of time for which the license was issued; (3) The hours and days of operation; (4) The designated location or locations, including specified types of public rights-of-way, as applicable; (5) A brief description of any vehicle, cart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other structure or display device to be utilized by the licensee; (6) Any special terms and conditions of issuance; (7) A statement that the license is personal and is not transferable in any manner; (8) A statement that the license is valid only when used at the location or locations designated on the license; (9) A statement that the license is subject to the provisions of this Article. Section 8. That Section 15-388 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered to be Section 15-387, and amended to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. 15-387. Restrictions and operation. (a) No licensee may use, for the purpose of on-site storage, display or sale, any vehicle, cart, kiosk, table, chair, stand, box, container or other structure or display device not described on the face of the license. (b) No such vehicle, structure or device referred to in (a) above shall be located: (1) In any on-street parking space that is not parallel to the adjacent street; (2) In any public parking space in a manner that does not comply with applicable parking regulations or a properly issued parking permit for the use of said parking space; (3) Upon a public sidewalk within the extended boundaries of a crosswalk; -9- (4) Within ten (10) feet of the extension of any building entranceway, doorway or driveway; (5) Upon a public sidewalk within the Downtown Zone District, as defined and established in Article 4 of the Land Use Code (except as a concessionaire of the City); (6) Upon a public right-of-way, or public street, alley or sidewalk within a City park or other City facility (except as a concessionaire or pursuant to a permit issued for operation in a park or recreation area or on a trail pursuant to § 23- 203(d), or for operation at another City facility pursuant to facility-specific permit issued by the City); or (7) In any location in which the vehicle, structure or device may impede or interfere with or visually obstruct: a. the safe movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; b. parking lot circulation; or c. access to any public street, alley or sidewalk. (c) No licensee shall operate during the hours of 3:00 a.m. to 7 a.m.; (d) Each licensee who during the course of its licensed activities operates within or enters upon a public right-of-way or publicly owned property shall maintain liability insurance in an amount to be determined by the Financial Officer according to administrative regulation with proof of the same to be presented at the time of submission of the application. Any licensee who fails to provide proof of such insurance shall be prohibited from operating within or entering upon such property. (e) Each licensee shall pick up and dispose of any paper, cardboard, wood or plastic container, wrappers or any litter which is deposited within twenty-five (25) feet of the designated location or within twenty-five (25) feet of the point of any sale or transaction made by the licensee if the radius of the designated location exceeds twenty-five (25) feet. The licensee shall carry a suitable container for the placement of such litter by customers or other persons. (f) Each licensee shall maintain in safe condition any vehicle, structure or device as described in (a) above, so as not to create an unreasonable risk of harm to the person or property of others, and shall use flashing lights and other similar warning and safety indicators when stopped to vend services in any location in street right-of- way. (g) No licensee shall leave unattended any vehicle, structure or device as described in (a) above, on a public right-of-way or at any licensed location, or place -10- on public sidewalks or in public streets or alleys any structures, canopies, tables, chairs or other furniture or equipment. (h) Each licensee shall prominently display the license issued hereunder in a location readily visible to the public on each vehicle, structure or device as described in (a) above. (i) Each licensee operating in an on-street location must serve the public only from the sidewalk and not from the street or adjacent parking spaces. (j) Each licensee shall comply with the provisions of all applicable ordinances of the City as well as the requirements of all state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, City noise restrictions, sign regulations, limitations on discharge of liquid waste, sales and use tax requirements, and food safety and other related requirements established by state or county regulation. (k) No more than one (1) outdoor vendor of any specified type may be licensed to operate on any lot, tract or parcel of land, except that this limitation shall not apply to special vending licenses and licenses for special events as described in § 15-382. (l) Each licensee shall have an affirmative and independent duty to determine the safety and suitability of any particular stopping point or location of operation, both in general and at any particular time, and to operate in a manner reasonably calculated to avoid and prevent harm to others in the vicinity of the licensee’s operations, including but not limited to potential and actual customers, pedestrians, and other vendors or vehicles. (m) The following additional requirements shall apply to particular types of outdoor vendor licensees, as specified: (1) Mobile food truck vendors shall: a. Vend only on lots in non-neighborhood zone districts or on streets in locations in non-neighborhood zone districts where parallel parking is allowed; b. Not stop to vend within two hundred (200) feet of the front entrance of any restaurant when such restaurant is open to the public, except as provided in subsection (6) below, or within two hundred (200) feet of the property boundary of any public or private school for students within the grade range of kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade; c. Vend only food and non-alcoholic beverages; and d. Permanently affix or paint any signage on the mobile food truck, with no signs/banners in or alongside street right-of-way or across roadways. -11- (2) Pushcart vendors shall: a. Vend only on lots in non-neighborhood zone districts or on streets in locations in non-neighborhood zone districts where parallel parking is allowed; b. Not stop to vend within two hundred (200) feet of the front entrance of any restaurant when such restaurant is open to the public, except as provided in subsection (6) below, or within two hundred (200) feet of the property boundary of any public or private school for students within the grade range of kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade; c. Vend only food and non-alcoholic beverages; and d. Stop to vend only in locations that are no more than twelve (12) inches from a curb or edge of travel lane. (3) Neighborhood mobile food vendors shall: a. Vend only on streets in locations in neighborhood zone districts where parallel parking is allowed; b. Not stop to vend within two hundred (200) feet of the property boundary of any public or private school for students within the grade range of kindergarten through twelfth (12th) grade; c. Vend only during the hours of 10:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m.; d. Vend only food and non-alcoholic beverages; e. Stop to vend only in locations that are no more than twelve (12) inches from a curb or edge of travel lane; and f. Not stop to vend for more than fifteen (15) minutes in any particular cul-de-sac, or on any particular block face. (4) Outdoor vendors of miscellaneous goods and services shall operate only on lots in non-residential zone districts. (5) Outdoor vendors of transportation services shall: a. Operate in accordance with all vehicular traffic laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, equipment requirements such as front and back lights and side reflectors; b. Limit stopping and standing in street rights-of-way or alleys so as to avoid delay or obstruction of traffic; c. Stop to vend services only in locations that are no more than twelve (12) inches from a curb or edge of travel lane; and d. Operate so as to avoid obstruction of pedestrian traffic and not on sidewalks. -12- (6) A mobile food truck vendor or pushcart vendor shall be allowed to vend within two hundred (200) feet of the front entrance of a restaurant, if the following conditions are met: a. Only one (1) restaurant is located within the two hundred (200) feet radius; b. The vendor vends only in the parking area on the lot of said restaurant with the written permission of said restaurant; and c. The vendor otherwise meets all requirements and restrictions of this Article. Section 9. That Section 15-389 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered to be Section 15-388, and amended to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. 15-388. Renewal. Renewal of a license shall be treated as a new application under the provisions of this Article. Any violation by the licensee of the provisions of this Article shall be an additional factor to be considered in the review and approval procedure described in § 15-385. Section 10. That Section 15-390 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered to become Section 15-389. Section 11. That Section 15-391 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered to be Section 15-390, and amended to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. 15-390. Restrictions due to changed conditions. The Financial Officer may suspend the vending operation of any licensee or all licensees at any designated location , if he or she determines that the licensed activity in that location will no longer meet the requirements of this Article due to construction activity or other changed conditions affecting public health, safety or welfare. In such event, the Financial Officer shall provide written notice to the affected licensee or licensees, and the authorization to operate in such location shall not be reinstated until such time, if at all, as the licensed operations may be safely resumed in the judgment of the City Engineer. Any such suspension shall not extend the term of the affected license or licenses. Section 12. That a new Section 15-391 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby added and reads in its entirety as follows: Sec. 15-391. Revocation or nonrenewal. The Financial Officer may temporarily suspend, or permanently revoke and shall not renew any license issued pursuant to this Article if the Financial Officer determines that any of the following have occurred: -13- (1) Fraud, or material misrepresentation or false statement in the application for the license or any renewal application; (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 operate, or supervise operations conducted under the license, so as to reasonably ensure that such operation is in compliance with the terms of the license and with the provisions of this Article; or (4) Authorizing, condoning or knowingly tolerating any unlawful vending operations or any operation conducted in such a manner as to constitute a menace to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. Section 12. That Section 15-392 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-392. Violations and penalties. In addition to the suspension, revocation or denial of any license issued hereunder, any person who violates the provisions of this Article may be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both, in accordance with § 1-15. Section 13. That a new Section 15-394 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby added to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. 15-394. Appeal. An applicant or license may appeal any decision relating to his or her application or license by the Financial Officer to the City Manager in accordance with Chapter 2, Article VI of the City Code. The City Manager’s decision shall be final. -14- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -15- DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Mary Moore AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Police Radio Replacement Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 26, 2012, appropriates $1,054,889 saved by Police Services in the General Fund Reserve to purchase Police radio equipment to replace equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. The total cost to replace the equipment is approximately $1,694,181. The use of reserves, combined with funding in Police Services 2012 operating budget, will fund the purchase without having to obtain additional financing. The equipment will be procured via City purchasing regulations and procedures to ensure the City realizes all cost savings. Moving forward at this time with the vendor incentive will save approximately $275,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 26, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 26, 2012 STAFF: Mary Moore AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 4 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for the Police Radio Replacement Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance will appropriate $1,054,889 from the General Fund Reserve to help fund the replacement of Police radio equipment that has reached its useful life. The total cost to replace the equipment is approximately $1,694,181. The use of reserves combined with funding in Police Services 2012 operating budget will fund the purchase without having to obtain additional financing. The equipment will be procured via City purchasing regulations and procedures to ensure the City realizes all cost savings. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION There are three types of radio equipment that need replacement based on the specific needs of three separate groups. The first group is Mobile radio replacement for Police Investigations unmarked vehicles while group two is for Police marked Patrol vehicle mobile radio replacement. The radios from both groups reached their useful life on March 31, 2012 and replacement parts are no longer available. The third grouping is for Police handheld portable radios that are due for replacement in early 2013. The City can realize additional “factory incentive discounts” through economies of scale by ordering all the replacements simultaneously and setup delivery for the end of the year. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The proposed ordinance appropriation of $1,054,889 from existing reserves will be combined with $639,292 from Police Services’ 2012 operating budget to procure the following three groups of radios: Police Radio Equipment Motorola APX 6500-03 Remote Mount Mobile Radios (Investigations unmarked vehicles) 51 196,575 Motorola APX 6500-05 Remote Mount Mobile Radios (Patrol marked vehicles) 168 642,398 Motorola APX 6000-mdl2 Limited Keypad Portable Radios (Handheld) 231 855,208 Police Radio Equipment Total 1,694,181 General Fund Total 1,694,181 Departments have appropriately justified the purchase of all new equipment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 059, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE POLICE RADIO REPLACEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services employs handheld portable radios and remote mount radios for both its marked and unmarked vehicles for its daily operations; and WHEREAS, the radio equipment is nearing the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced with new equipment by early 2013; and WHEREAS, the City will utilize factory incentive discounts to maximize cost savings in the procurement of the new equipment; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost to replace the radio equipment is approximately $1,664,181; and WHEREAS, the funds to purchase the equipment will come from $1,054,889 in the General Fund reserves and $639,292 from Police Services’ 2012 operating budget; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of ONE MILLION FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE DOLLARS ($1,054,889) for the replacement of the Police Services radio equipment. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 26th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley Mark Kempton AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Stormwater Fund from Larimer County for Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater Improvements in the West Vine Basin. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have agreed to supplement an existing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that addresses stormwater improvements within the West Vine Basin in northwest Fort Collins and portions of Larimer County. The supplemental IGA will allow the City and County to collaborate on the funding and construction of certain stormwater improvements in the West Vine basin. With the supplemental IGA, the City and the County are proposing to equally share engineering costs associated with the analysis and design of the West Vine Basin stormwater outfall channel (Outfall Channel) and the Forney stormwater detention pond (Forney Pond). This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 26, 2012, appropriates unanticipated revenue from Larimer County in the amount of $487,500 in the Stormwater Fund for analysis and design of specific West Vine Basin stormwater improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 26, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 26, 2012 STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley Mark Kempton AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 5 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Analysis and Design of Specific West Vine Basin Stormwater Improvements. A. Resolution 2012-046 Authorizing the Execution of a Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Larimer County for the Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater Improvements in the West Vine Basin. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Stormwater Fund from Larimer County for Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater Improvements in the West Vine Basin. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County are proposing to supplement an existing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that addresses stormwater improvements within the West Vine Basin in northwest Fort Collins and portions of Larimer County. In 1997, the City and County entered into an IGA that addressed stormwater basin master plans for both the Dry Creek and West Vine basins. Except to the extent that the 1997 IGA addresses the development of a Dry Creek project to create a local improvement district and other related actions, the 1997 IGA is still in effect. The proposed supplemental IGA is drafted to allow the City and County to collaborate on the funding and construction of certain stormwater improvements in the West Vine basin and in light of circumstances that have changed since 1997. With the supplemental IGA, the City and the County are proposing to equally share engineering costs associated with the analysis and design of the West Vine Basin stormwater outfall channel (Outfall Channel) and the Forney stormwater detention pond (Forney Pond). BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 1997, the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County entered into an IGA regarding stormwater management matters in the West Vine storm drainage basin. The IGA allows for the sharing of costs and resources by both the City and the County to analyze, design, and construct necessary storm water improvements to relieve flooding and associated property damage in the West Vine Basin. A copy of the IGA can be found in Attachment 1. In 2004, City Council adopted the Stormwater Master Plan Update (Master Plan) for the City of Fort Collins. The Master Plan included stormwater improvements for the West Vine Basin, which is located in the northwest portion of the City (see Attachment 2). The existing 100-year floodplain inundates numerous properties in the basin, and overtops several major roads, one of which is North Shields Street north of Vine Drive (see Attachment 3). The Master Plan includes a number of proposed improvements including the Forney Detention Pond and a stormwater outfall channel to mitigate the extent of the 100-year floodplain in the basin. Specifically the Master Plan includes a stormwater outfall channel from the Cache la Poudre River north to Vine Drive, and west to the Forney Detention Pond near North Taft Hill Road and West Vine Drive (see Attachment 4). In 2004, the City of Fort Collins also adopted the West Vine Basin Master Drainage Plan, including areas located in the northwest portion of the City and in Larimer County. The West Vine Drainage Plan included the future reduction of the existing 100-year floodplain through the construction of a stormwater outfall channel from the proposed Forney Pond (the land for which was recently purchased by the City) at the intersection of Taft Hill Road and West Vine Drive northeast to the Cache la Poudre River, west of Shields Street. In October 2011, Larimer County initiated the North Shields Street widening project, which includes the widening of Shields Street from Willox Lane south to the Arthur Ditch, just north of Vine Drive. The project includes the widening of Shields Street from its current width of approximately 24 feet to approximately 64 feet, and the replacement of the Shields Street Bridge over the Cache la Poudre River. In order to mitigate potential flooding at the Shields Street project, the County approached City staff with a proposal to team with the City of Fort Collins to analyze, design, and construct the lower portions of the Outfall Channel. The existing 100-year West Vine Basin floodplain currently passes over Shields Street just north of the Arthur Ditch, and any future improvements to Shields Street will need to COPY COPY COPY COPY June 26, 2012 -2- ITEM 5 accommodate this 100-year flow of approximately 1,200 cubic feet per second (cfs). Rather than construct a large culvert or bridge system at this overtopping location, the County has proposed to team with the City to investigate the design and construction of the Master Plan stormwater outfall channel at a minimum from Vine Drive north to the Cache la Poudre River. The Outfall Channel, as currently shown in the Master Plan, would convey the 100-year stormwater flows along the west side of Shields Street to the river, thus eliminating the need to build a bridge or culvert system on North Shields Street. In February 2012, the City of Fort Collins purchased a 37-acre parcel of land from Forney Industries near the southeast corner of North Taft Hill Road, and West Vine Drive (see Attachment 5). This property was identified in the Master Plan as the location of a regional stormwater detention pond, which would serve to reduce 100-year flows in the basin downstream (east) of the pond. Given the interconnectivity between the Forney Pond, the Outfall Channel, and the Cache la Poudre River, the analysis and design phases of the project will include the reach of the Outfall Channel from the Cache la Poudre River west to the Forney Pond. The supplemental IGA includes language stating that the County will pay one-half of the engineering costs to analyze and design the Outfall Channel and the Forney Pond with the City paying the remaining one-half of the costs. The County will use the funds from stormwater fees that it has collected in the basin since the early 2000s. It is the County’s intent to utilize these funds to contribute toward the alternatives analysis phase, the final design phase, and the future construction of the Outfall Channel, and possibly the Forney Pond, if funds allow. The City will utilize an experienced local engineering consulting firm currently under contract with the City to perform the alternative analysis and design phases of the project. City staff will also manage and coordinate the project, with close interaction with staff from the Larimer County Engineering Department. At this time, it is anticipated that at a minimum, the existing City and County stormwater funds will allow for construction of the Outfall Channel from Vine Drive north to the Cache la Poudre River. The City of Fort Collins Utilities department is proposing to match the County’s funds with existing stormwater fees from the City’s stormwater utility fund. Utilities staff will continue to investigate partnerships with other entities or City departments, such as the Natural Resources, to possibly construct the Outfall Channel and the Forney Pond for stormwater, natural areas, and wildlife habitat improvement purposes. The supplemental IGA includes terms that include a 50%-50% cost share between the City and the County, respectively, up to a maximum of the funds currently available from each entity. The specific language describing the supplement to the 1997 IGA is included in the new IGA, which is included as an Exhibit to the Resolution. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Larimer County has agreed to cover up to one-half of the engineering costs for the first two phases of the project. The County has also tentatively agreed to fund up to one-half of the construction costs for the Outfall Channel, up to a maximum of the stormwater fees that they have collected in the West Vine Basin. At this time, the County’s collected fees amount to approximately $1,000,000. The engineering costs associated with the alternative analysis and final design phases of the project are $145,000 and $415,000, respectively. At this time, the City has funded all of the $145,000 cost of the alternatives analysis phase of the project, with the understanding that one-half of these costs will be reimbursed to the City through the IGA. The $415,000 cost for the final design phase will also be split evenly between the City and the County, with 100% of the $415,000 final design cost to be initially paid by the County to the City. One-half of the $415,000 Final Design cost will be reimbursed to the County during the construction phase of the project, which is anticipated for mid-2013. After the selection and design of a final alternative, the City and County will consider constructing a portion or all of the Outfall Channel, including the Forney Pond either by negotiating another IGA with the County or under the auspices of the existing 1997 IGA. A 2013-14 budget offer to include the City’s portion of the future construction costs for the Outfall Channel was submitted in May 2012. A summary of the total costs for the current project phase is shown in Attachment 6. Through the financial partnership with Larimer County, the City’s financial contribution toward the completion of the project will be half of that originally shown and planned for in the Master Plan. The project may also eliminate the need for a costly bridge/culvert system under North Shields Street; a system which could eventually become dry through the future construction of the Outfall Channel. The Outfall Channel will fully contain the 100-year floodplain, eliminating flood damages for several homes and properties in the basin. Potentially life-threatening road overtopping situations will also be eliminated through the construction of the Outfall Channel and the Forney Pond. COPY COPY COPY COPY June 26, 2012 -3- ITEM 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS It is the City’s intent to design the Forney Pond as a dual stormwater/natural area facility, similar to the recently completed CIPO Stormwater/Natural Areas project at Taft Hill Road and Prospect Road. The design of the Outfall Channel will also include a reconnection of the historic Soldier Canyon Creek to the Cache la Poudre River. The creek has been lost to development through the years, and only isolated remnants of the creek remain today. It is the intent of the City’s Utilities and Natural Areas departments, as well as Larimer County to design and construct the Outfall Channel and the Forney Pond in such a manner to improve the wildlife habitat and connectivity along the length of the channel, west through the basin from the Cache la Poudre River to the Forney Pond, and eventually toward the foothills in the western portions of the basin in future phases. The Outfall Channel and the Forney Pond will also include water quality treatment facilities that will improve the quality of the stormwater runoff prior to reaching the Cache la Poudre River. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading and the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Master Plan improvements for the West Vine Basin, including the Outfall Channel and the Forney Pond, were presented to and adopted by various City Boards and Commissions as part of the Master Plan adoption process in the early 2000s. City staff will present the results of the alternatives analysis phase, including the preliminary selected plan to the appropriate City boards and the City Council in mid summer of 2012, prior to the commencement of the final design phase of the project. PUBLIC OUTREACH Several public open houses were held in the early 2000s to present the results of the Master Drainage Plan to the residents of the West Vine Basin. The Outfall Channel and the Forney Pond were included in the Master Drainage Plan at the time. City and County staff have met with affected landowners along Shields Street in 2011 and 2012 to discuss both the Shields Street widening project and the Outfall Channel project. Alternative alignments for the Outfall Channel were presented to the landowners, along with potential impacts to their properties as a result of the widening of Shields Street. Further meetings will take place with the landowners as well as a proposed open house in August 2012 to present the findings of the alternative analysis phase of both projects to the residents of the basin. It is the City’s intent to combine the public outreach efforts for the stormwater outfall and the North Shields Street projects to maximize the combined resources of the City and the County and to be concise and consistent in the public outreach phase of both projects. ATTACHMENTS 1. Intergovernmental Agreement for Stormwater Cooperation-Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, May 20, 1997 2. West Vine Basin Location Map 3. Existing 100-year floodplain for the West Vine Basin 4. Master Plan stormwater improvements for the West Vine Basin 5. Forney Pond Property Map 6. Summary of costs for the alternatives analysis and final design ORDINANCE NO. 060, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE STORMWATER FUND FROM LARIMER COUNTY FOR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF CERTAIN STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST VINE BASIN WHEREAS, in 1997, the City and Larimer County entered into an intergovernmental agreement for stormwater cooperation assigning responsibilities to each entity related to certain stormwater improvements in the West Vine Basin; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the City Council approved the West Vine Basin Master Drainage Plan, including areas located in the northwest portion and in Larimer County; and WHEREAS, the West Vine Basin Master Drainage Plan includes the future reduction of the existing 100-year floodplain that crosses over Shields Street; and WHEREAS, City staff and Larimer County representatives ("Staff") have determined that certain stormwater improvements are needed in the West Vine Basin in light of existing circumstances; and WHEREAS, in Staff's opinion, the stormwater improvements that should immediately be analyzed and designed include construction of an outfall channel and a regional detention pond; and WHEREAS, the engineering costs associated with an alternative analysis and final design phases of the outfall channel and regional detention pond are $145,000 and $415,000, respectively; and WHEREAS, the City has already funded the full cost of the alternative analysis phase of the project with the understanding that one half of these costs will be reimbursed to the City by Larimer County through an IGA; and WHEREAS, the final design costs of the project will be split evenly between the City and Larimer County, with 100% of these costs to be initially paid by Larimer County; and WHEREAS, one half of the final design costs will be reimbursed by the City to Larimer County during the construction phase of the project, which is anticipated for mid-2013; 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 the fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Stormwater Fund the sum of FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($487,500) for analysis and design of specific West Vine Basin stormwater improvements. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 26th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Page 1 of 5 SUPPLEMENTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF SPECIFIC WEST VINE DRAINAGE BASIN IMPROVEMENTS THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this day of _____________, 2012, by and between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (the “City”) and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO for the use and benefit of the Larimer County Public Works Department (the “County”). I. RECITALS A. The parties to this Agreement entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Stormwater Cooperation in 1997 (hereafter referred to as “1997 Agreement”) assigning responsibilities to the City and the County related to the West Vine Project and the 1997 Agreement remains in effect except with regard to terms and conditions related to the Dry Creek Project; and B. The parties to this Agreement wish to supplement the 1997 Agreement for purposes of the design and possible construction of a portion of the West Vine Project due to changed circumstances since 1997; and C. The parties to this Agreement have the authority pursuant to Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution and Section 29-1-201, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes, to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the purpose of providing any service or performing any function which they can perform individually. B. The West Vine Basin (“Basin”) Master Drainage Plan was completed in 2002 and has been adopted by both the City and the County. C. The Basin is located both within the City and within the County, with the majority of the area being within the County. The area of the Basin within the County is within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA) and is expected to be annexed by the City in the future. D. The City and the County both collect stormwater fees from properties located within their respective areas of the Basin. Both the City and the County are authorized to use these fees for analysis, design, and construction of drainage improvements to the Basin. E. The City and the County each have authority to assume primary responsibility for managing the design and construction of improvements to the Basin. Page 2 of 5 F. The parties agree it is in their best interests to work cooperatively in the analysis, design, and construction of drainage improvements to the Basin, particularly with regard to a stormwater outfall channel from a proposed Forney stormwater detention pond at the intersection of Taft Hill Road and West Vine Drive northeast to the Cache la Poudre River, west of Shields Street. G. The City currently retains under contract a qualified engineering design consultant (the “Consultant”) who is able to analyze and describe options for designing drainage improvements within the Basin (this work to be referred to as the “Alternative Analysis Phase”). When an alternative selection is made, the Consultant is also able to complete the final design work (this work to be referred to as “Final Design Phase”.) The City also retains under contract a qualified construction contractor (the “Contractor”) who is able to provide the City construction cost estimates and advice on constructability issues. H. The City, County, the City’s Contractors, and the Consultant have estimated the cost to complete both the Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phases to be approximately $560,000 (Five hundred and sixty thousand dollars). The scope of the Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phases collectively will include improvements to the Basin beginning west of Taft Hill Road at the proposed Forney Regional Detention Pond, proceeding northeasterly until intersecting with the Cache la Poudre River at a location in the vicinity of North Shields Street. I. The City and County agree the City will assume primary responsibility, with close coordination by the County, in determining the scope of work and budget to be issued to the Consultant. J. This Agreement sets out the terms under which the parties will cover the costs for the Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phases. Subsequent amendment to this Agreement or a separate agreement may be necessary to address the terms and conditions including the sharing of costs for the construction of the designed stormwater improvements within the West Vine Basin. II. CONSIDERATION NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows: III. TERMS 1. The City and the County intend ultimately to evenly split the costs associated with completing all phases, including the analysis, design and construction, of improvements to the West Vine Basin. 2. A document describing the cost estimate associated with completing both the Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phases is marked as Exhibit “A” and attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The total cost estimate for both the Alternative Page 3 of 5 Analysis and Final Design Phases combined is approximately $560,000 (Five hundred and sixty thousand dollars). 3. As of the date of this Agreement, the City has paid or will pay any and all costs associated with the Alternative Analysis Phase, estimated to be approximately $145,000 (One hundred and forty-five thousand dollars) out of its own funds. 4. Upon execution of this Agreement, the County shall transfer to the City no less than $487,500 (Four hundred eighty-seven thousand and five-hundred dollars), which is an amount equal to half the cost of the Alternative Analysis Phase and all of the estimated cost of the Final Design Phase. The County is reimbursing the City for half the cost of the Alternative Analysis Phase with this transfer. The County will transfer such funds from the West Vine Basin stormwater fees it has collected. This transfer shall be made such that the funds are available prior to the Consultant beginning work on the Final Design Phase. 5. The County authorizes the City to pay and the City will pay the Consultant’s and the Contractor’s fees and expenses for completing the Final Design Phase from those funds transferred by the County from its West Vine Basin stormwater fees, provided that the Fort Collins City Council approves an appropriation ordinance authorizing such expenditure. The City will, at such time that payment is required, be responsible for paying one-half (1/2) the cost of any West Vine Basin stormwater construction work that the parties might agree to through subsequent agreement or amendment, provided that such expenditure is authorized through the City’s budgeting process. As part of this future construction phase agreement, the City will credit or reimburse the County for one-half (1/2) of the costs and expenses associated with the Final Design Phase. 6. The City shall maintain accurate accounts of all Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phase expenditures that are paid from the fees transferred by the County. The City shall provide to the County information detailing incremental and total Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phase expenditures and the remaining balance of funds on at least a quarterly basis. 7. The City shall notify and obtain the County’s consent prior to authorizing any changes in the scope of services or other expenditures that would cause costs to exceed the amount budgeted in Exhibit A. 8. The City and County shall each designate a representative to serve on the Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phases design team. The City and County will cooperate in the review of the analysis, design and creation of the design drawings and specifications. Such review shall include input by appropriate technical specialists from both the City and the County staff. 9. Following completion and acceptance of the Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phases from the consultant, the City and County shall determine if adequate funds Page 4 of 5 are available for the construction of selected improvements to the Basin or to acquire land necessary for the construction of any or all of the improvements to the Basin. If the City and County determine that adequate funding is not available to acquire needed land or to construct the designed improvements, the City shall refund to the County the balance of any unused stormwater fees transferred by the County for the Alternative Analysis and Final Design Phases. If adequate funding is available to acquire land or construct improvements, the balance of the Alternative Analysis and Final Design Project funds shall be incorporated into the construction budget as may be agreed upon by the City and County in a subsequent agreement or as addressed in the 1997 Agreement. 10. The City accepts no responsibility or liability for the services to be performed by the Consultant or the Contractor. 11. The Cities’ financial obligations under this Ancillary Agreement are contingent upon the annual appropriation, budgeting and availability of specific funds to discharge those obligations. Nothing in this Agreement shall create a payment guaranty to the County or a debt or a multiple-fiscal year financial obligation under the Colorado Constitution or any similar provisions of the City’s charter or ordinances. 12. The City and County intend that this Agreement bind them, their officers and employees. Either party shall be permitted to specifically enforce any provision of this Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction. 13. This Agreement shall constitute the entire understanding of the parties hereto with regard to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, A Municipal Corporation By: Name Title ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney Page 5 of 5 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO For the use and benefit of the Larimer County Public Works Department By: Name Title ATTEST: County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deputy County Attorney DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Lindsay Kuntz Jason Stutzman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Drainage and Landscaping Easement and an Access Easement on City Property to Cornerstone Associates, LLC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the “Developer”) is planning a 1.97 acre affordable housing project called the Legacy Senior Residences PDP (the “Development”) located at 360 Linden Street. The Development requires off-site drainage and landscaping improvements and access improvements on adjacent City-owned property which is maintained as the Old Fort Collins Heritage Park, adjacent to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on July 10, 2012 by a vote of 5-0 (Horak and Poppaw absent), authorizes the conveyance of a 11,198 square foot non-exclusive drainage and landscaping easement and 321 square foot non-exclusive access easement from the City on the City property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - July 10, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: July 10, 2012 STAFF: Lindsay Kuntz Jason Stutzman AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Drainage and Landscaping Easement and an Access Easement on City Property to Cornerstone Associates, LLC. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the “Developer”) is planning a 1.97 acre affordable housing project called the Legacy Senior Residences PDP (the “Development”) located at 360 Linden Street. The Development requires off-site drainage and landscaping improvements and access improvements on adjacent City-owned property which is maintained as the Old Fort Collins Heritage Park, adjacent to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. In order to facilitate the installation of the planned improvements, the Developer has requested a 11,198 square foot non- exclusive drainage and landscaping easement and 321 square foot non-exclusive access easement from the City on the City property. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Legacy Senior Residences PDP is a proposed development located at 360 Linden Street, just north of Willow Street. An Administrative Hearing for the project was held on June 11, 2012. The Development will occupy 1.97 acres on Linden Street and include 72 one and two-bedroom affordable apartments for seniors. The plans for the Development require a 20-foot wide off-site drainage easement on adjacent property owned by the City in order to provide storm drainage for the development. The drainage improvements to be installed consist of a drainage swale and an outfall to the Poudre River, in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Old Town Stormwater Master Plan. The outfall location is within an existing run-down to the Poudre River and will not impact any existing trees or vegetation. In addition, the outfall is designed so that all activities will occur outside of the Poudre River floodway. The outfall will be installed using open cut trenching and will be designed and constructed to the City standards and in coordination with City Parks, Stormwater, and Planning staff. After installation of the outfall is complete, the City property will be restored and reseeded with a native seed mix approved by the City’s Environmental Planner. In addition, the City Planning Department has requested the installation of landscaping improvements consisting of native grasses, shrubs and trees within the drainage easement area for the purposes of serving as a transition and buffer zone improvement between the River and the Development . As such, the Developer has requested a drainage and landscaping easement from the City. City staff is continuing to work with the Developer to finalize the boundary of the requested drainage easement area. The Developer has also requested an access easement on the City Property in order to install a pedestrian connection to the Poudre Trail. Parks staff has reviewed the easement requests and believes that conveyance of the requested easements will not interfere with the City’s intended use of the City property as a park. An alternative drainage design option for the Development would require a large amount of on-site detention, modifications to the existing stormwater pipes under the newly constructed right of way of Linden Street, and may conflict with existing utility lines in Linden Street. The Developer would still be required to obtain a Landscaping Easement for the landscaping improvements noted above and the Access Easement as required by the City’s Land Use Code. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Real Estate Services reviewed comparable sales and the Larimer County Assessor’s data to prepare a value estimate for the requested easements. The consideration for the drainage and landscaping easement, access easement, and the easement processing fee for Real Estate Services is $6,200. COPY COPY COPY COPY July 10, 2012 -2- ITEM 3 The Developer will be responsible for all costs of installation of the easement improvements and for the restoration of the City Property. In addition, the developer will maintain the landscape improvements in perpetuity, ultimately reducing the City’s costs for maintenance on this portion of Park property. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The outfall and drainage area improvements are required in accordance with the City’s Old Town Stormwater Master Plan and comply with the City’s Stormwater Design Criteria Manual. In addition, the landscape improvements associated with the development are required in order to comply with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, including the Poudre River buffer standards. The existing vegetation cover on the site is dominated by smooth brome, a non-native grass species, which contributes little to the site’s habitat diversity. All disturbed areas will be restored with a native seed mix and native shrubs and trees. As proposed, the project will provide an additional 13 native shade trees and 44 native shrubs to the area requested by this easement. The off-site drainage and landscape easement is located within the boundaries of the area affected by the 2004 Administrative Order on Consent between the EPA, Public Service Company, Schrader Oil Company and the City, and related requirements will apply to the proposed easement and work. Easement terms and conditions will be used to incorporate these requirements. The off-site drainage and landscape easement is also located within the boundaries of a former municipal landfill which is subject to a Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) approved Soil Characterization and Management Plan (SCMP). The requirements of the SCMP must be taken into account and complied with in connection with any activities within the boundaries of the former landfill, and will be included as conditions of the easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH On June 11, 2012, a Type 1 Hearing for the Project Development Plan for Legacy Senior Residences was held. City staff received comments from Save the Poudre noting concerns with the proposed development and off-site easements. The concerns noted that related to the requested easements included: • “The project may propose to drain stormwater directly into the Poudre River which may impact river flows, water quality, and aquatic wildlife.” • “The project will be built in and abutting the Poudre River’s “Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.” • “The project increases human and vehicle traffic abutting the Poudre River’s sensitive ecological corridor.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Maps 2. Site Photographs 3 Area Environmental Detail ORDINANCE NO. 061, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING EASEMENT AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY TO CORNERSTONE ASSOCIATES, LLC WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of real property located in Fort Collins, Colorado, described as Lot 2, Northside Aztlan Community Center, and known as Old Fort Collins Heritage Park (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the “Developer”) has requested a drainage and landscaping easement, as described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein (the “Drainage and Landscaping Easement”), and an access easement, as described on Exhibit “B” attached and incorporated herein (the “Access Easement”) on the City Property for the benefit of its development, Legacy Senior Residences PDP (the “Development”), which the Developer is planning to construct at 360 Linden Street; and WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage and Landscaping Easement would be used to provide stormwater outfall from the Development’s detention pond across the City Property to the Poudre River and for the installation and maintenance of landscaping improvements to serve as a transition and buffer between the Development and the Poudre River; and WHEREAS, the proposed Access Easement would be used to provide a pedestrian connection between the Development and the Poudre Trail located on the City Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer would compensate the City $6,200 for the Easements and for staff processing time; and WHEREAS, the Easements are located within the area covered by the 2004 Administrative Order on Consent between the Environmental Protection Agency, Public Service Company, Schrader Oil Company and the City, and within the boundaries of a former landfill subject to a State-approved soil Characterization and Management Plan; and WHEREAS, as a condition of granting the Easements the City would require the Developer to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Order on Consent and the Soil Characterization Management Plan; and WHEREAS, City staff has identified no negative impacts to the City resulting from the granting of the Easements; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the conveyance of the Drainage and Landscaping Easement and Access Easement on the City Property to the Developer as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Drainage and Landscaping Easement and Access Easement to the Developer on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Easements, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Easements. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 10th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Ron Kechter AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $135,249 of Non-Profit Partner revenue, raised through fundraising efforts, to be used to construct exhibit walls and the digital dome infrastructure at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center (the Non-Profit Partner) entered into a partnership in 2008 to design and construct a new museum facility. The exhibit design company, Gyroscope, Inc. was contracted through the City’s competitive purchasing process with the total contract of $1.285 million shared equally between the City and the Non-Profit Partner. The exhibit fabrication company, Art Guild, was contracted through the City’s competitive purchasing process for the exhibit fabrication, which is underway. Staff is working with Art Guild to complete the first two phases of museum exhibits, with an opening date of November 10, 2012. The Non-Profit Partner is providing the $135,249 raised through fundraising efforts and the partnership would like to appropriate the $135,249 into the Museum Capital Exhibits Project. This money will be used to build exhibit walls and digital dome infrastructure by the building contractor, Hensel Phelps. The appropriation is needed because the Partnership Agreement calls for the project to follow the City’s purchasing requirements and the City holds the contract with Hensel Phelps. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance appropriates $135,249 from the Non-Profit Partner for the Museum Capital Exhibits Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 062, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR THE FORT COLLINS MUSEUM OF DISCOVERY SCIENCE CENTER EXHIBITS PROJECT WHEREAS, in March 2008, the City and the Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit corporation, d/b/a Discovery Science Center (the “NPC”), now officially known as FCDM, Inc., entered into an operating agreement for the construction and operation of the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Science Center Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the operating agreement, the cost of the exhibit design contract in the amount of $1,285,000 is to be shared equally by the City and the NPC; and WHEREAS, staff is working with the contractor to complete the first two phases of the exhibits by the opening date of November 10, 2012; and WHEREAS, the non-profit partner has raised $135,249 through fund raising efforts and would like to appropriate this money into the Exhibits capital project to build exhibit walls and digital dome infrastructure; 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 in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FORTY-NINE DOLLARS ($135,249) for expenditure on the Building on Basics - Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Brian Woodruff AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 063, 2012 Approving a Grant Project with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to the Grant Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $11,525 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and Environment. It would also transfer a matching amount of $11,525 from the 2012 General Fund and combine these in the Radon Program account. The Radon Program carries out radon risk-reduction activities identified in the current City Budget. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Colorado Department of Health and Environment has provided these funds as a grant to the City for a program to encourage radon testing and mitigation through media advertising, and low-cost test kit sales, and to develop and test outreach messages designed to encourage homeowners with high radon to install radon-reduction systems. The grant directly supports radon activities identified in two City budget offers, Air Quality Improvement and the Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study. The grant requires a local match of $11,525. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS City resources would be increased by $11,525. Required matching funds have already been appropriated in the 2012 General Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS These funds would be used to lower the lung-cancer risk of Fort Collins residents that have elevated home radon levels. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 063, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING A GRANT PROJECT WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES RADON PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF MATCHING FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN THE NATURAL RESOURCES OPERATING BUDGET TO THE GRANT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Natural Resources Radon Program (the "Program") is part of the City’s indoor air quality program, which is guided by the Air Quality Plan with a policy goal to educate and encourage residents to reduce their exposure to indoor air pollution; and WHEREAS, the current radon program includes aggressive education, a voluntary radon testing program, mandatory radon mitigation in new construction, and an ordinance requiring the distribution of radon information to all residential home-buyers at point-of-sale; and WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”) in the amount of $11,525; and WHEREAS, the CDPHE grant funds are to be used to lower the lung-cancer risk of Fort Collins residents by directly supporting radon activities identified in two City Budget offers, Air Quality Improvement and the Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study; and WHEREAS, the grant requires $11,525 of matching funds, which have been included in the 2012 Natural Resources budget and are available for transfer to the CDPHE project for the Program; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the CDPHE grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one project to another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby specifically approves the above-described joint and cooperative efforts with CDPHE to promote identification and mitigation of radon- related risks. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund the sum of ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($11,525) for expenditure in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program. Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($11,525) is authorized for transfer from the Natural Resources operating budget in the General Fund to the CDHE grant project for the Natural Resources Radon Program and appropriated herein. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Kurt Ravenschlag Karl Gannon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Purchase of Six 35-foot Compressed Natural Gas Buses by Transfort. A. Resolution 2012-051 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for "FASTER" Grant Funding in the Amount of $384,000 to Serve as a Local Match Portion of Funding for the Purchase of Buses. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration in the Transit Fund for the Purchase of Six Buses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2011, the City of Fort Collins was awarded $1,920,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) capital funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the period 2012 - 2015 to cover 80% of the total expense ($2.4 million) to purchase six replacement Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses for Transfort's fixed route service. This CMAQ grant award has been transferred to FTA for disbursement and management. The City of Fort Collins was also awarded a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) FASTER grant in the amount of $384,000 to cover 80% of the required 20% ($400,000) local match to purchase the above mentioned six 35-foot CNG buses. The City of Fort Collins will contribute $96,000 from the Transit Fund to cover the remaining portion of the required 20% local match of the total $2.4 million to purchase six 35-foot CNG buses. An appropriation in the amount of $1,250,000 is already in place for bus procurement and staff requests an additional appropriation of $1,150,000 to equal the total project amount of $2,400,000. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Transfort receives the bulk of its capital funding in the form of unanticipated federal grants. Historically, unanticipated revenue has been appropriated in the annual Clean-Up Ordinance. However, with recent Council-directed limits on the size of the funding amounts that are allowed to proceed to the Clean-Up Ordinance, staff is requesting additional appropriations to match the total procurement cost of six replacement vehicles. Transfort intends to purchase six 35-foot CNG buses that will replace older model (1993 and 1996) bio-diesel vehicles that are currently in service, but exceed the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) useful life of twelve years. The approximate cost of each vehicle is $400,000. $1,920,000 or 80% of the total cost for all six vehicles is derived from a 2012-2015 CMAQ capital grant and the remaining $480,000 or 20% will come from a combination of State FASTER funding ($384,000 or 80% of the local match commitment) and Transit Fund Capital Reserves ($96,000). Any cost increases will be met from the Transit Capital Reserves. Projected Schedule Award of Contract to Vendor July 2012 35% Progress Payment Due December 2012 Delivery of Buses to Transfort March 2013 Contract Completion - Final Payment April 2013 July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 19 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Transit Capital Reserves Fund (Fund 290) is paying $96,000 or 4% of the total cost of the project. All remaining costs are being funded with Federal & State grants (competitive awards). 80% CMAQ $1,920,000 16% FASTER $ 384,000 4% Local Match $ 96,000 Previous Council actions (2010 BFO) appropriated $1,075,000 of CMAQ funds and $175,000 of local match. To complete the project, this Ordinance is requesting additional appropriations of $845,000 in CMAQ funding, $384,000 in FASTER funding and a reduction of $79,000 in the Local Match in order to meet the total project costs remaining of $1,150,000. Replacing older buses with new CNG buses will result in annual maintenance savings of $72,000 plus meaningful savings in fuel costs during periods of high oil prices. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The replacement of these older vehicles will reduce CO2 emissions by over 50% per vehicle. Specifically, these six CNG buses will have an annualized energy savings of 142.2 Annual Greenhouse Gas Reductions (tons CO2e) or 1,649 Annual Energy Savings (Millions BTU) compared to biodiesel vehicles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION This item was not brought before the Transportation Board. RESOLUTION 2012-051 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR "FASTER" GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $384,000 TO SERVE AS A LOCAL MATCH PORTION OF FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF BUSES WHEREAS, in 2011, the City was awarded $1,920,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality capital funding from the Federal Highway Administration for the purpose of enabling the City to purchase six 35-foot compressed natural gas (“CNG”) buses for Transfort's fleet; and WHEREAS, recently the City was also awarded a "FASTER" grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) in the amount of $384,000 for the purpose of covering 80% of the required $400,000 local match to purchase the buses; and WHEREAS, the City, utilizing Transit fund capital reserves, will fund the remaining balance of the local match in the amount of $96,000; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the purchase of the buses is in the best interests of the City both from an operational and environmental standpoint; and WHEREAS, in order to obtain the agreed-upon grant from CDOT, it is necessary for the City to enter into a intergovernmental agreement establishing the terms and conditions for the grant, the form of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection (the “IGA”); and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements, such as a grant agreement, to provide any function, service or facility, under Article II, Section 16 of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins and Section 29-1-203, C.R.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an intergovernmental agreement between the City and CDOT for the completion of a "FASTER" grant from CDOT, consistent with the terms of this Resolution and the form of the IGA on file in the Office of the City Clerk, subject to such modifications or additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purpose of this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 064, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE FROM THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION IN THE TRANSIT FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF SIX BUSES WHEREAS, in 2011, the City was awarded $1,920,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) capital funding that required a 20% local match of $480,000 for the Bus Replacement Project of $2,400,000; and WHEREAS, Council appropriated $1,075,000 of the CMAQ award and $175,000 in local match through the 2011-2012 Budget process leaving an $845,000 CMAQ award balance; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance will appropriate the remaining $845,000 CMAQ award balance; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) has awarded the City a CDOT FASTER grant in the amount of $384,000 that requires no local match; WHEREAS, both grant awards are to fund the purchase of six replacement Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses for Transfort’s fixed route service; and WHEREAS, the CDOT FASTER grant can be used as local match for the CMAQ grant and, therefore, reduces the City’s local match requirement by $79,000 from $175,000 to $96,000; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance will appropriate $1,150,000 as follows; and Balance of CMAQ grant award: $ 845,000 CDOT FASTER grant award: $ 384,000 Less: Local match requirement: ($ 79,000) Amount to be appropriated: $1,150,000 WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, not withstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Transit Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the Transit Fund the sum of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,150,000) for expenditure on the Bus Replacement Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2012, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held in Conjunction with the November 6, 2012 Larimer County General Election. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance calls a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the November 6, 2012 Larimer County General Election, and preserves the opportunity for Council to place initiated or referred issues on the November ballot. If Council decides to place any measures on the ballot it would need to do so no later than at its September 4 meeting. If Council does not take final action by ordinance or resolution before the statutory deadline (September 7) to certify ballot language to Larimer County, the election will be cancelled and the provisions of this Ordinance will be of no further force and effect. This Ordinance does not submit a specific measure to the November 6, 2012 ballot. However, a group of citizens recently circulated an initiative petition proposing to reverse the ban on medical marijuana businesses, which was approved by the voters in November 2011. The certified petition is presented to Council this same date under Agenda Item #39. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 066, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NOVEMBER 6, 2012 LARIMER COUNTY COORDINATED ELECTION WHEREAS, under Article X, Section 1 of the City Charter, the registered electors of the city have the power to propose a measure to the City Council, and if the City Council fails to adopt such measure, to have the same considered by the electors of the City at the polls; and WHEREAS, an initiative petition proposing a ballot measure that would reverse the voter- imposed ban on medical marijuana centers, optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product manufacturing within the City has been determined by the Interim City Clerk to contain a sufficient number of signatures for placement of the measure on a special election ballot; and WHEREAS, said petition requests a special election on November 6, 2012; and WHEREAS, in order to place the citizen-initiated measure, or any Council-initiated or referred measures measure, before the voters on November 6, 2012, City Council must first call the election; and WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council wishes to call a special municipal election on November 6, 2012, to be held in conjunction with the Larimer County General Election, for the purpose of submitting to the electorate of the City any ballot issues approved by the City Council prior to the deadline for certifying ballot content to the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That a Special Municipal Election in the City is hereby called for Tuesday, November 6, 2012, which shall be held in conjunction with the Larimer County General Election and conducted in such form as shall be determined by the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. Section 2. That the provisions of the Uniform Election Code of 1992 are hereby adopted with respect to the conduct of said election in lieu of the provisions of the Municipal Election Code of 1965. Section 3. That, notwithstanding any provision in the State Statutes to the contrary, the City Council may, by resolution, submit to the voters at said election any citizen-initiated or City- initiated measure that complies with the requirements of the City Charter, irrespective of the nature of such measure. Section 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to certify the ballot content for the Special Municipal Election to the Larimer County Clerk no later than September 7, 2012. Section 5. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County for conduct of the election, pursuant to Section 1-7-116(2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Section 6. That, in the event that the City Council does not take action by ordinance or resolution prior to September 7, 2012 to submit any ballot measures to the voters at the November 6, 2012 Larimer County General Election, the election provided for herein shall be cancelled and the provisions of this Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich, Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Historic Preservation Process. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2012, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 14 of the City Code Pertaining to Landmarks. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2012, Amending Section 2-277 of the City Code Regarding the Requirements for Membership on the Landmark Preservation Commission. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY These amendments to Chapters 2 and 14 of the City Code provide for an appeals process for determinations of historic eligibility; provide for an independent professional review of eligibility if a determination is appealed; give timely public notice to citizens early in the demolition/alteration review process about historic eligibility status and major alterations; and provide more specificity to Landmark Preservation Commission board member experience requirements, ensuring compliance with Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At Council’s direction, the Community Development Neighborhood Services Department (CDNS) is undertaking a two- phase project to consider changes to the City’s Demolition/Alteration Review Process (Section 14-72 of the City Code), which determines the historic eligibility of properties in the City and defines the process for reviewing alterations or demolition. The City Council recently reviewed two appeals of the Planning and Zoning Board’s denial of requests for modifications. The owners of the properties objected to the determination of eligibility made by the CDNS Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) chair; however, there was not a method available to them to appeal the eligibility decision directly. These changes to Chapter 2 and Chapter 14 of the City Code will allow for an appeal to the LPC and ultimately to the City Council. Concerns have also been expressed by citizens that they are not aware early enough in the process that owners or developers of historically significant properties are requesting major alterations, including demolition. These Code changes will enhance citizen notification, and provide for early notice. These changes are consistent with process improvements identified in the 2010 Historic Preservation Program Assessment document and with comments provided to staff by the Landmark Preservation Commission. SUMMARY OF CHANGES Amendments to Chapter 2 and Chapter 14 of the City Code are summarized below: Section 2-277 would be amended to ensure compliance with the CLG requirement. While CLG regulations require that at least four Commission members meet standards of professional expertise, this is not reflected in the membership requirements. This change will eliminate confusion between CLG requirements and those in the City Code. Section 14-72(a), would be amended to provide a method for appealing historic eligibility status, including adding a process for appeals; a provision for a professional, independent review in the case of an appeal. Section 14-28, will be amended to clarify that, once the demolition/alteration review process (Chapter 14, Article IV) has been completed, a permit may be approved without any further compliance with this Article. Amendments would be made to Sections 14-48.5(b) and 14-48.5 (c), and to Sections 14-72(a), 14-72(b)(3)(b), and 14-72(b)(3)(c), to provide timely public notice to citizens early in the process about determinations of eligibility and major alteration requests for historic structures. Section 14-1 will be amended to provide definitions for major and minor alterations, and for significant structure. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 21 Section 14-71 would be corrected to add the proper building code sections for exempting properties from compliance. The Code currently references the Uniform Building Code (UBC), rather than the International Property Maintenance Code, which the City has adopted. Amendments occurring throughout Chapter 14 would remove the use of different titles for the CDNS Director, and ensure that time requirements and other processes are consistent. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There are no direct economic impacts to the City associated with these City Code amendments. Applicants appealing a determination of eligibility will be required to pay for an independent, professional assessment of the property, estimated to cost $400 to $600 dollars. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no direct environmental impacts associated with these City Code amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of these Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its June 20, 2012 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to support these changes to Chapters 2 and 14 of the City Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes from the June 20, 2012 LPC Special Meeting LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Meeting June 20, 2012 DRAFT Minutes Council Liaison: Mr. Wade Troxell (219-8940) Staff Liaison: Ms. Laurie Kadrich (221-6750) Commission Chairperson: Ron Sladek CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commission was called to order by Chair Mr. Ron Sladek with a quorum present at 5:30 p.m. at 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. John Albright, Sondra Carson, Doug Ernest, W.J. (Bud) Frick, Ron Sladek and Mark Serour were present. Pat Tvede had an excused absence. Also present were: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner, Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director, and Nina Lopez, Staff Support. DISCUSSION AND MOTION: PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEMOLITION/ALTERATION REVIEW PROCESS – LAURIE KADRICH, CDNS DIRECTOR AND KAREN MCWILLIAMS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER. Ms. Kadrich showed a PowerPoint presentation and noted City Council had requested immediate changes to provide for an appeals process on determinations of eligibility. Staff will be examining the full code in a two-phase process, and will bring forward short term and long term fixes. The long term review will allow for a robust public engagement process. Commission members asked if the proposed ordinance included items recommended in the Nore Winter report. This was affirmed. Ms. Kadrich said the purpose of this first phase is to address those glitches which result in no clear method for someone to appeal the eligibility determination made by the LPC Chair and the CDNS Director, and to improve public notification. Chapter 2 changes are housekeeping items and reconcile code and Certified Local Government (CLG) standards. Mr. Sladek questioned why mortgage lending is an important field for being on the Preservation Commission. The consensus was to strike the words “mortgage lending.” Mr. Ernest asked if listing architecture or architectural history is from the CLG requirements. Ms. Kadrich responded yes. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve amending Section 2-277 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins regarding the makeup of the membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission, having struck the wording mortgage lending. Mr. Frick seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Kadrich returned to the PowerPoint presentation and Chapter 14 code changes. If the Council and LPC feel staff is on track with this, Council is prepared to act quickly so that there is an appeal process in place. The proposed schedule is to take the ordinances forward for first reading on July 17th and second reading on August 21st. An issue addressed in this phase is earlier notification on demolitions and significant alterations. Currently neighbors are not notified until the Final Hearing. Neighbors are upset that they aren’t notified earlier when they would have a chance to let the property owner or developer know of their concerns. Mr. Ernest noted another problem with the present process, which is that only affected property owners within ATTACHMENT 1 Landmark Preservation Commission June 20, 2012 2 five hundred feet are notified. He asked if that will be changed, and notification enhanced by posting a sign and putting information online and in the newspapers. Ms. Kadrich affirmed that was correct. Ms. Carson stated she attended the neighborhood meeting for the Eastside/Westside project last week, and one of the things that many people brought up is notification. The distance is different for each development process, leading to confusion. Ms. Carson thought that there should be the same notification radius for all projects. Others agreed. Ms. Kadrich explained the code changes reflect the uniqueness of the Historic Preservation ordinance. Demolition affects the entire community, and all citizens have standing, not just neighbors within a certain distance. Staff is proposing a number of changes to better inform citizens. These include newspaper notification, posting a sign, web-based notification, and mailed notification. The general idea is get notice out to the people that under the ordinance have standing. The Commission may want to consider changing who has standing during Phase II, as one trend occurring right now is for people who are not property owners, developers or historic preservationist to look at assigning historic eligibility to properties in order to control development. That may become a growing trend or might just be an anomaly. Another issue with the current ordinance is the confusion over a decision on historic eligibility and the lack of a method to appeal. Staff first thought this would be very easy to fix by allowing all eligibility determinations to be appealed. However, we then recognized the volume of possible appeals, as so many requests come in for minor alterations: windows, garages, porches, etc. The proposed solution is to try to separate those out by adding definitions for “minor alteration,” “major alteration,” and “principal structure.” The idea is that there should be the most public process for a principal structure with a major alteration or a demolition. Permits for minor alterations should not have to be delayed for public notification. The provision for independent documentation was discussed. While the LPC Chair generally has expertise in historic preservation, there is nothing that requires that the CDNS director have any particular expertise. The question is what makes these two qualified to make a determination of eligibility. Therefore, if somebody wants to appeal the initial decision of the chair and director to the Commission, staff is proposing an independent review of the property by a professional. This person would complete the Colorado Cultural Resource Architectural Inventory document, providing detailed information for the LPC’s consideration of the eligibility. The appellant would pay for the documentation under this proposal. The Commission would still make the decision on eligibility, which could subsequently be appealed to the City Council if the person chose to. Mr. Sladek stated that there has to be an agreement between the appellant and the City as to who is going to do that independent evaluation. Ms. Kadrich stated that there would be a list of people, approved by the Commission, with preservation expertise and experience in evaluation local eligibility. The applicant could then pick from the list. This would provide a qualified, independent assessment of the property’s eligibility. Ms. Kadrich stated that the idea is not to take that decision away from the board but to make sure that if the decision is appealed to the board that it doesn’t have to rely on only the information that was developed by Ms. Kadrich and the Chair. Ms. Carson expressed concern that the individuals truly be familiar with Fort Collins’ resources, which are typically vernacular rather than pure architectural styles. All agreed. Mr. Albright noted that the Commission faced this very thing in the recent project when the “expert” from Denver told the LPC members that we didn’t understand what we were looking at. Landmark Preservation Commission June 20, 2012 3 Mr. Albright praised the Phase 1 approach, stating that the Commission would be fully respecting the rights of the applicant. He noted that the Commission represents all the citizens of the city, which among others, is the applicant. Ms. Kadrich agreed, stating that she can work with the LPC chair to take care of lots of applications for work that is not controversial, but if it is controversial or there is a question about it or the appellant doesn’t agree with a determination, they should have the right to take it to LPC board, because that’s its role. Ms. Carson questioned the definitions of major and minor alterations. Major is defined as work effecting more than one aspect of integrity, while minor is just one. However, some work affecting just one aspect of integrity could have a significant impact. She gave examples of changes to buildings involving a single major defining feature, and how that can affect the building’s significance. There followed discussion on defining what constitutes a significant architectural feature, which can change from building to building. Mr. Ernest asked if the intent of the definitions “major” and “minor” is to expedite the work of the chair and CDNS director to provide a template to evaluate the extent of impact. Ms. Kadrich said yes. Minor alterations do not require public notice. Ms. Kadrich said that a list of all the decisions made by the LPC chair and the CDNS director would be provided to the board, so the board could decide whether it wants to review a decision. Mr. Ernest agreed that there has to be a sorting mechanism, so that all these applications aren’t coming to the Commission. The Commission agreed this might be better looked at in Phase II. Mr. Albright said it won’t come up unless there’s an appeal, at which time the documentation should provide much of that information, and so correct the problem. The Commission next discussed the term “principal structure.” Ms. Kadrich said the list came from the definitions that are in the LUC currently plus resources as significant historic structures for local issues: granary, carriage house, chicken house, or similar structures. Mr. Ernest wanted to make sure the wording wouldn’t exclude something that could be excluded using this wording. Ms. Kadrich stated the idea behind principal structure is when you look at all the stuff coming through; anything that would be a principal structure plus the major alteration would then go to the publication and the notice in the appeal process. Mr. Sladek stated they need to look at it carefully and would like it put off until a second Phase. It seems like that is where they are headed with the definitions of major and minor alterations. Mr. Sladek said his understanding of this section is that this is really the filter that determines whether demo or alteration review stays at the LPC/CDNS director decision making point, or if it ends up being brought forward to the full LPC. This is different from an appeal. Ms. Kadrich said his first point was correct on whether it can move to the LPC and then on to the Council, but the idea is there are certain things that do not have appeal rights under this proposal. Those things would be minor alterations or structures that are not principal structures. Mr. Sladek requested that public building be added to the list. This will be done. Ms. McWilliams asked if the issue may be the use of the term “principal structure” rather than “significant structure.” A structure that would have significance to the property and would contribute to the significance of the property is captured under this definition. That would include the examples of the outhouse and the mini-me garage discussed by the Commission. The other garage that doesn’t match the house and is just a simple one car garage isn’t that significant we’d still designate the house without that garage; therefore it could be torn down. The Commission agreed; this change will be made. Landmark Preservation Commission June 20, 2012 4 Ms. Kadrich briefly discussed the other, housekeeping, changes to the code document, page by page. Changes include standardizing the use of Director; referencing the correct Building Code; making time frames consistent; and clarifying the processes for notification and for appeals. Mr. Sladek noted that the Preliminary Review would be eliminated. Ms. Kadrich affirmed that was correct. That process has become redundant with staff’s work and the Design Review Subcommittee. Mr. Ernest had a question on page 3 Section 14-28. Ms. Kadrich said the current ordinance is unclear on what happens after a project goes through the full process. There is nothing in the current ordinance that says it can be demolished. While that is the expectation, that they can demolish the building, the code does not actually say that. We want to make it clear, that after complying with the full process, the applicant can alter or demolish the property. Ms. McWilliams brought up a concern with the open-ended language; she questioned if there should be a time limit? Is Council just going to take a building and say never again can this building be considered for Landmark designation? If an applicant wanted to change the roof and Council agrees that they could change the roof, then as it is proposed with this language, the applicant also now has permission to demolish the building, too, without any review. She suggested changing the language to approval of the specific permit application. Ms. Kadrich stated this was not the intention, and all agreed that the wording will be corrected. The Commission discussed striking references to relocation. Ms. Kadrich said after numerous discussions staff asked what the intent of relocation is, what meets the Code’s criteria. An applicant thinks that relocation means I can pick up this structure and put it anywhere I want and I’m in compliance with the Code. The LPC could not approve such relocation as they do not meet the code requirements. This change eliminates the misperception that the code allows taking buildings and moving them all over the place. Staff felt for clarity, take out the relocation language for people who aren’t familiar with historic preservation. This would not prohibit relocations that do meet the code criteria. Mr. Ernest moved that the Landmark Preservation Commission approve the Certain Amendments to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Landmarks, including changes already incorporated in the document presented on June 20, 2012 and the comments at the meeting of June 20, 2012 by the Landmark Preservation Commission. Mr. Albright seconded the motion. Motion passed (5-0). ORDINANCE NO. 067, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO LANDMARKS WHEREAS, City Council directed City staff to undertake a two-phase project to consider changes to the City's demolition/alteration review process, which process determines the historic eligibility of properties in the City and defines the process for reviewing alterations or demolition of such property; and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared and presented to the City Council the first phase of the work, which addresses City Council's concerns regarding the provision of timely public notice early in the process about determinations of eligibility and major alteration requests for historic structures and also addresses the City Council's concern regarding methods for appealing historic eligibility status determinations; and WHEREAS, the Landmark Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has recommended the same to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes are in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the definition of “Determination of Eligibility” contained in Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Determination of eligibility shall mean a decision by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and/or the Commission that a site, structure, object or district meets one (1) or more of the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. The determination of eligibility for the National and/or State Register of Historic Places shall be according to the processes and procedures of the Colorado Historical Society. Section 2. That the definition of "Construction" contained in Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Construction shall mean the erection of any on-site improvements on any parcel of ground located within a designated or eligible district or on a designated or eligible site, whether the site is presently improved or unimproved, or the erection of a new principalsignificant or accessory structure on such property. Section 3. That Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Director” which reads in its entirety as follows: Director shall mean the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services or his or her designee. Section 4. That Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Major alteration” which reads in its entirety as follows: Major alteration shall mean work affecting more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity. Section 5. That Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Minor alteration” which reads in its entirety as follows: Minor alteration shall mean work affecting no more than one (1) aspect of exterior integrity. Section 6. That Section 14.1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Significant structure” which reads in its entirety as follows: Significant structure shall mean a house, commercial/industrial building, barn, stable, grainery, carriage house, chicken house, or similar structure. Section 7. That Section 14-53 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby renumbered as Section 14-6 and reads in its entirety as follows: Sec. 14-536. Waiver of conditions. Upon a showing of substantial hardship or to protect against an arbitrary result, the Commission may waive such conditions and requirements as are set forth in this Chapter provided that the spirit and purpose of the Chapter are not significantly eroded. Section 8. That Section 14-21 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-21. Initiation of procedure. Whenever in the opinion of the Commission, upon its own motion or upon application of any citizen of or owner of property in the City, a site, structure, object or district meets the criteria of a landmark or landmark district, the Commission shall contact the owner or owners of such landmark or landmark district outlining the reasons and effects of designation as a landmark and, if possible, shall secure the owner's consent to such designation. If the Commission is unable to personally contact such owner, it shall be sufficient to send a written request for the consent to designation of such property by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the owner of the property as shown on the most recent records of the County Assessor at the address shown on such records. Following such contact, if -2- an owner does not consent to such designation of the property within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the request for consent to designation, the Commission, upon the affirmative vote of at least five (5) of its members may proceed by officially adopting a resolution stating that the preliminary investigation by the Commission indicates that the described property is eligible for designation as a landmark or landmark district and the reason the Commission feels that it should proceed without the consent of the owner to such designation and scheduling a public hearing by the Commission on the question of designation, hereinafter called a designation hearing, at a specified time, date and place and directing that the notice of hearing be given as described in §14-22. If the owner consents in writing to such designation, the Commission, upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, may adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council the designation of the landmark or landmark district without the necessity of notice and without the review by the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services required by §14-23. All applications submitted in accordance with this Section shall include a description of the property proposed for designation and a detailed outline of the reasons why such property should be designated and why the boundaries of the property should be determined as described in the application. No motion or application for designation of a specific landmark or landmark district may be made more than once during any twelve (12) consecutive months. Section 9. That Section 14-28 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-28. City Council action. Upon receipt of the recommendations transmitted by the Commission, the City Council may by ordinance designate property as a landmark or landmark district. Due consideration shall be given to the written view of owners of affected property, and in its discretion the City Council may hold public hearings on any proposed landmark or landmark district designation. If the City Council does not so designate a property, then the permit to alter or demolish the structure on the property may be approved without the necessity of compliance with Article IV of this Chapter. Section 10. That Section 14-48.5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-48.5. Work not detrimental to historic, architectural or cultural material; administrative process. (a) Any work which would otherwise qualify for consideration under the procedures established in §14-46 or §14-47 of this Article may, at the option of the applicant, be considered administratively by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services (the "Director"). The Director may only consider, under the authority of this Section, applications for approval of color selection from a historically authentic palette of colors, awning re-coverings and -3- changes to a landmark or a site, structure or object located in a landmark district that would not remove, cover, alter or destroy any significant historic, architectural or cultural material. The Director may, under the authority of this Section, consider changes originally initiated by the applicant as well as changes to plans previously approved by the Commission. Any application submitted to the Director under the authority of this Section shall be in writing and shall contain a specific statement of the work proposed, together with such details as the Director may require. (b) If, upon receipt of any such application, the Director finds that the proposed work will not remove, cover, alter or destroy any significant historic, architectural or cultural material and is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of the landmark or landmark district and with the spirit and purpose of this Chapter, and complies with all of the criteria for review established in §14-48, the Director shall advise the applicant in writing, by issuing a report of acceptability,render a written decision approving the work, and shall affix his or her signature to the plans and specifications for the approved work. The Director shall also promptly publish the decision in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. In the case of an application for a building permit, the Director of Building and Zoning shall proceed with the review of the application only upon receipt of the Director’s of Community Development and Neighborhood Services' report of acceptabilitydecision and approved plans and specifications. No change shall be made in any such application for a building permit or in the plans and specifications for work approved by the Director unless such changes are submitted to and approved by the Director in the same manner as the original application. The proposed work shall not be commenced until the Director has issued a report of acceptabilitythe decision approving the work and a building permit (if applicable) has been issued. (c) Decisions of the Director made under the authority of this Section may be appealed to the Commission, provided that any such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Director's decision of the Director. The DirectorCommission shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. The DirectorCommission shall provide the appellant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall also publish notice of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. Any action taken in reliance upon the decision of the Director shall be totally at the risk of the person(s) taking such action until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. Section 11. That Section 14-71 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -4- Sec. 14-71. General. With the exception of any structure governed by ' 203 of the Uniform Building CodeSection 109.1 of the International Property Maintenance Code as adopted and amended by the City, or any structure designated as a Fort Collins landmark or located in a Fort Collins landmark district, no structure (or portion thereof) fifty (50) years of age or older which meets one (1) or more of the criteria contained in §14-5, "Standards for Determining the Eligibility for Designation of Sites, Structures, Objects and Districts for Preservation" of the Code may be demolished nor shall any permit for such demolition or relocation be issued unless the owner of such structure has complied with the provisions of §§14-71 and 14-72. (This Article shall not apply to interior demolition activities, or to demolition or relocation activities as they affect the surface or subsurface of the ground, or any archeological impacts pertaining thereto.) Section 12. That Section 14.72 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-72. Procedures for review of applications for demolition or relocation. (a) The owner of any structure governed by this Article shall make application for City approval of the demolition or relocation of such structure (or portion thereof) on forms prescribed by the City. Said application shall be filed with the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Within ten (10) days of the filing of such application, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, and the chair of the Commission, (or a designated member of the Commission appointed by the chair) shall determine the structure's current level of eligibility (individual, contributing to a district or not eligible) for designation as a Fort Collins landmark, and shall determine whether demolition or relocation approval should be granted by the Director or whether the application should instead be referred to the Commission for either or both determinations. Such approval shall be granted, subject to compliance with all other applicable laws, under the following circumstances: (1) The structure (or portion thereof) sought to be demolished or relocated is, upon review, determined to be less than fifty (50) years of age; (21) The Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and chair of the Commission (or designee) agree that the structure (or portion thereof), upon review, is not eligible for individual designation as a Fort Collins landmark, and the structure is not designated on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, either individually or as a contributing element of a district; or (32) The proposed demolition or relocation of the structure (or portion thereof), in the judgment of the Director of Community Development and -5- Neighborhood Services and the chair of the Commission (or designee), would not be detrimental to the current level of eligibility of the remaining structure, if any, adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood and the National and/or State Register district in which the structure is located, if any. If none of the foregoing circumstances is determined to exist, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall refer the application to the Commission for consideration pursuant to Subsection (b) below. Any determination made by the Director and the chair of the Commission or his or her designee regarding major alterations may be appealed to the Commission by any citizen or owner of property in the City, which appeal shall include a Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and accompanying report prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant, with the cost of such form and report to be paid by the applicant. Such report need not be filed with the appeal but must be filed at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Director shall also promptly publish the decision in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Such appeal shall be set forth in writing and filed with the Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Director's decision. The Commission shall schedule a date for hearing the appeal before the Commission as expeditiously as possible. The Commission shall provide the appellant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing of the appeal, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than five (5) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City notice of the hearing not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. In addition, the Commission shall cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition stating that the building or structure is being considered for demolition. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from the Director. Any action taken in reliance upon the decision of the Director shall be totally at the risk of the person(s) taking such action until all appeal rights related to such decision have been exhausted, and the City shall not be liable for any damages arising from any such action taken during said period of time. (b) If it is determined by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and/or chair of the Commission (or designee), pursuant to Subsection (a) above, that a demolition or relocation permit should not be issued without review by the Commission, then the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall schedule a public hearing on the application before the Commission as expeditiously as possible following such determination, and following receipt of such information, including sketches, plans and other documents as required by the Commission. All such applications shall be reviewed by the Commission in two (2) phases to determine compliance with this Chapter as followsprocessed as follows: -6- (1) Preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing is an opportunity for the applicant to discuss requirements, standards and policies that apply to structures eligible for designation. Problems, including issues which could affect a resource's significance and/or exterior integrity, can be identified and solved prior to the final hearing of the application. After review of the application by the Commission, the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall furnish the applicant with written comments regarding the preliminary hearing. a. At the preliminary hearing, the Commission, acting with all due diligence, shall explore with the applicant all means for substantially preserving the structure which would be affected by the required permit. These investigations may include, by way of example and not of limitation: 1. Feasibility of modification of the plans; 2. Feasibility of any alternative public or private use of the structure which would substantially preserve the original character. b. In determining the decision to be made concerning the issuance of a report of acceptability, the Commission shall consider the following criteria: 1. The effect of the proposed work upon the general historical and/or architectural character of the structure and adjacent properties; 2. The architectural style, design, construction, arrangement, texture and materials of existing and proposed structures; 3. The effect of the proposed work in creating, changing or destroying the exterior characteristics of the structure upon which such work is to be done; 4. The effect of the proposed work upon the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of the structure; 5. The extent to which the proposed work meets the standards of the City and the United States Secretary of the Interior then in effect for the preservation, reconstruction, restoration or rehabilitation of historic resources. (2) If the Commission, at the preliminary hearing, is unsuccessful in developing either alternate plans or an appropriate public or private use for such -7- structure which are acceptable to the applicant, it shall order the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services to schedule a final hearing within forty-five (45) days of the receipt of the following: a.(1) A fee in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.) shall be paid by the applicant to cover the costs of processing the request for demolition or relocation at the final hearing before the Commission. b.(2) The application shall include Ssuch information from the applicant as the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services believes is necessary for the full and complete consideration of the request, which information shall include, but not be limited to: 1. A completed Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form for the property, which form shall be provided by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services for completion by the applicant; 2a. A report regarding the effect that the removal or demolition of the structure (or portion thereof) will have on the character of the site and the adjacent properties. The required components of the report shall be established by the City Manager, and shall, at a minimum, include all information, data, maps, documents or other items reasonably necessary, desirable or convenient to assist the Commission in making its decision;A Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form and accompanying report prepared by an independent expert in historic preservation, acceptable to the Director and the applicant, with the cost of such form and report to be paid by the applicant. 3b. A plan for the redevelopment of the property, which plan shall first be approved by all administrative and/or quasi-judicial decision- making officials and/or boards or commissions as are necessary as a prerequisite to the presentation of construction specifications to the Director of Building and Zoning if applicable, and if not applicable, then as a prerequisite to the commencement of construction (for purposes of this requirement, allowing the property to lie vacant or fallow shall not constitute "redevelopment"). (3) Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the hearing of the Commission, the applicant shall: a. Cause a sign to be posted on or near the structure proposed for demolition or relocation, stating that the building or structure is being considered for such demolition or relocation. Said sign shall be at least four (4) square feet in size, readable from a point of public access and shall state that more information may be obtained from -8- the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. b. Request that the City generate a list of owners of record of all real property, neighborhood groups and homeowners associations, within five hundred (500) eight hundred (800) feet (exclusive of public rights-of-way, public facilities, parks or public open space) of the property lines of the parcel of land upon which the structure is situated, which list shall be prepared from the records of the County Clerk and RecorderAssessor. (4) Written notice of the hearing shall be mailed by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services to all persons named on the list generated under Paragraph (3)b above. Said mailing shall occur at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date. The applicant shall pay postage and handling costs of fifty cents ($.50) per noticeas established by the Director. The fact that any notice required under this Subsection has not been mailed or received shall not affect the validity of any hearing or determination by the Commission. (5) The Commission shall review the evidence presented at the hearing and shall approve the application (with or without conditions) at the hearing or, in the alternative. Alternatively, it may postpone consideration of the application, for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days, for any of the following reasons:in order to facilitate the gathering of a.Aadditional information is needed for the full and complete consideration of the request by the Commission which information may include the opinion of the staff regarding; or b.The request has generated substantial neighborhood concerns, and such postponement could, in the judgment of the Commission, contribute to resolving these concerns; or c.The Commission has approved a motion directing staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark or landmark district designation of the property in accordance with Article II. (6) In the event that the Commission has not made a final decision within sixty (60) days of the date of the submittal of information required pursuant to Subparagraph (b)(2)b. hereof, in detail acceptable to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services,said forty-five (45) day period, then the Commission shall be deemed to have approved, without condition, the proposed demolition or relocation. (c) The Commission shall schedule a date for any hearing to be held by the Commission under subparagraphs (a) or (b) as expeditiously as possible and shall provide the applicant with written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, which notice shall be deposited in the U.S. Mail not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, and shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City notice of the hearing not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. -9- Section 13. That all remaining references to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services contained in Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read “Director”. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -10- ORDINANCE NO. 068, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-277 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, the State of Colorado "Certified Local Government" program requirements for historic preservation include the requirement that forty percent of the membership of the Landmark Preservation Commission needs to be composed of professionals in preservation-related disciplines such as architecture, architectural history, archaeology, history, planning, urban planning, American studies, American civilization, cultural geography or cultural anthropology; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the City's Landmark Preservation Commission be composed of members acceptable to the State under its "Certified Local Government" program; and WHEREAS, the Landmark Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed changes to its makeup and has recommended them to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed changes to the membership requirements for the Landmark Preservation Commission are in the best interests of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Section 2-277 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-277. Membership; term. (a) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Council. At least four (4) members shall be professionals in preservation related disciplines, including, but not limited to, architecture, architectural history, archaeology, history, urban planning, American studies, American civilization, cultural geography, or cultural anthropology. In making appointments to the Commission, the City Council shall also give due consideration to maintaining a balance of interests and skills in the composition of the Commission and to the individual qualifications of the candidates, including, but not limited to, their training, experience, knowledge or interest in any one (1) or more of the fields of architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, structural engineering, general contracting, urban planning, mortgage lending and commerce. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Rick Bachand, John Stokes, Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22 SUBJECT Items Relating to Housing Leases for On-Site Housing Located on Natural Areas. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at Gateway Natural Area. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at Reservoir Ridge Natural Area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Natural Areas staff is recommending updates to four on-site housing leases, which must be approved by City Council. Natural Areas owns four houses at three natural areas, including Gateway Natural Area, Bobcat Ridge, and Reservoir Ridge. In all cases, employees provide a range of “on call” duties, including site security, visitor assistance, maintenance, and other duties outside of normal work hours without receiving “on call” pay. To compensate the employees for their requirement to respond to these “on call” duties when necessary outside of normal working hours the monthly rental rates are reduced by approximately 50% of fair market value. The fair market rental rates were determined by Real Estate Services, based upon recent rental comparisons. Similarly, the value of the employer- provided lodging is excluded from the employee’s income as the lodging is a condition of employment. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City’s Natural Areas Department (NAD) has responsibility for Gateway, Bobcat Ridge, and Reservoir Ridge Natural Areas. As Gateway and Bobcat Ridge are regional sites a 1/2 hour drive outside of town, there are efficiencies and site security issues that warrant a full-time, on-site resident ranger. At Gateway, in addition to the on-site ranger, Natural Areas has elected to provide housing for an on-site, seasonal maintenance technician to help accomplish a variety of maintenance and security objectives. At Reservoir Ridge, renting the existing small residence to a year- round, hourly paid caretaker permits the smooth operation and security of the Primrose Studio, while eliminating routine visits by NAD staff to the site at odd hours of the day. NAD believes the on-going arrangement of having on- site staff at these areas represents a sound, management approach to the security, maintenance, and operations of these sites. The benefits of housing staff on site at the reduced rental rates are decreasing the amount of comp-time or overtime paid to the employee for a variety of duties that occur after normal visitor hours; providing around-the-clock site presence and security; providing timely assistance to visitors at times when Ranger staff would not normally be available; and reducing the amount of daily travel (to and from) the sites. In addition to the reduced rent, resident staff will be responsible to pay the full price of all utilities with an exception at the Gateway Office/House for Seasonal Employee where NAD will cover utility costs as the office/house is used daily for other NAD business related activities. The City will be responsible for maintenance of each residence including repairs of plumbing, all appliances, wiring, exterior premises, structural components and painting when necessary. Resident staff will be responsible for keeping the premises in an orderly condition both inside and out (mowing, weeding, etc.). Employees can make no repairs or alterations without prior written permission from the City. Only authorized employees and their immediate family members are allowed to live on the premises. Finally, resident staff will be required to vacate the premises when he/she is no longer in the assigned position. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 22 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Natural Areas will receive the following monthly income for a total of $1,850/month or $22,200 per year. The updated monthly rental rates are as follows: Gateway Ranger Residence $630/month (a $230/mo increase) Gateway Office/Housing for Seasonal Employee $240/month (a $40/mo increase) Bobcat Ranger Residence $630/month (a $230/mo increase) Reservoir Ridge - Primrose Studio Caretaker Residence $350/month (no change) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no environmental impacts as part of the lease arrangement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its June 13, 2012 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve the four updated Natural Areas Department on-site staff leases. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location maps 2. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, June 13, 2012 Location Maps of Leased Residences Caretaker’s Residence ATTACHMENT 1 2 Ranger’s Residence 3 Ranger’s Residence (location only, actual house not depicted) Gateway Office Residence (location only, actual house not depicted) Natural Areas Department 1745 Hoffman Mill Road PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2815 970.416.2211 - fax fcgov.com/naturalareas Minutes LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting DATE: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 LOCATION: 215 N. Mason, West Entrance, Conference Room 1-A TIME: 6:00 p.m. For Reference: Trudy Haines, Chair - 225-2760 Aislinn Kottwitz, Council Liaison - 692-9915 Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096 Board Members Present – Scott Quayle, Linda Stanley, K-Lynn Cameron, Linda Knowlton (Acting Chair), Michelle Grooms, Ed Reifsnyder, S. Kathryn Grimes Board Members Excused – Trudy Haines, Matt Lloyd Staff Present – John Stokes, Mark Sears, Daylan Figgs, Justin Scharton, Courtney Bennett Guests – Lindsay Ex (Environmental Planner), Stacey Baumgarn (Energy Board) Action Items: I. Tenancy Agreements Mark Sears: The first action item deals with the four leases for the staff houses that we own and manage: the Bobcat Ranger Residence, the Gateway Ranger Residence, the Gateway Office/Seasonal Employee Housing, and the Reservoir Ridge – Primrose Studio Caretaker Residence. We would like to update these leases; they are all generically the same. We’ve looked at the fair market value for rent and all four of the staff members pay 50% of fair market value. In exchange for reduction in rent they are willing to be on-call whenever they are on-site. In other situations people are paid to be on-call where our staff are not paid to be on-call and their presence provides added on-site security. Linda Stanley moved that The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend that City Council approve the four updated Natural Areas Department on-site staff leases. K-Lynn seconded the motion and the LCSB unanimously approved the tenancy agreements action item. ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 069, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT GATEWAY NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property located in Poudre Canyon and known as Gateway Natural Area (the “Natural Area”); and WHEREAS, there are two residential buildings located in the Natural area: a house designated as 5212 West State Highway 14, Bellvue, Colorado, which is leased to the Gateway Natural Areas Ranger pursuant to Ordinance No. 042, 2001 (the “Ranger Residence”), and an adjacent house/office space designated as 5216 West Highway 14, Bellvue, Colorado, a portion of which is leased to a seasonal Natural Areas maintenance technician pursuant to Ordinance No. 028, 2008 (the “Office/House”); and WHEREAS, the Ranger and Maintenance Technician are required to live onsite as part of their duties, and in exchange each pays a reduced monthly rental rate; and WHEREAS, because the Natural Area is located outside of Fort Collins, having staff reside onsite facilitates maintenance, security and visitor assistance at the Natural Area; and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas department would like to update the leases for the Ranger Residence and the Office/House; and WHEREAS, copies of the proposed Gateway Ranger Residence Lease and Office/House Lease are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for inspection; and WHEREAS, under the terms of the proposed new leases, the monthly rent for the Ranger Residence would be at least $630 with the tenant responsible for most utilities, and the monthly rent for the Office/House would be $240, with the City responsible for the utilities; and WHEREAS, each lease would be on a month-to-month basis, and the tenant would be required to vacate the premises if his or her employment status with the City changed; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that leasing the Ranger Residence and the Office/House to on-site employees at Gateway Natural Area under the terms described above is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute lease agreements for the Ranger Residence and the Office/House on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the description of the premises to be leased, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the leased premises. Section 3. The authorization to lease pursuant to this Ordinance shall be valid for a period of ten years. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 070, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT BOBCAT RIDGE NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property known as Bobcat Ridge Natural Area (the “Natural Area”); and WHEREAS, the Natural Area includes a house and detached garage located at 10200 West County Road 32C, Loveland, Colorado (the “Residence”); and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas department currently requires a Natural Areas ranger to live onsite at the Natural Area as part of his duties, and in exchange the ranger pays a reduced monthly rental rate; and WHEREAS, because the Natural Area is located outside of Fort Collins, having staff reside onsite facilitates maintenance, security and visitor assistance at the Natural Area; and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas department would like to update the lease for the Residence; and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Bobcat Ridge Residence Lease is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for inspection; and WHEREAS, under the terms of the proposed new lease, the monthly rent for the Residence would be at least $630 with the tenant responsible for most utilities; and WHEREAS, the lease would be on a month-to-month basis, and the tenant would be required to vacate the premises if his or her employment status with the City changed; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that leasing the Residence to an on-site employee at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area under the terms described above is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement for the Residence on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the description of the premises to be leased, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the leased premises. Section 3. The authorization to lease pursuant to this Ordinance shall be valid for a period of ten years. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 071, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT RESERVOIR RIDGE NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property known as Reservoir Ridge Natural Area (the “Natural Area”); and WHEREAS, the Natural Area includes the Primrose Studio, which was donated to the City on condition that it be used as a nature education classroom and low-cost meeting space, and a separate residence located at 4300 West County Road 50 (the “Residence”); and WHEREAS, the Residence is currently leased to an on-site caretaker employed by the Natural Areas department, pursuant to Ordinance No. 152, 2007; and WHEREAS, the caretaker is required to live onsite as part of his duties, and in exchange pays a reduced monthly rental rate; and WHEREAS, because the Natural Area is located outside of Fort Collins, having staff reside onsite facilitates maintenance, operation and security at Primrose Studio; and WHEREAS, authority to lease the Residence under Ordinance No. 152, 2007 will expire in January 2013, and the Natural Areas department would like to update the lease for the Residence; and WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed Reservoir Ridge Residence Lease is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for inspection; and WHEREAS, under the terms of the proposed new lease, the monthly rent for the Residence would be at least $350 with the tenant responsible for most utilities; and WHEREAS, the lease would be on a month-to-month basis, and the tenant would be required to vacate the premises if his or her employment status with the City changed; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that leasing the Residence to an on-site employee at Reservoir Ridge Natural Area under the terms described above is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement for the Residence on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the description of the premises to be leased, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the leased premises. Section 3. The authorization to lease pursuant to this Ordinance shall be valid for a period of ten years. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Lisa Voytko Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Waterline Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on City Property to the North Weld County Water District and the East Larimer County Water District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Weld County Water District and the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) have planned the North Weld – ELCO Water Transmission Pipeline (NEWT) Project to install an underground pipeline to connect the Soldier Canyon Water Filter Plant to the Districts’ distribution systems. As part of this Project, the Districts are requesting a 40-foot wide waterline easement and a temporary construction easement across the northern portion of the City’s Water Treatment Facility property located on Laporte Avenue. The City has previously granted easements for this Project on other City properties. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The NEWT Project is designed to meet the water needs of the growing population in northern Colorado including the City of Fort Collins. The Project involves the installation of a 42-inch diameter water pipeline from the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant near Horsetooth Reservoir to the two Districts’ distribution systems. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2014 and will take approximately nine months to construct. The first phase of this Project has been completed. Construction of the last phase is anticipated to begin in 2014 and will take approximately nine months to construct. The City granted similar easements to the Districts on other City property during the first phase of this Project. The Districts’ Project is planned to cross the northernmost section of the City’s Water Treatment Facility on West Laporte Avenue. The Districts’ are requesting a waterline easement and a temporary construction easement from the City to install the planned waterline. The underground pipeline will be installed with a combination of open cut trenches and boring. The Districts’ waterline will parallel an existing City-owned waterline. The City’s property will be restored and reseeded after completion of the Project. No aboveground improvements will be installed in the easement area with the exception of vent pipes which will be no larger than 12 inches in diameter and painted a color of the City’s choosing. City Utilities staff has evaluated the proposed easements and does not believe the conveyance of the easements will interfere with the intended use of the City’s Property as part of the Water Treatment Facility. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Real Estate Services reviewed comparable sales information, as well as an appraisal report submitted by the Districts to prepare a value estimate for the requested easement. The estimated just compensation for the permanent easement, temporary construction easement, and fee for processing the easement request is $11,063. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On June 21, 2012, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve an Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of a permanent waterline easement and temporary construction easement on the City property to the Districts. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 23 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. NEWT Project Overview and Previous City Easement Locations 3. Vent Pipe example 4. Water Board minutes, June 21, 2012 Attachment 1: Page 2 of 2 S p r i n g C r e e k S p r i n g C r e e k S p ring Cree k K i n g f i s h e r P o i n t N W P o n d L a r i m e r C o u n t y C a n a l # 2 Sp rin g Creek S p r i gn C eer k LAPORTE AVE E VINE DR W DRAKE RD E DRAKE RD S LEMAY AVE S SHIELDS ST S TAFT HILL RD W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD N SHIELDS ST E PROSPECT RD S COLLEGE AVE S TIMBERLINE RD S OVERLAND TRL N O V ER L A ND TRL E Vent Pipe Example Attachment 2 Attachment 4 Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, June 21, 2012 Easement Request from East Larimer County Water District/North Weld County Water District on Water Treatment Facility Property (Attachments available upon request). Water Production Manager Lisa Voytko introduced the item and introduced Real Estate Specialist Lindsay Kuntz. The easement is for a proposed waterline agreement at the Water Treatment Facility on Laporte Avenue for the North Weld – ELCO Water Transmission Pipeline (NEWT) project. The project involves the installation of a 42” diameter water pipeline from the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant near Horsetooth Reservoir to the two districts’ distribution systems. Ms. Voytko presented a map showing the proposed waterline easement. Highlights from the discussion:  A board member feels this is a great opportunity to take advantage of existing systems since there is an existing water share agreement with North Weld.  The board members and staff discussed the connections at Timberline Road, and the connections with Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD).  In response to a question about expansion plans for the Water Treatment Facility, Ms. Voytko stated there is adequate capacity with the existing water projections. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. In response to a question about compensation, Ms. Kuntz stated the City will be compensated by the districts for the easement. Vice Chairperson Malers moved that the Water Board recommend that the City Council consider approval of an Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of a permanent waterline easement and temporary construction easement on the City property to the North Weld County Water District and East Larimer County Water District. Board Member Brown seconded the motion. ORDINANCE NO. 072, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE WATERLINE EASEMENT AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND THE EAST LARIMER COUNTY WATER DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of real property located in Fort Collins, Colorado, identified in County records as parcel number 97070-00-908, and known as the Water Treatment Facility (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, the North Weld County Water District and the East Larimer County Water District (the “Districts”) have requested a waterline easement and a temporary construction easement (collectively, the “Easements”) on the City Property for the benefit of their North Weld – ELCO Water Transmission Pipeline (“NEWT”) Project; and WHEREAS, the proposed Easements are described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the proposed Easements would be used by the Districts to install an underground pipeline to connect the Soldier Canyon Water Filter Plant to the Districts’ distribution systems; and WHEREAS, the proposed waterline easement is 1.685 acres in size and the temporary construction easement is 2.756 acres in size; and WHEREAS, the Districts would compensate the City $11,063 for the Easements and for staff processing time; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City and, with respect to real property that is a part of the City’s water or utility systems, that the disposition will not materially impair the viability of the particular utility system as a whole and that it will be for the benefit of the citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, City staff has not identified any negative impacts to the City resulting from the granting of the Easements; and WHEREAS, assisting the Districts with this easement request benefits the citizens of the City by encouraging cooperation and collaboration among regional water providers and providing the potential for emergency interconnects between water systems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the conveyance of the Easements on the City Property to the Districts as provided herein is in the best interests of the City, will not materially impair the viability of the water utility’s system as a whole, and will be for the benefit of the citizens of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Easements to the Districts on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Easements, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the Easements. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Courtney Levingston AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-052 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Forney Annexation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the Owner and Applicant, Forney Industries has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of 22.82 acres located on the north side of LaPorte Avenue, approximately 1,280 feet east of North Taft Hill Road. The parcels are located in the I – Industrial Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is the T – Transition Zone District. The Transition District is “intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for development. The only permitted uses are those existing on the date the property was placed into this District.” No new development is allowed in the Transition district and Forney Industries has indicated that it has no intent to further develop at this time. The surrounding properties are currently zoned Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) in the City to the east and west; Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL) in the City to the south and zoned I – Industrial in Larimer County to the north. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This is a 100% voluntary annexation for property owned by Forney Industries and located within the Growth Management Area. According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. The Annexation gains the required minimum 1/6 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the east parcel line of the Schmidtberger Subdivision (Canfield Annexation, 1975) as well as the Lilac Apartments Subdivision (Springer Farm First Annexation, 1972) to the west. The annexation also shares an additional common boundary with existing city limits to the east, with the Leeper Subdivision (Radio City Annexation, 1957), thus further satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing City boundary. The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law. Recommendation of Transition (T) Zone District The City’s Structure Plan designates the subject parcels to be placed in the Limited Commercial (CL) and Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (LMN) District. These zone district designations were not cleanly demarcated along property lines, but delineated by where existing commercial activity stopped, mid-parcel. The intent of LMN portion to the north was to ensure that if development were to happen, this future development would be compatible with the integrity and density of existing neighborhoods and to provide a “buffer” between the existing neighborhood in the County to the north and the CL zoning (Forney Industries) to the south. However, conditions on the ground have evolved from the time of the Structure Plan designation. Recently, the City acquired the adjacent property to the north and northwest to be used as regional detention and outfall for the West Vine basin. Additionally, Utilities Master Plan and Floodplain Administration Division is currently conducting an analysis regarding the property to the northeast, determining if the property should be acquired for regional detention as well. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 24 This adjacent, City-owned property will only be used as detention and will not be developed, thus creating a new, undeveloped “buffer” for the Vine Drive neighborhood located in Larimer County, to the north. Due to the recent City acquisition of parcels to the north, the requested zoning of the Forney Annexation is Transition. The initial zoning of parcels into the Transition Zone District at the time of annexation is not unprecedented. In November 1997, the 435 acre Timberline Annexation was placed into the Transition zone district and remained zoned as such until 2001, when it was rezoned in anticipation of the Johnson Property Overall Development Plan. Initially placing the Forney Annexation in the Transition zone district will allow time to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the LMN/CL zoning split vis-à-vis current conditions on the ground. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request on July 19, 2012. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council as part of the First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on August 21, 2012. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Structure Plan Map ATTACHMENT 1 PUTNAM ELEMENTARY OAKWOOD SCHOOL LINCOLN MIDDLE SCHOOL CITY PARK GRANDVIEW PARK CITY PARK NINE GOLF COURSE Larimer County Canal #2 New Mercer Canal New Mercer Canal POL NCL RL LMN LMN LMN LMN LMN UE W VINE DR LAPORTE AVE N TAFT HILL RD W MOUNTAIN AVE W OAK ST MAPLE ST LYONS ST S TAFT HILL RD ELM ST CHERRY ST N BRYAN AVE N FREY AVE CLOVER LN GRANDVIEW AVE RICHARDS PL COLLINS CT LYONS ST Forney Annexation 1 inch = ± 600 feet Site City of Fort Collins Zoning Map Legend WaterBodies City Zoning ZONE NCM Limited Commercial Service Commercial Employment Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Public Open Lands River Conservation Urban Estate Overland Trail Willox CSU © Forney Structure Annexation Plan Map Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Potential GMA Expansion Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas City Limits Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Poudre River Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) Parcels to be Annexed 1 inch = 0.3 miles LaPorte Ave. Taft Hill Road RESOLUTION 2012-052 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORNEY ANNEXATION WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Forney Annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Forney Annexation, more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Center Quarter Corner of Section 10 and assuming the South line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10 to bear North 89°14'44" West, with all other bearings herein relative thereto; Thence North 89°14'44" West, 1108.58 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 89°14'44" West, 216.43 feet; thence, North 00°38'55" East, 435.71 feet; thence, North 89°14'49" West, 330.72 feet; thence, North 00°42'46" East, 656.12 feet; thence, South 89°24'33" East, 1320.17 feet; thence, South 00°23'46" West, 377.97 feet; thence, North 89°14'44" West, 285.00 feet; thence, South 00°23'46" West, 472.81 feet; thence, North 87°54'20" West, 249.40 feet; thence, South 07°37'19" East, 72.44 feet; thence, North 89°14'44" West, 86.39 feet; thence, North 00°23'46" East, 21.00 feet; thence, North 89°14'44" West, 83.00 feet; thence, South 00°23'46" West, 50.00 feet; thence, North 89°14'37" West, 85.00 feet; thence, South 00°23'46" West, 150.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel of land contains 22.820 acres, more or less. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition for the Forney Annexation and accompanying map are in substantial compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal Annexation Act. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins held this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ City Clerk 2 NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Forney Annexation, said Annexation being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice. That, on August 21, 2012, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may desire. The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the Transition (“T”) Zone District. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Dated this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _______________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Jason Holland AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-053 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 1 is the first Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations, which are as follows: Kechter Annexation No. 1 0.130 acres Kechter Annexation No. 2 0.505 acres Kechter Annexation No. 3 18.644 acres Total for Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 19.279 acres Kechter Annexation No. 1 is located approximately 945 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. Annexation No. 1 is entirely within the limits of Kechter Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, east and west. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances; not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Mangement Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. Annexation No.1 gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the southwest corner of the Sage Creek Subdivision to the east (Annexation HH-36, December, 1998), thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 25 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request on July 19, 2012. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council as part of the First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on August 21, 2012. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Structure Plan Map 4. Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Framework Plan Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel S TIMBERLINE RD OLD MILL RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE WHITE WILLOW DR E COUNTY ROAD 36 STETSON CREEK DR ROCK CREEK DR CHANDLER ST COUNTRY SQUIRE WAY RABBIT CREEK RD COPPER CREEK DR Kechter Annexations 1,2 & 3 Vicinity Map 1 inch = 600 feet ± Site Location Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 Legend City Limits - Area City Limits - Outline Annexation - Area ATTACHMENT 1 BACON ELEMENTARY Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel S TIMBERLINE RD OLD MILL RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE WHITE WILLOW DR E COUNTY ROAD 36 STETSON CREEK DR ROCK CREEK DR CHANDLER ST COUNTRY SQUIRE WAY RABBIT CREEK RD COPPER CREEK DR Kechter Annexation I Vicinity Map 1 inch = 600 feet ± Site Kechter Annexation 1 Legend City Limits - Area City Limits - Outline Annexation - Area ATTACHMENT 1 RL LMN LMN UE UE LMN UE LMN MMN BACON ELEMENTARY Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel RL LMN LMN UE UE LMN UE LMN MMN S TIMBERLINE RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE OLD MILL RD WHITE WILLOW DR KECHTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 CHANDLER ST COUNTY FAIR LN RABBIT CREEK RD Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 1 inch = ± 600 feet City of Fort Collins Zoning Map Legend City Zoning ZONE NCM Limited Commercial Service Commercial Employment Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Public Open Lands River Conservation Urban Estate WaterBodies Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 Proposed Zoning: L-M-N Low Density Residential (RL) ATTACHMENT 2 © Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 Structure Plan Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Potential GMA Expansion Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas City Limits Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Poudre River Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) KECHTER RD E CR 36 S TIMBERLINE RD 1 inch = 0.3 miles S CR 9 ZIEGLER RD Site - Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 Annexation ‐ Area ATTACHMENT 3 INTERSTATE 25 E HARMONY RD S TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 32 E TRILBY RD KECHTER RD ZIEGLER RD CARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 7 S COUNTY ROAD 9 S COUNTY ROAD 11 STRAUSS CABIN RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 S TIMBERLINE RD ZIEGLER RD INTERSTATE 25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Miles © CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Amended: September 19, 2006 Adopted: March 28, 1998 City Limits Growth Management Area Loveland GMA Fossil Creek Project Area Resource Management Area Unified Development Plan Needed Parcels Natural Areas Water Proposed Trail Existing Trail Master Street Plan Collector 2 Lanes Arterial 2 Lanes Arterial 4 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes Interstate Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA > Potential Grade Sep Rail Crossing R Potential Interchange Future Land Use RESOLUTION 2012-053 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE KECHTER ANNEXATION NO. 1 WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Kechter Annexation No. 1; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Kechter Annexation No. 1, more particularly described as follows: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 TO BEAR S89°29’46”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 33642, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET; THENCE N79°57'37"W, A DISTANCE OF 163.95 FEET; THENCE N75°35'33"E, A DISTANCE OF 166.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S00°49'59"E, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5,664 SQUARE FEET (0.130 ACRES), MORE OR LESS Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition for the Kechter Annexation No. 1 and accompanying map are in substantial compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal Annexation Act. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2 NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 1, said Annexation being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice. That, on August 21, 2012, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may desire. The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Dated this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _______________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Jason Holland AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-054 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 2 is the second Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations, which are as follows: Kechter Annexation No. 1 0.130 acres Kechter Annexation No. 2 0.505 acres Kechter Annexation No. 3 18.644 acres Total for Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 19.279 acres Kechter Annexation No. 2 is located approximately 925 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. Annexation No. 2 is entirely within the limits of Kechter Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, east and west. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances; not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Management Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. Annexation No. 2 gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Kechter Annexation No. 1, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request on July 19, 2012. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council as part of the First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on August 21, 2012. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 26 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Structure Plan Map 4. Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Framework Plan BACON ELEMENTARY Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel S TIMBERLINE RD OLD MILL RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE WHITE WILLOW DR E COUNTY ROAD 36 STETSON CREEK DR ROCK CREEK DR CHANDLER ST COUNTRY SQUIRE WAY RABBIT CREEK RD COPPER CREEK DR Kechter Annexation 2 Vicinity Map 1 inch = 600 feet ± Legend City Limits - Area City Limits - Outline Annexation - Area Site Kechter Annexation 2 ATTACHMENT 1 RL LMN LMN UE UE LMN UE LMN MMN BACON ELEMENTARY Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel RL LMN LMN UE UE LMN UE LMN MMN S TIMBERLINE RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE OLD MILL RD WHITE WILLOW DR KECHTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 CHANDLER ST COUNTY FAIR LN RABBIT CREEK RD Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 1 inch = ± 600 feet City of Fort Collins Zoning Map Legend City Zoning ZONE NCM Limited Commercial Service Commercial Employment Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Public Open Lands River Conservation Urban Estate WaterBodies Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 Proposed Zoning: L-M-N Low Density Residential (RL) ATTACHMENT 2 © Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 Structure Plan Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Potential GMA Expansion Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas City Limits Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Poudre River Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) KECHTER RD E CR 36 S TIMBERLINE RD 1 inch = 0.3 miles S CR 9 ZIEGLER RD Site - Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 Annexation ‐ Area ATTACHMENT 3 INTERSTATE 25 E HARMONY RD S TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 32 E TRILBY RD KECHTER RD ZIEGLER RD CARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 7 S COUNTY ROAD 9 S COUNTY ROAD 11 STRAUSS CABIN RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 S TIMBERLINE RD ZIEGLER RD INTERSTATE 25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Miles © CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Amended: September 19, 2006 Adopted: March 28, 1998 City Limits Growth Management Area Loveland GMA Fossil Creek Project Area Resource Management Area Unified Development Plan Needed Parcels Natural Areas Water Proposed Trail Existing Trail Master Street Plan Collector 2 Lanes Arterial 2 Lanes Arterial 4 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes Interstate Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA > Potential Grade Sep Rail Crossing R Potential Interchange Future Land Use RESOLUTION 2012-054 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE KECHTER ANNEXATION NO. 2 WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Kechter Annexation No. 2; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Kechter Annexation No. 2, more particularly described as follows: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 TO BEAR S89°29’46”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 33642, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N88°19'42"W, A DISTANCE OF 790.26 FEET; THENCE N86°35'52"E, A DISTANCE OF 791.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5; THENCE S75°35'33"W, A DISTANCE OF 166.47 FEET; THENCE S79°57'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 163.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 21,999 SQUARE FEET (0.505 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition for the Kechter Annexation No. 2 and accompanying map are in substantial compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal Annexation Act. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2 NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 2, said Annexation being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice. That, on August 21, 2012, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may desire. The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Dated this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _______________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Jason Holland AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-055 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 3 is the third Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations, which are as follows: Kechter Annexation No. 1 0.130 acres Kechter Annexation No. 2 0.505 acres Kechter Annexation No. 3 18.644 acres Total for Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 19.279 acres Kechter Annexation No. 3 is located approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road. The Annexation No. 3 property contains one single-family residence and is in the FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 – Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, east and west. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances; not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by State law. This is a 100% voluntary annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Fort Collins Growth Mangement Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the GMA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. Annexation No. 3 gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Kechter Annexation No. 2, thus satisfying the requirement that no less than one-sixth of the perimeter boundary be contiguous to the existing city boundary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 27 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request on July 19, 2012. The Board’s recommendation will be forwarded to City Council as part of the First Reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances on August 21, 2012. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Structure Plan Map 4. Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Framework Plan RL LMN LMN LMN UE UE UE LMN MMN BACON ELEMENTARY Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel S TIMBERLINE RD OLD MILL RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE WHITE WILLOW DR E COUNTY ROAD 36 STETSON CREEK DR ROCK CREEK DR KECHTER RD CHANDLER ST COUNTRY SQUIRE WAY RABBIT CREEK RD COPPER CREEK DR Kechter Annexation 3 Vicinity Map 1 inch = 600 feet ± Legend City Limits - Area City Limits - Outline Annexation - Area Site Location Kechter Annexation 3 ATTACHMENT 1 RL LMN LMN UE UE LMN UE LMN MMN BACON ELEMENTARY Mail Creek Ditch McClellands Channel RL LMN LMN UE UE LMN UE LMN MMN S TIMBERLINE RD ZEPHYR RD OWENS AVE OLD MILL RD WHITE WILLOW DR KECHTER RD E COUNTY ROAD 36 CHANDLER ST COUNTY FAIR LN RABBIT CREEK RD Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 1 inch = ± 600 feet City of Fort Collins Zoning Map Legend City Zoning ZONE NCM Limited Commercial Service Commercial Employment Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Public Open Lands River Conservation Urban Estate WaterBodies Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 Proposed Zoning: L-M-N Low Density Residential (RL) ATTACHMENT 2 © Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 Structure Plan Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Potential GMA Expansion Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas City Limits Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Poudre River Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) KECHTER RD E CR 36 S TIMBERLINE RD 1 inch = 0.3 miles S CR 9 ZIEGLER RD Site - Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 Annexation ‐ Area ATTACHMENT 3 INTERSTATE 25 E HARMONY RD S TIMBERLINE RD E COUNTY ROAD 32 E TRILBY RD KECHTER RD ZIEGLER RD CARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 7 S COUNTY ROAD 9 S COUNTY ROAD 11 STRAUSS CABIN RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 S TIMBERLINE RD ZIEGLER RD INTERSTATE 25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Miles © CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Amended: September 19, 2006 Adopted: March 28, 1998 City Limits Growth Management Area Loveland GMA Fossil Creek Project Area Resource Management Area Unified Development Plan Needed Parcels Natural Areas Water Proposed Trail Existing Trail Master Street Plan Collector 2 Lanes Arterial 2 Lanes Arterial 4 Lanes Major Arterial 6 Lanes Interstate Collector 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 2 Lanes - Outside GMA Arterial 4 Lanes - Outside GMA Major Arterial 6 Lanes - Outside GMA > Potential Grade Sep Rail Crossing R Potential Interchange Future Land Use RESOLUTION 2012-055 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS FINDING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AND INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE KECHTER ANNEXATION NO. 3 WHEREAS, a written petition, together with four (4) prints of an annexation map, has been filed with the City Clerk requesting the annexation of certain property to be known as the Kechter Annexation No. 3; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate annexation proceedings in accordance with the Municipal Annexation Act, Section 31-12-101, et seq., Colorado Revised Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby accepts the annexation petition for the Kechter Annexation No. 3, more particularly described as follows: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 5 TO BEAR S89°29’46”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 33642, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KECHTER ROAD, S89°29'46"W, A DISTANCE OF 299.94 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE WARRANTY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 24, 2006 AT RECEPTION NO. 20060005697 IN THE OFFICE OF THE LARIMER COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY, SOUTHERLY, AND WESTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SAID TRACT THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: 1. S00°44'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 725.89 FEET; 2. N89°31'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 300.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8; 3. ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S00°43'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 559.09 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; 4. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, S89°38'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 709.81 FEET; 5. N00°38'19"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,263.15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KECHTER ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1. S89°29'46"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,004.03 FEET; 2. N00°02'14"W, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; 3. S89°29'46"W, A DISTANCE OF 67.30 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE THORLAND ANNEXATION NO. 2 TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID THORLAND ANNEXATION NO. 2, N00°18'28"W, A DISTANCE OF 70.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KECHTER ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, N89°29'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 1,783.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5; THENCE S86°35'52"W, A DISTANCE OF 791.12 FEET; THENCE S88°19'42"E, A DISTANCE OF 790.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 812,118 SQUARE FEET (18.644 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that the annexation petition for the Kechter Annexation No. 3 and accompanying map are in substantial compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act. Section 3. That the Notice attached hereto is hereby adopted as a part of this Resolution. Said Notice establishes the date, time and place when a public hearing will be held regarding the passage of annexation and zoning ordinances pertaining to the above described property. The City Clerk is directed to publish a copy of this Resolution and said Notice as provided in the Municipal Annexation Act. 2 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 3 NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins has adopted a Resolution initiating annexation proceedings for the Kechter Annexation No. 3, said Annexation being more particularly described in said Resolution, a copy of which precedes this Notice. That, on August 21, 2012, at the hour of 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, the Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing upon the annexation petition and zoning request for the purpose of finding and determining whether the property proposed to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of Colorado law and is considered eligible for annexation and for the purpose of determining the appropriate zoning for the property included in the Annexation. At such hearing, any persons may appear and present such evidence as they may desire. The Petitioner has requested that the Property included in the Annexation be placed in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. Dated this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _______________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Kurt Ravenschlag Karl Gannon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-056 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud and Larimer County for the Funding of the Regional Study Known as the North Front Range Transit Vision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2011, the City of Fort Collins was awarded funding from a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 5304 Grant to fund a portion of the regional study known as the North Front Range Transit Vision. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute an intergovernmental agreement between CDOT, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud and Larimer County. The North Front Range Transit Vision is examining the feasibility of consolidation of existing transit services in Colorado’s North Front Range area. The goal of the project is to provide cost-effective and efficient transit services in our broader service area, which is currently served by three different entities: Transfort, City of Loveland Transit (COLT), and Berthoud Area Transportation System (BATS); in addition, the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization operates a variety of vanpooling services (called VanGO) in addition to carpooling and other transportation services. Potential benefits of consolidation include: economies of scale/increased efficiency, equalization of resources and knowledge, standardized regional service, increased level of service and increased ridership, and reduced competition for federal funding. This Study will take place between now and early 2013, and will ultimately provide a recommendation based on Steering Committee and other stakeholder direction. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer County, and the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) are conducting a study to explore the feasibility of a regional decision- making and funding structure for regional transit services. Following the 2000 US Census, Fort Collins became part of a Transportation Management Area (TMA) with a population of over 200,000 residents. The current Governor at that time appointed the City of Fort Collins as the designated recipient for federal funds within the TMA. The original TMA included LaPorte, an unincorporated community north of Fort Collins, as well as Loveland and Berthoud to the south. Following the 2010 Census, the TMA boundary was adjusted to include portions of Windsor, Timnath, and Johnstown. There are three separate transit operations within the current TMA boundaries. These operations include: • City of Fort Collins, branded as Transfort; • City of Loveland, branded as COLT (City of Loveland Transit); • Town of Berthoud, branded as Berthoud Area Transit Service (BATS) The 2009 process to update the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (TSOP) was a collaborative effort between Fort Collins, Loveland and the Poudre School District. While the 2009 TSOP Update included separate plans to ease the adoption process, considerable effort went into identifying coordination opportunities and future potential for a regional transit service provider. As a part of the TSOP update, a Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) was organized. The eight-member FAC consisted of residents from Fort Collins and Loveland, and represented a broad range of public and private interests. The FAC was tasked with making a recommendation to the governing Councils with regard to funding mechanisms to support the implementation of the TSOP. While the committee recommended a combination of funding strategies, it also recommended a subsequent study to explore the feasibility of the formation of a regional transit provider to serve as the administration, organization, and consolidation of transit operations for Fort Collins and Loveland. In 2011, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud, Larimer County, and the North Front Range MPO agreed to pursue the feasibility study. In early 2012, a contract was awarded to consultant Steer Davies Gleave to manage the North Front Range Transit Vision feasibility study. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 28 Purpose of This Project The purpose of the North Front Range Transit Vision project is to help develop options and a recommendation for a consolidated regional transit governance and decision-making model for North Front Range communities of Berthoud, Fort Collins, Larimer County, and Loveland, as well as a related funding and operational structure. The project is to include a public outreach process focused on stakeholders, transit users, and the general public to develop a recommendation on a path forward for potential transit service consolidation in Larimer County with improved service and cost-effectiveness. The project will address: • Transit service area boundaries of a potential regional service entity, as well as the process to expand the service area in the future. • A process to define and maintain a core of transit services for participating communities. • A range of governance structure options, identifying the benefits and limitations of each, along with a final recommendation on a governance structure for the region. • Analysis of the potential of the recommended structure to support the development of the transit network into an overall regional transportation plan. • The identification of funding issues and approaches for a successful transition into a consolidated regional transit system along with recommended sustainable funding approaches for the long-term. Potential Outcomes/Benefits of the Study There are several potential outcomes or benefits of consolidated transit service in the area that will be evaluated as part of this Study, including: • Economies of scale/increased efficiency: Currently, there are eight jurisdictions in the Transportation Management Area (TMA). One provider in the service area could potentially be more efficient with limited funding by reducing administrative and operating costs and redundant capital infrastructure costs. • Equalization of resources and knowledge: Consolidation of services could potentially make resources and transit industry knowledge and expertise available and consistent to all jurisdictions in the TMA. • Standardized service: A consolidated system could potentially standardize operating and administrative policies and procedures, fare structures, and overall delivery of service throughout the TMA. • Increased levels of service: A consolidated system could potentially better meet local and regional travel patterns, bridge gaps in current services, and provide a centralized system for travel planning, paratransit scheduling, and dispatching. • Increased ridership: A consolidated service’s major focus is the potential for increasing ridership throughout the TMA, reducing reliance on the single-occupant auto and providing more travel options for local citizens. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The total project cost is $175,000 to be funded as follows: FTA 5307 (63%) $110,000 CDOT 5304 (17%) $ 30,000 Local Match: City of Fort Collins General Fund (9.4%) $ 16,500 City of Loveland (4.3%) $ 7,500 Town of Berthoud (0.6%) $ 1,000 Larimer County (5.7%) $ 10,000 Previous Council actions (2010 BFO) appropriated the total funds. This Resolution is requesting execution of the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort Collins and CDOT. July 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 28 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Transportation is ranked second as the highest Greenhouse Gas emission sources at both a state and local level, proving that transportation concerns do not end at local community boundaries, but is rather a regional, state and national dilemma (Final Colorado Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020, 2007)(Fort Collins Climate Action Plan, 2008). At the Federal level, the FTA, acknowledges that “transportation is uniquely positioned to provide the United States with environmental benefits and energy savings” (FTA). This Study is intended to assess the feasibility of a regional transit model in terms of: increased efficiency; consistency between regional trips; increasing regional mobility to residents of all abilities; reducing the necessity to use a single occupant vehicle for regional trips; and convenient access to regional employment, medical services, and shopping destinations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION This item was not brought before the Transportation Board. This Study was recommended in the Transfort Strategic Operating Plan (TSOP), which was approved in 2009. The Transportation Board recommended approval of the TSOP and it was ultimately approved by City Council in August 2009. The Transportation Board and Economic Advisory Commission will be involved throughout the development of this plan and will be asked to advise City Council on adoption of the final document. RESOLUTION 2012-056 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE CITIES OF FORT COLLINS AND LOVELAND, THE TOWN OF BERTHOUD, AND LARIMER COUNTY FOR THE FUNDING OF THE REGIONAL STUDY KNOWN AS THE NORTH FRONT RANGE TRANSIT VISION WHEREAS, in 2011, the City was awarded funding from a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) 5304 Grant to fund a portion of the regional study known as the North Front Range Transit Vision (the "Project") which is a project examining the feasibility of consolidation of existing transit services in Colorado's North Front Range service area; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Project is to provide cost effective and efficient transit services in a broader North Front Range service area which is currently served by Transfort, the City of Loveland Transit and the Berthoud Area Transportation System in addition to various van pooling services operated by the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization; and WHEREAS, the potential benefits of consolidation would include economies of scale, equalization of resources and knowledge, standardized regional service, increased level of service, increased ridership and reduced competition for federal funding; and WHEREAS, the total Project cost is $175,000, of which $110,000 is to be funded by Federal Transit Administration 5307 funding from CDOT, $30,000 is to be funded by Federal Transit Administration 5304 funding, $16,500 is to be funded by the City's matching funds, $7,500 is to be funded by the City of Loveland's matching funds, $1,000 is to be funded by the Town of Berthoud's matching funds and $10,000 is to be funded by the County of Larimer's matching funds; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that an intergovernmental agreement between CDOT, the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the Town of Berthoud, and Larimer County be executed for the purpose of providing funding for the Project, and a copy of that agreement is on file with the office of the City Clerk (the "Agreement"). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purpose of this Ordinance, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Jill Stilwell AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-057 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This Resolution will adopt the recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fort Fund program, established in 1989, disburses funds from the City’s Cultural Development and Programming Account and the Tourism Account in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-244 of the City Code, where 25% of the revenue from the lodging tax is utilized for this program. Local non-profit organizations may apply to Fort Fund for cultural event support. The City Council appointed Cultural Resources Board reviews grant applications based on approved guidelines and makes recommendations for Fort Fund disbursements to City Council, pursuant to Ordinance No. 028, 1992 and Section 2-203 (3) of the City Code. Fort Fund grants support events that enrich the cultural life of the community, promote local heritage and diversity, provide opportunities for cultural participation, help define Fort Collins as a cultural center and tourist destination, have wide appeal for a significant part of the community, and promote the general welfare of the City’s inhabitants. Fort Fund consists of a three-tiered funding system: Tier #1 was established as an annual programming fund for organizations whose primary purpose is to present three or more public events annually. These groups may apply for funding from Tier #1 each April. Tier #2 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of events. Applications for support from Tier #2 are accepted each January and June. The Cultural Innovation Fund (CIF) Tier (formerly Tier #4) was established to further the goal of making Fort Collins a cultural center and destination. The CIF Tier grants address a need in the cultural activity of Fort Collins, perpetuate the Tourism Fund by generating over night stays in local hotels, and/or develop new arts, cultural, or heritage tourism activities that have the potential to impact Fort Collins’ cultural and economic growth. Organizations may apply for funding from the CIF Tier each April. June 2012 Funding Session At its June 27, 2012 meeting, the Cultural Resources Board reviewed applications submitted for Tier #2 funding. The Cultural Resources Board reviewed 20 applications with total requests equaling $69,820. The following table summarizes the amount and sources of available funds in 2012: FY 2012 AVAILABLE FUNDING AMOUNT SOURCE $182,166 FY 2012 Cultural Development and Programming Account (Fund 1) $40,750 FY 2012 Tourism Programming Account (Fund 2) $43,319 Unanticipated Lodging Tax and Reimbursements (Fund 1) $266,235 Total Funding Available for 2012 July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 29 FUNDS ALLOCATED TO APRIL 2012 FUNDING SESSION 23% % Total FY 2012 Funds allocated to June Funding Session $63,585 Total Funds Allocated to the June Funding Session $63,585 Amount from Cultural Development and Programming Account (Fund 1) $0 Amount from Tourism Programming Account (Fund 2) The Cultural Resources Board scored each application using the eleven Funding Criteria outlined in the Fort Fund Guidelines (Attachment 1) and discussed each application at the meeting. The Board discussion is outlined in the June 27, 2012 draft minutes (Attachment 2). The Board is recommending disbursement of $54,150 from the City’s Cultural Development and Programming account and $0 from the Tourism Programming account, totaling $54,150 to 20 applicants as outlined in Exhibit A. The requests totaled $69,820 and $63,585 was available. Of the total amount requested and considered, 78% is being recommended for funding with available funds. The following table summarizes the utilization of funds from all sources. Recommended Funding % of Total Category of Allocated Funds $54,150 86% Cultural Development and Programming Account $0 0% Tourism Programming Account $9,435 14% Unallocated $63,585 100.0% Funds Allocated for June Funding Session The $9,435 of unallocated Cultural Development and Programming Account funds will be add to the reserve balance. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Financial Impact: The Fort Fund program, established in 1989, disburses funds from the City’s Cultural Development and Program Account and the Visitor Events Account in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-244 of the City Code, where 25% of the revenue from the lodging tax is designated for this use. Local non-profit organizations may apply to Fort Fund for cultural event support and must match the grant amount. These funds were budgeted and appropriated in the 2012 budget. Economic Impact: The non-profit arts are a $15.9 million industry in Fort Collins (Arts & Economic Prosperity III - Americans for the Arts). By awarding these grants, the City is partnering with 20 organizations to leverage a variety of cultural events that contribute to this economic impact and add to our quality of life. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Cultural Resources Board (CRB) presents recommendations as to which events should receive funding from the available Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Accounts. Exhibit A to Resolution 2012-057 presents the allocations recommended by the CRB to the City Council for Tier 2 funding. At its June 27, 2012 meeting, the Cultural Resources Board recommended adoption of the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fort Fund Guidelines 2. Cultural Resources Board minutes (Draft), June 27, 2012 The Cultural Development & Programming and Tourism Accounts (Fort Fund) is funded by an allocation of the lodging tax revenues. Applications are reviewed by the Cultural Resources Board of the City of Fort Collins and recommendations to fund events are submitted to the Fort Collins City Council for final approval. The objective of Fort Fund is to provide funds to foster, encourage, and promote 1) cultural development and programming, and 2) economic and tourism development. The overarching goal for Fort Fund is to serve as a catalyst in making Fort Collins a cultural center and destination. Fort Fund supports events that:  Enrich the cultural life of the Fort Collins community  Promote local heritage and diversity  Provide opportunities for community members to participate in, create, learn from or experience arts and culture  Help to define Fort Collins as a destination for arts and culture  Elevate the community and broaden perspectives  Have wide appeal for a significant part of the community  Promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of the City. The following will not be considered for funding:  Applications for funds solely to print brochures, magazines or promotional materials, or for capital improvements.  Any event in which the net proceeds or profit from the event is donated by the sponsor to another organization and/or individual. Funds will not be disbursed directly after each funding session. Organizations recommended for grant monies by the Cultural Resources Board must first be approved by the City Council. ATTACHMENT 1 Funding Tiers & Application Deadlines An organization and/or event may receive funding from one or more of the following three tiers as described below. Specific application deadlines are listed immediately following each tier. Requests must be for a minimum of $500. Funding is subject to the amount of available funds per funding session. The Cultural Resources Board reserves the right to not fund an organization if it does not fully meet the criteria. Fort Fund will now only accept one application per organization per funding session. Colorado State University organizations are required to submit their applications through the Sponsored Programs Office. All applications are to be submitted to the Lincoln Center Administration Office, 417 W. Magnolia, Fort Collins, CO, 80521 by 5p.m. on the date stated. Postmark does not qualify. Please direct all questions regarding the application process to Gail Budner at (970) 221-6737. TIER # 1: Annual Programming Fund Organizations are eligible to apply for funding from Tier #1 if they meet the following criteria: 1. The primary purpose of the organization is to present three or more different public performances, events or exhibits per year. 2. The organization has proven annual program success for three previous years. Organizations that meet the criteria may apply for up to $15,000 per year (July 1 - June 30). The organization must submit a mission statement stating the organizations' officially accepted primary purpose; provide evidence of having presented three or more performances, events, or exhibits for three previous years; submit financial statements for the three most recently completed fiscal years; provide a list of the organization's current Board of Directors, their business/organizational affiliations, the date they were elected to the Board and their term limit date; and submit a Tourism Impact form. Fort Fund will only accept one Tier #1 application per organization per calendar year. Organizations that apply for this level of funding would have to show that no more than 35% of their projected expenses are coming from Fort Fund. Proposal Deadline for Tier #1: First Tuesday of April, 5:00 p.m. Requests must be for a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $15,000 Request amount cannot exceed 35% of the total projected expenses TIER # 2: Special Events Fund Organizations that present event(s) may apply for up to $5,000 for a single event or series of events per funding session. Events would have to be held within one year of the funding session. Fort Fund will only accept one Tier #2 application per organization per funding session at which Tier #2 applications are accepted. The organization must submit a financial statement from the most recently completed fiscal year and submit a Tourism Impact form. Organizations funded under Tier #1 could apply one time per calendar year for up to $5,000 under Tier 2, but the event cannot also be funded under Tier 1. Organizations that apply for this level of funding would have to show that no more than 50% of their projected expenses are coming from Fort Fund. Proposal Deadline for Tier #2: First Tuesday of January, 5p.m.; First Tuesday of June, 5p.m. Requests must be for a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $5,000 Request amount cannot exceed 50% of the total event expenses Cultural Innovation Fund (CIF) - Formerly Tier #4 Organizations are eligible to apply for up to $25,000 from the CIF if they seek funding for an activity or event that will increase Fort Collins' identity as a cultural center and tourist destination. The term 'activity' can mean event, projects, products, exhibits, festivals, programs, etc. and can be in the area of arts, nature, heritage, recreation, science, and /or humanities. The event or activity must meet the eligibility requirements and the strategies outlined below: CIF Strategies: Proposals should address specific strategies to increase Fort Collins' identity as a cultural center and tourism destination, resulting in at least one of the following benefits: 1. Address a need in the cultural activity of Fort Collins 2. Perpetuate the Tourism Fund by generating over night stays in local hotels 3. Develop new arts, cultural, or heritage tourism activities and products that have the potential to impact Fort Collins cultural and economic growth. These events or activities should enrich the cultural life available in the city because they will serve as an attraction to visitors, represent new cultural offerings or can be described as unique, innovative or inventive. The organization must submit a mission statement stating the organizations' officially accepted primary purpose; provide evidence of having been in existence for at least three years; submit financial statements for the three most recently completed fiscal years; provide a list of current Board members; and submit a Tourism Impact form. CIF applicants may also be required to present an oral presentation to the Cultural Resources Board. Fort Fund will only accept one CIF application per organization per calendar year. Request amount cannot exceed 50% of the total activity expenses. Request amount requires a dollar-for- dollar cash match. Neither in-kind contributions nor Fort Fund dollars from current or previous grants may be used in calculating the organization's match. Activities funded under the CIF shall not be simultaneously funded under Tiers #2 of Fort Fund. CIF funded activities can only apply for a maximum of three years and must compete each time. Proposal Deadline for the CIF: First Tuesday of April, 5:00p.m. Requests must be for a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $25,000 Request amount cannot exceed 50% of the total activity expenses All applications are to be submitted to the Lincoln Center Administration Office, 417 W. Magnolia, Fort Collins, CO, 80521 by 5p.m. on the date stated. Postmark does not qualify. Please direct all questions regarding the application process to Gail Budner, (970) 221-6737. Eligibility Requirements Organizations chartered in Colorado with IRS non-profit status may submit an application for consideration. Written proof of this status must accompany all applications. All organizations that fall under the same IRS non-profit tax status will be considered the same unit for funding.  For all Tiers, Fort Fund will only accept one application per organization per funding session. Colorado State University organizations are required to submit their applications through the Sponsored Programs office.  Applications must be submitted on the forms provided at www.fcgov.com/fortfund and must arrive at the Lincoln Center administration office by the date/time listed as the deadline. Postmarks are not valid. Late applications will not be reviewed.  Events must be held in Fort Collins or in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.  Events must be open to the general public and efforts must be made to advertise and make the public aware of the opportunity to attend and/or participate in the event.  Events or activities must provide a direct public benefit of a reasonably general character to a significant number of City residents.  Events may occur no earlier than 45 days after the application deadline.  Events funded under Tier #1 must be completed by June 30th of the year following the date of funding. Events funded under Tier #2 must be completed within one year of the date of the funding session. Events funded under the CIF must be completed within 18 months of the funding session.  The applicant organization must be in good standing with the Fort Fund program. The applicant must not be delinquent on any previous mid-year or final Fort Fund reports; must have used the new Fort Fund logo on promotional materials; and must have listed the funded event on the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau website calendar. Organizations not in good standing will not be considered for funding for one calendar year.  Religious, sectarian or faith-based organizations may apply for funding, but only for events which are secular (non-religious) in nature. Fort Fund money may not be used for events that promote religion.  Fort Fund does not consider applications for funds solely to print brochures, magazines or promotional materials, or for general operating support or capital improvements. Additional Eligibility Requirements for Tier #1 and the CIF:  The organization must have and submit an officially adopted mission statement expressing their primary purpose.  The organization has been in existence for a minimum of three years, and provides financial statements for the previous three completed fiscal years prior to the application date.  For Tier #1, the organization must show evidence of having presented three or more performances, events, or exhibits for three previous years. Criteria For Funding The following criteria are used by the Cultural Resourced Board to evaluate applications that have met all the eligibility requirements. Funding is based on how well an event or activity meets these criteria. Funding is subject to the amount of available funds per funding session. The Cultural Resources Board reserves the right to not fund an organization if it does not fully meet the criteria. Fort Fund supports events that: 1. Are of the highest quality; 2. Bring awareness of the arts to the local community; 3. Aspire to bring regional and national recognition to Fort Collins; 4. Are engaging and innovative and/or original; 5. Build a wide range of arts and culture offerings; 6. Raise arts and culture quality and participation to a new level; 7. Have an impact on the community economically, culturally or both; 8. Present strong evidence of leveraging other funding sources; All applicants are required to submit the Tourism Impact form. The information provided on the form will be reviewed as part of the application. Grant Requirements Organizations applying for Tier #1 funding cannot apply for more than 35% of their total projected annual expenses. Organizations applying for funding from Tier #2 may request funding for no more than 50% of the total projected expenses for any event. Organizations applying for the CIF cannot apply for more than 50% of their total projected expenses.  The amount requested under Tiers #1 and #2 must be matched with either cash or a combination of cash and in-kind services. At least one-half of the matching funds must be cash. For example, if an event is projected to cost $2,000, the amount requested from Fort Fund may not exceed $1,000. A $1,000 request would have to be matched with either $1,000 in projected cash revenues or at least $500 in cash and no more than $500 of in-kind services. The CIF requires the requested amount be matched dollar-for-dollar in cash. Neither in-kind contributions nor Fort Fund dollars from current or previous grants may be used in calculating the organization's match for the CIF.  Contracts for services with the City of Fort Collins must be signed prior to the issuance of funds.  All funds must be used for direct costs of the event(s) within the time frame as required by contract, or returned immediately to the Cultural Development and Programming Account. If the event changes significantly, the Cultural Resources Board must be notified in writing. Funding for the event may be re-evaluated at that time.  Organizations that receive funding must recognize the support of the City. All publicity and advertisements (including posters, programs, banners, flyers, newspaper ads and postcards) of the funded event must include the City's Fort Fund logo. If there is no printed material, a Fort Fund banner must be exhibited at the event. Organizations must also list the funded event on the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau website calendar at www.visitftcollins.com/events.  Organizations funded under Tier #1 must submit a financial mid-year and annual report by the date required in their contract. Organizations funded under Tier #2 and the CIF must submit a written report within sixty (60) days of the completion of an event. These reports, which evaluate estimated attendance, promotional materials, in-kind services, actual cash expenses and actual revenues must be submitted to the Cultural Resources Board through the Lincoln Center Administration Office. All reports must be signed by a representative of the organization that receives funding, verifying their accuracy. Records of the event need to be available for inspection upon request of the Cultural Resources Board. If the financial reports are not completed as required by contract, your organization's future funding may be effected. All organizations must provide a final report for previously granted funds before the contract for any new funding will be processed.  A member of the Cultural Resources Board may be assigned to each event to act as a liaison between funded organizations and the Board. If tickets are required for admission to an event and are not extended to the liaison as a courtesy, tickets will be purchased from the Cultural Development and Programming Account.  If the activity or event changes significantly from what was proposed in the original application, including date, location, or content, the organization must notify the Cultural Resources Board in writing at 417 W. Magnolia St., Fort Collins, CO 80521. Funding, even if already distributed, may be reevaluated at that time. FORT FUND OVERVIEW Fort Fund, the City of Fort Collins’ Cultural Development & Programming and Tourism Accounts, is funded by an allocation of the lodging tax revenues collected within the city limits of Fort Collins. Applications are reviewed three times a year by the City of Fort Collins Cultural Resources Board and recommendations for funding are submitted to the Fort Collins City Council for final approval. The objective of Fort Fund is to foster, encourage, and promote cultural and/or tourism activities in Fort Collins. Fort Fund offers three tiers. Tiers 1 and 2 primarily fund events that are artistic, ethnic, historic, educational or recreational in nature and reflect the values and traditions of Fort Collins. Events of this type will have wide appeal for a significant part of the community, thereby advancing the good of all. The resulting economic and noneconomic benefits of these events will promote the general welfare of the inhabitants of Fort Collins. FORT FUND (FORMERLY TIER 4) CULTURAL INNOVATION FUND The Cultural Innovation Fund embodies the above, and is primarily focused on activities that will increase Fort Collins’ identity as a cultural center and tourist destination. The term “activity” can mean events, projects, products, exhibits, festivals, programs, etc. These activities can be in the area of arts, nature, heritage, recreation, science, and/or humanities and shall be designed to develop new arts, culture or heritage tourism activities and products that have the potential to impact Fort Collins’ economic and cultural growth and perpetuate the Tourism Fund by generating over night stays in the city’s hotels and lodges. These activities should enrich the cultural life available in the city because they will serve as an attraction to visitors, represent new cultural offerings or can be described as unique, innovative or inventive. The activities should be designed to meet the strategies and criteria as listed below. CIF ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: 1. The applicant organization must be a non-profit organization, or the governmental equivalent. Written proof of this status must accompany all applications. All organizations that fall under the same IRS non profit tax status will be considered the same unit for funding. 2. The organization has an officially adopted mission statement expressing their primary purpose. 3. The organization has been in existence for a minimum of three years. 4. The organization can provide financial statements for the previous three completed fiscal years from their application date. 5. Activities funded under the CIF shall not be simultaneously funded under Tier 2 of Fort Fund. 6. Funding under the CIF shall be available for a maximum of three years to any one activity and applicants must compete each time for funding. 7. Applicants must submit a completed Tourism Impact form with their application. 8. Activities must be held in Fort Collins or in such other location as will accomplish the CIF strategies. 9. The activities may not commence prior to thirty days following the funding session date (funding session is the fourth Wednesday of April). 10. Activities funded under the CIF must be completed within 18 months of the funding session date (the fourth Wednesday of April). 11. Activities must benefit and be accessible and/or open to the general public. 12. Religious, sectarian or ‘faith-based’ organizations may apply for funding for activities which are secular (non-religious) in nature. Fort Fund monies may not be used to promote religion. 13. Activities must provide a direct public benefit of reasonably general character to a significant number of Fort Collins’ residents and meet the strategies as outlined below. STRATEGIES: Proposals should address specific strategies to increase Fort Collins’ identity as a cultural center and tourism destination, resulting in at least two of the following benefits: 1. Address a need in the cultural activity of Fort Collins 2. Perpetuate the Tourism Fund by generating over night stays in local hotels 3. Develop new arts, cultural, or heritage tourism activities and products that have the potential to impact Fort Collins cultural and economic growth. Fort Fund will not fund capital improvements or projects, or any activity in which the net profit or proceeds from the activity is donated by the sponsor to another organization and/or individual. CIF GRANT REQUEST AMOUNT • Maximum Request Amount: $25,000 (a higher amount may be considered) • Minimum Request Amount: $500 • Funding is subject to the amount available per funding session. The Cultural Resources Board reserves the right to not fund any organization if it does not fully meet the criteria. • Request amount cannot exceed 50% of the total activity expenses. • Request amount requires a dollar-for-dollar cash match. • In-kind contributions may not be used in calculating the organization’s match. • Fort Fund monies, from current or previous funding sessions, may not be used in calculating the organization’s match. • Activities funded under the CIF cannot be simultaneously funded under Tier 2 of Fort fund. • Funding under the CIF shall be available for a maximum of three years to any one activity and applicants must compete each time for funding. CIF APPLICATIONS DUE: First Tuesday of April by 5:00 p.m. To the Lincoln Center Administration Office 417 West Magnolia Street, Fort Collins LATE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED Notification of Award: The Cultural Resources Board will review applications on the fourth Wednesday of April, provide a recommendation for funding to City Council, who will then approve the recommendation at a regularly scheduled Council meeting in May. Applicants will be notified by mail after the Council meeting. GRANT AWARD REQUIREMENTS • Contracts for services with the City of Fort Collins must be signed prior to the issuance of funds. The funds must be spent on the activity within 18 months of the funding session. • All funds must be used for direct costs of the activity within the time frame as required by contract, or returned immediately to the Cultural Development and Programming Account. • If the activity changes significantly, the Cultural Resources Board must be notified in writing. Funding, even if already distributed to the organization, may be re-evaluated at that time. • Organizations that receive funding must recognize the support of the City. All publicity and advertisement of the funded activity must include the Fort Fund logo. Downloadable images are available on the Fort Fund website at www.fcgov.com/fortfund and a Fort Fund banner to exhibit at the activity is available through the Lincoln Center Administration Office. Organizations must also list the funded activity on the Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau website calendar at www.visitftcollins.com/events. • Organizations funded under the CIF must submit a written report within sixty (60) days of the completion of an activity. These reports, which evaluate estimated attendance, promotional materials, in-kind services, actual cash expenses and actual revenues, must be submitted to the Cultural Resources Board through the Lincoln Center Administration Office. All reports must be signed by a representative of the organization that receives funding, verifying their accuracy. Records of the activity need to be available for inspection upon request of the Cultural Resources Board. • A member of the Cultural Resources Board may be assigned to each organization receiving a CIF Grant to act as liaison between funded organizations and the Board. If tickets are required for admission to an activity and are not extended to the liaison as a courtesy, tickets will be then purchased from the Cultural Development and Programming Account. Cultural Resources Board Lincoln Center 417 W. Magnolia St Fort Collins, CO 80521 970.221-6735 970.221-6373 – fax . CULTURAL RESOURCES BOARD MINUTES Regular Meeting – Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:00 p.m. Lincoln Center, 417 W. Magnolia Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 Council Liaison: Aislinn Kottwitz Staff Liaison: Jill Stilwell Chairperson: Jan Gilligan Phone: 224-2481 (h) Vice-Chair: Chris Clemmer A regular meeting of the Cultural Resources Board was held on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. The following members were present: Board Members present: Carol Ann Hixon, John Hayes, Paco Gutierrez Chris Clemmer, Maggie Dennis Board Members absent: Jan Gilligan, Diane Gaede Staff Members present: Jill Stilwell, Gail Budner Guests Present: Katy Schneider, FCCVB I. Call to Order: 5:10 p.m. - Mr. Clemmer II. Consideration of agenda: none III. Consideration and approval of minutes from May 31, 2012 Ms. Dennis made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Hayes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Public input: none V. Carnegie Building update: Ms. Stilwell updated the Board on the progression of the new Community Creative Center and the conceptual plans and designs for the building. She also reported on the community outreach process and the public comment/feed-back phase regarding the project. Ms. Stilwell stated that Beet Street is currently developing curriculum for the new Arts Incubator and that the projected opening of the building is in the first quarter of 2013. VI. Fort Fund - Discussion and funding recommendations: Prior to reviewing and awarding grant monies to the Fort Fund applicants, the Board discussed the quality and the eligibility of the applications and the available budget for this session. The Board then reviewed 20 Tier 2 applications and developed their recommendations for funding as outlined below and on the attached spreadsheet ATTACHMENT 2 BAS BLEU THEATRE COMPANY: Bleu Light Education Programs Location & Date: Bas Bleu Theatre, Every Wednesday from August 2012 - July 2013 Lead by local artists and educations, these programs offer a one hour lunchtime lecture-demonstration on a specific topic on the theatre arts industry. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $4,000 CANYON CONCERT BALLET: Dancing with the Stars Fort Collins Location & Date: Sunset Event Center, February 9, 2013 This event will feature performances by local “celebrities/supporters of the arts” and their professional dance partners from Canyon Concert Ballet. Amount Requested: $750 Amount Recommended: $600 CENTER FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION: ReVisions Art Exhibit Location & Date: Resource Fort Collins and New Belgium, August 3 - September 4, 2012 This exhibit offers local and regional artists an opportunity to gather and share their unique and metaphorical vision of sustainability and community resilience. Amount Requested: $3,000 Amount Recommended: $2,100 CSU DEPT. OF MUSIC, THEATRE & DANCE: Colorado Premier of Wedekin’s Spring Awakening Location & Date: UCA Theatre, October 4 - 23, 2012 This is a new translation production of the cutting-edge classic that launched the 20th century avant-garde theatre movement. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $4,000 ELDERHAUS DAY PROGRAM, INC.: Elderhaus Senior Prom Location & Date: Poudre High School, January 18, 2013 This is an annual, non-fundraising event that is intended to bridge the life-span. The Prom brings together different generations who have unique experiences and abilities. Amount Requested: $2,220 Amount Recommended: $1,550 ERACISM FILM SERIES COMMITTEE: Eracism Film and Discussion Series Location & Date: Poudre River Public Library / Main and Harmony Branches, October 6 - 24, 20122 These films and discussions create an awareness of issues of race and are meant to ‘erase racism’ by addressing common and local concerns. Amount Requested: $1,200 Amount Recommended: $500 EHOS WEST CHAMBER ORCHESTRA: Nocturne: An open-air summer concert Location & Date: Gardens on Spring Creek, August 12, 2012 Ethos is joining with the Gardens on Spring Creek to present an outdoor concert, one of the first in the Gardens’ inaugural season as a performance venue. Amount Requested: $1,000 Amount Recommended: $700 FORT COLLINS CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY: The Grassroots Music Festival Location & Date: St. John’s Lutheran Church, July 15 - 22, 2012 The Festival is a concert series presented by accomplished professional musicians who have roots in the area, either by originating in Fort Collins or by choosing to relocate here. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $2,000 FORT COLLINS CHILDREN’S THEATRE: Peter Pan Location & Date: Lincoln Center Performance Hall, November 16 - 18, 2012 The FCCT has been producing live theatre since 1958. The cast for this production will range from 12 years old through adult and include a live orchestra. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $4,500 FORT COLLINS MUSEUM FOUNDATION: New Museum Opening Celebration Location & Date: Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, November 10, 2012 The Celebration of the new facility will feature museum admission, refreshments, prize drawings, music and educational programs for the community. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $5,000 FORT COLLINS READS/POUDRE RIVER PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT: Fort Collins Reads 2012 Location & Date: Hilton Hotel, November 4, 2012 This organization sponsors a one book city program that selects and promotes its reading and discussion for the community. This year the novel will be The World We Found by Thrity Umrigar. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $2,000 FORT COLLINS SYMPHONY ASSOCIATION: Outside the Box 2012-2013 Series Location & Date: Downtown Fort Collins and Foothills Fashion Mall, September 2012 - April 2013 This new series of events and activities are specifically designed to introduce classical music to diverse audiences in our community in a unique and very accessible ‘no strings attached’ manner. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $5,000 FORT COLLINS SYMPHONY GUILD: 2013 Musical Zoo Location & Date: Timberline Church, February 17, 2013 This event weaves music and musicians, along with dancers, jugglers and face painters from many community groups and organizations into a strikingly rich fabric for the visual and audible delight of its young and young at heart guests. Amount Requested: $4,000 Amount Recommended: $4,000 FORT COLLINS WIND SYMPHONY: 2012 Concert Season / Fall & Holiday Concerts Location & Date: University Center for the Arts, October 6 and December 8, 2012 These concerts feature high quality concert band compositions in a wide variety of styles to appeal to many different audience tastes and are performed by local professional musicians. Amount Requested: $1,000 Amount Recommended: $800 FRIENDS OF LARMER COUNTY PARKS AND OPEN LANDS: Northern Colorado Birding Fair Location and Date: Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space, September 29, 2012 This is the 8th year of the Fair and is a free day of fun and learning for all ages celebrating the sights and sounds of wild birds in the region. Amount Requested: $2,650 Amount Recommended: $1,900 GAY, LESBIAN BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY CENTER OF COLORADO: Pridefest Fort Collins Location & Date: Civic Center Park, September 8, 2012 This mission of this event is to create a fun, safe and empowering space to celebrate and promote the heritage and culture of the LGBT and allied communities in Northern Colorado. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $3,500 HIGH PERFORMANCE DANCE THEATRE: Joy, Dance, Music Location & Date: Lincoln Center Magnolia Theatre, October 5 - 6, 2012 This is a collaborative performance with The Key of Joy Band, both groups who have a strong connection to the arts in Fort Collins and Northern Colorado. Amount Requested: $2,200 Amount Recommended: $1,500 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF MAGICIANS RING 250, THE PRESTO-DIGITATORS: Magic in the Rockies 2012 Magic Convention Location & Date: Fort Collins Marriott, Lincoln Center and Old Town Square, September 6 - 9, 2012 This is the 19th annual convention drawing attendees locally and from throughout the country. The show features some of the world’s greatest magicians visiting Fort Collins to headline the convention. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $4,500 LINCOLN CENTER SUPPORT LEAGUE: Jennifer Angus: Memory Games Location & Date: Lincoln Center Art Gallery, September 14 -November 3, 2012 The Lincoln Center Galleries will present a site-specific art installation by an internationally recognized artist and educator. The exhibition will attract a wide general audience of art patrons, as well as those with an interest in the natural sciences. Amount Requested: $5,000 Amount Recommended: $4,500 OPERA FORT COLLINS GUILD: Songs in Summer Location & Date: The Hixon residence / garden, August 2, 2012 This garden event offers an evening of opera during a time of year when it is lacking in our area, and is for opera lovers new and old. Amount Requested: $1,800 Amount Recommended: $1,500 Total Funding Requested by Applicants: $69,820 Total Funding Recommended for disbursement by CRB: $54,150 Total Unfunded Balance: $15,670 % of Requests Funded: 78% Mr. Gutierrez made a motion to submit these recommendations for Fort Fund disbursements to City Council for their approval. Ms. Hixon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Liaisons will be assigned by the Board for recently funded events at the regularly scheduled July meeting. A liaison was assigned for the Fort Collins Chamber Music Society and for the Opera Fort Collins Guild due to their events occurring prior to or shortly after the meeting. VII. Other Business: Ms. Schneider reported on the effects that the High Fire has had, and may conversely have on Fort Collins tourism and lodging taxes. Ms. Hixon reported on her attendance at a recent Art in Public Places meeting. The APP Board has requested that the CRB write a mid year letter of support to City Council regarding modifications to the program. The Board will discuss this further at the July meeting. Ms. Hixon also reported on the APP projects and utility transformers currently in progress. VIII. Adjournment: 6:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Gail Budner Administrative Clerk II RESOLUTION 2012-057 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCES BOARD REGARDING FORT FUND DISBURSEMENTS WHEREAS, the City disburses funds from the City’s Cultural Development and Programming Account and Tourism Programming Account in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-244 of the City Code through its Fort Fund Program; and WHEREAS, the City’s Cultural Resources Board reviews applications for Fort Fund monies and makes recommendations to the City Council in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 2-203(3) of the City Code, and in accordance with the administrative guidelines for the Fort Fund program (the “Fort Fund Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25-244 of the City Code, the Cultural Development and Programming Account was established for the purpose of funding cultural development and programming activities and the Tourism Programming Account was established for the purpose of funding tourist-related special events; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on June 27, 2012, the Cultural Resources Board recommended funding for various proposals as set forth on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the criteria and considerations set forth in Section 2-203 and the Fort Fund Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the proposals recommended by the Cultural Resources Board provide a public benefit to the Fort Collins community by supporting cultural development and programming activities within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that funds in the total amount of FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($54,150) in the City’s Cultural Development and Programming Account are hereby distributed in accordance with the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board as set forth on Exhibit “A”. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk FORT FUND - June 2012 EXHIBIT A FINAL AMOUNT % Of REQUESTED RECOMMENDED AMOUNT ORGANIZATION/CONTACT EVENT/DATE AMOUNT FUND 1 FUND 2 RECOMMENDED LISTED ALPHABETICALLY REQUESTED (tourism) BY THE CRB Bas Bleu Theatre Company Bleu Light Education Programs Location: Bas Bleu Theatre August 2012 - July 2013 / every Wednesday $5,000 $4,000 $0 80% Canyon Concert Ballet Dancing with the Stars of Fort Collins Location: Sunset Event Center February 9, 2013 $750 $600 $0 80% Center for Resource Conservation ReVisions Art Exhibit Location: Resource Fort Collins & New Belgium August 3 - September 4, 2012 $3,000 $2,100 $0 70% CSU - Dept. of Music, Theatre & Dance Colo. Premier of Wedekin's Spring Awakening Location: UCA Theatre October 4-23, 2012 $5,000 $4,000 $0 80% Elderhaus Day Program, Inc. Elderhaus Senior Prom Location: Poudre High School January 18, 2013 $2,220 $1,550 $0 70% Eracism Film Series Committee Eracism Film and Discussion Series Location: Poudre River Library District branches October 6-27, 2012 $1,200 $500 $0 42% Ethos West Chamber Orchestra Nocturne / Summer Concert Location: Gardens on Spring Creek August 12, 2012 $1,000 $700 $0 70% Fort Collins Chamber Music Society Grassroots Music Festival Location: St. John's Lutheran Church July 15-22, 2012 $5,000 $2,000 $0 40% Fort Collins Children's Theatre Peter Pan Location: Lincoln Center Performance Hall November 16-18, 2012 $5,000 $4,500 $0 90% Fort Collins Museum Foundation New Museum Opening Celebration Location: Fort Collins Museum of Discovery November 10, 2012 $5,000 $5,000 $0 100% Fort Collins Reads Fort Collins Reads 2012 Location: Hilton November 4, 2012 $5,000 $2,000 $0 40% Fort Collins Symphony Association Outside the Box 2012-2013 Series Location: Downtown Fort Collins & Foothills Mall September - April 2012 $5,000 $5,000 $0 100% Fort Collins Symphony Guild The 2013 Musical Zoo Location: Timberline Church February 17, 2013 $4,000 $4,000 $0 100% Fort Collins Wind Symphony 2012-2013 Concert Season Location: UCA Theatre October 6 & December 8, 2012 $1,000 $800 $0 80% Friends of Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Northern Colorado Birding Fair Location: Fossil Creek Reservoir Open Space September 29, 2012 $2,650 $1,900 $0 72% FINAL AMOUNT % Of REQUESTED RECOMMENDED AMOUNT ORGANIZATION/CONTACT EVENT/DATE AMOUNT FUND 1 FUND 2 RECOMMENDED LISTED ALPHABETICALLY REQUESTED (tourism) BY THE CRB GLBT Community Center of Colorado PrideFest Fort Collins Location: Civic Center Park September 8, 2012 $5,000 $3,500 $0 70% High Performance Dance Theatre Joy, Dance, Music Location: Lincoln Center Magnolia Theatre October 5-6, 2012 $2,200 $1,500 $0 68% IBM Ring 250/The Presto-Digitators Magic In The Rockies 2012 Magic Convention Location: Marriott, Lincoln Center, Old Town Square September 6-9, 2012 $5,000 $4,500 $0 90% Lincoln Center Support League Jennifer Angus: Memory Games / Art Exhibit Location: Lincoln Center Art Gallery September 14 - November 3, 2012 $5,000 $4,500 $0 90% Opera Fort Collins Guild Songs in Summer Location: The Hixon Residence August 2, 2012 $1,800 $1,500 $0 83% TOTALS $69,820 $54,150 $0 78% Scores are based on application materials and Fort Fund's "Criteria for Funding." DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: John Voss Angelina Sanchez-Sprague AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 30 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-058 Adopting the City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Plan as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2012. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The adoption of this Resolution will consolidate eight amendments previously apporved to the 2001 Restated General Employees’ Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) into a newly restated Plan effective January 1, 2012, make technical changes required by the federal Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) related to benefit limitations, and clarify that the Plan funds are held in trust by the General Employees’ Retirement Committee (the “Committee”) so as to facilitate compliance with federal law and the investment of the funds. On May 15, 2012, the IRS issued a favorable determination letter for the Plan, as amended, subject to the adoption of technical changes into a newly restated Plan document. Federal regulations require the adoption of the restated Plan within 90 days of issuance of the determination letter (not later than August 12, 2012). This Resolution is intended to accomplish this Plan restatement and also clarifies that the Plan funds are held in trust by the Committee. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The current amendments and the incorporation of previous amendments into the proposed restated Plan document have been prepared by attorney Daniel Lacomis, with Berenbaum Weinshienk PC, and Greg Tempel, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Prior Amendments Since the last restatement of the Plan in 2001, there have been 8 amendments to the Plan approved by City Council. The amendments were adopted for the following purposes: • maintain compliance with IRS regulations and laws (4) • allow employees an opt-out opportunity when City redirected City-provided defined contribution funding into the Plan (1) • clarified Plan language (1) • removed Community Service Officers from participation in the Plan (1) • changed the calculation of service credits for part-time employees (1) None of these amendments resulted in significant added City costs to the Plan, either administratively or in benefit obligations. Current Amendments Several of the changes are required by the IRS determination letter, while the rest merely correct typos and provide clearer language. • Limit Retirement Benefits – An IRS regulation-required change dealing with benefit limitations is needed to the Plan and has been incorporated into the proposed restated Plan. This added change has no practical implication for Plan funding as it limits retirement benefits to an amount far in excess of what any employee can receive under the Plan provisions. • Trust Provisions – The proposed Plan restatement also contains clarifying provisions regarding its trust provisions. To be a qualified Plan, the Plan funds must be held in trust for the benefit of the participating employees and beneficiaries. When investing the Plan funds in various mutual funds, the mutual fund companies have been unwilling to invest the funds in the name of the Plan trust. Language has been added to the restated Plan (Article XVII) to clarify that the Committee has the authority to invest the Plan funds in the July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 30 name of the Plan trust. This power exists in the current Plan, but the newly restated Plan will make this more clear and explicit. This provision should allow the Committee to more easily invest the funds in the name of the trust, thereby complying with IRS laws and regulations and ensuring that the trust limitations on use of Plan funds is maintained. • Typos and Guidance – There are also some very minor changes inserted in the proposed Plan restatement to correct typos and provide some guidance as to meetings of the Committee (Article XVI, Section 8), none of which are inconsistent with the current Boards and Commissions Manual. History The City created the Plan in 1971. The Plan is a defined benefit plan in which the retirement benefit is determined by the number of years of service and the final average monthly compensation of the employee. Since the Plan was first adopted, the City has applied for and received tax qualified plan status from the IRS. By maintaining the tax-qualified status of the Plan, members and beneficiaries do not have additional tax obligations until benefit payments are made. Current Plan Participants As of the January 1, 2012 actuarial valuation report, the Plan provides retirement benefits for approximately 171 retirees and beneficiaries. The Plan has 155 active members and 136 former members who have vested benefits. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There are no significant financial or economic impacts associated with the adoption of this Resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its meeting on June 14, 2012, the General Employees’ Retirement Committee voted to recommend Council approve the January 1, 2012 restatement of the Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Employees’ Retirement Committee minutes, June 14, 2012 Working Copy thru 7th Amendment CITY OF FORT COLLINS GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN *** WORKING COPY *** As Amended and Restated January 1, 2012 December 31, 2001 With the following amendments incorporated: First Amendment – Resolution 2001-157 Second Amendment – Resolution 2002-103 Third Amendment – Resolution 2003-078 Fourth Amendment - Resolution 2006-029 Fifth Amendment - Resolution 2007-029 Sixth Amendment - Resolution 2008-007 Seventh Amendment – Resolution 2008-130 Eighth Amendment – Resolution 2010-062 CITY OF FORT COLLINS GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE I Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1 ARTICLE II Definitions ................................................................................................................. 2 SECTION 1. NAME .................................................................................................................. 2 SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................. 9 ARTICLE III Membership ........................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 1. EMPLOYEES ON JANUARY 1, 1971 .................................................................... 10 SECTION 2. EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1970, BUT BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1999 ................................................................................................................. 10 SECTION 3. TERMINATION ................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 4. WITHDRAWAL ................................................................................................... 10 SECTION 5. EMPLOYMENT NOT GUARANTEED .................................................................... 10 SECTION 6. REMOVAL OF COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS FROM THE PLAN ...………………………………………………………………………….7 ARTICLE IV Retirement Fund; Method Of Funding ................................................................. 127 SECTION 1. FUNDING ............................................................................................................. 7 SECTION 2. ASSETS ............................................................................................................. 13 SECTION 3. DUTIES OF THE FUNDING AGENT ...................................................................... 13 SECTION 4. INVESTMENT POWERS ......................................................................................... 8 ARTICLE V Contributions .......................................................................................................... 148 SECTION 1. MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS ................................................................................ 14 SECTION 2. CITY CONTRIBUTIONS ....................................................................................... 14 SECTION 3. APPLICATION OF FORFEITURES ......................................................................... 15 ARTICLE VI Credited Service ..................................................................................................... 16 ARTICLE VII Retirement Dates ....................................................................................... Section 1. ................................................................................................................................. Credited Service ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 ARTICLE VIII RETIREMENT BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 2 Section 2.................................................................................................................. Credited Service ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 ARTICLE IX Retirement Benefits and Rights Inalienable .............................................. .Section 3. ......................................................................................................................... Effect of Other Plans ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 ARTICLE X OPTIONAL FORMS OF BENEFITS ............................................................ SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOU ARTICLE VII Retirement Dates .................................................................................................. 19 SECTION 1. NORMAL RETIREMENT ...................................................................................... 19 SECTION 2. EARLY RETIREMENT ......................................................................................... 19 SECTION 3. DELAYED RETIREMENT..................................................................................... 19 SECTION 4. DISABILITY RETIREMENT .................................................................................. 19 SECTION 5. RETIREMENT DATE ........................................................................................... 20 ARTICLE VIII Retirement Benefits ............................................................................................. 21 SECTION 1. NORMAL OR DELAYED RETIREMENT ................................................................ 21 SECTION 2. EARLY RETIREMENT ......................................................................................... 21 SECTION 3. DISABILITY RETIREMENT .................................................................................. 21 SECTION 4. PAYMENT OF BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 21 SECTION 5. MINIMUM MONTHLY PAYMENT ........................................................................ 22 SECTION 6. ACCRUED CREDITS AND VESTED BENEFITS UNDER THE PREVIOUS PLAN PRESERVED ....................................................................................................... 22 SECTION 7. INCREASED BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED MEMBERS AND BENEFICIARIES AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 ....................................................... 24 SECTION 8. INCREASED BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED MEMBERS AND BENEFICIARIES AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 1983 ........................................................ 24 SECTION 9. INCREASED BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED MEMBERS AND BENEFICIARIES AS OF JULY 1, 1990 .................................................................. 25 SECTION 10. INCREASED BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN RETIRED MEMBERS AND BENEFICIARIES AS OF JANUARY 1, 2000 ........................................................... 25 ARTICLE IX Retirement Benefits and Rights Inalienable .......................................................... 26 SECTION 1. INALIENABILITY ................................................................................................ 26 SECTION 2. BANKRUPTCY ................................................................................................... 26 ARTICLE X Optional Forms Of Benefits .................................................................................... 28 SECTION 1. GENERAL .......................................................................................................... 28 SECTION 2. 100% JOINT AND SURVIVOR BENEFIT ............................................................... 29 SECTION 3. 50% JOINT AND SURVIVOR BENEFIT ................................................................. 29 SECTION 4. 120 MONTHS CERTAIN AND LIFE BENEFIT........................................................ 29 SECTION 5. SINGLE-SUM BENEFIT ....................................................................................... 29 3 Section 6.......................................................................................................................... Beneficiary ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 ARTICLE XI Death Benefits ........................................................................................................ 31 SECTION 1. DEATH OF AN ACTIVE MEMBER, A DISABLED MEMBER OR A VESTED MEMBER PRIOR TO NORMAL RETIREMENT DATE ............................................. 31 SECTION 2. DEATH OF A RETIRED MEMBER ........................................................................ 32 SECTION 3. UNIFORM SIMULTANEOUS DEATH ACT............................................................. 32 SECTION 4. MINIMUM MONTHLY PAYMENT ........................................................................ 32 ARTICLE XII Vesting and Severance Benefits ............................................................................ 33 SECTION 1. COVERAGE ........................................................................................................ 33 SECTION 2. VESTING SCHEDULE .......................................................................................... 33 SECTION 3. SINGLE LUMP SUM BENEFIT ............................................................................. 34 ARTICLE XIII Direct Rollovers ................................................................................................... 35 SECTION 1. DISTRIBUTIONS MADE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1993 ................................... 35 SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................... 35 ARTICLE XIV 2010 Plan Member Election Options ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. SECTION 1. OPTIONS ..................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SECTION 2. TERMINATED VESTED OPTIONS .................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SECTION 3. TRANSFER OPTION ...................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SECTION 4. EXTENSION OF SELECTION DEADLINE ........ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SECTION 5. CONTINGENCY ............................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ARTICLE XV Modification Or Termination Of Plan .................................................................. 38 ARTICLE XV Limitations ................................................................................................. Section 1. ........................................................................................................................................ Expectation ....................................................................................................................................................... 40 ARTICLE XVI RETIREMENT COMMITTEE. ................................................................................. SECTION 2. AMENDMENT .................................................................................................... 45 SECTION 3. APPROVAL UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE .......................................... 39 SECTION 4. DISCONTINUANCE ............................................................................................. 39 SECTION 5. TERMINATION ................................................................................................... 39 SECTION 6. DISTRIBUTION ................................................................................................... 39 ARTICLE XVI Limitations .......................................................................................................... 40 SECTION 1. LIMITATION OF BENEFITS ................................................................................. 40 Section 2..................................................................................................... Consolidation or Merger ....................................................................................................................................................... 44 ARTICLE XVII Administration Of The Plan; Investment of Fund .............................................. 48 Working Copy thru 7th Amendment i SECTION 1. RETIREMENT COMMITTEE ................................................................................. 45 SECTION 2. MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAN ............................................................................. 48 SECTION 3. MISCELLANEOUS .............................................................................................. 49 TSR\55737\378478.07 ARTICLE I Purpose Effective as of January 1, 2012December 31, 2001, the City Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted the amended and restated Plan (as defined in Article II, Section 2.ut.), as set forth herein, to continue and replace the Plan previously in effect. The Plan and the Retirement Fund (as defined in Article II, Section 2. bb.)aa. are intended to meet the requirements of IRS Code Sections 401(a) and 501(a). The Plan and the separate related Retirement Fund forming a part hereof were established and shall be maintained for the exclusive benefit of the eligible Employees of the City of Fort Collins and their Beneficiaries. No part of the Retirement Fund can ever revert to the City except as hereinafter provided, or be used for or diverted to purposes other than the exclusive benefit of the Employees of the City and their Beneficiaries. This amendment and restatement of the Plan shall not, in any way, affect the rights of former Employees who participated in said Plan and who either retired or otherwise terminated their employment prior to January 1, 2012.2001. The rights, if any, of such former Employees and of their Beneficiaries and the amounts of their benefits, if any, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the Plan as it was in effect on December 31, 201130, 2001, or the date, if earlier, of their retirement or termination of employment, unless specifically provided for otherwise herein, or as the result of future amendments to this restated Plan. This Plan is a governmental Plan established pursuant to IRS Code Section 414(d). As such, it is not subject to the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 2 ARTICLE II Definitions Section 1. Name. The Retirement Income Plan as set forth in this Ordinance shall be known as the City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2012December 31, 2001) and is hereinafter referred to as the Plan. Section 2. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions and general provisions contained in this Section govern the construction of this restated Plan. a. "Accrued Benefit" means the benefit determined under the Plan expressed in the form of a monthly single life annuity, commencing at Normal Retirement Date. b. "Actuarial Equivalence (or Actuarially Equivalent)" means equality in value of the aggregate amounts expected to be received under different forms of payment based on interest rate and mortality assumptions as defined below unless otherwise specifically provided in the Plan: (1) Interest rate assumption for alternative periodic benefits. The interest rate used for purposes of computing alternative periodic forms of benefits shall be 7.5%, unless otherwise specifically provided in the Plan. (2) Interest rate assumption for single-sum payments. The interest rate used for purposes of computing single-sum benefits shall be one of the following, as specifically designated in the Plan: (a) the immediate annuity rate (subject to adjustment as required for deferred annuities) used by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation as of the January 1 coincident with or preceding the date as of which the amount of the alternative form of benefit is being determined hereunder; Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 3 (b) the investment return rate used by the Retirement Committee for purposes of the Plan actuarial valuation as of the December 31 coincident with or preceding the date as of which the amount of the alternative form of benefit is being determined hereunder. (3) Mortality assumption. Effective January 1, 2008, the mortality assumption for calculations based upon the mortality of a Member or Beneficiary shall be a unisex rate that is 50% male, 50% female, taken from the 1983 Group Annuity Table, or such other Group Annuity Table designated by the Committee which meets the minimum standards as set forth in IRS Code Section 417(e). Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, solely for the purposes of determining applicable benefit limitations under IRS Section 415, the Plan shall use the applicable mortality table under Treas. Regs. Section 1.417(e)-1(d)(2) that is effective for the Retirement Benefit commencement date. (3) On or before December 31, 2007, theThe mortality assumption for calculations based upon the mortality of a Member or Beneficiary shall be a unisex rate that is 50% male, 50% female, taken from the 1983 Group Annuity Table, or such other Group Annuity Table designated by the Committee which meets the minimum standards as set forth in IRS Code Section 417(e). c. "Beneficiary" means the person or persons entitled to receive benefits hereunder upon the death of a Member or former Member, pursuant to Article X, Section 6 hereof. d. "City" shall mean the City of Fort Collins, State of Colorado. e. "City Council" shall mean the City Council of the City. f. "Committee" or "Retirement Committee" means the body designated as the primary fiduciary of the Fund,Committee appointed by the City Council and serving in accordancecharged with Article XVI hereunder, which shall have primary responsibility for the management, investment andgeneral administration of the Plan and the Retirement Fund. g. "Compensation" means the total cash remuneration paid to an Employee for a calendar year by the City for personal services including performance pay as reported on the Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 4 Employee’s income tax withholding statement or statements (Form W-2, or its subsequent equivalent), excluding bonuses, compensatory time recorded as additional hours, overtime pay, lump-sum payments for accrued vacation time, worker’s compensation, taxable fringe benefits including life insurance in excess of $50,000 and any contribution by the City under this or any other qualified Plan, but including any pre-tax Employee contributions to qualified retirement plans of the City and any amounts contributed by the City pursuant to a salary reduction agreement which were excludable from the Employee's gross income under Code Section 125, Code Section 132(f)(4), Code Section 402(a)(8), Code Section 403(b), Code Section 402(h), or Code Section 457. However, for Plan Years beginning before January 1, 1998, such amounts contributed by the City pursuant to a salary reduction agreement which were excludable from the Employee's gross income shall not be included in Compensation for the purpose of applying the limitations on allocations and benefits under Code § 415. The amount of Compensation for purposes of the Plan during any Plan Year shall not exceed $200,000, subject to the cost-of- living adjustments in accordance with IRS Code Section 415(d), as amended and then in effect. [amended effective 1/1/02 by Res. 2002-103] h. "Covered Employment" means the employment categories for which the Plan is maintained, more particularly described as follows: (1) all nonfirefighters who perform clerical and technical duties for Poudre Fire Authority; (2) any employment with the City in a classified position as defined by the City Personnel Policies and Procedures, excluding police officers, paid firefighters, emergency services dispatchers (police and fire); (3) any Member in the Plan as defined by Article II, Section 2., Subsection (m), Paragraph (3) "Employee". Excluded are leased employees within the meaning of IRS Code Section 414(n). Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 5 i. "Credited Service" means the period of service rendered by an Employee as a Member, for which credit is allowed. Credited Service will cease when a Member’s service as an Employee terminates. j. "Disability" means a physical or mental condition which: (1) in the judgment of the City’s long-term disability insurance company, qualifies the Member’s condition as totally disabled and entitles the Member to receive Disability Benefits; (2) in the judgment of the Federal Social Security Administration, qualifies the Member’s condition as totally disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and entitles the Member to receive Disability Benefits; or (3) in the judgment of the City’s designated worker’s compensation physician, administrative law judge or, if appealed, the court issuing the final judgment, qualifies the Member’s condition as a permanent total disability and entitles the Member to receive Disability Benefits. k. "Disability Benefits" means monetary payment for disability received from any one or more of the following sources: (1) the City’s long term disability plan; (2) the Federal Social Security Administration; (3) the City’s workers’ compensation plan. l. "Effective Date of this Plan" means January 1, 1971. Subsequent restatements of the Plan occurred on May 2, 1977, September 1, 1981, January 1, 1982, January 1, 1985, January 1, 1990, and January 1, 1992, and December 31, 2001. This Amended and Restated Plan is effective January 1, 2012.December 31, 2001. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 6 m. "Employee" means: (1) any person who is hired to fill a classified position as defined by the City Personnel Rules and Regulations; (2) all nonfirefighter personnel who perform clerical and technical duties for Poudre Fire Authority; (3) any employee of the City who qualifies under the following criteria: (a) the employee became a Member in the Plan while in a classified position; (b) either (i) the Employee’s classified position was thereafter converted to an unclassified position, or (ii) the Employee thereafter transferred from a classified position into an unclassified management position; and (c) at the time of the conversion or transfer into an unclassified management position, the Employee elected to remain a Member and continue to accrue Credited Service. (4) leased employees within the meaning of IRS Code Section 414(n)(2), if such leased employees constitute twenty percent or more of the employer’s non-highly compensated workforce within the meaning of IRS Code Section 414(n)(5)(C)(ii). All phrases such as "employment with the City" (or "employment with the City of Fort Collins") and "Employees of the City" (or "Employees of the City of Fort Collins") are hereby deemed to include "employment with Poudre Fire Authority as nonfirefighter, clerical and technical Employees of Poudre Fire Authority." n. "Final Average Monthly Compensation" means 1/60th of a Member’s total Compensation during the 60 consecutive full calendar months of Credited Service out of the last 120 calendar months of Credited Service, which will produce the highest average monthly compensation. If a Member has less than 60 consecutive full calendar months of Credited Service, the Final Average Monthly Compensation shall be the average of the total Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 7 Compensation during all full calendar months of Credited Service. In the event that a Member has been employed on a part-time basis (less than an annualized 2080 hours) during any portion of the period used to calculate the Final Average Monthly Compensation and therefore has received less than full-time Credited Service during that period, the Member’s part-time Compensation for that period of time shall be converted to its full time equivalent for the purposes of calculating the Final Average Monthly Compensation. [amended effective 7/1/03 by Res. 2003-078] o. "Funding Agent" means the financial officer of the City, any insurance company or trustee appointed by the Retirement Committee as provided in Article IV, or the Retirement Committee, if no designation has been made. p. "Funding Agreement" means the insurance contract with the insurance company or the trust agreement with the trustee as approved by the Retirement Committee for the purpose of the investment and management of Retirement Fund assets. q. "Insurance Company" means any insurance company or companies authorized to do business in the state and appointed by the Retirement Committee as provided in Article IV. r. “Investment Manager” means the individual(s) and/or company(ies), if any, appointed by the Retirement Committee to serve as a fiduciary of the Fund and to provide investment advice to the Retirement Committee, implement Retirement Committee funding directives, or otherwise manage and invest the assets of the Fund. s. "IRS Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended. ts. "Member" means any person included in the membership of this Plan as provided in Article III hereof, including an Employee who qualifies for Disability as defined in Article II, Section 2., Subsection j. ut. "Plan" means the City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Plan (as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2012December 31, 2001) as it may be amended. vu. "Plan Year" means the calendar year. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 8 wv. "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" means a domestic relations order that has been determined, pursuant to procedures established by the Retirement Committee, to be a qualified domestic relations order as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes § 14-10-113. xw. "Qualified Military Service" is notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, contributions, benefits and vesting service credit with respect to Qualified Military Service will be provided in accordance with the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended (USERRA), and IRS Code Section 414(u) for Members who return to Covered Employment from Qualified Military Service on or after December 12, 1994. Military service will be counted for purposes of contributions, benefits and vesting service credit, provided all of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) A Member must have reemployment rights under USERRA in order for periods of Qualified Military Service to be recognized. (2) A Member must have worked at least one thousand (1,000) hours in Covered Employment before entering Qualified Military Service. (3) A Member must have earned at least forty (40) Hours of Service in the three (3) months prior to the first day of Qualified Military Service. No more than five (5) years of Qualified Military Service may be recognized for any purpose, except as required by law. yx. "Required Beginning Date" means April 1 of the calendar year following the later of the calendar year in which the Member attains age 70 1/2 or the calendar year in which the Member retires. (1) For this purpose, a Member shall be deemed retired upon having one calendar month elapse with no hours worked in Covered Employment, provided that such month is concurrent with or follows the April following the calendar year in which the Member attains age seventy and one-half (70½). Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 9 z.y. "Retired Member" means a former Member whose employment terminated by reason of retirement or Disability and who is receiving or is entitled to receive, or whose Beneficiary or estate is entitled to receive, benefits under this Plan. aaz. "Retirement Benefit" or "Pension" means any retirement benefit provided for in Article VIII hereof. bbaa. "Retirement Fund" or "Fund" means the "City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Fund," maintained by the Retirement Committee and the Funding Agent or in accordance with the terms of this Plan and any Funding Agreement, as amended from time to time, which constitutes a part of this Plan. ccbb. "Service" shall mean service rendered as a Covered Employee of the City. ddcc. "Trustee" shall mean any qualified and acting Trustee appointed by the Retirement Committee as a named fiduciary for the investment and management of Plan assets. eedd. "Vested Member" means a former Member whose Credited Service has terminated by reason other than retirement or Disability and who is entitled to receive, or whose Beneficiary or estate is entitled to receive, benefits under this Plan. Section 3. Construction. Words used in the singular shall include the plural unless the context clearly indicates the contrary. Words such as "hereof," "herein," and "hereunder," shall refer to the entire Plan, not to any particular provision or Section. The Plan and Funding Agreement shall each form a part of the other by reference and terms used therein shall be interchangeable. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 10 ARTICLE III Membership Section 1. Employees on January 1, 1971. Every person who was an Employee of the City of Fort Collins on January 1, 1971 became a Member in the Plan on such date. Section 2. Employees Hired After December 31, 1970, but before January 1, 1999. Each Employee of the City hired after December 31, 1970, but before January 1, 1999, shall become a Member in the Plan on their date of employment. However, effective January 1, 1990, an Employee must also be in Covered Employment to become a Member. Employees hired after December 31, 1998 will not be eligible for Membership in the Plan. Section 3. Termination. Membership of any Member shall terminate (except as a Vested Member) if and when he or she ceases to be in Covered Employment for any reason, except as provided in Article VI, Section 2. and in Article XIV. [amended effective 10/5/10 by Res. 2010-062] Section 4. Withdrawal. Unless an Employee withdraws from Membership in the Plan pursuant to a specific authorizationExcept as provided in Article XIV or as provided otherwise herein, once an Employee has become a Member of the Plan, such Employee may not withdraw from Membership in the Plan except whenunless he or she ceases to be an Employee. [amended effective 10/5/10 by Res. 2010-062] Section 5. Employment Not Guaranteed. This Plan is not and shall not be deemed to constitute a contract between the City and any Employee or to be a consideration for, or inducement to, or a condition of, the employment of the Employee. Nothing contained in this Plan shall give or be deemed to give an Employee the right to be retained in the employment of the City or to interfere with the right of the City to discharge or retire any Employee at any time. Participation in the Plan shall not give any Employee the right or claim to Retirement Benefits, except to the extent such right or claim is specifically provided for under the terms of this Plan. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 11 Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 12 ARTICLE IV Retirement Fund; Method Of Funding Section 1. Retirement Fund; Establishment of Trust. The City and the Retirement Committee established the Fund to hold all contributions made by the City to the Plan, and the investment earnings thereon. The Fund is intended to be a qualified plan trust under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a) and exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(a). a. Fund Purpose. The assets held by the Fund shall be used for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to Members and their beneficiaries, as determined by the Retirement Committee, and shall further provide the means for payment of the reasonable expenses of administering and operating the Plan and the Fund. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof or any amendment hereto to the contrary, at no time shall any assets of the Fund revert to, or be recoverable by, the City or be used for, or diverted to, purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of Members, Retired Members, Vested Members, or their Beneficiaries under the Plan except such funds which upon termination of the Plan are in excess of the amount required to fully fund the Plan and which are due to erroneous actuarial assumptions. b. Name of Fund. The Fund established hereunder shall be known as the "City of Fort Collins General Employees’ Retirement Fund". Section 6. Retirement Committee to Hold Retirement Fund. The Retirement Committee shall receive contributions paid by the City; shall purchase, invest and reinvest in securities, insurance contracts or other properties; shall disburse benefits directly from the Fund or shall provide for the disbursement thereof by the purchase and delivery of insurance contracts, policies or certificates; and shall take all such actions pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, the Retirement Committee has delegated to the Funding Agent certain powers and duties with respect to holding, administering and investing the Fund pursuant to the policies adopted by the Retirement Committee, as set forth in Article XVII, Section 6.Removal of Community Service Officers from the Plan. Effective April 10, 2006, the Membership of any Community Service Officer in the Plan shall terminate and such individual shall become a Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 13 Vested Member with an Accrued Benefit determined as of the effective date of this termination of Membership. Such Vested Member shall, within sixty (60) days of the above stated effective date, have the option to roll over the lump sum Actuarial Equivalent value of their Accrued Benefit as of April 9, 2006, into the ICMA-Retirement Corporation administered 401(a) money purchase pension plan. For this purpose, the lump sum Actuarial Equivalent value shall be determined based on the assumptions described in Article II, Section 2b, Subsection (2)(b) and Section 2b, Subsection (3) of the Plan. Upon exercising this roll over option, such Vested Member would have no further interest in the Plan and would not be entitled to any further benefits from the Plan. [amended effective 4/10/06 by Res. 2006-029] ARTICLE IV Method Of Funding Section 1. Funding. The Retirement Committee shall decide whether it shall manage the Fund or shall appoint the financial officer of the City, an insurance company, a Trustee, or another funding vehicle, to hold and invest the Retirement Fund. The Retirement Committee shall have the power to change such funding at any time upon notice required by the terms of any applicable Funding Agreement. Section 2. Assets. All assets of the Plan shall be held by the Funding Agent for use in providing the benefits under the Plan. If the Retirement Committee or the financial officer of the City is serving as the Funding Agent, the assets of the Plan shall be held pursuant to the policies adopted by the Retirement Committee. If an insurance company, a Trustee, or another funding vehicle is serving as a successor the Funding Agent, the assets of the Plan shall be held pursuant to a Funding Agreement. The Retirement Committee shall comply with the purchasing and contracting provisions of the City Code when entering into a Funding Agreement. No part of the said corpus or income shall be used for or diverted to purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of the Members, Retired Members, Vested Members, their Beneficiaries or estates under the Plan, prior to the satisfaction of all liabilities hereunder with respect to them, except such funds which, upon termination of the Plan, are in excess of the amount required to fully fund the Plan and are due solely to erroneous actuarial assumptions. No person shall have any interest in or right to any part of the assets of the fund except as and to the extent expressly provided in the Plan. Section 3. ExpensesDuties of the Fund. The expenses of the Fund, including but not limited to (i) the fees of consultants, actuaries, accountants, attorneys Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 14 and other persons engaged by the Retirement Committee, (ii) the costs of investing the Fund, (iii) premium or other payments under insurance contracts or policies purchased by the Retirement Committee for the Fund, (iv) the fees and expenses of such Corporate Trustee as may be appointed by the Retirement Committee, and (v) the expense of maintaining bank accounts and safety deposit boxes, shall be paid from the Fund. Retirement Committee Membersing Agent. The duties of the Funding Agent shall include but shall not be limited to the following: a. It shall receive from the City, all contributions to the Fund therein established. b.Section 3. It shall receive no compensation for their services as Retirement Committee Members, but they may be reimbursedall of the income from the Fund for any expenses which they may incur in the performance of their duties. c. It shall pay out of the Fund, upon written instructions from the Retirement Committee, the funds required for payments under the Plan. d. It shall invest and reinvest the corpus and income of the Fund, subject to the requirements of the Plan, as directed by the Retirement Committee and as set forth in any applicable Funding Agreement. e. It shall maintain such records and accounts of the Fund, and shall render such financial statements and reports thereof, as may be required from time to time by the City Council or the Retirement Committee. Section 4. Investment Powers. The investment of the corpus of the Fund shall be made according to the powers and limitations set forth in the policies adopted by the Retirement Committee and any applicable Funding Agreement. ARTICLE V Contributions Section 1. Member Contributions. Members are not required or permitted to make contributions under this Plan. Section 2. City Contributions. The City shall make contributions to the Fund adequate to finance the benefits which the Plan provides on a sound actuarial basis. The required contributions to the Plan shall be determined by a competent actuary. The City expects to continue such contributions to the Plan, but assumes no responsibility to do so and reserves the Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 15 right to suspend or to reduce contributions at any time upon appropriate action by an amendment to the Plan by the City Council. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof or any amendment hereto to the contrary, at no time shall any assets of the Fund revert to, or be recoverable by, the City or be used for, or diverted to, purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of Members, Retired Members, Vested Members, or their Beneficiaries under the Plan except such funds which upon termination of the Plan are in excess of the amount required to fully fund the Plan and which are due to erroneous actuarial assumptions. Section 3. Application of Forfeitures. Any amount forfeited because of termination of employment of a Member prior to their having become 100% vested in their Retirement Benefits (because of their death or for any other reason), shall not be applied to increase the benefits provided by the Plan unless such benefits are increased by appropriate amendment, as provided in Article XIVXV, but shall be used to offset the City's contribution to the Plan. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 16 ARTICLE VI Credited Service Section 1. Credited Service. A Member’s Credited Service shall be used to determine their Accrued Benefit and eligibility for benefits under the Plan. a. A Member’s Credited Service is the elapsed time period from their date of employment with the City, as an Employee, to their date of termination of such employment, except as limited within this Section. A Member shall receive one year of Credited Service for each full year the Member receives Compensation for 2080 hours of Covered Employment. A Member who receives Compensation for less than 2080 hours of Covered Employment in a year shall accrue Credited Service on a pro rata basis based on the number of hours for which Compensation is paid. For example, a Member who was a part-time Employee and worked 520 hours for six months (half-time) and 1040 hours for six months (full-time) in a year would receive .75 year of Credited Service for that year. b. A Member shall also accrue Credited Service under the Plan for any period of time during which the Member meets all of the following: (1) is qualified for either: (a) a total Disability as defined in Article II, Section 2., Subsection j., Paragraphs 1, 2, or 3; or (b) a temporary total disability in the judgment of the City’s designated worker’s compensation physician; (2) is receiving Disability Benefits; and (3) is not receiving any payment from this Plan. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 17 c. A Member may also accrue Credited Service under the Plan for any period of time up to a maximum accrual of two (2) years during which the Member meets all of the following: (1) is qualified for a permanent partial disability in the judgment of the City’s designated worker’s compensation physician, administrative law judge or, if appealed, the court issuing the final judgment; (2) is not working as an Employee in Covered Employment; (3) is receiving Disability Benefits; and (4) is not receiving any payment from this Plan. d. A Member who accrues Credited Service because of a Disability pursuant to Subsections b. or c., above, shall accrue Credited Service at the pro rata rate based upon the number of hours for which Compensation was paid as of the date of disablement. e. In the event a Member receives a lump sum disability benefit payment in lieu of ongoing payments, the period of accrual of Credited Service shall be the period of entitlement which provided the basis for calculation of the lump sum amount. [amended effective 7/1/03 by Res. 2003-078] Section 2. Credited Service. a. Except as set forth in Subsection b. of this Section, Credited Service lost due to termination of Covered Employment occurring after December 31, 1998, shall not be reinstated upon the Member's return to Covered Employment. A Member who terminated Covered Employment prior to January 1, 1999, may be eligible for restoration of Credited Service upon a return to Covered Employment within five years of the termination of Covered Employment pursuant to the provisions of the Plan as it existed on December 31, 1998. b. A member who leaves Covered Employment to undertake Qualified Military Service and meets the requirements specified in Article II, Section 2.x. Subsection w. shall be Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 18 entitled to the accrual of Credited Service for the time spent in the Qualified Military Service providing the Member has not chosen to withdraw from the Plan and receive a benefit. Section 3. Effect of Other Plans. Credited Service shall not include any period on the basis of which a retirement benefit is payable under any other defined benefit retirement or pension plan to which the City made contributions, other than benefits payable under the Federal Social Security Act. Section 4. Miscellaneous. No period of Credited Service shall be deemed to be increased or extended by overtime. [amended effective 7/1/03 by Res. 2003-078] Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 19 ARTICLE VII Retirement Dates Section 1. Normal Retirement. The Normal Retirement Date of a Member shall be their 65th birthday upon which date they shall become fully vested in their Accrued Benefit. For purposes of the commencement of payment of a Retirement Benefit, Normal Retirement Date shall mean the first of the month coincident with or following a Member’s 65th birthday. Section 2. Early Retirement. A Member or Vested Member who has attained the age of 55 years and has completed at least two years of Credited Service may elect to retire as of the first day of any calendar month, which shall not be more than 90 days after the filing of written notification with the Retirement Committee. Section 3. Delayed Retirement. A Member may continue in the employment of the City after their Normal Retirement Date. If the retirement of a Member is delayed under this Section, their "Delayed Retirement Date" shall be the first of the month coincident with or following the Member's retirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, after a Member reaches his or her Required Beginning Date, required minimum distributions must be made to the Member in accordance with IRS Code Section 401(a)(9), as further set forth in Section 1 of Article X of the Plan. [amended effective 1/1/08 by Res. 2008-007] Section 4. Disability Retirement. If a Member’s Covered Employment by the City terminates by reason of their Disability, they shall be eligible for a Disability Benefit commencing on the first day of the month, coincident with or next following their 65th birthday, or upon termination of his or her long-term disability insurance benefits, if later. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 20 Disability shall be considered to have ended if, prior to their 65th birthday, the Member loses their qualification for Disability and is no longer entitled to any additional Credited Service under Article VI, Section 1 for their Disability. If Disability ceases prior to the Member’s 65th birthday, no Disability Benefits shall be paid to or for such Member. If the Member’s Disability ceases prior to their 65th birthday (and if they are not reemployed by the City as an Employee) and if they have met the requirements for an Early or Deferred Retirement Benefit pursuant to Articles VII or XII on the date of their recovery from Disability, they shall be entitled to receive a benefit equal in amount to the Early or Deferred Retirement Benefit to which they would have been entitled as of the date of their recovery, considering their Final Average Monthly Compensation at the date Disability commenced and their Credited Service on the date of their recovery from Disability. In lieu of accruing additional Credited Service pursuant to the provisions of Article VI, Section 1, and in lieu of becoming eligible for a Disability Retirement or any other benefits described in the Plan, a Member whose Covered Employment by the City terminates by reason of their Disability may elect to receive: a. an Early Retirement Benefit if the Member is otherwise qualified for such benefit, even though such Member remains Disabled. Such Early Retirement Benefit shall be based on consideration of their Final Average Monthly Compensation as of the date that their Disability commenced instead of the annual rate of Compensation as of the date of disablement; or b. a single lump sum benefit described in Article XII, Section 3, if the Member is otherwise qualified for such benefit, even though such Member remains Disabled. Section 5. Retirement Date. A Member’s "Retirement Date" shall be on their Normal Retirement Date, their Early Retirement Date, their Delayed Retirement Date, or their Disability Retirement Date, whichever is applicable. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 21 ARTICLE VIII Retirement Benefits Section 1. Normal or Delayed Retirement. Upon retirement at or after their Normal Retirement Date, each Retired Member shall receive a monthly Retirement Benefit equal to 1 1/2% of the Member’s Final Average Monthly Compensation multiplied by the total number of years of the Member’s Credited Service. Section 2. Early Retirement. A Member or Vested Member, eligible for early retirement and retiring prior to their Normal Retirement Date, shall be entitled to a reduced Retirement Benefit which shall be their vested Accrued Benefit on their Early Retirement Date, reduced by 1/180 for each of the first 60 months and 1/360 for each additional month by which the payments commence prior to the first of the month following their Normal Retirement Date. Section 3. Disability Retirement. The Disability Retirement benefit of a Member eligible therefor shall be their Accrued Benefit on the date their Benefit commences, based on their annual rate of Compensation on their date of disablement, and the Credited Service as defined in Article VI, Section 1, unless the Member's disability ceases prior to age 65 (see Article VII, Section 4). In the event that a Member was employed on a part-time basis (less than an annualized 2080 hours) at the date of disablement and therefore has received less than full- time Credited Service during that period, the Member’s part-time Compensation shall be converted to its full time equivalent for the purposes of calculating the annual rate of Compensation at the time of disablement. [amended effective 7/1/03 by Res. 2003-078] Section 4. Payment of Benefits. The basic monthly Retirement Benefit, computed as set forth above, shall be paid in equal monthly payments commencing on the last day of the month of their Retirement Date, and continuing at monthly intervals for the Retired Member’s lifetime thereafter. If a Retired Member or Beneficiary should die during a monthly interval, a partial monthly payment shall be paid. [amended effective 3/20/07 by Res. 2007-029] Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 22 Notwithstanding the above, if the value of a terminated Member's vested Accrued Benefit derived does not exceed $1,000, the entire vested benefit shall be paid to such Member in a single lump sum, regardless of when the Member terminated Covered Employment. [amended effective 3/28/05 by Res. 2008-007] Section 5. Minimum Monthly Payment. If the amount of the monthly Retirement Benefit payable to a retired Member is less than $100, the retired Member shall be paid a single- sum equal to the Actuarial Equivalent of such Retirement benefit. For retired Members who commenced Covered Employment prior to June 1, 1998, said Actuarial Equivalent specified in this Section 5 shall be as defined by Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(2)(a) and b(3) of this Plan. For retired Members who commenced Covered Employment on or after June 1, 1998, said Actuarial Equivalent specified in this Section 5 shall be as defined by Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(2)(b) and b(3) of this Plan. Section 6. Accrued Credits and Vested Benefits Under the Previous Plan Preserved. a. The restatement of the previous Plan by this Plan shall not operate to exclude, diminish, limit or restrict the payment or continuation of the payment of benefits accrued prior to the Effective Date of this Plan. The amount and payment of any such previous Plan benefits, shall be continued by the Funding Agent under the Funding Agreement forming a part of this Plan, in the same manner, undiminished, preserved, and fully vested under this Plan, except as provided in this Article VIII, Sections 6c, 7, 8, 9 and 10. b. The eligibility for, and amount of, any benefit of any kind, payable under this Plan to or for any person who was a Member of a previous Plan and who became a Member of the January 1, 1992 restated Plan, as amended, and as it is amended and restated December 31, 2001, and as it may be amended and restated in the future, shall be determined under the provisions of this Plan. c. The methods of calculating Credited Service, Final Average Monthly Compensation, and annual rate of Compensation for Disability Retirement, as amended effective July 1, 2003, shall be applied retroactively in order to better align benefits with the contributions Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 23 to the Plan based on the Member’s actual Compensation. However, this retroactive application shall not result in a Member’s benefit under the Plan being less than the benefit the Member would have been eligible to receive if the Member had terminated Employment on June 30, 2003, under the terms of the Plan then in effect. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 24 [amended effective 7/1/03 by Res. 2003-078] Section 7. Increased Benefits for Certain Retired Members and Beneficiaries as of September 1, 1981. Effective September 1, 1981, the monthly benefits of Retired Members and Beneficiaries whose monthly payments commenced prior to September 1, 1981 were increased as follows: Commencement Date of Payment of First Benefit to Retired Members or Beneficiaries Percentage Amount of Increase in Monthly Benefits 1981 5% 1980 10% 1979 15% 1978 20% 1977 25% 1976 30% 1975 35% 1974 40% 1973 45% 1972 50% 1971 55% If a benefit was being paid to a Beneficiary or contingent annuitant, the year of Retirement Date for purposes of using the above table was the initial Retirement Date of the Member or the date the Beneficiary's benefit commenced, if no benefit payments were made to the Member. Section 8. Increased Benefits for Certain Retired Members and Beneficiaries as of November 1, 1983. Effective November 1, 1983, the monthly benefits to retired Members and Beneficiaries of the Plan whose payments commenced prior to November 1, 1983, were increased as follows: Commencement Date of Payment of First Benefit to Retired Members or Beneficiaries Percentage Amount of Increase in Monthly Benefits Prior to September 1, 1982 10% On or after September 1, 1982 5% If a benefit was paid to a Beneficiary or contingent annuitant, the date payments commenced for the purpose of using the above table was the initial Retirement Date of the Member or the date the Beneficiary's benefit commenced if no benefit payments were made to the Member. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 25 Section 9. Increased Benefits for Certain Retired Members and Beneficiaries as of July 1, 1990. Effective July 1, 1990, the monthly benefit of Retired Members and Beneficiaries whose payments commenced prior to July 1, 1989, were increased. Such increase was as follows: Commencement Date of Payment of First Benefit to Retired Members or Beneficiaries Percentage Amount of Increase in Monthly Benefits June 30, 1989 - July 1, 1990 0% June 30, 1988 - July 1, 1989 3% June 30, 1987 - July 1, 1988 6% June 30, 1986 - July 1, 1987 9% June 30, 1985 - July 1, 1986 12% June 30, 1984 - July 1, 1985 15% November 1, 1983 - July 1, 1984 18% Prior to November 1, 1983 20% Section 10. Increased Benefits for Certain Retired Members and Beneficiaries as of January 1, 2000. Effective January 1, 2000, the monthly benefits of Retired Members and Beneficiaries whose monthly payments commenced prior to January 1, 1999, were increased as follows: Commencement Year of Payment of First Benefit to Retired Members or Beneficiaries Percentage Amount of Increase in Monthly Benefits 1990 and prior 15.28% 1991 12.38% 1992 10.39% 1993 8.33% 1994 6.73% 1995 4.95% 1996 3.40% 1997 1.06% 1998 0.58% 1999 and after 0% These increased benefits were only applicable to Retired Members or Beneficiaries who began receiving a monthly benefit during the above specified years. These increased benefits shall not be applicable to Retired Members or Beneficiaries who have taken a single- sum benefit or Vested Members who have not commenced receiving a monthly benefit during the above specified years. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 26 ARTICLE IX Retirement Benefits and Rights Inalienable Section 1. Inalienability. Members, Retired Members, Vested Members and their Beneficiaries under the Plan are hereby restrained from selling, transferring, anticipating, assigning, hypothecating, or otherwise disposing of their Retirement Benefit, prospective Retirement Benefit, or any other rights or interest under the Plan, and any attempt to anticipate, assign, pledge, or otherwise dispose of the same shall be void. Said Retirement Benefit, prospective Retirement Benefit and rights and interests of said Members, Retired Members, Vested members or Beneficiaries shall not at any time be subject to the claims of creditors or liabilities or torts of said Members, Retired Members, Vested Members or Beneficiaries, nor be liable to attachment, execution, or other legal process. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Retirement Committee may approve payment to an alternate payee based upon any assignment for child support purposes as provided for in sections 14-10-118(1) and 14-14-107 C.R.S., as they existed prior to July 1, 1996; any income assignments for child support purposes pursuant to section 14-14-111.5, C.R.S.; any writ of garnishment which is the result of a judgment taken for arrearages for child support or for child support debt; and any payments made in compliance with a properly executed court order approving a written agreement entered into pursuant to section 14-10-113(6), C.R.S., and such payment shall not be deemed to be a prohibited alienation of benefits. Such Qualified Domestic Relations Orders shall be binding on all Members, Beneficiaries and other parties. In no event shall the existence or enforcement of an Order cause the Trust Fund to pay benefits with respect to a Member in excess of the actuarial present value of the Member's benefits without regard to the Order, and benefits otherwise payable under the Plan shall be reduced by the actuarial present value of any payment required pursuant to an Order. Section 2. Bankruptcy. If any Member, Retired Member, Vested Member or Beneficiary shall become bankrupt or attempt to anticipate, assign or pledge any benefits under this Plan, then such benefits shall cease, and in that event the Retirement Committee shall have the authority to cause the same, or any part thereof, to be held or applied to or for the benefit of Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 27 such Member, their spouse, children, or other dependents, in such manner and in such proportions as the Retirement Committee shall decide. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 28 ARTICLE X Optional Forms ofOf Benefits Section 1. General. Subject to such uniform rules and regulations as the Retirement Committee may prescribe and the spousal consent as required in this Article X, Section 6, a Member or Vested Member may, in lieu of the basic Retirement Benefits provided in Article VIII, elect one of the following forms of Retirement Benefits which shall be the Actuarial Equivalent of the benefit to which they would otherwise be entitled. The Member or Vested Member must make any election of an optional form of benefit in writing, and such election must be filed with the Retirement Committee at least 30 days prior to the due date of the first payment of their Retirement Benefits under this Plan. The election of an optional form of benefit may be changed at any time prior to 30 days preceding the due date of the first payment of Retirement Benefits under the Plan. Notwithstanding any provision of this Plan to the contrary, any payment under the Plan pursuant to an optional form of benefit shall be made in accordance with IRS Code Section 401(a)(9) and the regulations established thereunder, as they are amended, including the following rules: a. To the extent required by IRS Code Section 401(a)(9) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, payment of the benefits of a Member shall begin not later than the Required Beginning Date. b. No payment option may be selected by a Member unless the amounts payable to the Member are expected to be at least equal to the minimum distribution required under IRS Code Section 401(a)(9). Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 29 c. The amounts payable must satisfy the minimum distribution incidental benefit requirements of IRS Code Section 401(a)(9)(G). d. Distributions in the event of a Member's death are subject to the minimum distribution rules of IRS Code Section 401(a)(9) and the regulations thereunder. [amended effective 1/1/08 by Res. 2008-007] Section 2. 100% Joint and Survivor Benefit. The Member may elect a 100% Joint and Survivor Benefit which provides reduced monthly Retirement Benefit payments during the Retired Member’s life, and, upon their death after retirement, continues payments in the same reduced amount to a designated Beneficiary during the life of such Beneficiary. Section 3. 50% Joint and Survivor Benefit. The Member may elect a 50% Joint and Survivor Benefit which provides reduced monthly Retirement Benefit payments during the Retired Member’s life, and, upon their death after retirement, continues payments in an amount equal to one-half of the amount of such reduced payment to a designated Beneficiary during the life of such Beneficiary. Section 4. 120 Months Certain and Life Benefit. The Member may elect a 120 Months Certain and Life Benefit which provides reduced monthly Retirement Benefit payments during the Retired Member’s life, and in the event they die prior to receiving 120 monthly payments, the same reduced amount shall be continued to their Beneficiary until a total of 120 monthly payments have been made. Section 5. Single-Sum Benefit. The Member may elect as an optional form of benefit a single-sum benefit equal to the Actuarial Equivalent of the basic Retirement Benefit, as defined by Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(2)(b) and b(3) of this Plan. If so elected, such single-sum shall be paid within 90 days of eligibility for receipt of a Retirement Benefit. Section 6. Beneficiary. Each active, Vested or Retired Member may designate a Beneficiary to receive any benefit that may become payable under this Plan by reason of their death. However, if a married Member wishes to designate someone other than their spouse to be their Beneficiary, such designation will not become effective unless their spouse (if the spouse Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 30 can be located) consents in writing to such designation, acknowledges the effect of such designation and has such consent and acknowledgment witnessed by a Plan representative or a notary public. Such designation shall not become effective until filed with the Retirement Committee. If any Member shall fail to designate a Beneficiary, or if the one designated by them predeceases them, then the Retirement Committee is hereby empowered to designate a Beneficiary (or Beneficiaries) on their behalf, but only from among the following with priority in the order named below, which shall include persons legally adopted: a. their spouse, or if none; b. their children and children of deceased children, by right of representation, or if none; c. their parents, or if none; d. their brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces who are children of deceased brothers and sisters, by right of representation, or if none; e. their estate. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 31 ARTICLE XI Death Benefits Section 1. Death of anAn Active Member, a Disabled Member or a Vested Member Prior to Normal Retirement Date. In the event that a Member who is actively employed in Covered Employment or a Disabled Member dies prior to the commencement of their Retirement Benefit, a single-sum death benefit will be paid to the Member’s Beneficiary. The single-sum death benefit will be determined such that it is equal to 47% of the Actuarial Equivalent value of the life annuity benefit which would have been paid had the Member separated from service at the earlier of the actual time of separation or death, survived until the earliest retirement age (or date of death, if later) and retired with a life annuity. If the Beneficiary is the Member’s spouse, the spouse may elect a monthly benefit which is the Actuarial Equivalent of the single-sum death benefit. The monthly benefit to the surviving spouse shall commence on the last day of the month following the later of the Member’s 55th birthday or the Member’s date of death and be payable for the spouse’s life. If the Member was not married at the time of death, the Beneficiary will receive the Single-Sum Death Benefit. If no Beneficiary exists, the estate will receive the Single-Sum Death Benefit. For Beneficiaries of Members who commenced Covered Employment prior to June 1, 1998, the Actuarial Equivalence for the single-sum death benefit will be determined by using the interest rate specified in Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(1) and b(3) of this Plan. For Beneficiaries of Members who commenced Covered Employment on or after June 1, 1998, the Actuarial Equivalence for the Single-Sum Death Benefit will be determined by using the interest rate specified in Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(2)(b) and b(3) of this Plan. In the event that a Vested Member who became such after January 1, 1994, and, thus, accrued Credited Service after December 31, 1993, dies prior to commencement of their Retirement Benefit, a death benefit will be paid. This death benefit shall be paid as set forth in the first paragraph of this Section.section. Death Benefits, if any, payable to any Vested Member Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 32 who became such prior to January 1, 1994 and did not accrue any Credited Service after December 31, 1993 shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Plan as of the date the Member ceased to be in Covered Employment. Section 2. Death of a Retired Member. In the event a Retired Member dies while receiving Retirement Benefit payments, their death benefit, if any, will be determined by the form of Retirement Benefit being paid. If a Retired Member or Beneficiary should die during a monthly interval, a partial monthly payment shall be paid. Section 3. Uniform Simultaneous Death Act. The provisions of any State law providing for the distribution of estates under the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act shall govern the distribution of money payable under this Plan when applicable. Section 4. Minimum Monthly Payment. If the amount of the monthly benefit payable to a Beneficiary is less than $100, the Beneficiary shall be paid a single-sum equal to the Actuarial Equivalent of such benefit. For Beneficiaries of Members who commenced Covered Employment prior to June 1, 1998, said Actuarial Equivalent specified in this Section 4 shall be as defined by Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(1) and b(3) of this Plan. For Beneficiaries of Members who commenced Covered Employment on or after June 1, 1998, said Actuarial Equivalent specified in this Section 4 shall be as defined by Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(2)(b) and b(3) of this Plan. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 33 ARTICLE XII Vesting and Severance Benefits Section 1. Coverage. Benefits shall be paid to a Member under this Article if their employment with the City of Fort Collins terminates for reasons other than retirement or death. Section 2. Vesting Schedule. In the event a Member’s employment terminates prior to their Normal Retirement Date, and they have two or more years of Credited Service, they shall become a Vested Member. A Vested Member shall be entitled to a deferred Retirement Benefit which shall be the vested portion (as shown in the table below) of their Accrued Benefit on the date of the termination of their Credited Service. Completed Years of Credited Service Percent of Vested Accrued Benefit Less than 2 0% 2 40% 3 60% 4 80% 5 or more 100% Such deferred Retirement Benefit shall be payable at the Vested Member’s Normal Retirement Date. In lieu of receiving a deferred Retirement Benefit upon their Normal Retirement Date, the Vested Member may elect to receive a reduced Retirement Benefit beginning upon the last day Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 34 of any month subsequent to their attainment of age 55. The reduction shall be 1/180 for each of the first 60 months and 1/360 for each additional month beyond the first 60 months by which payments commence prior to the first of the month following their Normal Retirement Date. Section 3. Single Lump Sum Benefit. Following termination of employment with the City of Fort Collins and in lieu of receiving a monthly Retirement Benefit upon their Normal or Early Retirement Date, a Vested Member has the option of receiving a single lump sum benefit equal to the Actuarial Equivalent of the Member’s deferred Retirement Benefit as defined by Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(2)(b) and b(3) of this Plan. To receive this lump sum benefit, the Vested Member must make a written request for this benefit at or after the time of termination of employment but not less than 30 days prior to the due date of the first payment of the Normal or Early Retirement Benefit. If so requested, this lump sum benefit shall be paid within 90 days of the receipt of the written request. If the value of a terminated Vested Member's derived Accrued Benefit does not exceed $1,000, the entire vested benefit shall be paid to such Member in a single lump sum, regardless of when the Member terminated employment with the City of Fort Collins. [amended effective 3/28/05 by Res. 2008-007] If the deferred Retirement Benefit to which a Vested Member will be entitled at their Normal Retirement Date is less than $100.00 per month, the Vested Member shall not have the election set forth in the previous paragraph and they shall be paid, within 90 days of termination of employment with the City of Fort Collins, a single-sum equal to the Actuarial Equivalent of such deferred Retirement Benefit, in lieu of all other benefits due to such Vested Member under this Plan. For Vested Members who commenced Covered Employment prior to June 1, 1998, said Actuarial Equivalent specified in this paragraph shall be as defined by Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(2)(a) and b(3) of this Plan. For Vested Members who commenced Covered Employment on or after June 1, 1998, said Actuarial Equivalent specified in this paragraph shall be as defined by Article II, Section 2, Subsections b(2)(b) and b(3) of this Plan. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 35 ARTICLE XIII Direct Rollovers Section 1. Distributions Made On or After January 1, 1993. This Section applies to distributions made on or after January 1, 1993. Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary that would otherwise limit a Distributee's election under this Section, a Distributee may elect, at the time and in the manner prescribed by the Retirement Committee, to have any portion of an Eligible Rollover Distribution paid directly to an Eligible Retirement Plan specified by the Distributee in a Direct Rollover. Section 2. Definitions a. "Direct Rollover" means a payment by the Plan to the Eligible Retirement Plan specified by the Distributee. b. “Distributee” means a Member or Retired Member. In addition a Member's or Retired Member’s surviving spouse and the Member’s or Retired Member’s spouse or former spouse who is the alternate payee under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order as defined in Article II, Section 2.wv, are Distributees with regard to the interest of the spouse or former spouse. Further, a Member’s or Retired Member’s Beneficiary that is a person other than a spouse or former spouse is a Distributee with respect to the Beneficiary’s interest in the Plan. [amended effective 1/1/08 by Res. 2008-007] c. “Eligible Retirement Plan” means an individual retirement account described in IRS Code Section 408(a), an individual retirement annuity described in IRS Code Section 408(b), a Roth IRA described in IRS Code Section 408A (subject to applicable income tax requirements), an annuity described in IRS Code Section 403(a), an annuity described in IRS Code Section 403(b), an eligible plan under IRS Code Section 457(b) which is maintained by a state, political subdivision of a state, or any agency or instrumentality of a state or political subdivision of a state and which agrees to separately account for amounts transferred into such plan from this Plan, or a qualified trust described in IRS Code Section 401(a), that accepts the Distributee's Eligible Rollover Distribution. The definition of Eligible Retirement Plan shall also apply to the Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 36 case of a distribution to a surviving spouse of a Member or Retired Member, or to a spouse or former spouse of a Member or Retired Member who is the alternate payee under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order as defined in Article II, Section 2.w.v. In the case of a distribution to a Beneficiary other than a spouse or former spouse of a Member or Retired Member, an Eligible Retirement Plan shall only be an individual retirement account described in IRS Code Section 408(a) or an individual retirement annuity described in IRS Code Section 408(b) that is treated as an inherited IRA in accordance with the provisions of IRS Code Section 402(c)(11). [amended effective 1/1/08 by Res. 2008-007] d. "Eligible Rollover Distribution" means a distribution of all or any portion of the balance to the credit of the Distributee, except that an Eligible Rollover Distribution does not include: (i) any distribution that is one of a series of substantially equal periodic payments (not less frequently than annually) made for the life (or life expectancy) of the Distributee or the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the Distributee and the Distributee's designated Beneficiary; or for a specified period of 10 years or more; (ii) any distribution to the extent such distribution is required under IRS Code Section 401(a)(9); and (iii) the portion of any distribution that is not includible in gross income. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 37 ARTICLE XIV 2010 Plan Member Election Options Section 1. Options. Each Member who remains in Covered Employment as of January 1, 2011, who files with the City by November 19, 2010, a retirement plan election form approved by the City (for purposes of this Article XIV, the “Member Election Form”) setting forth his or her election under either Section 2 or Section 3 of this Article shall have his or her election implemented effective January 1, 2011. A Member who fails to submit a completed Member Election Form by the above date shall not thereafter be eligible for the options set forth herein and shall continue to participate in the Plan pursuant to its provisions. Section 2. Terminated Vested Option. Each Member who remains in Covered Employment as of January 1, 2011, who files with the City by November 19, 2010, a Member Election Form stating his or her decision to cease his or her Membership in the Plan and become a Vested Member of the Plan shall become a Vested Member of the Plan as of midnight on December 31, 2010. As of January 1, 2011, the Vested Member shall cease Membership in the Plan, shall no longer be eligible to accrue additional Credited Service, and shall have his or her Final Average Monthly Compensation be calculated based only on his or her Compensation paid prior to January 1, 2011. The Vested Member may elect to receive his or her Accrued Benefit at such time and in such manner as is permitted under the Plan for Vested Members. Section 3. Transfer Option. a. Transfer of Transition Account Balance. Each Member who remains in Covered Employment as of January 1, 2011, who files with the City by November 19, 2010, a Member Election Form stating his or her decision to cease Membership in the Plan and transfer the actuarially-determined value of the Member’s Accrued Benefit to a retirement plan shall have the amount of his or her Transition Account Balance in the Plan as of December 31, 2010, transferred to an account in the Member’s name in the retirement plan designated by the City. Such transfer shall occur on January 1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. At the time of transfer, each transferring Member shall be 100% vested in the Transition Account Balance. After the transfer, the transferring Member shall not be entitled to any further or future benefits of any kind from the Plan. b. Transition Account Balance Defined. For purposes of this Section 3 of Article XIV, the Transition Account Balance transferred from the Plan to a Member’s account in the Employer retirement plan shall be equal to the lump sum Actuarial Equivalent value of the Member’s Accrued Benefit as of December 31, 2010. For this purpose, the lump Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 38 sum Actuarial Equivalent value shall be determined based on the assumptions described in Article II, Section 2b, Subsection (2)(b) and Section 2b, Subsection (3) of the Plan. Section 4. Extension of Member Election Deadline. The Retirement Committee is empowered to extend the filing deadlines described in Sections 1, 2, and 3 above for any Member who was, through no fault of the Member, unable to file the Member Election Form by the applicable deadline set by the City. The burden shall be upon such Member to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the failure to file the Member Election Form by the deadline was not the result of the Member’s neglect, carelessness, delay, procrastination, forgetfulness, or otherwise the fault of the Member. Section 5. Contingency. The above Sections of this Article notwithstanding, if either the Retirement Committee or the Director of Finance determines prior to January 1, 2011, based upon actuarial evidence, that either or both of the options described in this Article would have an adverse effect upon the funding needs or actuarial soundness of the Plan for those Members who remain in the Plan, or that the Plan will be unable to meet its future benefit obligations as a result of providing the options to Members set forth in this Article, then such option or options shall not be implemented. [Article XIV amended effective 10/5/10 by Res. 2010-062] ARTICLE XVARTICLE XIV Modification Or Termination Of Plan Section 1. Expectation. It is the expectation of the City Council that it will continue this Plan and the payment of its contributions hereunder indefinitely, but continuance of the Plan is not assumed as a contractual obligation of the City. Section 2. Amendment. The City Council reserves the right to alter, amend, or terminate the Plan or any part thereof in such manner as it may determine, and such alterations, amendment or termination shall take effect upon notice thereof from the City Council to the Retirement Committee; provided that no such alteration or amendment shall permit any part of the Fund to revert to or be recoverable by the City or to be used for or diverted to purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of Members, Retired Members, Vested Members or Beneficiaries Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 39 under the Plan, except such monies, if any, that may remain after termination of the Plan and the funding agreement (and after satisfaction of all liabilities with respect to Members, Retired Members, Vested Members and Beneficiaries under the Plan) and which are due solely to erroneous actuarial assumptions. Section 3. Approval Under the Internal Revenue Code. The Plan is intended to comply with the requirements of the applicable provisions of IRS Code Section 401(a) as now in effect or as hereafter amended, and any modification or amendment of the Plan may be made retroactive, as necessary or appropriate, to establish and maintain such compliance. Section 4. Discontinuance. The City Council reserves the right at any time and for any reason satisfactory to it to discontinue permanently all contributions under this Plan. Such discontinuance shall be deemed to be a complete termination of the Plan. Section 5. Termination. In the event of a partial or complete termination of the Plan, all affected monies covered by the Plan and the funding agreement shall be allocated to Members, Retired Members, Vested Members and Beneficiaries in proportion to the actuarial reserves for each Member’s (or Beneficiary’s) Accrued Benefit at the date of termination of the Plan. Section 6. Distribution. When the monies covered by the Plan and the Funding Agreement have been allocated as indicated above, the distribution may be made in the form of cash or nontransferable annuity contracts as determined by the Retirement Committee, provided that any monies remaining after the satisfaction of all liabilities to Members, Retired Members, Vested Members and Beneficiaries under the Plan may be withdrawn by the Retirement Committee from the Fund and refunded to the City. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 40 ARTICLE XVIARTICLE XV Limitations Section 1. Limitation of Benefits. Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein to the contrary, the benefits payable to a Member from this Plan provided by City contributions shall be subject to the limitations of Code Section 415 in accordance with subparagraphs a. through e. below: a. Any annual Pension payable to a Member hereunder shall not exceed the “defined benefit dollar limitation” under IRS Code Section 415(b), which is $160,000, as adjusted under IRS Code Section 415(d) in such manner as the Treasury Secretary shall prescribe, and payable in the form of a straight life annuity. b. Determining Limitation if Benefit Not Single Life Annuity: If the form of benefit is other than a single life annuity, such form must be adjusted to an Actuarially Equivalent single life annuity. For Limitation Years beginning on or after July 1, 2007: 1. The Actuarial Equivalent of a Plan benefit payable in a form not subject to Code Section 417(e)(3) means the actuarially equivalent straight life annuity equal to the greater of the annual amount of the straight life annuity payable to the Member under the Plan commencing on the same date as the Member’s form of benefit and the annual amount of the straight life annuity commencing on the same date that has the same actuarial present value as the Member’s form of benefit, computed using a five percent (5%) interest rate assumption and the mortality assumption set forth in Section 2.b. of Article II. 2. The Actuarial Equivalent of a Plan benefit payable in a form subject to Code Section 417(e)(3) means the actuarially equivalent straight life annuity equal to the greater of the benefit computed using the Plan’s interest rate and mortality table used for Actuarial Equivalence for the particular form of benefit payable to the Member on the benefit commencement date and the benefit computed using a five and one-half percent (5.5%) interest Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 41 rate assumption and the mortality assumption set forth in Section 2.b. of Article II, commencing at the same date. For Plan Years beginning after December 31, 2005, the Actuarial Equivalent of a Plan benefit payable in a form subject to Code Section 417(e)(3) means the actuarially equivalent straight life annuity payable on the Member’s benefit commencement date equal to the benefit computed using the mortality assumption set forth in Section 2.b. of Article II and an interest rate assumption that is the greatest of: i. Five and one-half percent (5.5%); ii. the rate that provides a benefit that is not more than one hundred five percent (105%) of the benefit that would be provided if the “applicable interest rate” under Code Section 417(e)(3) were the interest rate assumption; or iii. the rate used for Actuarial Equivalence for the particular form of benefit payable. No adjustment is required for the following: qualified joint and survivor annuity benefits; pre-retirement disability benefits; pre-retirement death benefits; and post-retirement medical benefits. ( c) Effective January 1, 2008, the . The maximum annual Pension shall be adjusted when required, as provided in paragraph 1. below, and if applicable, 2. or 3. below). ( 1). Adjustment for Less than Ten (10) Years of Service or Participation: If the Member has fewer than ten (10) years of participation in the Plan, the defined benefit dollar limitation shall be multiplied by a fraction, (i) the numerator of which is the number of years (or part thereof) of participation in the Plan and (ii) the denominator of which is ten (10). If the Member has fewer than ten (10) years of service with the Employer, the defined benefit compensation limitation shall be multiplied by a fraction, (i) the numerator of which is the number of years (or part thereof) of service with the CityEmployer and (ii) the denominator of Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 42 which is ten (10). The provisions of this subparagraph 1. shall not apply to distributions made on account of a Member’s Disability or Death. ( 2). Payment Beginning Before before Age 62. If payment to a Member commences before the Member attains age sixty-two (62), the defined benefit dollar limitation applicable to the Member at such earlier age is an annual benefit payable in the form of a straight life annuity beginning at the earlier age that is the Actuarial Equivalent of the defined benefit dollar limitation applicable to the Member at age sixty-two (62) (adjusted under paragraph 1. above, if required). The defined benefit dollar limitation applicable at an age before age sixty- two (62) is determined as the lesser of: (i) the Actuarial Equivalent (at such age) of the defined benefit dollar limitation computed using the Member’s age based upon completed calendar months as of the commencement of Retirement Benefitsinterest rate and mortality table specified in Section b. of Article II of the Plan, and (ii) the Actuarial Equivalent (at such age) of the defined benefit dollar limitation computed using a 5% interest rate and the mortality table specified in Section b.(3) of Article II of the Plan, and (ii) the product of the defined benefit dollar limitation multiplied by the ratio of (1) the annual Retirement Benefit of the Member as of the date of commencement of Retirement Benefits, to (2) the annual Retirement Benefit of the Member at age 62, with components (1) and (2) of the ratio computed without regard to the limitations of IRS Code Section 415. . Any decrease in the defined benefit dollar limitation determined in accordance with this paragraph (b) shall not reflect a mortality decrement if benefits are not forfeited upon the death of the Member. If any benefits are forfeited upon death, the full mortality decrement is taken into account. ( 3). Payment Beginning After Age 65. If payment to a Member commences after the Member attains age sixty-five (65), the defined benefit dollar limitation applicable to the Member at the later age is the annual benefit payable in the form of a straight Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 43 life annuity beginning at the later age that is the Actuarial Equivalent of the defined benefit dollar limitation applicable to the Member at age sixty-five (65) (adjusted under paragraph 1. above, if required). The Actuarial Equivalent of the defined benefit dollar limitation applicable at an age after age sixty-five (65) is determined as the lesser of: (i) the Actuarial Equivalent (at such age) of the defined benefit dollar limitation computed using the Member’s age based upon completed calendar months as of the commencement of Retirement Benefitsinterest rate and mortality table specified in Section b. of Article II of the Plan, and (ii) the Actuarial Equivalent (at such age) of the defined benefit dollar limitation computed using a 5% interest rate and the mortality table specified in Section b.(3) of Article II of the Plan, and (ii) the product of the defined benefit dollar limitation multiplied by the ratio of (1) the annual Retirement Benefit of the Member as of the date of commencement of Retirement Benefits, to (2) the annual Retirement Benefit of the Member at age 65, with components (1) and (2) of the ratio computed without regard to the limitations of IRS Code Section 415. . For these purposes, mortality between age sixty-five (65) and the age at which benefits commence shall be ignored. (d) In no event shall a Member’s maximum annual Pension allowable under this Section be less than the annual amount of Pension (including Early Retirement Benefits and qualified joint survivor annuity amounts) duly accrued by such Member under IRS Code Section 415 limitations then in effect as of December 31, 1982 (disregarding any Plan changes or cost- of-living adjustments occurring after July 1, 1982, as to the 1982 accrued amount). ( e). Aggregation of Employer Plans. In applying the limits of this Article XVI, Section 1, all defined benefit plans sponsored by the Employer are treated as a single plan. Benefits payable under any other plan with respect to a Member shall be reduced to the extent possible before any reduction will be made in such Member's benefits under this Plan, if necessary to observe these limits. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 44 [Section 1. amended effective 12/16/08 by Res. 2008-130] Section 2. Consolidation or Merger. This Plan shall not be merged or consolidated with, nor shall any assets or liabilities be transferred to any other Plan, unless the benefits payable to each Member (if the Plan were terminated immediately after such action) would be equal to or greater than the benefits to which such Member would have been entitled if this Plan had been terminated immediately before such action. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 45 ARTICLE XVII Administration Of The Plan ARTICLE XVIRetirement Committee. Section 1. Appointment and Term of A Retirement Committee Members. The Retirement Committee shall be composed of six (6) members shall administer the Plan. The City's Director of Finance shall be a member of the Retirement Committee and shall keep all records and minutes of meetings. The other five members of the Retirement Committee shall be appointed by the City Council to serve at its pleasure and for overlapping terms designated by the City Council. Of the five appointed members, three shall be employees of the City who are Members under the Employees covered by the Plan, the fourth shall be either an employee of the CityEmployee who is a Member under the covered by the Plan or a tax-paying elector of the City, and the fifth shall be a Retired Member of the Plan who is receiving a monthly retirement benefit from the Plan. Section 2. Resignation of Retirement Committee Member. Any Retirement Committee Member may resign at any time upon giving written notice thereof to the City Clerk. Such resignation shall become effective immediately upon the receipt of such written notice by the City Clerk. Section 3. Removal of Retirement Committee Member. Any Retirement Committee Member may be removed at any time for any reason, with or without cause, by the City Council so notifying the Retirement Committee Member in writing. Such removal shall be effective immediately upon the Retirement Committee Member receiving any such notice. Section 4. Rights as Successor Retirement Committee Members. Each successor Retirement Committee Member appointed as provided in Section 1 of this Article shall upon Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 46 succeeding as such Retirement Committee Member be vested with all of the rights, powers and discretions herein vested in and imposed upon the Retirement Committee Members. Section 5. Responsibility of Successor Retirement Committee Member for Acts of Predecessors. No successor Retirement Committee Member shall have any duty to examine the accounts or doings of his predecessors. Any successor Retirement Committee Member shall be responsible only for the money and property known to him to comprise the principal and income of the Fund and shall in no way be liable or responsible for anything done or omitted to have been done by his predecessors or by the Retirement Committee prior to the date of the successor Retirement Committee Member’s appointment. Section 6. Use of Corporate Trustee. At any time and from time to time the Retirement Committee may appoint, as Corporate Trustee, a bank or trust company located in the United States which has capital and surplus aggregating not less than $500,000,000.00, as shown by its last published statement. The Retirement Committee may delegate to the Corporate Trustee (i) the power to hold all or any part of the Fund as sole trustee of a trust separate from the Fund created by this Agreement (and not as agent of the Retirement Committee or as Co- Fiduciary hereunder with the Retirement Committee), (ii) the power to invest and reinvest the Fund in the Corporate Trustee's sole discretion, and (iii) such other duties and powers as the Retirement Committee may deem advisable. The Retirement Committee may enter into and execute a trust agreement with the Corporate Trustee, which agreement shall contain such provisions as the Retirement Committee may deem advisable. The Corporate Trustee shall have no obligations under this Agreement or under the Plan and its powers and duties shall be limited to those set forth in the agreement between it and the Retirement Committee. Upon execution of an agreement with the Corporate Trustee, the Retirement Committee may transfer and convey to the Corporate Trustee any part or all of the assets of the Fund acceptable to the Corporate Trustee, and thereupon, the Retirement Committee shall be released and discharged from any responsibility or liability with respect to the assets so transferred as to any period subsequent to such transfer and with respect to the investment and reinvestment thereof by the Corporate Trustee during the time the Fund is in the hands of the Corporate Trustee. Notwithstanding such transfer, the Retirement Committee shall continue to carry out its administrative functions under the Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Plan. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 47 Section 7. Removal of Corporate Trustee. Any Corporate Trustee appointed as provided in Section 6 may be removed at any time, with or without cause, by majority vote of the Retirement Committee and upon written notice thereof being furnished to such Corporate Trustee as provided by the terms of the Corporate Trustee or Co-Trustee Agreement previously entered into by the Retirement Committee with such Corporate Trustee or Co-Trustee. If and when so removed, such Corporate Trustee or Co-Trustee shall, cause to be transferred to the Retirement Committee any and all Fund property, assets and records then in its possession. Section 8. Meetings and Procedures of Retirement Committee. The meetings and procedures of the Retirement Committee shall be as set forth in the City Code and the Boards and Commissions Manual adopted by City Council, as the same may be amended from time to time by City Council. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 48 ARTICLE XVII Administration Of The Plan; Investment of Fund Section 1. Retirement Committee. The Retirement Committee shall administer the Plan. A majority of the six members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. All actions taken by the Committee shall be approved by a majority vote of all of the members of the Committee present. No member of the Committee shall receive compensation for their service on the Committee but a member may be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with their duties as a member of the Committee. Section 2. Management of the Plan. The Retirement Committee shall have all powers necessary to effect the management and administration of the Plan in accordance with its terms, including, but not limited to, the following: a. To designate a Funding Agent, which may be the Retirement Committee, the financial officer of the City, an insurance company, or a trustee, to manage the Retirement Fund. b. To establish rules and regulations for the administration of the Plan, for managing and discharging the duties of the Committee, for the Committee’s own government and procedure in so doing, and for the preservation and the protection of the Funds. c. To interpret the provisions of the Plan and to determine any and all questions arising under the Plan or in connection with the administration thereof. A record of such actions and all other matters properly coming before the Committee shall be kept and preserved. d. To determine all considerations affecting the eligibility of any Employee to be or become a Member of the Plan. e. To determine the Credited Service of any Member and to compute the amount of Retirement Benefit, or other sum, payable under the Plan to any person. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 49 f. To authorize and direct all disbursements of Retirement Benefits and other sums under the Plan. g. With the advice of its actuary, to adopt, such mortality and other tables as it may deem necessary or appropriate for the operation of the Plan from time to time. h. To make or arrange for valuations and appraisals of Fund assets held under the Plan, and, with the advice of the actuary, to determine the liabilities of the Plan. i. To hold assets of the Plan in a special account entitled "Retirement Plan Fund," and invest and reinvest the same and to make such withdrawals therefrom as are authorized by the Plan for the payment of Retirement Benefits and the expenses of the Committee and the members thereof. j. To maintain such records and accounts and to render such financial statements and reports as may be required by the City Council. k. To authorize one or more members of the Retirement Committee to sign all legal documents and reports on behalf of the Retirement Committee. Section 3. Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions. All proper expenses incurred by the Retirement Committee in the administration of the Plan, if not paid by the City, shall be paid from the Fund when authorized by the Retirement Committee. The Retirement Committee shall have no power to add to, subtract from or modify any of the terms of the Plan, nor to change or add to any benefits provided by the Plan, nor to waive or fail to apply any requirements of eligibility for Retirement Benefits under the Plan. A member of the Retirement Committee shall not vote on any matter relating solely to such Member's rights or benefits under the Plan. If a Committee Member is so disqualified to act and the remaining Members cannot agree, the City Council shall appoint a temporary substitute member to exercise all of the powers of the disqualified Member concerning the matter in which such disqualified Member is disqualified. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 50 The decision of the Retirement Committee and any action taken by it in respect to the management of the Plan shall be conclusive and binding upon any and all Employees, officers, former Employees and officers, Members, Retired Members, Vested Members, their Beneficiaries, heirs, distributees, executors, and administrators and upon all other persons whomsoever, but the Committee at all times shall act in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner. Neither the establishment of this Plan nor any modifications thereof or any action taken thereunder or any omission to act, by the Retirement Committee, the City Council or any of their members shall be construed as giving to any Member or other person any legal or equitable right against the City or any officer or employee thereof or against the Retirement Committee, the City Council, or any of their members. Section 4. Investment Powers and Duties. Notwithstanding any delegation of investment powers by the Retirement Committee to the Funding Agent or to an Investment Manager hereunder, the Retirement Committee reserves the ultimate power to direct the investment and/or reinvestment any and all money or property of any description at any time held by it and constituting a part of the Fund. The Retirement Committee shall at all times direct the investment of all money and property held by the Fund in accordance with the investment policy duly adopted by the Retirement Committee, as the same may be modified from time to time, and with the Colorado Uniform Prudent Investor Act, Article 1.1, of Title 15, C.R.S., as amended. Section 5. Fund Management Powers and Duties of Retirement Committee. The Retirement Committee shall have the power to do any of the following: a. Investment. The Retirement Committee may hold such amount of uninvested cash as the Retirement Committee in its discretion deem appropriate and may invest and reinvest the principal and income of the Fund in any property or undivided interest in property, wherever located, including bonds, secured and unsecured notes, stocks of corporations regardless of class and including investment companies, real estate or any interest in real estate and interest in trusts, including common trust funds, in such amounts or proportions as the Retirement Committee shall determine without being limited by any present or future statute or rule of law of the State of Colorado or any other jurisdiction Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 51 concerning investments by the Retirement Committee, nor shall the Retirement Committee be limited to the amount or type of any investment by its relations to the amount or type of investments constituting the Fund as a whole. The Retirement Committee may elect in each case either to exercise or to sell any subscription rights received as the result of any such investments. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, the Retirement Committee shall exercise its investment authority hereunder in accordance with its investment policy, as the same may be modified from time to time. b. Conflict of Interest. No member, officer, or employee of the City or of a local public body during his tenure or six months thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Fund or the proceeds thereof, other than the benefits to which an employee shall or may become entitled pursuant to the Plan. c. Purchase of Insurance Contracts. The Retirement Committee may enter into such insurance contracts and policies, make such premium or other payments thereon, make such elections thereunder and take such actions with respect thereto, as are authorized, directed or contemplated by the Plan and as the Retirement Committee shall, in the exercise of the discretion given to it under the Plan, determine, but in no event may the amount of insurance be greater than one hundred times the anticipated monthly annuity of a Plan Member. d. Sale of Property. The Retirement Committee may sell for cash or on credit, at public or private sale, any property included in the principal or income of the Fund, or exchange any such property for other property, or grant options to acquire such property, and the Retirement Committee may determine the prices and terms of all such sales, exchanges and options and may execute contracts, conveyances and other instruments, including instruments containing covenants and warranties binding upon the Fund and containing provisions excluding the personal liability of the Retirement Committee Members. e. Bank Accounts. The Retirement Committee may establish such bank accounts and make deposits to and withdrawals from such accounts and may delegate the right and power to make such deposits and withdrawals to members of the Retirement Committee or the Funding Agent. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 52 f. Enforcement, Settlement and Litigation. The Retirement Committee may take any and all actions it deems necessary or advisable to enforce and protect the property, rights and interests of the Fund, including enforcing the performance of any insurance contracts or policies or other contracts or commitments of and with the Fund. The Retirement Committee may take any and all actions with respect to conserving or realizing upon the value of any property included in the principal or income of the Fund and with respect to foreclosures, reorganizations or other charges affecting such property, which an individual owner of such property could take. The Retirement Committee may arbitrate, compromise, settle or abandon claims by or against the Fund, as the Retirement Committee shall, in its sole discretion, deem best. g. Assistants and Agents. The Retirement Committee may employ attorneys, auditors, depositaries, real estate managers and agents with or without discretionary powers, may vote any stocks or other property included in the principal of the Fund either in person or by proxy and may keep any property in the name of a Retirement Committee Member or nominee, with or without disclosure of any fiduciary relationship, or in bearer form. The Retirement Committee may delegate to voting Retirement Committee Members, bondholders' committees and any other person any duties which the Retirement Committee deem it desirable to delegate for the preservation of the principal or income of the Fund. h. Trust Expenses. The Retirement Committee shall pay promptly out of the Fund all taxes and expenses incurred in the administration of the Fund and may pay any amount necessary to preserve the principal or income of the Fund and any amounts incidental to the exercise of any of the powers, or to the performance of any of the duties, given to the Retirement Committee hereunder. i. Construction of Trust Provisions of Plan. The Retirement Committee may interpret and construe the trust provisions hereunder and may adopt reasonable regulations not inconsistent herewith and such interpretation and construction of the Retirement Committee shall be binding on all concerned, whomsoever. Section 6. Delegation of Fund Management and Investment Duties to Funding Agent. The Retirement Committee delegates the performance of the following of its duties Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 53 hereunder to the financial officer of the City, acting as the Funding Agent hereunder, who shall be a co-fiduciary of the Fund: a. The Funding Agent shall receive from the City, all contributions to the Fund therein established. b. The Funding Agent shall receive all of the income from the Fund. c. The Funding Agent shall pay out of the Fund, upon written instructions from the Retirement Committee or its agents, the funds required for payments under the Plan. d. The Funding Agent shall invest and reinvest the corpus and income of the Fund, subject to the requirements of the Plan, in accordance with the investment policies of the Retirement Committee, as the same may be modified from time to time. e. The Funding Agent shall maintain such records and accounts of the Fund, and shall render such financial statements and reports thereof, as may be required from time to time by the City Council or the Retirement Committee. f. The Funding Agent may, by specific written authorization, delegate to a City finance department employee any of the powers and duties of the Funding Agent set forth in this Section, including, but not limited to, the power to carry out and manage the investments of the Fund. Section 7. Delegation of Investment Powers to Investment Manager. The Retirement Committee shall have full discretion and authority with regard to the investment of the Fund, as provided in Section 4, except to the extent it has delegated such discretion and authority to the Funding Agent and/or an Investment Manager with respect to Fund assets under the Funding Agent’s or Investment Manager's control or direction, as the case may be. a. Appointment of Investment Manager. The Retirement Committee may appoint one or more Investment Managers to manage the assets of all or any part of the Fund. Each such Investment Manager shall be either: Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 54 (i) registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; (ii) a bank, as defined in such Act; or (iii) an insurance company qualified to perform the services of Investment Manager under the laws of more than one state. The Retirement Committee shall obtain from any Investment Manager a written statement: (i) acknowledging that if ERISA applied to the Plan, such Investment Manager would be or on the effective date of its appointment would become a fiduciary within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(21)(A) with respect to the Fund assets under its management; and (ii) certifying that it is either an investment adviser, a bank, or an insurance company, which is qualified to be appointed as an Investment Manager hereunder. The Retirement Committee shall enter into a written contract or agreement with each such Investment Manager in connection with its appointment as such, and such contract shall be subject to such terms and conditions and shall grant to the Investment Manager such authority and responsibilities as the Retirement Committee deems appropriate under the circumstances. The Retirement Committee shall not be responsible for any investment decision made by an Investment Manager unless the Retirement Committee or an individual Member actually makes the investment decision. b. Investment Manager Communications with Retirement Committee. Any investment directions or notifications from an Investment Manager to the Retirement Committee may be made orally or in writing, or in such manner as shall be agreed upon between the Investment Manager and the Retirement Committee; provided, in the event the Investment Manager gives the Retirement Committee oral recommendations, directions or notifications, the Investment Manager shall confirm such directions or notifications in writing immediately thereafter. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 55 c. Conflict with Fiduciary Duties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, in the Retirement Committee's sole discretion, the execution of any instruction with respect to, or the continued holding of any assets in, an investment managed by an Investment Manager would be in violation of the Retirement Committee's fiduciary responsibilities, the Retirement Committee may refuse to execute such instruction or may dispose of such asset or assets, respectively; provided, the Retirement Committee shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of such Investment Manager. In any such case, the Retirement Committee shall promptly notify the Investment Manager of such situation. d. Failure to Invest Portion of Fund Assets. In the event that an appointed Investment Manager shall fail to invest all or any portion of the assets under its management, the Retirement Committee shall be responsible for the investment of such assets. If an appointed Investment Manager shall fail to give the Retirement Committee instructions or directions- relating to the voting of shares held pursuant to an investment directed by the Investment Manager or the execution and delivery of proxies, or relating to the purchase and sale of fractional shares or the exercise of any other ownership right, the Retirement Committee shall take such action as it deems to be in the best interest of the Fund, provided such action is consistent with the then existing Investment Policy Statement established by the Retirement Committee. e. Termination of Appointment. Upon termination of the appointment of an Investment Manager, the Retirement Committee may appoint a successor Investment Manager with respect to the investments formerly under the management of the terminated Investment Manager or may merge or combine such investments with other investments or Trust assets within the guidelines of the Retirement Committee’s investment policy. f. Asset Transfer. If the Retirement Committee directs an Investment Manager to hold a portion of the assets of the Fund as well as make the investment decisions for such assets, the Retirement Committee shall enter into such contractual or other arrangements as are necessary for the transfer and custody of such assets of the Fund. If the Retirement Committee terminates such Investment Manager, it shall take such action to recapture and take directly into the Fund any assets so transferred. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 56 g. Reports and Valuations. An Investment Manager who has custody of any portion of the assets of the Fund shall keep accurate and detailed books and records on all investments, receipts, disbursements and other transactions for such account and shall determine the fair market value of the assets of such account as of each reporting date determined by the Retirement Committee, and, further, shall file a copy of such books and records and valuations with the Retirement Committee on or before such deadlines as the Retirement Committee shall reasonably set. The Retirement Committee also shall have the right to request that any person who is responsible for making the investment decisions for an investment account determine the fair market value of any asset, or all of the assets, held for that account and file a copy of such valuation with the Retirement Committee before such deadlines as the Retirement Committee reasonably shall set, and each such person shall comply with any such request. Section 8. Retirement Committee May Rely Upon Documents Which Are Apparently Genuine. The Retirement Committee shall be fully protected in relying upon any written instrument purporting to be signed by a duly authorized officer of the City or by any other person authorized to sign for the City, or in reliance upon a certified copy of resolutions of the City Council or in reliance upon the sworn statements of any duly authorized representatives of the City, any of which the Retirement Committee, in good faith, believes to be genuine. Section 9. Fiduciary Responsibilities. The Retirement Committee is empowered to allocate fiduciary responsibilities among the Retirement Committee Members and to designate persons other than Retirement Committee Members, including the Funding Agent, to carry out fiduciary responsibilities as provided in the Plan. The power to allocate fiduciary responsibility shall not apply to the allocation of the responsibility to manage the assets of the Fund other than the power to appoint the Funding Agent or the Investment Manager or Managers. Section 10. Liability and Insurance. a. Limitation of Liability. The Retirement Committee is hereby empowered to do all acts whether or not expressly authorized herein which the Retirement Committee may deem necessary to accomplish the general objective of maintaining the Fund solely in the interests of the Plan Members and beneficiaries for the exclusive purpose of (1) providing benefits to Members and beneficiaries; and (2) defraying reasonable expenses of administering, managing Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 57 and investing the Plan and the Fund. Such actions shall be taken with care, skill, prudence, and diligence required by the Colorado Uniform Prudent Investor Act, Article 1.1, of Title 15, C.R.S., as amended. Such actions shall include the diversification of the investments of the Plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses unless under the circumstances it is clearly prudent not to do so, and all such actions shall be in accordance with documents and instruments governing the Plan insofar as such documents and instruments are consistent with applicable law. If an Investment Manager or Managers have been duly appointed in accordance with the terms hereunder, no Retirement Committee Member shall be liable for the acts or omissions of such Investment Manager or Managers or under an obligation to invest or otherwise manage any asset of the Plan which is subject to the management of such Investment Manager or Managers. b. Errors and Omissions Insurance. The Retirement Committee may authorize the purchase of errors and omissions insurance for the Members collectively and/or individually and for any other fiduciary to the Retirement Fund, including the Funding Agent, to cover liability or losses occurring by reason of the act or omission of a fiduciary. Payment for said errors and omissions insurance, where permissible by law, may be made out of the Fund. c. Indemnity. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless each Retirement Committee Member and any City Employee serving as the Funding Agent from any and all claims, losses, damages, expense (including attorneys' fees approved by the Retirement Committee or the Funding Agent), and liability (including any amounts paid in settlement with the Retirement Committee's or the Funding Agent’s approval) arising from any act or omission of such Retirement Committee Member or such Funding Agent, if all of the following circumstances exist: (1) The claim against the Retirement Committee Member or the Funding Agent arises from an act or omission of the Retirement Committee Member or the Funding Agent occurring during the performance of the his or her duties and within the scope of the his or her employment with the City; (2) The Retirement Committee Member’s or the Funding Agent's act or omission was not "willful and wanton," that is, conduct purposely committed which he or she must have realized as dangerous, done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 58 consequences, or the of the rights and safety of others, particularly the person injured; (3) The defense of sovereign or governmental immunity is not available under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act to bar the claim against the Retirement Committee Member or the Funding Agent (this circumstance, however, shall not apply to the City's obligation under this Section to pay the defense costs of its employees); (4) The Retirement Committee Member or the Funding Agent has not compromised or settled the claim without the consent of the City; (5) If the civil claim is asserted in a lawsuit filed against the Retirement Committee Member or the Funding Agent that does not name the City as a co-defendant, the Retirement Committee Member or the Funding Agent has notified the City in writing about the lawsuit within fifteen (15) days after being served with the summons and complaint; (6) The Retirement Committee Member or the Funding Agent has not willfully and knowingly failed to notify the City of the incident or occurrence which led to the claim within a reasonable time after such incidence or occurrence, if such incidence or occurrence could reasonably have been expected to lead to a claim; and (7) If there exists any other prerequisite under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act to the City's obligations to defend and indemnify the Retirement Committee Member or the Funding Agent, he or she has satisfied that prerequisite. Working Copy thru 8th Amendment 59 The Retirement Committee and the Funding Agent accept the terms of this Amended and Restated Plan and hereby execute the Amended and Restated Plan this ____ day of _____________________, 2012. RETIREMENT COMMITTEE Date Date Date Date RESOLUTION 2012-058 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2012 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted, effective January 1, 1971, a qualified defined benefit pension plan known as the City of Fort Collins Employees' Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), for the purpose of providing retirement benefits for certain of its employees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has amended and restated the Plan from time to time in order to make improvements to the Plan and to maintain compliance with both state and federal law; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2012, the federal Internal Revenue Service issued a favorable determination letter for the Plan, as amended, subject to the adoption of technical changes associated with limitations on benefits required by final Treasury Regulations under Internal Revenue Code Section 415; and WHEREAS, the General Employees' Retirement Committee (the "Committee"), as created by and functioning pursuant to Chapter 21, Article V. of the City Code, has reviewed the current provisions of the Plan as restated effective December 31, 2001, and subsequently amended, and has determined that the adoption of a new amended and restated Plan is necessary in order to: (a) consolidate the several amendments to the Plan, (b) ensure continued compliance with state and federal laws, and (c) clarify that the Plan fund is held in trust by the Committee in order to facilitate the investment of Plan funds in the name of the Trust; and WHEREAS, the Committee has reviewed the proposed amended and restated Plan dated January 1, 2012, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk's office, and has recommended its adoption to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed amended and restated Plan consolidates the several amendments to the Plan into one Plan document for ease of use, makes the technical changes required by the federal Internal Revenue Code, and clarifies that the Plan fund is held in trust by the Committee for the exclusive benefit of the participating employees and their beneficiaries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, that the City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Plan as amended and restated January 1, 2012, a copy of which in on file with the City Clerk's office, is hereby adopted effective January 1, 2012. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Heidi Phelps Sharon Thomas AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 31 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-059 Amending Resolution 2012-035, Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from the Federal Community Development Block Grant Program and the City’s Human Services Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 15, 2012, City Council adopted several resolutions and ordinances concerning allocation of City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Human Services Program (HSP)/Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG), and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program financial resources. Staff has discovered an error in the name of a funded program in Resolution 2012-035, under the 2012 Human Services Program KFCG Funds Section, in the Table outlining funding allocations. The first line should read: $226 Catholic Charities: Senior Outreach. This Resolution corrects the error and restates the City Council's approved funding allocations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-059 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING RESOLUTION 2012-035 APPROVING THE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS THAT WILL RECEIVE FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND THE CITY’S HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM WHEREAS, on May 15, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution 2012-035, setting forth the City’s 2012 allocations of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds and Human Services Program funds to affordable housing programs/projects and community development activities, based on the recommendations of the CDBG Commission; and WHEREAS, it has come to staff’s attention that the name of one of the programs designated to receive funds in Resolution 2012-035 was incorrect; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to correct the error so that the intent of the CDBG Commission will be carried out; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendations of the CDBG Commission and comments received by the City regarding such recommendations, and has determined that the City’s 2012 allocation should be made as set out in this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that City staff is hereby authorized to submit an application to HUD as follows: Section 1. PLANNING and ADMINISTRATION FY 2012 CDBG Entitlement Grant $195,545 City of Fort Collins: CDBG Administration FY 2011 CDBG Program Income $13,487 City of Fort Collins: CDBG Administration Section 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING and PUBLIC FACILITIES FY 2012 CDBG Entitlement Grant $250,524 Fort Collins Housing Authority: Supportive Housing 385,000 Disabled Resource Services: Robertson Building Purchase FY 2011 CDBG Program Income $43,834 Fort Collins Housing Authority: Supportive Housing FY 2011 CDBG Unprogrammed Funds $28,750 Fort Collins Housing Authority: Supportive Housing Section 3. PUBLIC SERVICES FY 2012 CDBG Entitlement Grant $50,000 BASE Camp: Childcare Scholarships 4,659 Catholic Charities: Senior Outreach 40,000 Catholic Charities: Shelter & Support Services 22,000 Disabled Resource Services: ATI Program 30,000 Respite Care: Childcare Scholarships FY 2011 CDBG Program Income $10,115 Catholic Charities: Senior Outreach 2012 Human Services Program $ 3,000 Alliance for Suicide Prevention: Education & Awareness Programs 22,566 Boys & Girls Club: After School/School Break Youth Program 7,020 Center for Family Outreach: Low-Income Youth Scholarships 11,106 ChildSafe Colorado: Child Abuse Treatment Program 15,000 Colorado Health Network: Client Services/Homelessness Prevention 1,370 Disabled Resource Services: Access to Independence Program 20,000 Education Life Training Center: Employment Skills Training 10,800 Elderhaus: Mindset Therapy Center Activity Program 35,000 Family Center: Childcare Scholarships 21,407 Food Bank for Larimer County: Kids Café 28,380 Larimer Center for Mental Health: Dual Disorders Treatment Program 27,000 Matthews House: Transition Program 22,000 Project Self-Sufficiency: Services for Single Parents 33,450 RVNA: Home Health Care Scholarships 17,500 Turning Point: Crisis Intervention Program 50,000 Teaching Tree: Childcare Scholarships 29,200 Volunteers of America: Nutrition Services 34,802 Woman’s Resource Center: Dental Connections 2012 Human Services Program KFCG Funds $ 226 Catholic Charities: Shelter & Support Services Senior Outreach 894 ChildSafe Colorado: Child Abuse Treatment Program 39,853 Crossroads Safehouse: Advocacy Program 45,000 Homelessness Prevention Initiative: Emergency Rent Assistance 10,000 Larimer Center for Mental Health: Emergency Mental Health Services 29,760 Neighbor-to-Neighbor: Housing Counseling 25,000 Neighbor-to-Neighbor: Emergency Rent Assistance Section 4. These allocations supersede the allocations set out in Resolution 2012-035 in their entirety. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Kathleen Lane AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 32 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-060 Appointing Teresa Ablao as Temporary Judge and Authorizing the Execution of an Employment Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Charter provides for the appointment of a temporary judge (commonly referred to as the Assistant Municipal Judge) to serve in the absence of the Municipal Judge. Gordon Esplin, who has served as the City’s Assistant Municipal Judge since 1989, is resigning. After advertising the position, reviewing application materials, and conducting interviews, Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane recommends that Teresa Ablao be appointed as the Assistant Municipal Judge, Ms. Ablao will be paid $75 per hour for her services, a rate comparable to what is paid by other municipalities to their Assistant Municipal Judges. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-060 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPOINTING TERESA ABLAO AS TEMPORARY JUDGE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Article VII of the City Charter allows the City Council to designate a temporary judge to serve in the absence of the Municipal Judge; and WHEREAS, the current temporary judge, Gordon Esplin, is resigning from that position; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to appoint Teresa Ablao to serve in such capacity on the recommendation of and at the discretion of the Municipal Judge. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Teresa Ablao is hereby appointed temporary judge, for a term beginning July 18, 2012 and ending June 30, 2014, to serve as a temporary judge for the City as deemed necessary by the Municipal Judge. Section 2. That the compensation to be paid by the City to Ms. Ablao for serving in this capacity shall be at the rate of Seventy-Five Dollars ($75) per hour. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into an employment agreement between the City and Teresa Ablao to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 33 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-061 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution makes appointments to fill current vacancies on the Citizen Review Board, Economic Advisory Commission, and the Landmark Preservation Commission. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION A vacancy currently exists on the Citizen Review Board due to the resignation of Letty Coykendall. Applications were solicited and City Manager Darin Atteberry and Councilmember Gerry Horak conducted interviews. The interview team is recommending Judy Rodriguez to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2013. A vacancy will exist on the Economic Advisory Commission due to the resignation of Rick Price effective July 31, 2012. Councilmembers Wade Troxell and Ben Manvel reviewed the applications on file and are recommending Dan Lenkold to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2013. Vacancies currently exist on the Landmark Preservation Commission due to the resignations of Laura Hax and Jerome Johnson. Councilmembers Wade Troxell and Gerry Horak conducted interviews. The interview team is recommending Belinda Zink and Dave Lingle to fill the vacancies with terms to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013 respectively. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-061 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARD AND COMMISSIONS WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Citizen Review Board due to the resignation of Letty Coykendall; and WHEREAS, a vacancy will exist on the Economic Advisory Commission due to the resignation of Rick Price effective July 31, 2012; and WHEREAS, vacancies exist on the Landmark Preservation Commission due to the resignations of Laura Hax and Jerome Johnson; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make appointments to fill the vacancies. 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 the current vacancies on the Boards and Commissions hereinafter indicated with terms to begin immediately and to expire as set forth after the name: Citizen Review Board Expiration of Term Judy Rodriguez December 31, 2013 Landmark Preservation Commission Expiration of Term Belinda Zink December 31, 2012 Dave Lingle December 31, 2013 Section 2. That the following named person is hereby appointed to fill a vacancy on the Economic Advisory Commission hereinafter indicated with the term to begin August 1, 2012 and to expire as set forth after the name: Economic Advisory Commission Expiration of Term Dan Lenskold December 31, 2013 Passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 38 SUBJECT Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2012, Amending the City of Fort Collins District-Precinct Map. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance amends the City of Fort Collins District-Precinct Map in accordance with Article II, Section 1(c) of the City Charter and Chapter 7, Article III, Division 3 of the City Code. The District boundaries established in the amended map will be used for determining eligibility for City Council district offices for the April 2013 election and determining eligibility for any interim appointments to fill any City Council office vacancies which may occur after July 27, 2012. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At the April 2011 election, voters approved a Charter amendment changing the way in which the boundaries of the City’s electoral districts are established by using the total population in each district rather than the number of registered electors and calling for the Council to establish by ordinance the process for adjusting the boundaries. Following voter approval of the Charter amendment, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 063, 2011 amending the City Code to set forth the process for adjusting boundaries. Those Code provisions were further amended on April 3, 2012 to adjust the time period (from 1 year to 18 months) within which to make boundary adjustments following release of the decennial publication of the Census. The purpose of reviewing district boundaries is to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a 10% deviation between the most populous and the least populous district and that the districts contain an equal number of inhabitants. In order to determine the deviation, staff first determined the ideal district size (total population divided by six). Then, the total population of each district was compared to the ideal district to determine the deviation between the actual district population and the ideal district population. The absolute values of the deviation for the district with the lowest population and the district with the highest population were then added together to determine the maximum deviation between the most populous and the least populous districts. Staff has determined that, as currently configured, the deviation between the most and least populous districts is 10.29%, which indicates that adjustments are necessary. Proposed District-Precinct Map In addition to the population balance described above, staff also considers the following: (1) Alignment of City and County precinct boundaries, as required by the City Code and necessary in order to use voter registration records; (2) Alignment of district boundaries to precinct boundaries; and (3) The residence address of each Councilmember, so that no Councilmember is disenfranchised from his or her district. Five possible scenarios for boundary adjustments have been identified. Each Option is described below and illustrated on the attached maps: Option 1 • Achieves the smallest deviation: 2.65% • Moves six precincts into different districts - Three precinct moves are positive (they elected a district representative in 2011 and will elect a district representative in their new district in 2013) - Three precinct moves are negative (they last elected a district representative in 2009 and will not elect a representative in their new district until 2015) July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 38 Option 2 • Achieves a moderate deviation: 7.22% • Moves two precincts into different districts; both moves are negative Option 3 • Achieves a moderate deviation: 6.03% • Moves six precincts into different districts (5 precincts are the same as those in Option 1) - Three precinct moves are positive - Three precinct moves are negative Option 4 • Achieves the highest acceptable deviation: 9.70% • Moves one precinct into a different district; a negative move Option 5 • Achieves the highest acceptable deviation (same as Option 4): 9.70% • Moves three precincts into different districts; two moves are negative, one is positive ACTION NEEDED The City Code requires that the City Clerk recommend district boundary changes to the Council no later than 18 months after release of the decennial census data. According to the U.S. Census website, the release date was the period between February 3 and March 24, 2011. Since the exact date that Fort Collins data was made available is unknown, staff has elected to use March 24, 2011 as the release date, making the deadline for the Clerk’s recommendation September 24, 2012. The Code also requires Council to establish district boundaries no less than 120 days before a regular municipal election (December 3, 2012). CITY CLERK RECOMMENDATION Although all five options presented achieve a maximum deviation of less than 10%, the Interim City Clerk is recommending Council adopt Option 1, which achieves the lowest possible deviation and which is closest to an equal number of inhabitants in each district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance (Option 1) on First Reading. . PUBLIC OUTREACH As required by Section 7-87 of the City Code, two notices of this hearing were published no less that 14 days and no less than 10 days prior to Council consideration on first reading. Publication of those notices occurred on July 1 and July 4, 2012. In addition, notice was posted on the City's web site. However, the notices published indicated Council would consider three options. Options 4 and 5 were not developed until July 9. No comments were received in the City Clerk’s Office. ATTACHMENTS 1. District-Precinct maps (Options 1- 5) 2. Copy of the notice published in the Coloradoan 3. Relevant City Charter and Code provisions !"`$ ³I ³I ³I ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÉZYXW 38 36 37 34 40 41 35 39 32 42 27 31 29 30 28 43 25 44 45 21 22 46 23 24 47 48 49 50 18 19 20 8 16 17 52 51 53 14 15 11 54 56 12 55 57 13 59 58 60 10 9 64 7 61 62 63 65 6 66 4 67 68 69 70 2 3 72 33 26 5 1 71 E COUNTY ROAD 50 S SHIELDS ST E MULBER !"`$ ³I ³I ³I ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÉZYXW 38 36 37 34 40 41 35 39 32 42 27 31 29 30 28 43 25 44 45 21 22 46 23 24 47 48 49 50 18 19 20 8 16 17 52 51 53 14 15 11 54 56 12 55 57 13 59 58 60 10 9 64 7 61 62 63 65 6 66 4 67 69 68 70 2 3 72 33 26 5 1 71 E COUNTY ROAD 50 S SHIELDS ST !"`$ ³I ³I ³I ³I ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÉZYXW 38 36 37 34 40 41 35 39 32 42 27 31 29 30 28 43 25 44 45 21 22 46 23 24 47 48 49 50 18 19 20 8 16 17 52 51 53 14 15 11 54 56 12 55 57 13 59 58 60 10 9 64 7 61 62 63 65 6 66 4 67 68 69 70 2 3 72 33 26 5 1 71 E COUNTY ROAD 50 S SHIELDS ST E M !"`$ ³I ³I ³I ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÉZYXW E COUNTY ROAD 50 S SHIELDS ST E M U LBERRY ST E COUNTY ROAD 38 E COUNTY ROAD 32 E VINE DR E COUNTY ROAD 48 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR IN T ERSTATE 25 STRAUSS CABIN RD E COUNTY ROAD 52 E P R OSPECT RD N US HIGHWAY 287 C ARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 KE CHTER RD 9TH ST COUN TY ROAD 54G S SHIELDS ST W HORSETOOTH RD W MULBERRY ST N T A FT H I LL R D S COUNTY ROA D 7 N COUNTY ROAD 11 S TAFT HILL RD N TIMBERLINE RD N COUNTY ROAD 5 N LEMAY AVE E LI !"`$ ³I ³I ³I ³I ³I ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÕZYXW ÉZYXW 38 36 37 34 40 41 35 39 32 42 27 31 29 30 28 43 25 44 45 21 22 46 23 24 47 48 49 50 18 19 20 8 16 17 52 51 53 14 15 11 54 56 12 55 57 13 59 58 60 10 9 64 7 61 62 63 65 6 66 4 67 69 68 70 2 3 72 33 26 5 1 71 E COUNTY ROAD 50 S SHIELDS ST E M NOTICE OF PROPOSED COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARY CHANGES will be considering an Or di nance on July 17, 2012 to amend the Council District bound aries. Three options will be presented for Council's consideration. Interested individuals are invited to com ment on the proposed bound ary change options at the July 17, 2012 City Council meet ing, which begins at 6:00 p.m. in the City Coun cil Cham bers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue. Any reg- is tered elector desiring to protest the proposed re dis trict ing may ﬁ le a writ ten protest setting forth with par tic u lar i ty the grounds of pro test. The notice of protest must be sub mit ted to the City Clerk’s Ofﬁ ce, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Av e nue, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522, no later than Tues day, July 10, 2012. For more information, contact Rita Harris, Interim City Clerk, at 221-6516. Agenda materials, includ- ing the options to be considered, will be available at fcgov.com/agendas after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 12, 2012. The City of Fort Collins will make rea son able accommodations for access to City services, programs and activities and will make spe- cial communication ar range ments for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6516 for assistance. Pursuant to the City Code and Charter, the Fort Collins City Council **NEW DATE** ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 CHARTER ARTICLE II CITY COUNCIL Section 1. Membership; terms. . . . (c) Council district boundaries. The city shall be divided into six (6) contiguous, reasonably compact districts, each of which shall consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts and, to the extent reasonably possible, an equal number of inhabitants. The districts shall be numbered consecutively in a clockwise fashion beginning with the northeast district, which shall be District 1. The Council shall establish by ordinance the process for adjusting district boundaries and giving notice of any proposed boundary changes, and the manner of protesting such proposed changes. CITY CODE CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE III Division 3 - Election Districts Sec. 7-87. Redistricting; notice. (a) The City Council shall, by ordinance, amend the boundaries of the foregoing districts as necessary to comply with the provisions of Article II, Section 1(d) of the Charter. The City Clerk shall cause to be published twice, in a local newspaper of general circulation in the City, notice of the date, time and place of the City Council's consideration of any such redistricting ordinance. The first such notice shall be published no less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of first hearing of the redistricting ordinance, and the second notice shall be published no less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the first reading of the same. (b) Not less than eighteen (18) months after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of the City of Fort Collins, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a ten-percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous district. (c) Not less than once every five (5) years after making the determination required under Subsection (b) above, the City Clerk shall again review the district boundaries to determine whether the maximum deviation between the most populous and the least populous district meets the standard described in Subsection (b) above. If the standard in Subsection (b) above is not met, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that the districts conform to such standard. (d) Any changes to district boundaries shall be established by ordinance no less than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular municipal election. ORDINANCE NO. 073, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DISTRICT-PRECINCT MAP WHEREAS, Article II, Section 1 of the City Charter requires that the City be divided into six contiguous, reasonably compact City Council districts, each of which shall consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts, and, to the extent reasonably possible, an equal number of inhabitants; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 7-87(b), not less than 180 days after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of Fort Collins, the City Clerk must recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a ten-percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous City Council districts; and WHEREAS, in reviewing the composition of the existing districts of the City, staff has determined that, as currently configured, the deviation between the most and least populous City Council districts is 10.29%; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-referenced provisions of the City Charter, the City Clerk has presented five alternative district boundary changes for the City Council's consideration from which the City Council has selected an alternative that it believes best serves the interests of the residents of the City and comports with the requirements of the City Charter and Code; and WHEREAS, under City Code Section 7-87(d), City Council district boundary changes are to be established by ordinance at least 120 days before a regular municipal election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the district-precinct map dated July 27, 2012, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted and shall be in effect for the following purposes: (1) determining eligibility for City Council offices for the April 2, 2013 regular municipal election; and (2) determining eligibility of any interim appointments to fill any City Council vacancies which may occur following the effective date of this ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of August, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 39 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Possible Repeal of the Voter-approved Ban on Medical Marijuana Businesses and the Establishment of New Licensing Provisions for Such Businesses and Related Regulations. A. Presentation of a Petition for a Citizen-Initiated Ordinance that Would Reverse the Ban on Medical Marijuana Businesses and Strictly Regulate, Control and Permit a Limited Number of State-authorized Medical Marijuana Businesses Within the City of Fort Collins and Establish Reasonable Restrictions on the Signage and Advertising of These Businesses to Match Community Needs. (No Action Needed) B. Resolution 2012-062 Submitting a Citizen-initiated Ordinance Dealing with Medical Marijuana Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at a Special Municipal Election to Be Held on November 6, 2012, in Conjunction with the Larimer County General Election. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Clerk’s Office received an initiative petition on June 19, 2012, which has been determined to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before the registered electors of the City at a special election. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must either (1) adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days; or (2) submit such proposed measure, in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city. Pursuant to Article X, Section 4 of the City Charter, an initiated measure proposed by the registered electors of the City cannot be repealed or amended except by a subsequent electoral vote. Therefore, in this instance, Council cannot exercise the option to adopt the proposed ordinance because, in part, it repeals the measure approved by the voters in November 2011. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City Clerk’s Office has certified a sufficient number of signatures on an initiative petition received on June 19, 2012. Under Article X of the City Charter, 4,214 signatures of registered electors (at least 15% of the total ballots cast in the last regular City election) are required to place an initiative on a special election ballot. Upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as to sufficiency by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance without alteration or submit the proposed measure in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the city. An ordinance calling a special election for November 6, 2012, to be held in conjunction with the Larimer County General Election, is being considered by the Council this same date under Agenda Item #20. The purpose of the initiated measure is to strictly regulate, control and permit a limited number of state-authorized medical marijuana businesses within the city of Fort Collins and establish reasonable restrictions on the signage and advertising of these businesses to match community needs. The text of the proposed ordinance is as follows: AN INITIATIVE TO STRICTLY REGULATE, CONTROL AND PERMIT A LIMITED NUMBER OF STATE-AUTHORIZED MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIGNAGE AND ADVERTISING OF THESE BUSINESSES TO MATCH COMMUNITY NEEDS WHEREAS, Amendment 20 of the Colorado State Constitution (codified as § 14 to Article XVIII) was approved by Colorado voters in 2000 to enable sick patients with HIV, Aids, cancer, cachexia, seizures, severe nausea and other debilitating medical conditions to access medical marijuana pursuant to their Doctor’s recommendation; WHEREAS the Colorado Legislature in 2010 enacted the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code permitting municipalities to license and regulate medical marijuana businesses in order to provide medicine to patients in a safe, professional and quality-controlled manner; July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 39 WHEREAS, qualifying patients in Fort Collins deserve to have access their doctor-recommended medicine from professional, regulated and taxed stores, not from alleyways or parks. WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopt AN INITIATIVE TO STRICTLY REGULATE, CONTROL AND PERMIT A LIMITED NUMBER OF STATE-AUTHORIZED MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIGNAGE AND ADVERTISING OF THESE BUSINESSES TO MATCH COMMUNITY NEEDS or, if the within Initiated Ordinance is not adopted by the City Council in the form presented herein, that the within Initiated Ordinance be referred in the form presented herein to the registered electors of the municipality at a special election, specifically the November 2012 coordinated election as provided by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO OR THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. That Sections 15-450 through 15-493 of Article XVI, Chapter 15 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby repealed and the following sections are reenacted to read as follows: ARTICLE XVI MEDICAL MARIJUANA DIVISION 1. IN GENERAL Sec. 15-450. Purpose The purpose of this Article is to implement the provisions of Article 43.3 of Title 12, C.R.S., known as the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. Sec. 15-451. Incorporation of state law. The provisions of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, are incorporated herein by reference except to the extent that more restrictive or additional regulations are set forth in this Article. Sec. 15-452. Definitions. (a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Applicant shall mean any person or entity who has submitted an application for a license or renewal of a license issued pursuant to this Article. If the applicant is an entity and not a natural Person, applicant shall include all persons who are the members, managers, officers, directors and shareholders of such entity Colorado Medical Marijuana Code shall mean Title 12, Article 43.3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder. Cultivation or cultivate shall mean the process by which a person grows a marijuana plant. Financial interest shall mean any ownership interest, including, without limitation, a membership, directorship or officership; or any creditor interest, whether or not such interest is evidenced by any written document. License shall mean a document issued by the City officially authorizing an applicant to operate a medical marijuana business pursuant to this Article. Licensee shall mean the person to whom a license has been issued pursuant to this Article. July 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 39 Medical marijuana business or business shall mean a medical marijuana center, optional premises cultivation operation, or medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer as defined in the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. Medical marijuana paraphernalia or paraphernalia shall mean devices, contrivances, instruments and paraphernalia for inhaling or otherwise consuming medical marijuana, including, but not limited to, rolling papers, related tools, water pipes and vaporizers. Minor patient shall mean a patient less than eighteen (18) years of age. Place of worship or religious assembly shall mean a building containing a hall, auditorium or other suitable room used for the purpose of conducting religious services or meetings of the occupants of such structure. (b) In addition to the definitions contained in Subsection (a) of this Section, other terms used in this Article shall have the meaning ascribed to them in Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution or the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, and such definitions are hereby incorporated into this Article by this reference. Secs. 15-453—15-460. Reserved. DIVISION 2. MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSING AUTHORITY Sec. 15-461. Creation. There shall be and is hereby created a Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority, hereafter referred to in this Article as the "Authority". Sec. 15-462. Composition. The Authority shall be a person appointed by the City Manager. Sec. 15-463. Functions. (a) The Authority shall have the duty and authority pursuant to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and this Article to grant or refuse licenses; to grant or refuse transfers of ownership or location of the license; and levy penalties against licensees in the manner provided by law. (b) The Authority shall have all the powers of a Local Licensing Authority as set forth in the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. (c) The Authority shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the procedures for hearings before the Authority. (d) The Authority shall have the power to require any applicant or licensee to furnish any relevant information required by the Authority. (e) The Authority shall have the power to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to require the presence of persons and the production of papers, books and records at any hearing which the Authority is authorized to conduct. Any such subpoena shall be served in the same manner as a subpoena issued by the District Court of the State. Secs. 15-464—15-470. Reserved. July 17, 2012 -4- ITEM 39 DIVISION 3. LICENSES, FEES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES Sec. 15-471. License required. It shall be unlawful for any person to establish or operate a medical marijuana business in the City without first having obtained from the City and the State a license for each facility to be operated in connection with such business. Such license shall be kept current at all times, and the failure to maintain a current license shall constitute a violation of this Section. Sec. 15-472. Requirements of application for license; payment of application fee; denial of license. (a) A person seeking a license pursuant to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and the provisions of this Article shall submit an application to the City on forms provided by the State and City. At the time of application, each applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application fee to defray the costs incurred by the City for background investigations and inspection of the proposed premises, as well as any other costs associated with the processing of the application. In addition, the applicant shall present a suitable form of identification. The applicant shall also provide the following information on a form approved by, or acceptable to, the Authority, which information may be required for the applicant, the proposed manager of the medical marijuana business, and all persons having a financial interest in the medical marijuana business that is the subject of the application or, if the applicant is an entity, having a financial interest in the entity: (1) name, address, date of birth; (2) an acknowledgment and consent that the City may conduct a background investigation, including a criminal history check and that the City will be entitled to full and complete disclosure of all financial records of the medical marijuana business, including records of deposit, withdrawals, balances and loans; (3) if the applicant is a business entity, information regarding the entity, including, without limitation, the name and address of the entity, its legal status, and proof of registration with, or a certificate of good standing from, the Colorado Secretary of State, as applicable; (4) if the applicant is not the owner of the proposed licensed premises, a notarized statement from the owner of such property authorizing the use of the property for a medical marijuana business; (5) a copy of any deed reflecting the applicant's ownership of, or lease reflecting the right of the applicant to possess, the proposed licensed premises; (6) evidence of a valid City and state sales tax license for the business; (7) a "to scale" diagram of the proposed licensed premises, no larger than 11" x 17", showing, without limitation, building layout, all entry ways and exits to the proposed licensed premises, loading zones and all areas in which medical marijuana will be stored, grown, manufactured or dispensed; (8) a comprehensive business operation plan for the medical marijuana business which shall contain, at a minimum, the following: a. a security plan meeting the requirements of § 15-479 of this Article, b. a description of all products to be sold, c. a plan for exterior signage that is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Code and the Land Use Code, including photographs and/or illustrations of proposed signage; and (9) any additional information that the City Manager reasonably determines to be necessary in connection with the investigation and review of the application. July 17, 2012 -5- ITEM 39 (b) All medical marijuana businesses shall obtain other required permits of licenses related to the operation of the medical marijuana business, including, without limitation, any development approvals or building permits required by this Code and the Land Use Code. (c) Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Manager may circulate the application to all affected service areas and departments of the City to determine whether the application is in full compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. (d) The City may, prior to issuance of the license, perform an inspection of the proposed licensed premises to determine compliance with any applicable requirements of this Article or other provisions of this Code or the Land Use Code. Sec. 15-473. Denial of application. The Authority may deny any application that does not meet the requirements of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code or this Article. The Authority may deny any application that contains any false, misleading or incomplete information. Sec. 15-474. Persons prohibited as licensees. No license shall be issued to, held by, or renewed by any of the following: (1) any natural person who 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 a conviction of any felony or any crime which under the laws of the State would be a felony; or any crime of which fraud or intent to defraud was an element, whether in the State or elsewhere; or any felonious crime of violence, whether in the State or elsewhere; (2) any entity whose directors, shareholders, members, partners or any other person with a financial interest in the entity, have been convicted of any of the offenses set forth in Paragraph (1) above; (3) any applicant who has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement, or who has intentionally omitted pertinent information, on his or her application for a license; Sec. 15-475. Location and Selection Criteria. (a) No medical marijuana center shall be issued a license if, at the time of application for such license, the proposed location is: (1) within one thousand (1,000) feet of any private or public preschool, elementary, secondary, vocational or trade school, college or university; (2) within one thousand (1,000) feet of any public playground; (3) within five hundred (500) feet of: a. any child care center, b. any place of worship or religious assembly, c. any public park, pool, or recreation facility, e. any juvenile or adult halfway house, correctional facility or substance abuse rehabilitation or treatment center, or (4) within the boundaries of any R-U-L, U-E, R-F, R-L, L-M-N, M-M-N, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C-B or H- M-N residential zone district; July 17, 2012 -6- ITEM 39 (5) in a residential unit, except as permitted under Section 3.8.3 of the Land Use Code. (b) The location criteria contained in subsection (a) of this Section shall apply to all proposed changes in the location of an existing license. (c) The distances described in Subsection (a) above shall be computed by direct measurement in a straight line from the nearest property line of the land used for the purposes stated in Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) above to the nearest portion of the building or unit in which the medical marijuana center is located. (d) No medical marijuana center shall be issued a license if, at the time of application for such license, there is more than one Fort Collins Medical Marijuana Center License per 500 registered medical marijuana patients in Larimer county according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. This subsection (d) shall not affect renewals. (e) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a business that received a Fort Collins Medical Marijuana Center License prior to November 1st, 2011, if the business is proposed to be located on the same parcel they were licensed to operate on prior to November 1st, 2011, and the business applies for a license pursuant to this Code within 90 days of the application being made publicly available. The intent of this subsection (e) is to permit previously licensed medical marijuana centers to apply for and receive a license regardless of the location criteria of this Section. (f) Subsection (d) shall not apply to a business that received a Fort Collins Medical Marijuana Center License prior to November 1st, 2011, if the business applies for a license pursuant to this Code within 90 days of the application being made publicly available. The intent of this subsection (f) is to permit previously licensed medical marijuana centers to apply for and receive a license regardless of the number of medical marijuana center licenses then issued by the City. Sec. 15-476. Inspection fee. (a) Upon issuance of a license, and upon renewal thereafter, the licensee shall pay to the City a fee in an amount determined by the City Manager to be sufficient to cover the cost of inspections conducted pursuant to this Article. (b) The inspection fee required under Subsection (a) of this Section shall be due and payable prior to or upon issuance of each license and upon the renewal of any such license and shall not be refundable. Sec. 15-477. Signage and advertising. All signage and advertising for a medical marijuana center shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and the Land Use Code. (a) In addition, it shall be unlawful for any licensee to: a. Use signage or advertising with the word "marijuana" or "cannabis" or any other word, phrase or symbol commonly understood to refer to marijuana unless such word, phrase or symbol is immediately preceded by the word "medical" in type and font that is at least as readily discernible as all other words, phrases or symbols; b. Use advertising materials that is misleading, deceptive, or false or that, as evidenced by the content of the advertising material or by the medium or the manner in which the advertising material is disseminated, is designed to appeal to minors; c. Advertise in a manner that is inconsistent with the medicinal use of medical marijuana or use advertisements that promotes medical marijuana for recreational or any use other than for medicinal purposes; To advertise with sign-waivers or other natural persons standing in public within one thousand (1,000) feet of the license premise; July 17, 2012 -7- ITEM 39 To advertise any medical marijuana or medical marijuana product in a publicly visible location within one thousand (1,000) feet of any public park or recreation center or any school. (b) The prohibition set forth in subsection (e) shall not apply to: a. Any sign located upon the building in which a licensed medical marijuana center is located which exists solely for the purpose of identifying the business and which otherwise complies with the Land Use Code and this Article; or b. Any advertising contained solely within a newspaper magazine, or other periodical or publication distributed through news rack, newsstand or similar fixed location. (c) The prohibition’s set forth in this Section shall not apply to political speech or any signage advocating the passage or defeat of a city or state ballot measure. (d) Violation of this Section shall result in a $100 fine per day per violation. Such fine shall be levied on the licensee by the Authority upon the Authority finding by a preponderance of the evidence a violation of this Section. Repeated and continuous failure to comply with the requirements of this Section shall be considered by the Authority in any action relating to the issuance, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of a license. Sec. 15-478. Warning signs. The Authority may require any reasonable warning signs to be posted in a conspicuous location in each medical marijuana center. Sec. 15-479. Security requirements. Security measures at all licensed premises shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Sec. 15-480. Report of disturbances and unlawful activity. (a) All licensees and any agent, manager or employee thereof, shall immediately report to Police Services any disorderly act, conduct or disturbance and any unlawful activity committed in or on the licensed premises, including, but not limited to, any unlawful resale of medical marijuana, and shall also immediately report any such activity in the immediate vicinity of the business. (b) Each licensee shall post and keep at all times visible to the public in a conspicuous place on the premises, a sign with a minimum height of fourteen (14) inches and a minimum width of eleven (11) inches with each letter to be a minimum of one-half (½) inch in height, which shall read as follows: WARNING: Fort Collins Police Services must be notified of all disorderly acts, conduct or disturbances and all unlawful activities which occur on or within the premises of this licensed establishment. (c) It shall not be a defense to a prosecution of a licensee under this Section that the licensee was not personally present on the premises at the time such unlawful activity, disorderly act, conduct or disturbance was committed; however, no agent, servant or employee of the licensee shall be personally responsible for failing to report any disorderly act, conduct or disturbance and any unlawful activity hereunder if such agent, servant or employee was absent from the premises at the time such activity was committed. (d) Failure to comply with the requirements of this Section shall be considered by the Authority in any action relating to the issuance, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of a license. Sec. 15-482. Labeling. July 17, 2012 -8- ITEM 39 All medical marijuana sold or otherwise distributed by the licensee shall be labeled in a manner that complies with the requirements of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Sec. 15-483. Prohibited acts. (a) It shall be unlawful for any licensee to permit the consumption of alcohol beverages, as defined in the Colorado Liquor Code, on the licensed premises. (b) It shall be unlawful for any licensee holding a medical marijuana center licensed, or for any agent, manager or employee thereof, to: (1) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute medical marijuana or medical marijuana paraphernalia from any outdoor location; (2) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute to any patient or primary caregiver who is not a licensee more than two (2) ounces of any usable form of medical marijuana (excluding medical marijuana-infused products) within any seven-day period of time; (c) It shall be unlawful for any optional premises cultivation operation to post or allow to be posted signs or other advertising materials identifying the premises as being associated with the cultivation or use of medical marijuana. (d) It shall be unlawful for any medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer to post or allow to be posted signs or other advertising materials identifying the premises as being associated with the production or use of medical marijuana; Sec. 15-484. Visibility of activities; control of emissions. (a) All activities of medical marijuana businesses, including, without limitation, cultivating, growing, processing, displaying, manufacturing, selling and storage, shall be conducted out of public view. (b) No medical marijuana or paraphernalia shall be displayed or kept in a business so as to be visible from outside the licensed premises. (c) Sufficient measures and means of preventing smoke, odors, debris, dust, fluids and other substances from exiting a medical marijuana business must be provided at all times. In the event that any odors, debris, dust, fluids or other substances exit a medical marijuana business, the owner of the subject premises and the licensee shall be jointly and severally liable for such conditions and shall be responsible for immediate, full clean-up and correction of such condition. The licensee shall properly dispose of all such materials, items and other substances in a safe, sanitary and secure manner and in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Sec. 15-485. Sales tax. Each medical marijuana business shall collect and remit City sales and use tax on all medical marijuana, paraphernalia and other tangible personal property used or sold at the licensed premises. Sec. 15-487. Inspection of licensed premises. During all business hours and other times of apparent activity, all licensed premises shall be subject to inspection by Police Services and all other City departments designated by the City Manager for the purpose of investigating and determining compliance with the provisions of this Article and any other applicable state and local laws or regulations. Sec. 15-488. Nonrenewal, suspension or revocation of license. July 17, 2012 -9- ITEM 39 (a) The Authority may, after notice and hearing, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a license for any of the following reasons: (1) the applicant or licensee, or his or her agent, manager or employee, has violated, does not meet, or has failed to comply with, any of the terms, requirements, conditions or provisions of this Article or with any applicable State or local law or regulation; (2) the applicant or licensee, or his or her agent, manager or employee, have failed to comply with any special terms or conditions of its license pursuant to an order of the State or local licensing authority, including those terms and conditions that were established at the time of issuance of the license and those imposed as a result of any disciplinary proceedings held subsequent to the date of issuance of the license; or (3) the medical marijuana business has been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare. (b) Evidence to support a finding under Subsection (a) of this Section may include, without limitation, a continuing pattern of disorderly conduct, a continuing pattern of drug-related criminal conduct within the premises of the medical marijuana business or in the immediate area surrounding such business, a continuing pattern of criminal conduct directly related to or arising from the operation of the medical marijuana business, or an ongoing nuisance condition emanating from or caused by the medical marijuana business. Criminal conduct shall be limited to the violation of a state or city law or regulation. (c) The Authority shall conduct a review of all licenses at least annually and in addition to examining the factors enumerated in this subsection, may hold a hearing on each license at which the general public shall be invited to appear and provide testimony as to the effects of the license on the surrounding community and the city at large and the Authority may take such views into consideration when deciding whether to continue or renew such license. Sec. 15-489. Violations and penalties. In addition to the possible denial, suspension, revocation or nonrenewal of a license under the provisions of this Article, any person, including, but not limited to, any licensee, manager or employee of a medical marijuana business, or any customer of such business, who violates any of the provisions of this Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable in accordance with § 1-15 of this Code, unless a different penalty is provided herein. Sec. 15-490. No City liability; indemnification. (a) By accepting a license issued pursuant to this Article, the licensee waives and releases the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, attorneys and agents from any liability for injuries, damages or liabilities of any kind that result from any arrest or prosecution of business owners, operators, employees, clients or customers for a violation of State or federal laws, rules or regulations. (b) By accepting a license issued pursuant to this Article, all licensees, jointly and severally if more than one (1), agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, attorneys, agents, insurers and self-insurance pool against all liability, claims and demands on account of any injury, loss or damage, including, without limitation, claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in any manner connected with the operation of the medical marijuana business that is the subject of the license. July 17, 2012 -10- ITEM 39 Sec. 15-491. Other laws remain applicable. (a) To the extent the State adopts in the future any additional or stricter law or regulation governing the sale or distribution of medical marijuana, the additional or stricter regulation shall control the establishment or operation of any medical marijuana business in the City. Compliance with any applicable state law or regulation shall be deemed an additional requirement for issuance or denial of any license under this Article, and noncompliance with any applicable state law or regulation shall be grounds for revocation or suspension of any license issued hereunder. (b) If the State prohibits the sale or other distribution of marijuana through medical marijuana centers, any license issued hereunder shall be deemed immediately revoked by operation of law. Sec. 15-492. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision of this Article is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Article or the validity of this Article as an entirety, it being the legislative intent that this Article shall stand, notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision. Sec. 15-493. Administrative regulations; Action by Council. (a) The City Manager is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to effectuate the implementation, administration and enforcement of this Article. (b) The City Council shall be permitted to lessen any restriction contained in this Article. Section 2. Should the City Council refer this Initiated Ordinance Repeal to the registered electors of the City at a regular or special municipal election, this Initiated Ordinance Repeal shall take effect immediately upon certification by the designated election official that a majority of registered electors voted in favor of this Repeal at such regular or special election. Section 3. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Ordinance or the validity of this Ordinance as an entirety, it being the legislative intent that this Article shall stand, notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution, submitting the proposed measure to the voters. ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition certification RESOLUTION 2012-062 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SUBMITTING A CITIZEN-INITIATED ORDINANCE DEALING WITH MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES TO A VOTE OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2012, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LARIMER COUNTY GENERAL ELECTION WHEREAS, on November 1, 2011, the registered electors of the City approved a citizen initiated measure that imposed a city-wide ban on the operation of any medical marijuana centers, optional premises cultivation operations, and medical marijuana-infused product manufacturing, effective February 14, 2012; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the voters' adoption of such measure, the City Council amended Chapter 15 of the City Code by the adoption of Ordinance No. 009, 2012, on February 21, 2012, so as to codify the voter-approved ban; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2012, another citizen-initiated measure (the "New Initiative") was submitted to the City, the purpose of which is to repeal the current ban on medical marijuana businesses and replace the ban with rules and regulations governing the licensing, number, location and operation of such businesses; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has certified said petition as sufficient for submission of the initiated ordinance to a vote of the people at a special municipal election; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has presented said petition to the City Council as provided in Article X, Section 5(f)(4) of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, under Article X, Section 1(e) of the City Charter, upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as to sufficiency by the City Clerk, the City Council must either adopt the citizen-initiated ordinance without alteration within thirty (30) days or submit said citizen- initiated ordinance in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article X, Section 4 of the City Charter, an initiated measure previously adopted by the registered electors of the City cannot be repealed or amended except by a subsequent electoral vote, so that, in the case of the New Initiative, the City Council cannot exercise the option to adopt the proposed ordinance because, in part, it repeals the measure approved by the voters in November, 2011; and WHEREAS, under Article X, Section 6 of the City Charter, upon ordering an election on any initiative or referendum measure, the Council shall, after public hearing, adopt by resolution a ballot title and submission clause for the measure; and WHEREAS, the ballot title for the measure must identify the measure as either a city initiated or citizen initiated measure; and WHEREAS the submission clause must be brief, must not conflict with those selected for any petition previously filed for the same election, and must unambiguously state the principle of the provision sought to be added. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby submitted to the registered electors of the City at a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the Larimer County General Election on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, the following proposed citizen-initiated ordinance: AN INITIATIVE TO STRICTLY REGULATE, CONTROL AND PERMIT A LIMITED NUMBER OF STATE-AUTHORIZED MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIGNAGE AND ADVERTISING OF THESE BUSINESSES TO MATCH COMMUNITY NEEDS WHEREAS, Amendment 20 of the Colorado State Constitution (codified as § 14 to Article XVIII) was approved by Colorado voters in 2000 to enable sick patients with HIV, Aids, cancer, cachexia, seizures, severe nausea and other debilitating medical conditions to access medical marijuana pursuant to their Doctor’s recommendation; WHEREAS the Colorado Legislature in 2010 enacted the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code permitting municipalities to license and regulate medical marijuana businesses in order to provide medicine to patients in a safe, professional and quality-controlled manner; WHEREAS, qualifying patients in Fort Collins deserve to have access their doctor-recommended medicine from professional, regulated and taxed stores, not from alleyways or parks. WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopt AN INITIATIVE TO STRICTLY REGULATE, CONTROL AND PERMIT A LIMITED NUMBER OF STATE-AUTHORIZED MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIGNAGE AND ADVERTISING OF THESE BUSINESSES TO MATCH COMMUNITY NEEDS or, if the within Initiated Ordinance is not adopted by the City Council in the form presented herein, that the within Initiated Ordinance be referred in the form presented herein to the registered electors of the municipality at a special election, specifically the November 2012 coordinated election as provided by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO OR THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. That Sections 15-450 through 15-493 of Article XVI, Chapter 15 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby repealed and the following sections are reenacted to read as follows: -2- ARTICLE XVI MEDICAL MARIJUANA DIVISION 1. IN GENERAL Sec. 15-450. Purpose The purpose of this Article is to implement the provisions of Article 43.3 of Title 12, C.R.S., known as the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. Sec. 15-451. Incorporation of state law. The provisions of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, are incorporated herein by reference except to the extent that more restrictive or additional regulations are set forth in this Article. Sec. 15-452. Definitions. (a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Applicant shall mean any person or entity who has submitted an application for a license or renewal of a license issued pursuant to this Article. If the applicant is an entity and not a natural Person, applicant shall include all persons who are the members, managers, officers, directors and shareholders of such entity Colorado Medical Marijuana Code shall mean Title 12, Article 43.3 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder. Cultivation or cultivate shall mean the process by which a person grows a marijuana plant. Financial interest shall mean any ownership interest, including, without limitation, a membership, directorship or officership; or any creditor interest, whether or not such interest is evidenced by any written document. License shall mean a document issued by the City officially authorizing an applicant to operate a medical marijuana business pursuant to this Article. Licensee shall mean the person to whom a license has been issued pursuant to this Article. Medical marijuana business or business shall mean a medical marijuana center, optional premises cultivation operation, or medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer as defined in the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. Medical marijuana paraphernalia or paraphernalia shall mean devices, contrivances, instruments and paraphernalia for inhaling or otherwise consuming medical marijuana, including, but not limited to, rolling papers, related tools, water pipes and vaporizers. Minor patient shall mean a patient less than eighteen (18) years of age. Place of worship or religious assembly shall mean a building containing a hall, auditorium or other suitable room used for the purpose of conducting religious services or meetings of the occupants of such structure. (b) In addition to the definitions contained in Subsection (a) of this Section, other terms used in this Article shall have the meaning ascribed to them in Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution or the -3- Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, and such definitions are hereby incorporated into this Article by this reference. Secs. 15-453—15-460. Reserved. DIVISION 2. MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSING AUTHORITY Sec. 15-461. Creation. There shall be and is hereby created a Medical Marijuana Licensing Authority, hereafter referred to in this Article as the "Authority". Sec. 15-462. Composition. The Authority shall be a person appointed by the City Manager. Sec. 15-463. Functions. (a) The Authority shall have the duty and authority pursuant to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and this Article to grant or refuse licenses; to grant or refuse transfers of ownership or location of the license; and levy penalties against licensees in the manner provided by law. (b) The Authority shall have all the powers of a Local Licensing Authority as set forth in the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. (c) The Authority shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the procedures for hearings before the Authority. (d) The Authority shall have the power to require any applicant or licensee to furnish any relevant information required by the Authority. (e) The Authority shall have the power to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to require the presence of persons and the production of papers, books and records at any hearing which the Authority is authorized to conduct. Any such subpoena shall be served in the same manner as a subpoena issued by the District Court of the State. Secs. 15-464—15-470. Reserved. DIVISION 3. LICENSES, FEES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES Sec. 15-471. License required. It shall be unlawful for any person to establish or operate a medical marijuana business in the City without first having obtained from the City and the State a license for each facility to be operated in connection with such business. Such license shall be kept current at all times, and the failure to maintain a current license shall constitute a violation of this Section. Sec. 15-472. Requirements of application for license; payment of application fee; denial of license. (a) A person seeking a license pursuant to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and the provisions of this Article shall submit an application to the City on forms provided by the State and City. At the time of application, each applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application fee to defray the costs incurred by the City for background investigations and inspection of the proposed premises, as well as any other costs associated with the processing of the application. In addition, the applicant shall present a suitable form of identification. -4- The applicant shall also provide the following information on a form approved by, or acceptable to, the Authority, which information may be required for the applicant, the proposed manager of the medical marijuana business, and all persons having a financial interest in the medical marijuana business that is the subject of the application or, if the applicant is an entity, having a financial interest in the entity: (1) name, address, date of birth; (2) an acknowledgment and consent that the City may conduct a background investigation, including a criminal history check and that the City will be entitled to full and complete disclosure of all financial records of the medical marijuana business, including records of deposit, withdrawals, balances and loans; (3) if the applicant is a business entity, information regarding the entity, including, without limitation, the name and address of the entity, its legal status, and proof of registration with, or a certificate of good standing from, the Colorado Secretary of State, as applicable; (4) if the applicant is not the owner of the proposed licensed premises, a notarized statement from the owner of such property authorizing the use of the property for a medical marijuana business; (5) a copy of any deed reflecting the applicant's ownership of, or lease reflecting the right of the applicant to possess, the proposed licensed premises; (6) evidence of a valid City and state sales tax license for the business; (7) a "to scale" diagram of the proposed licensed premises, no larger than 11" x 17", showing, without limitation, building layout, all entry ways and exits to the proposed licensed premises, loading zones and all areas in which medical marijuana will be stored, grown, manufactured or dispensed; (8) a comprehensive business operation plan for the medical marijuana business which shall contain, at a minimum, the following: a. a security plan meeting the requirements of § 15-479 of this Article, b. a description of all products to be sold, c. a plan for exterior signage that is in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Code and the Land Use Code, including photographs and/or illustrations of proposed signage; and (9) any additional information that the City Manager reasonably determines to be necessary in connection with the investigation and review of the application. (b) All medical marijuana businesses shall obtain other required permits of licenses related to the operation of the medical marijuana business, including, without limitation, any development approvals or building permits required by this Code and the Land Use Code. (c) Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Manager may circulate the application to all affected service areas and departments of the City to determine whether the application is in full compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. (d) The City may, prior to issuance of the license, perform an inspection of the proposed licensed premises to determine compliance with any applicable requirements of this Article or other provisions of this Code or the Land Use Code. -5- Sec. 15-473. Denial of application. The Authority may deny any application that does not meet the requirements of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code or this Article. The Authority may deny any application that contains any false, misleading or incomplete information. Sec. 15-474. Persons prohibited as licensees. No license shall be issued to, held by, or renewed by any of the following: (1) any natural person who 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 a conviction of any felony or any crime which under the laws of the State would be a felony; or any crime of which fraud or intent to defraud was an element, whether in the State or elsewhere; or any felonious crime of violence, whether in the State or elsewhere; (2) any entity whose directors, shareholders, members, partners or any other person with a financial interest in the entity, have been convicted of any of the offenses set forth in Paragraph (1) above; (3) any applicant who has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement, or who has intentionally omitted pertinent information, on his or her application for a license; Sec. 15-475. Location and Selection Criteria. (a) No medical marijuana center shall be issued a license if, at the time of application for such license, the proposed location is: (1) within one thousand (1,000) feet of any private or public preschool, elementary, secondary, vocational or trade school, college or university; (2) within one thousand (1,000) feet of any public playground; (3) within five hundred (500) feet of: a. any child care center, b. any place of worship or religious assembly, c. any public park, pool, or recreation facility, e. any juvenile or adult halfway house, correctional facility or substance abuse rehabilitation or treatment center, or (4) within the boundaries of any R-U-L, U-E, R-F, R-L, L-M-N, M-M-N, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C-B or H- M-N residential zone district; (5) in a residential unit, except as permitted under Section 3.8.3 of the Land Use Code. (b) The location criteria contained in subsection (a) of this Section shall apply to all proposed changes in the location of an existing license. (c) The distances described in Subsection (a) above shall be computed by direct measurement in a straight line from the nearest property line of the land used for the purposes stated in Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) above to the nearest portion of the building or unit in which the medical marijuana center is located. -6- (d) No medical marijuana center shall be issued a license if, at the time of application for such license, there is more than one Fort Collins Medical Marijuana Center License per 500 registered medical marijuana patients in Larimer county according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. This subsection (d) shall not affect renewals. (e) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a business that received a Fort Collins Medical Marijuana Center License prior to November 1st, 2011, if the business is proposed to be located on the same parcel they were licensed to operate on prior to November 1st, 2011, and the business applies for a license pursuant to this Code within 90 days of the application being made publicly available. The intent of this subsection (e) is to permit previously licensed medical marijuana centers to apply for and receive a license regardless of the location criteria of this Section. (f) Subsection (d) shall not apply to a business that received a Fort Collins Medical Marijuana Center License prior to November 1st, 2011, if the business applies for a license pursuant to this Code within 90 days of the application being made publicly available. The intent of this subsection (f) is to permit previously licensed medical marijuana centers to apply for and receive a license regardless of the number of medical marijuana center licenses then issued by the City. Sec. 15-476. Inspection fee. (a) Upon issuance of a license, and upon renewal thereafter, the licensee shall pay to the City a fee in an amount determined by the City Manager to be sufficient to cover the cost of inspections conducted pursuant to this Article. (b) The inspection fee required under Subsection (a) of this Section shall be due and payable prior to or upon issuance of each license and upon the renewal of any such license and shall not be refundable. Sec. 15-477. Signage and advertising. All signage and advertising for a medical marijuana center shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Code and the Land Use Code. (a) In addition, it shall be unlawful for any licensee to: a. Use signage or advertising with the word "marijuana" or "cannabis" or any other word, phrase or symbol commonly understood to refer to marijuana unless such word, phrase or symbol is immediately preceded by the word "medical" in type and font that is at least as readily discernible as all other words, phrases or symbols; b. Use advertising materials that is misleading, deceptive, or false or that, as evidenced by the content of the advertising material or by the medium or the manner in which the advertising material is disseminated, is designed to appeal to minors; c. Advertise in a manner that is inconsistent with the medicinal use of medical marijuana or use advertisements that promotes medical marijuana for recreational or any use other than for medicinal purposes; To advertise with sign-waivers or other natural persons standing in public within one thousand (1,000) feet of the license premise; To advertise any medical marijuana or medical marijuana product in a publicly visible location within one thousand (1,000) feet of any public park or recreation center or any school. (b) The prohibition set forth in subsection (e) shall not apply to: -7- a. Any sign located upon the building in which a licensed medical marijuana center is located which exists solely for the purpose of identifying the business and which otherwise complies with the Land Use Code and this Article; or b. Any advertising contained solely within a newspaper magazine, or other periodical or publication distributed through news rack, newsstand or similar fixed location. (c) The prohibition’s set forth in this Section shall not apply to political speech or any signage advocating the passage or defeat of a city or state ballot measure. (d) Violation of this Section shall result in a $100 fine per day per violation. Such fine shall be levied on the licensee by the Authority upon the Authority finding by a preponderance of the evidence a violation of this Section. Repeated and continuous failure to comply with the requirements of this Section shall be considered by the Authority in any action relating to the issuance, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of a license. Sec. 15-478. Warning signs. The Authority may require any reasonable warning signs to be posted in a conspicuous location in each medical marijuana center. Sec. 15-479. Security requirements. Security measures at all licensed premises shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Sec. 15-480. Report of disturbances and unlawful activity. (a) All licensees and any agent, manager or employee thereof, shall immediately report to Police Services any disorderly act, conduct or disturbance and any unlawful activity committed in or on the licensed premises, including, but not limited to, any unlawful resale of medical marijuana, and shall also immediately report any such activity in the immediate vicinity of the business. (b) Each licensee shall post and keep at all times visible to the public in a conspicuous place on the premises, a sign with a minimum height of fourteen (14) inches and a minimum width of eleven (11) inches with each letter to be a minimum of one-half (½) inch in height, which shall read as follows: WARNING: Fort Collins Police Services must be notified of all disorderly acts, conduct or disturbances and all unlawful activities which occur on or within the premises of this licensed establishment. (c) It shall not be a defense to a prosecution of a licensee under this Section that the licensee was not personally present on the premises at the time such unlawful activity, disorderly act, conduct or disturbance was committed; however, no agent, servant or employee of the licensee shall be personally responsible for failing to report any disorderly act, conduct or disturbance and any unlawful activity hereunder if such agent, servant or employee was absent from the premises at the time such activity was committed. (d) Failure to comply with the requirements of this Section shall be considered by the Authority in any action relating to the issuance, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of a license. -8- Sec. 15-482. Labeling. All medical marijuana sold or otherwise distributed by the licensee shall be labeled in a manner that complies with the requirements of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Sec. 15-483. Prohibited acts. (a) It shall be unlawful for any licensee to permit the consumption of alcohol beverages, as defined in the Colorado Liquor Code, on the licensed premises. (b) It shall be unlawful for any licensee holding a medical marijuana center licensed, or for any agent, manager or employee thereof, to: (1) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute medical marijuana or medical marijuana paraphernalia from any outdoor location; (2) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute to any patient or primary caregiver who is not a licensee more than two (2) ounces of any usable form of medical marijuana (excluding medical marijuana-infused products) within any seven-day period of time; (c) It shall be unlawful for any optional premises cultivation operation to post or allow to be posted signs or other advertising materials identifying the premises as being associated with the cultivation or use of medical marijuana. (d) It shall be unlawful for any medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer to post or allow to be posted signs or other advertising materials identifying the premises as being associated with the production or use of medical marijuana; Sec. 15-484. Visibility of activities; control of emissions. (a) All activities of medical marijuana businesses, including, without limitation, cultivating, growing, processing, displaying, manufacturing, selling and storage, shall be conducted out of public view. (b) No medical marijuana or paraphernalia shall be displayed or kept in a business so as to be visible from outside the licensed premises. (c) Sufficient measures and means of preventing smoke, odors, debris, dust, fluids and other substances from exiting a medical marijuana business must be provided at all times. In the event that any odors, debris, dust, fluids or other substances exit a medical marijuana business, the owner of the subject premises and the licensee shall be jointly and severally liable for such conditions and shall be responsible for immediate, full clean-up and correction of such condition. The licensee shall properly dispose of all such materials, items and other substances in a safe, sanitary and secure manner and in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Sec. 15-485. Sales tax. Each medical marijuana business shall collect and remit City sales and use tax on all medical marijuana, paraphernalia and other tangible personal property used or sold at the licensed premises. Sec. 15-487. Inspection of licensed premises. During all business hours and other times of apparent activity, all licensed premises shall be subject to inspection by Police Services and all other City departments designated by the City Manager for the purpose -9- of investigating and determining compliance with the provisions of this Article and any other applicable state and local laws or regulations. Sec. 15-488. Nonrenewal, suspension or revocation of license. (a) The Authority may, after notice and hearing, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a license for any of the following reasons: (1) the applicant or licensee, or his or her agent, manager or employee, has violated, does not meet, or has failed to comply with, any of the terms, requirements, conditions or provisions of this Article or with any applicable State or local law or regulation; (2) the applicant or licensee, or his or her agent, manager or employee, have failed to comply with any special terms or conditions of its license pursuant to an order of the State or local licensing authority, including those terms and conditions that were established at the time of issuance of the license and those imposed as a result of any disciplinary proceedings held subsequent to the date of issuance of the license; or (3) the medical marijuana business has been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public health, safety or welfare. (b) Evidence to support a finding under Subsection (a) of this Section may include, without limitation, a continuing pattern of disorderly conduct, a continuing pattern of drug-related criminal conduct within the premises of the medical marijuana business or in the immediate area surrounding such business, a continuing pattern of criminal conduct directly related to or arising from the operation of the medical marijuana business, or an ongoing nuisance condition emanating from or caused by the medical marijuana business. Criminal conduct shall be limited to the violation of a state or city law or regulation. (c) The Authority shall conduct a review of all licenses at least annually and in addition to examining the factors enumerated in this subsection, may hold a hearing on each license at which the general public shall be invited to appear and provide testimony as to the effects of the license on the surrounding community and the city at large and the Authority may take such views into consideration when deciding whether to continue or renew such license. Sec. 15-489. Violations and penalties. In addition to the possible denial, suspension, revocation or nonrenewal of a license under the provisions of this Article, any person, including, but not limited to, any licensee, manager or employee of a medical marijuana business, or any customer of such business, who violates any of the provisions of this Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable in accordance with § 1-15 of this Code, unless a different penalty is provided herein. Sec. 15-490. No City liability; indemnification. (a) By accepting a license issued pursuant to this Article, the licensee waives and releases the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, attorneys and agents from any liability for injuries, damages or liabilities of any kind that result from any arrest or prosecution of business owners, operators, employees, clients or customers for a violation of State or federal laws, rules or regulations. (b) By accepting a license issued pursuant to this Article, all licensees, jointly and severally if more than one (1), agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, attorneys, agents, insurers and self-insurance pool against all liability, claims and demands on account of any injury, loss or damage, including, without limitation, claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in any manner connected with the operation of the medical marijuana business that is the subject of the license. -10- Sec. 15-491. Other laws remain applicable. (a) To the extent the State adopts in the future any additional or stricter law or regulation governing the sale or distribution of medical marijuana, the additional or stricter regulation shall control the establishment or operation of any medical marijuana business in the City. Compliance with any applicable state law or regulation shall be deemed an additional requirement for issuance or denial of any license under this Article, and noncompliance with any applicable state law or regulation shall be grounds for revocation or suspension of any license issued hereunder. (b) If the State prohibits the sale or other distribution of marijuana through medical marijuana centers, any license issued hereunder shall be deemed immediately revoked by operation of law. Sec. 15-492. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision of this Article is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Article or the validity of this Article as an entirety, it being the legislative intent that this Article shall stand, notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision. Sec. 15-493. Administrative regulations; Action by Council. (a) The City Manager is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to effectuate the implementation, administration and enforcement of this Article. (b) The City Council shall be permitted to lessen any restriction contained in this Article. Section 2. Should the City Council refer this Initiated Ordinance Repeal to the registered electors of the City at a regular or special municipal election, this Initiated Ordinance Repeal shall take effect immediately upon certification by the designated election official that a majority of registered electors voted in favor of this Repeal at such regular or special election. Section 3. If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Ordinance or the validity of this Ordinance as an entirety, it being the legislative intent that this Article shall stand, notwithstanding the invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision -11- Section 2. That the foregoing proposed citizen-initiated ordinance is hereby submitted to the registered electors of the City at said regular municipal election in substantially the following form: PROPOSED CITIZEN-INITIATED ORDINANCE An ordinance repealing certain provisions of the City Code that presently prohibit the operation of medical marijuana businesses in the City and replacing those provisions with rules and regulations governing the licensing, number, location and operation of such businesses. FOR THE ORDINANCE _____ AGAINST THE ORDINANCE _____ Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -12- DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Ted Shepard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 40 SUBJECT Consideration of Two Appeals of the Hearing Officer’s May 7, 2012 Decision to Approve the District at Campus West Project Development Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2012, Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC, submitted a Project Development Plan for multi-family dwellings in the C-C, Community Commercial zone district. As proposed, the project consists of the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation of two public streets on the north side of West Plum Street for the purpose of constructing three new buildings, including a parking structure, containing 193 dwelling units on 3.34 acres. The parcel is between Aster Street on the east and City Park Avenue on the west. On April 5, 2012 and on April 23, 2012, the Hearing Officer conducted public hearings in consideration of The District at Campus West P.D.P. On May 7, 2012, after testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving the P.D.P. with one condition ensuring proper vacation of public streets. On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 19, Robert M. Meyer filed a Notice of Appeal, which was superceded by an Amended Notice of Appeal, filed May 29. Both appeals seek redress of the Hearing Officer’s decision. The ZTA appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(A) and 3.5.1. The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G). BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The PDP represents the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation of two public streets. The site is located within the Campus West Study Area. The proposed land use, multi-family, is permitted in the C-C zone district subject to Administrative Review. The dwelling units would be distributed among three buildings and include a mix of two, three and four-bedroom units, and would be divided in the following manner: 28 two-bedroom (14%); 42 three-bedroom (22%) and 123 four-bedroom (64%). There would be a total of 674 bedrooms each of which would be leased individually. There would be 495 off-street parking spaces and located within a parking garage with five levels. In addition, 332 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, would be vacated. Bluebell Street would connect north to Baystone Drive. The project includes a clubhouse, pool, fitness center and computer lab. A Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) regarding setbacks from public streets for Building Three was granted for being in compliance with Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and is not at issue for either appeal. The Community Commercial zone district allows a maximum height of five stories. Moving along Plum Street from west to east, Building One would be five stories and would step down to four stories on the north side. Building Two would be a five level parking structure featuring a three-story residential component facing Plum Street. Building Three would be a five story building. ACTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER The Hearing Officer conducted two public hearings. The first hearing on April 5, 2012 was continued to April 23, 2012. At both hearings, the Hearing Officer considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff. The Administrative Review process allows the Hearing Officer ten working days to render a written decision. July 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 40 On May 7, 2012, the Hearing Officer provided a decision approving the P.D.P. with the one condition as recommended by staff that the vacation of two public streets follows proper procedures. THE QUESTION COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 29, Robert M. Meyer filed an amended Notice of Appeal. The ZTA appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(A,D) and 3.5.1. The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,C,D and G). A. ZTA: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.3 of the Land Use Code. ZTA states, “In accordance with Section 3.2.3(A), ‘a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan elements does not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners.’ This standard was ignored by the Hearing Officer.” ZTA maintains that instead, the Hearing Officer only took Section 3.2.3(D) into consideration and only to find that Section 3.2.3(D) “shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district.” While the Appellant does not disagree that Section 3.2.3(D) does not apply to the proposed development, the remainder of Section 3.2.3 does apply and the stated goal found in Section 3.2.3(A) must be a consideration for approval of the proposed development. It was an error to discount the shading studies conducted by the public and Appellant on the grounds that the Hearing Officer “has not authority to impose the shading standard.” ZTA contends that the Hearing Officer has the authority to impose requirements to prevent adverse impacts from shading and that such authority is found in the purpose statement per Section 3.2.3(A). Section 3.2.3(A) Access, Orientation, Shading - (A) Purpose. It is the City's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar energy systems for heating air and water in homes and businesses, as long as natural topography, soil or other subsurface conditions or other natural conditions peculiar to the site are preserved. While the use of solar energy systems is optional, the right to solar access is protected. Solar collectors require access to available sunshine during the entire year, including between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21, when the longest shadows occur. Additionally, a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners. Thus, standards are set forth to evaluate the potential impact of shade caused by buildings, structures and trees. Section 3.2.3(D) (D) Shading. (1) The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty-five-foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high-density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial. • With regard to Section 3.2.3(D), the Hearing Officer states on page 12 of the decision: “The provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district. Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard.” July 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 40 B. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.3(D) Shading versus Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2 Shadowing Meyer states, “Page 8 of the Hearing Officer’s report discusses Section 3.2.3(D) of the Code and argues that provisions for mitigation of shading do not apply to any development located in zones determined to be Community Commercial. And, on page 19 the Hearing Officer concludes that ‘Staff correctly noted that Section 3.2.3(D)(1) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2 duplicates Section3.2.3(D).’” Meyer contests this conclusion. While Meyer acknowledges the provision stated in Section 3.2.3(D), his opinion is that the project buildings still must comply with Section 3.5.1(G), and that they are not “duplicates.” Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure’s shape. • Pages 9-10 of the Staff Report contain an analysis of the portions of Section 3.5.1(G) that pertain to light and shadow. The complete quote from the Staff Report is as follows: “As noted, Section 3.2.3(D) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. duplicates Section 3.2.3(D). Nevertheless, it may be important to evaluate compliance with this standard since shadowing was identified as a concern by citizens attending the neighborhood information meetings.” Based on this concern, the Staff Report goes on to state: “The applicant has provided a shadow analysis. Section 3.5.1(G(1)(a)2. states that adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the casting of shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and the shading of window or gardens for more than three months of the years. The shadow analysis indicates that there is shadowing on the garden level units of Sunstone Condos on December 23rd under present conditions due to existing trees along the shared property line with The District. With the addition of Buildings One, Two and Three, on December 22nd, this shadowing impacts the second level of Sunstone Condos. On the 22nd of November and January, the shadows cast by The District are reduced back down to impacting the only the garden level. Staff concludes that even if Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. was not exempted by 3.2.3(D), that shadows cast by Buildings One, Two and Three would not have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property for more than three months over and above that which is the present condition.” While the Hearing Officer elected to consider the provisions of Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. to be inclusive of the “shading standards” as contained in Section 3.2.3(D) and thus not applicable to the C-C zone district, Staff provided an analysis based on the evidence presented in both public hearings. This analysis led staff to find that shadowing occurs on the adjoining buildings during the three month timeframe specified in the standard. This shadowing, however, is not found to constitute a substantial adverse impact. July 17, 2012 -4- ITEM 40 C. ZTA: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(B) – Architectural Character - of the Land Use Code. ZTA states, “The Hearing Officer made no finding that the proposed mass and scale of the proposed development ‘set an enhanced standard of quality” for the area. Rather, the Hearing Officer simply found that the ‘area has no predominant architectural character.’ Despite the considerable testimony from the public regarding the fact that the mass and scale of the proposed building were not compatible with the existing area, the Hearing Officer failed to establish the standards set forth in Section 3.5.1(B).” Section 3.5.1(B) (B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials. • Page 8 of the Staff Report addresses Section 3.5.1(B): “(1.) Architectural Character As documented in the Campus West Area Study, there is no predominant architectural character in the area. Consequently, the standard requires that new development shall establish an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in the area. This P.D.P. sets an enhanced standard with a high level of articulation and mix of quality exterior materials. Balconies add interest to the façade and the flat roofs are mitigated with cornices and overhangs. Although Building One is long, its length is mitigated by recesses and projections that create well-defined shadow lines. The pedestrian scale of Building One is highlighted by the common area and courtyard being placed directly behind the sidewalk. This area features a one-story component bringing the height and mass down to a pedestrian scale. All buildings contain sufficient architectural features, such as overhangs, entry features and seat walls so that there is both horizontal and vertical relief. (2.) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale The three proposed buildings are larger than existing buildings in the surrounding area. As mitigation, the buildings are sub-divided into modules defined by their projecting and recessed components. The flat roofs help lowering the overall height. There are no large, massive, blank walls.” • The Hearing Officer considered the testimony of all parties. Page 14 of the Hearing Officer’s Decision addressed Section 3.5.1 – Architectural Character: “It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by the standards.” D. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(D) Building and Project Compatibility – Privacy Considerations Meyer states, “Privacy was a major concern voiced by residents of the sorority located directly north of the proposed project’s 5 story, Building 3. In our view, the Hearing Officer discounted the concern by suggesting that residents in both facilities will need to pull their window shades down and be responsible for their own conduct which hardly July 17, 2012 -5- ITEM 40 addresses suggestions for mitigation as provided in this section of the code. Issues of safety and security for the women residents of the sorority will be created. Section 3.5.1(D) (D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. (See Figure 8.) • On page 16 of the Hearing Officer’s decision, the Hearing Officer states: “The security and privacy of the sorority are a different issue. Privacy is a concern anytime two buildings are constructed within visual distance from one another. Both buildings will undoubtedly contain windows facing each other. Privacy for the sorority cannot be guaranteed nor can the privacy for the residents of the proposed development be guaranteed. The best control of privacy is with each individual. The individual can control the windows and shades of their respective room as well as their own conduct.” E. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(G) Building and Project Compatibility – Views Meyer states, “This section of the Code provides for structures which will not substantially alter the opportunity for and quality of desirable views. During the hearing process, we provided film footage of the ‘in your face’ view that residents in our properties will experience when they walk out of their units and view the parking garage being proposed.” Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1. Views. A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Techniques to preserve views may include, but are not limited to, reducing building or structure mass, changing the orientation of buildings and increasing open space setbacks. • The Hearing Officer states on page 18 of the decision: “The C-C zone and the TOD clearly envision this area for high density development. The surrounding buildings included the Sunstone Condo, apartments and the sorority are higher density developments, but not as dense as the C-C zone and TOD permit. The transition from the existing single family homes to high density development will be accomplished, in part, by this development. The neighborhood scale will also change as envisioned by the Land Use Code. The P.D.P. meets this standard.” SUMMARY The Staff Report provided the following conclusion: “The P.D.P. is located within the Campus West Study Area (not a Subarea Plan) which calls attention to the redevelopment potential of this mature neighborhood adjacent to the Colorado State University campus. Such redevelopment would fulfill the vision of the Community Commercial zone as an urbanizing and walkable district. In evaluating the overall impacts of the P.D.P., staff finds that The District at Campus West complies with the applicable standards related to compatibility. Staff acknowledges that the overall scope of the P.D.P. represents a significant change when compared with the existing development pattern of the immediate surrounding area. It has been the common experience of most neighborhoods that re-development in fulfillment of the adopted vision of City Plan is uncomfortable. Despite these growing pains, this is how all cities evolve over time in response to changing social and economic July 17, 2012 -6- ITEM 40 conditions. The development review process has allowed for a robust citizen participation process that has resulted in plan revisions that further promote neighborhood compatibility.” ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Public Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal, Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity Housing Corporation, filed May 21, 2012 - Amended Notice of Appeal, Robert Meyer, Appellant, filed May 29, 2012 3. Administrative Hearing Officer Findings, Conclusions and Decision, May 7, 2012 4. Staff Report Provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer, with attachments, Hearing held April 5, continued to 23, 2012 5. Materials submitted by Applicant to the Administrative Hearing Officer 6. Materials submitted by Citizens Prior to the Administrative Hearing, April 5 and 23, 2012 7. Materials submitted by Citizens at the Administrative Hearing, April 5 and 23, 2012 8. Verbatim Transcript of Administrative Hearing, April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 9. Site Visit Summary, July 10, 2012 10. Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council ATTACHMENT 1 City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit ATTACHMENT 2 Notice of Appeal - Notice of Appeal -Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation, filed May 21, 2012 - Amended Notice of Appeal- Robert Meyer, filed May 29, 2012 ATTACHMENT 3 Administrative Hearing Officer Findings, Conclusions and Decision, May 7, 2012 CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: April 5, 2012 continued to April 23, 2012 PROJECT NAME: The District at Campus West CASE NUMBER: P.D.P. 120003 APPLICANT: Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC c/o Linda Ripley Ripley Design, Inc. 401 West Mountain Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC c/o Mr. Derek Anderson Residential Housing Development 1302 Waugh Drive Houston, TX 77019 HEARING OFFICER: Richard V. Lopez PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request to redevelop 16 houses along four short blocks in the Campus West neighborhood for a multi-family project consisting of 193 dwelling units on 3.34 acres located on the north side of West Plum Street between Aster Street and City Park Avenue. The parcels are zoned C-C, Community Commercial and within the Transit- Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD). The District at Campus West (The District) is a student oriented housing development. It will consist of three buildings which include a mix of two, three and four-bedroom units, and would be divided in the following manner: 28 two-bedroom (14%); 42 three- bedroom (22%) and 123 four-bedroom. The total number of bedrooms is 674 with each bedroom leased individually. The project includes a clubhouse, pool, fitness center and computer lab. A total of 495 off-street parking spaces will be located within a five level parking garage. In addition, 332 bicycle spaces will be located within the parking garage on five levels. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, would be vacated. Bluebell Street would connect north to Baystone Drive 2 The three buildings will vary slightly in height. Building One at the western edge will be five stories and would step down to four stories on the north side. Building Two in the center would be a five level parking structure with a three-story residential component facing Plum Street. Building Three at the eastern edge would be a five-story building. The applicant has requested one modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) and approval of the P.D.P. subject to one condition (vacation of streets). The District will redevelop this four-block area by replacing the 16 existing houses with three large student housing buildings. A parking garage will be constructed and two public streets will be vacated. This site is within the Campus West Study Area. The proposed use, multifamily, is permitted in the C-C zone district subject to Administrative Review. A Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) regarding the setbacks from public streets is requested for Building three pursuant to criteria of Section 2.8.2(H)(1). The vacation of public street must be approved by the City Council in a separate proceeding. One condition of approval is that the vacation of two public dead-end streets proceed separately. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION BACKGROUND: 1. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES Direction Zone Land Use N ——N Existing multi-family S C-C Existing multi-family E C-C Existing sorority house W Not zoned Colorado State University - Married Student Housing 2. CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA Campus West is a mature, mixed-use neighborhood with the highest residential density in the City of Fort Collins. Its proximity to Colorado State University (“CSU”) offers the advantage of access to CSU, by means other than a vehicle. Plum Street (local street) is a convenient east-west travel corridor that connects a significant number of student - orientated multi-family dwelling units to the main campus of CSU. Its signalized intersection with Shields Street (arterial street) allows for safe crossing for cyclists and pedestrians and leads directly to the heart of the campus. 3 The four short streets north of Plum Street, Daisy, Columbine, Bluebell and Aster Streets, presently serve modest one-story single family detached houses, primarily used as student rentals. These houses are approximately 50 years old and none are considered eligible for designation as structures of historic significance. Campus West not only features a mix of land uses but a mix of structures of different ages. The area has continually evolved, along with the growth of the CSU for decades. For example, newer projects include two-story mixed use buildings along the street in a new urbanism style and older steel commercial buildings set back behind large parking lots. The City of Fort Collins funded street improvements, sidewalk widening, crosswalk enhancements, street trees, street furniture and decorative street lights along the two block area of West Elizabeth Street between Shields Street and City Park Avenue. These public improvements have enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as the image of the area. The project seeks to transform the area from an auto dominated development pattern to a more walkable district and act as a catalyst for private sector redevelopment. 3. CAMPUS WEST STUDY The C-C zoning was placed on the Campus West area in 1997 to implement City Plan. At that time, there was concern that the vision of C-C zoning (ambitious redevelopment incorporating new urbanism principles) was incongruous with the character and existing development pattern of the area. Consequently, the City studied the area to rectify the vision of the zoning with the constraints on the ground. In 2001, the study was completed but did not achieve adoption as an official Sub-Area on equal status with the other plans such as the Harmony Corridor Plan. The primary focus was on the commercial core along West Elizabeth Street. With regard to multi-family development, parking was identified as a constraint and structured parking was recommended as a viable option. In general, The District represents an incremental step toward redevelopment and upgrading the Campus West neighborhood so that it is more urban and walkable by constructing new physical public and private improvements. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established that the two hearings were properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. PUBLIC HEARING: 4 The Hearing Officer opened the hearing at approximately 6:05 P.M. on April 5, 2012 in the City Council Chambers, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. The April 5, 2012 Public Hearing was continued at the request of the applicant when it was discovered that some of the shadow analysis information was incorrect. The Public Hearing was continued to April 23, 2012. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE: The Hearing Officer accepted the following evidence from both hearings: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant to the City of Fort Collins; (3) opportunity for public testimony was provided during the hearing and members of the public were present and submitted a variety of documents. The Land Use Code, the City’s Comprehensive Plan (City Plan) and the formally promulgated polices of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following persons attended the hearing: From the City of Fort Collins: Ted Shepard, Planning Ward Stanford, Traffic Department From the applicant: Ms. Linda Ripley Brent Cooper, Ripley Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Erick Bracke, ELB Engineering Derek Anderson: Residential Housing Development, LLC From the public: Members from the public testified. A copy of the sign-in sheets are attached hereto. FINDINGS ARTICLE FOUR - C-C ZONE DISTRICT STANDARDS 1. Section 4.18(B)(2)(a) - Permitted Use. 5 a. Permitted Use Standard. Multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in the C-C zone, subject to Administrative. b. Staff Analysis. Multi-family dwellings are a permitted use in the C-C zone. c. Public Testimony. The concerns were not about the residential use, but primarily the concentration, density, scale and mass of the building. d. Hearing Officer. The use is an appropriate use in this area. 2. Section 4.18(D)(2) - Secondary Uses. a. Secondary Use Standard. This standard requires that if residential uses are considered secondary, and the project is less than ten acres, the P.D.P. must demonstrate how the project contributes to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area but shall not be required to provide a mix of land uses within the development b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that the P.D.P is located on Plum Street which is not a street suitable for commercial activity. Consequently, residential is an appropriate land use of this immediate area. The location of the P.D.P. is only 700 feet from Elizabeth Street which is the commercial core of Campus West. This proximity between residential and commercial uses will contribute to the walkable character of the area and further urbanize the C-C zone district. c. Public Testimony. The public did not object to the residential use, but was concerned about the density, mass, scale of the proposed building. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer agrees with the Staff analysis that commercial would not be an 6 appropriate use. The more appropriate use is high density residential given the proximity to the CSU campus. 3. Section 4.18(E)(1)(c) - Integration of the Transit Stop. a. Standard. This standard requires installation of a transit stop. Transit stops, to the maximum extent feasible, shall be centrally located and adjacent to the core commercial area. b. Staff Analysis. West Plum Street is served by Transfort Route #11. A transit stop is provided in front of Building Two. This stop is incorporated into the design of the building and weather protection is provided by a projecting overhang. A separate, dedicated, pull-in bus lane is provided so that through traffic is not impeded by passenger pick-up and drop-off operations activity. c. Public Testimony. The public expressed some concerns that the bus service would be adequate to serve the increased population of the area. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the transit stop will meet the standard. The dedicated, pull-in bus lane is a significant improvement over the current curbside loading. This standard is met. 4. Section 4.18(E)(2)(a) - Block Structure. a. Standard. This standard requires that each Community Commercial District and each development within this District be developed a series of complete blocks bounded by streets (public or private). b. Staff Analysis. The proposed development is located on the southern half of two existing blocks that are established by existing streets. Building One and Two are contained within the existing block formed by four public streets - Plum Street on the south and City Park Avenue on the west, Baystone Drive on the north and Bluebell Street on the east. 7 Building Three is contained within a block formed by Plum Street on the south, Bluebell Street on the west and Aster Street on the east. Due to existing buildings, Aster Street is prevented from continuing north to intersect with Baystone Drive. Given this existing block structure, the P.D.P. complies with the standard. c. Public Testimony. The public did not object to the block structure. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with the standard. 5. Section 4.18(E)(2)(b) - Block Size. a. Standard. This standard requires that all blocks be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres, except that blocks containing supermarkets be limited to ten (10) acres. b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that the blocks are established. The block defined by Plum, City Park, Baystone and Bluebell is 5.29 acres. The block defined by Plum, Baystone and Aster is 1.47 acres. The P.D.P. occupies the southern half of these two blocks. Building One and Two are formed by three public streets and contain 2.7 acres. Building Three is formed by two public streets and contains .75 acres. c. Public Testimony. The public did not object to the block size. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. complies with this standard. 6. Section 4.18(E)(2)(c) - Minimum Building Frontage. a. Standard. This standard requires that forty (40) percent of each block side of fifty (50) percent of the total of all block sides consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. 8 b. Staff Analysis. Staff found for the 2.7 acres half-block. There are 720 feet of frontage along Plum Street and 165 feet along City Park Avenue. The Building frontage along Plum Street is 390 feet or 54% of the total frontage. The building frontage along City Park Avenue is 147 feet or 88% of the total frontage. For the .75 acre half-block, there are 200 feet along Plum Street and 165 feet along Aster Street. The building frontage along Plum Street is 180 feet or 90% of the frontage. The building frontage along Aster Street is 125 feet or 76% of the total frontage. The P.D.P. exceeds the required minimum of 40% of each block side featuring building frontage. Since the P.D.P. occupies only the southern half of the total block, the standard requiring 50% of the total of all block sides to featuring a building frontage is not applicable. c. Public Testimony. The public did not comment on the minimum building frontage standard. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. exceeds the 40% required for each block side standard. However, the 50% of the total of all block sides requirement is not applicable. 7. Section 4.18(E)(2)(d) - Building Height. a. Standard. This standard requires that all buildings be at least 20 feet in height and no higher than five stories. b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that the P.D.P features three multi-story buildings none of which exceed five stories. c. Public Testimony. The public objected to the height, massing and scale of the three buildings. 9 d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer finds that despite the objections of members of the public, the P.D.P. meets this standard. ARTICLE 3 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Section 3.2.1 - Landscaping and Tree Protection. a. Tree Planting Standards. All developments are required to establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots and in all landscape areas that are located within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that street trees are provided in the parkway along all four public streets. Foundation plants are provided in the form of planters which also double as storm water collection containers. Finally a continuos row of trees are provided along the north property line. Concerns about the row of trees were reviewed by the City Forester who approved the landscaping plans as submitted. The concerns about the spacing were duly noted and reviewed. c. Public Testimony. Members of the public questioned both the spacing provided for the continuos row of trees along the north side of the parking structure. The concern was whether the trees would survive and grow. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer believes that the concerns expressed by the speaker were addressed by the City Forester satisfactorily. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 2. Section 3.2.1(F) - Tree Protection and Replacement. a. Protection and Replacement Requirements. Existing significant trees are to be preserved to the extent reasonably feasible. Where it is not feasible to protect and retain significant existing trees or to transplant them to another on-site location, the applicant is required to replace such trees per the schedule 10 and requirements of the code. b. Staff Analysis. Staff explained that with infill redevelopment there are a high number of existing trees. The City Forester has inventoried the existing trees ad determined a mitigation schedule. There are 130 existing trees. Of this total, 10 trees will be preserved and 120 are to be removed. For mitigation, 128 new trees will be planted. The mitigation schedule has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester. c. Public Testimony. Members of the public were primarily concerned with the trees to be planted on the north side of the parking structure and buildings. These concerns were addressed by the City Forester. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer believes that the concerns expressed by the speaker were addressed by the City Forester satisfactorily. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 3. Section 3.2.2 - Access, Circulation and Parking. a. General Standard. Parking and circulation systems within each development are required to accommodate the movement of vehicles, bicycles pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently and shall contribute to the adequate directness, continuity, street crossings, visible interest as security as defined by the standards in this section. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that the site is served by four public streets and one private driveway serving the parking structure. Plum Street will include two, eight-foot wide, on-street bike lanes. The existing sidewalk along Plum Street is attached and only three feet wide and will be replaced by a detached walk that is seven feet wide. This exceeds the standard sidewalk width by two feet. A new bus pull-in lane will be provided for the Transfort Route #11. Weather protection for buses is incorporated into the design of Building Two. All connections tie directly into the city-wide system of public improvements. c. Public Testimony. 11 Members of the public were concerned with the additional density and possible vehicle trips that could result in congestion and unsafe conditions. They also were concerned that the greater number of pedestrians and cyclists could compromise safety. d. Hearing Officer. The introduction of up to more than 600 students at this location is noted. The proximity to the CSU campus and the TOD zone mean that most traffic will be pedestrian and cyclists. The Staff Traffic Department reviewed the Transportation Impact Study provided by the applicant and found the estimates to be acceptable. The Hearing Officer agrees that the primary impacts will be the increased pedestrian and cyclists traffic to and from the CSU Campus. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 4. Section 3.2.2(K)(1)(a)(1) - Parking Requirements. a. Parking Requirements. Multi-family dwellings and mixed-use dwelling within the TOD Overlay Zone have no minimum parking requirements. The site is located within the TOD therefore there are no minimum parking requirements. However, the P.D.P. provides 495 vehicle parking spaces and 332 bicycle parking spaces. According to the applicant, the provision of onsite parking where none is required is considered “essential from a leasing perspective.” b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that if the project was not located in the TOD, 441 parking spaces and 50 bicycle spaces would be required. The spaces provided exceed the minimum parking required for vehicles by 54 and 282 for bikes. c. Public Testimony. Members of the public questioned both the number of spaces provided and the possibility spillover parking into the nearby neighborhood. In addition there was a concern that the parking garage could become a public garage. An additional concern was the possibility of objects being thrown from the parking garage onto cars or people below. The speaker asked the applicant to consider screening the openings in the garage. d. Hearing Officer. Although there is no parking requirement in this TOD, the Hearing Officer asked the applicant to address the concerns raised by the speakers. The applicant explained the 12 parking agreements the manager will enter with residents and stated that there is no intention to allow the parking garage to become a public garage. Lastly, the applicant stated that they would take the screening of the parking garage under consideration. 5. Section 3.2.3(D) - Shading. a. Shading. The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty-five-foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high-density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that this section sets a maximum shading standard but it specifically exempts structures within the Community Commercial zone district. c. Public Testimony. There was considerable testimony from members of the public, specifically residents of dwellings to the immediate north of the proposed development. Concerns of ice and snow on adjoining parking lots and sidewalks were mentioned by many of those who testified. d. Hearing Officer. This provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district. The public testimony and concerns regarding the shadow analysis and depiction by the applicant were discussed at length. The applicant requested a continuance to ensure that the shadow analysis presentation was correct. Members of the public also presented their shadow analysis which challenged that of the applicant. During the second public hearing the applicant offered two modifications that would reduce the shadows cast upon adjoining properties. The first was the reduction or sloping of the roof by five feet on the north side of the Building One. The second was the sloping of the parking garage structure roof which also would reduce the shadows on adjoining properties, but would eliminate nine parking spaces in the garage. Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard. However, 13 the Hearing Officer notes that two modifications were offered by the applicant. The Hearing Officer encourages the applicant to incorporate these modifications which would demonstrate their willingness to mitigate the shading that will occur on adjoining properties. 6. Section 3.2.4 - Site Lighting. a. Site Lighting Requirements. All developments, except single-family residential uses, are required to submit a proposed lighting plan that meets the functional security needs of the proposed land use without adversely affecting adjacent properties or the community. b. Staff Analysis. Staff reviewed the proposed lighting plan. There are seven pole-mounted light fixtures with no foot-candles exceeding one-tenth as measured 20 feet from the property lines. Four of these fixtures will illuminate the top deck of the parking structure. These fixtures are placed in the middle of the deck, not on the edge, to minimize exposure. c. Public Testimony. One member of the public expressed a concern over possible lighting impacts from the proposed development on the Sunstone Complex to the north. d. Hearing Officer. The proposed lighting plan has been reviewed by Staff and found to be in compliance with design standards. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 7. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Coded, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. b. Staff Analysis. 14 Staff noted that the Campus West Area Study found that there is no predominant architectural character in the area. Therefore, the standard requires that new development establish an enhanced standard of quality for future projects. Staff found that the project sets an enhanced standard with a high level of articulation and mix of quality exterior materials. Balconies are added to the facades and flat roofs are mitigated with cornices and overhangs. The length and bulk of Building One is mitigated with recesses and projections that create well-defined shadow lines. Building One features common area and courtyard placed directly behind the sidewalk. In addition the first story features bring the height and mass down to a pedestrian scale. All buildings contain sufficient architectural features, including overhangs, entry features and seat walls that provide both horizontal and vertical relief. c. Public Testimony. Concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the proposed development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed buildings were not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Some persons objected to the visual impact of parking structure facade facing the Sunstone Condominiums. They believed that it would be years before the trees could grow tall enough to soften the scale of the facade. For some, the density was the biggest issue, too many people for the area. Other members of the public spoke in support of the proposed development. They cited the overall benefit for the community by locating a convenient state of the art student housing close to CSU. They cited the existing ranch style homes as an underutilized land use at this location. The redevelopment of this area, located in the TOD, would facilitate walking and biking by the residents. In addition, the proposed development would be built to the Silver Leed standard. One person stated that the construction of student housing at this location would help mitigate the defacto policy of students living in single family homes, originally built for employees and CSU staff. The thought was that the construction of high density student housing would free up single-family housing for nonstudents. Others cited the anticipated growth of CSU over the next ten years. d. Hearing Officer. It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by the standards. 8. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. 15 a. Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. As stated above, the existing architectural character is not definitively established. Therefore, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. b. Staff Analysis. Staff notes that the three proposed buildings are larger than existing buildings in the surround area. As mitigation, the buildings are subdivided into modules defined by their projecting and recessed components. The flat roofs help lower the overall height. There are no large, massive, blank walls. c. Public Testimony. Concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the proposed development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed buildings were not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Some persons objected to the visual impact of parking structure facade facing the Sunstone Condominiums. They believed that it would be years before the trees could grow tall enough to soften the scale of the facade. For some, the density was the biggest issue, too many people for the area. Other members of the public spoke in support of the proposed development. They cited the overall benefit for the community by locating a convenient state of the art student housing close to the CSU. They cited the existing ranch style homes as an underutilized land use at this location. The redevelopment of this area, located in the TOD, would facilitate walking and biking by the residents. In addition, the proposed development would be built to the Silver Leed standard. One person stated that the construction of student housing at this location would help mitigate the defacto policy of students living in single family homes, originally built for employees and CSU staff. The thought was that the construction of high density student housing would free up single- family housing for nonstudents. Others cited the anticipated growth of CSU over the next ten years. d. Hearing Officer. It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and architecture. The finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a predominant architectural character. The proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by the standards. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 9. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. 16 a. Privacy Considerations. The standard calls for elements of the development plan to be arraigned to maximize the opportunity for privacy by residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining and uses. Additionally the development plans should create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. b. Staff Analysis. The north elevation of Building One is four stories. Per the landscape plan, there will be trees planted between Building One and the north property line. The buildings to the north (Sunstone) are separated from the shared property line aby a parking lot that is 60 feet wide. The combination of landscaping and distance provide sufficient amounts of buffering to ensure the privacy off the existing residents occupying the southern portions of the Sunstone Condos. c. Public Testimony. Privacy was a major concern expressed by the residents of Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority in a petition submitted by a representative. The concern expressed was that the sorority is not air conditioned and that the residents leave their windows open and curtains open during the summer months. Residents of Sunstone Condos were also concerned with privacy issues. d. Hearing Officer. This standard requires that the proposed development minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining uses, but simultaneously requires that there be opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. The applicant stated that efforts were made to meet with the Sunstone Condos residents to formalize a pedestrian connection between the two properties. While not abandoned, the Hearing Officer believed that this conversation should take place and a walkway or linkage of some type would benefit both properties. The security and privacy of the sorority are a different issue. Privacy is a concern anytime two buildings are constructed within visual distance from one another. Both buildings will undoubtedly contain windows facing each other. Privacy for the sorority cannot be guaranteed nor can the privacy for the residents of the proposed development be guaranteed. The best control of privacy is with each individual. The individual can control the windows and shades of their respective room as well as their own conduct. 17 10. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Building Materials and Color. These standards call for the use of building materials that are either similar to materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are proposed, other characteristics such as scale and proportions, form architectural detailing, color and textures, be utilized to ensure that enough similarity exists for the building to be compatible despite the different in materials. Building color standards call for color shades to be used to facilitate blending into the neighborhood and unifying the development. The color shades of building materials should be drawn from the range of color shades that already existing on the bloc or in the adjacent neighborhood. b. Staff Analysis. As noted above, the Campus West Area Study found that there is no predominant architectural character in the area or in the C-C zone district as a whole. The proposed buildings use a combination of cultured stone, masonry and fiber cement board as the primary exterior materials. Proposed building colors are muted earth tones. The arrangement of these materials and colors, including combination with other features such as covered entries, balconies, overhangs and cornices, create an interesting building that sets a new standard of quality for the surrounding area. c. Public Testimony. The public concerns were mainly mass, scale, height and density. No one was particularly concerned about the proposed colors. d. Hearing Officer. There is a lack of a predominant architectural character in the immediate vicinity or in the C-C zone district as a whole. Therefore, the proposed building materials and colors meet the standards. 11. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Building Height Review - Views and Neighborhood Scale. This standard governs buildings that exceed forty (40) feet in height. The intent is to encourage creativity and diversity of architecture and site design with a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown 18 and designated activity centers. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that the views, the three new buildings do not substantially alter the opportunity for, quality of, desirable views from public places, streets, and parks within the community. Campus West is a mature neighborhood with significant numbers of existing, fully-grown trees. Presently, staff found that there are no desirable views as the mature trees already block views from the public streets. In considering the neighborhood scale, the staff noted that the north elevation of Buildings One and Two achieve a height of 49 feet in comparison to the Sunstone Condos which are 32 feet in height. The south elevations are 67 and 58 feet in height respectively. Building Three is 61 feet in height but is located further away from adjacent buildings. The heights of other buildings in the area, excluding the CSU campus, are identified and described in the applicants material and range in height from 28 feet to 58 feet. (Tab 5) While higher than most buildings in the area, the scale is compatible given the height and mass of other existing buildings. c. Public Testimony. As noted above, concerns expressed by the public were the mass and scale of the proposed development. Others stated that the height and mass of the proposed buildings were not compatible with the existing neighborhood character. d. Hearing Officer. The C-C zone and the TOD clearly envision this area for high density development. The surrounding buildings included the Sunstone Condos, apartments and the sorority are higher density developments, but not as dense as the C-C zone and TOD permit. The transition from the existing single-family homes to high density development will be accomplished, in part, by this development. The neighborhood scale will also change as envisioned by the Land Use Code. The P.D.P. meets this standard. 12. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility. a. Light and Shadow. Section 3.2.3(D)(1) states that this (shading) provision shall not apply to structures within the following high-density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial. 19 b. Staff Analysis. Staff correctly noted that Section 3.2.3(D)(1) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with the shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(2) duplicates Section 3.2.3(D). The shading of adjacent properties was identified by neighbors as a concern at the neighborhood informational meetings. The applicant provided two shadow analyses. Section 3.4.1(G)(1)(a)(2) states that adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the casting of shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare, such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or gardens for more than three(3) months of the year. The shadow analysis indicated that there is shadowing on the garden level unit of Sunstone Condos on December 23 under present conditions due to existing trees along the shared property line with proposed development. With the addition of Buildings One, Two and Three on December 22nd, this shadowing impacts the second level of Sunstone Condos. On the 22nd of November and January, the shadows cast by The District are reduced back to impacting only the garden level. Staff conceded that the shadows cast by the proposed development would not have a substantially adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property for more than three months over and above that which is the present condition. However, this proposed development is specifically exempted from this standard. c. Public Testimony. Considerable testimony at both public hearings focused on the shading of not only the Sunstone Condos, but the sorority. Members of the public presented their own shadow analysis to dispute the information provided by the applicant. d. Hearing Officer. This provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district. Because this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district, the Hearing Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard. However, the Hearing Officer notes that two modifications were offered by the applicant. The Hearing Officer encourages the applicant to incorporate these modifications which would demonstrate their willingness to mitigate the shading that will occur on adjoining properties. 20 13. Section 3.5.1(H) - Land Use Transition. a. Land Use Transition. When land uses with significantly different visual character are proposed adjacent to each other and where gradual transitions are not possible or not in the best interest of the community, the development plan shall, to the maximum extent feasible, achieve compatibility through compliance with the standards set forth in this Division regarding scale, form, materials, and colors, buffer yards and adoption of operational standards including limits on hours of operation, lighting, placement of noise-generating activities and similar restrictions. b. Staff Analysis. Staff found that the issues related to scale, form, materials and color have been addressed. In terms of buffering, the north property line will include the preservation of the existing trees that have been determined to be of value and the planting of new trees. In terms of operational characteristics, the most important design feature is the each level of the parking structure features a parapet wall that blocks headlights. Other features include two trash dumpsters that are fully enclosed withing the buildings and, as mentioned above, no lighting spillover in excess of the standard. Finally, the active area of the pool and clubhouse is south-facing and totally screened from the Sunstone Condos. c. Public Testimony. There were several concerns about the belief that this concentration of students would lead to parties with noise, on street parking, lighting and noise from the parking structure and the concentration of people in a small area. Others feared that parties would grow to hundreds of students and spill over into the neighborhood. Still others were concerned about automobile traffic in the area, trash build up during the times that students move in and out of the development. There were some comments about pedestrian traffic and linkages to the CSU and some missing pedestrian walks. There was some concern of crowded buses being unable to serve the new students who would reside in the development. Finally, the concerns about the scale of the proposed development was mentioned. The slides that were presented created a false sense of scale because of the type of perspective used to illustrate building heights of the development and Sunstone Condos. d. Hearing Officer. The gradual transition of land uses is not possible given the size of this development. The proposed development is located in a high density zone, TOD and is 3.34 acres in size. The visual character of this proposed development and the neighboring properties 21 will be different. The efforts to mitigate these differences to the maximum extent possible have been incorporated into the design and location of certain facilities. The pool and clubhouse have been located on the south facing side of the development, away from the Sunstone Condos. These two features and any noise will be screened from the Sunstone Condos to the north. The concerns about spill over parking or guest parking are addressed by the 495 parking spaces in the garage which includes 50 guest parking spaces. The concerns about trash accumulation during the move in periods was addressed with the provision of extra dumpsters to accommodate trash. The applicant commented that these issues are known and given experience in other similar developments, can be controlled. The design of the parking garage parapet walls will block headlights and noise from neighboring properties. Bus, pedestrian and bicycle traffic was analyzed and found to be acceptable. This is a TOD where bus service is available. The proximity to the CSU campus will result in pedestrian and bicycle use, reducing the need or desirability to travel to and from the campus by auto. This proposed development will improve the pedestrian walks along Plum Street and one bus stop will be located adjacent to the development. The concerns about student parties and possible spill over should be addressed by the on-site management personnel. 14. Section 3.6.4 - Transportation Level of Service. a. Standards. All development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service (LOS) standard contained in Part II of the City of Fort Collins Multi-modal Transportation Level of Service Manual for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian. The transit LOS standards contained in Part II of this Multi-model Transportation Manual will not be applied for the purposes of this Section. In order to identify those facilities that are necessary in order to comply with these standards, development plans may be required to include the submittal of a Transportation Impact Study, to be approved by the Traffic Engineer, consistent with the Transportation Impact Study guidelines, as established in the Larimer County Urban Area Streets Standards. b. Staff Analysis. A Transportation Impact Study was submitted and evaluated by the City’s Traffic Engineering Department. Plum Street is classified as a major collector (meaning there are two eight-foot wide bike lanes but no on-street parking). The detached sidewalk has been widened by two extra feet from the required minimum of five feet to seven feet to accommodate the expected level of pedestrians and in fulfilment of the C-C 22 zone’s emphasis on walkability. The Study made the following conclusions: • Operation at the key intersections will be acceptable under full build-out of the project. • No new traffic signals or signal modifications will be required with the construction of the project. • No auxiliary lanes will be needed. • Crosswalks should be added to Plum Street at City Park Avenue and Bluebell Street. • Multi-modal Level of Service Standards can be achieved. • Overall, the project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. The P.D.P. adequately provides vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the City’s adopted Levels of Service standards. c. Public Testimony. The concerns raised at the public hearings concerned all modes of circulation. The adequacy of the existing sidewalks, roadways and transit services were questioned. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Office has reviewed the Transportation Impact Study submitted by ELB Engineering LLC and took testimony from the City’s Traffic Engineer. The Hearing Officer finds that the P.D.P. meets the Level of Service standards. 15. Section 3.8.16(E)(2) - Occupancy Limits. a. Standards. With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all the applicable criteria of the Land Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number off unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that the applicant has provided such additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. b. Staff Analysis. Staff noted that with regard to open space and recreation, the P.D.P. provieds a pool, clubhouse and computer lab of sufficient size to serve all tenants located in Building One. As to parking, there will be both vehicular and bicycle parking in excess of what 23 would otherwise be required under Section 3.2.2(K)(1). Finally, public facilities have been enhanced with the construction of a bus pull-in land, a detached public sidewalk that exceeds the minimum required width and accompanied by seat walls, planters and decorative lighting along Plum Street to encourage gathering and social interaction. c. Public Testimony. The public concerns about increased density and occupancy of this proposed development were varied. Many of these concerns have been detailed above. d. Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer has reviewed the documentation provided by the applicant (Tab 4), reviewed the plans and considered all the testimony provided at the hearings. The provision of open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities should adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Four bedroom units have become a popular lifestyle alternative for many students throughout the nation. It allows four students to share an apartment in a well-managed environment. There is added security compared to single-family home rentals. The four bedroom unit costs are less per bedroom and offers a more affordable option for students. The applicants’ written justifications include open space and recreational amenities, parking, public facilities, architectural design and sustainability. These justifications and the testimony of the applicant at the hearings have been considered by the Hearing Office. The Hearing Officer finds that the request for four bedroom units is justified and herein grants this request. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION-SECTION 3.4.2(D)(2) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SETBACKS FROM NON-ARTERIAL STREETS a. Standard at issue. Section 3.5.2(D)(2) reads as follows: (2) Setback from Non-arterial Streets. Minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of- way shall be fifteen (15) feet. Setbacks from garage doors to the nearest portion of any public sidewalk that intersects with the driveway shall be at least twenty (20) feet. 24 b. Description of the Modification. Building Three, unlike Buildings One and Two, is not a mixed-use building and is governed by the setback standard, not the build-to line standard. Instead of being setback from the three public streets by the requisite 15 feet, it is setback in the following manner: Street Required Proposed Difference Plum Street 15' 12.5 2.5' Aster Street 15' 10' 5' Bluebell Street 15' 11'5' 3.5' c. Applicant’s Justification. The applicant’s justification is contained in Tab 3 of their application report. The staff report provides a summary of the applicant’s justification. Briefly, the applicant states that 11.5 feet of additional right-of-way dedicated for Plum Street will improve operations and functions of westbound travel lane, bike lane, parkway and detached sidewalk. Setbacks along Aster and Bluebell are mitigated by articulation of the building. Setbacks for Building Three from the public street are not detrimental and result in a plan that is equal to or better that a plan that would have complied with the plan. Lastly, the modification is justified by the provision of student-oriented, multi- family housing that alleviates an existing defined problem of city-wide concern and addresses an important community need. The project is located within the Targeted Redevelopment Area as described by the City Plan. d. Staff analysis. Staff noted that Building Three is well-articulated along all three public streets. As a residential building, it contains entrances, windows and a variety of exterior materials. There are no blank walls. In addition, there is no established context of building setbacks in the general vicinity. A slight divergence from the 15-foot setback would not cause a glaring inconsistency and would not look out of place in the neighborhood. Staff found from an urban design perspective that all three buildings demonstrate a consistent relationship to Plum Street. The on-street bike lane, parkway, street trees and detached sidewalk are public improvements all of which contribute to an urban, formal and pleasing arrangement of the street scape. Aligning all three buildings with a consistent setback enhances the organization of the project and creates a uniform development pattern. A consistent setback contributes to the urbanization of the area as envisioned by the Community Commercial zone district. Staff recommended approval of the Modification with specific findings of fact. 25 e. Public Testimony. Public testimony was primarily directed at the overall scale and density of the proposed development. There were a couple of persons who were concerned about setbacks. FINDINGS The Hearing Officer has reviewed the applicants’ request, staff evaluation, testimony from the public hearings and all exhibits and documents submitted into the record and makes the following findings of fact: 1. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and 2. The plans submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the Modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which the Modification is being requested. Building Three is an attractive building along al three elevations facing the three public streets. There is no established context of building setbacks in the larger neighborhood. Further, from an urban design perspective, there is more value to the larger C-C district in having all three buildings aligned in a uniform arrangement than having two buildings at the build-to line and one building at the setback line. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Two neighborhood meetings were held with citizens. The first was on August 31, 2011 and the second on March 7, 2012. Staff notes that between the two meetings, the height of Building One and Two were reduced and the number of units and bedrooms reduced. The main issues and the applicants’ responses are summarized below: 1. Building Height, Mass, Scale, Bulk. Issue: This issue relating to the overall scope of the project remains at the forefront. While the applicant has scaled down the project since the first neighborhood meeting, those attending the second meeting express concerns that the P.D.P. represents a departure from the existing development pattern. 26 Response: The applicant has indicated that the plan revisions result in a reduction of the height and density of the project. The applicant acknowledges that the P.D.P. represents a significant change compared to the existing context of the area. The overall scale of the project, however, complies with the City’s vision for the C-C zone and the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. 2. Traffic. Issue: The increase in traffic on the surround streets remains a concern. Response: The applicant contends that he surrounding streets can accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. For example, Plum Street is classified as a collector roadway capable of carrying up to 5,000 trips per day. With the addition of The District, this capacity is not reached. Similarly, Shields is classified as an arterial street and capable of handling the expected traffic generated by the P.D.P. 3. Density. Issue: There is a concern that with a density in excess of 50 units per acre, and the significant number of four-bedroom units, there is too much density associated with this P.D.P. Response: The applicant has indicated that there is no density maximum in the C-C zone and that the provisions related to four-bedroom units have been addressed, primarily by adding extra parking spaces for both vehicles and bikes. 4. Property Management of Student Behavior. Issue: Those attending the meetings and public hearings have expressed a concern about the concentration of college students who may be living independently for the first time. Such an arrangement could lead to undesirable behavior such as late night noise, rowdyism, loud music, littering and the like. Response: The applicant has indicated that there will be on-site managers who are professional and adults, not students. The leases provide for eviction for tenants who violate the rules associated with undesirable behavior. 27 5. Staff Evaluation of Issues and Responses. Staff has considered the cumulative effects of the issues related to neighborhood compatibility. It is important to note that there is no one single standard in the Land Use Code that would be the equivalent to a compatibility test. In fact, the definition of Compatibility specifically states that it “ . . . does not mean the same as..” Rather, the Code breaks the issues down to number of specific standards that are intended to address impact mitigation. The P.D.P. has been evaluated by these standards and Staff finds the P.D.P. to be in compliance. FINDINGS The Hearing Officer agrees with Staff and finds that the P.D.P. is compatible with the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS The Hearing Officer has reviewed all of the evidence and testimonies submitted by the applicant, citizens and staff and being fully advised, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. The P.D.P. is located within the Campus West Study Area (not a Subarea Plan) which calls attention to the redevelopment potential of this mature neighborhood adjacent to the CSU campus. Such redevelopment would fulfill the vision of the Community Commercial zone as an urbanizing and walkable district. 2. The P.D.P. complies with the applicable standard of Article Four - Community Commercial zone district. 3. The P.D.P complies with the applicable Article Three General Development Standards with one exception: Request for Modification to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) - Residential Setbacks from Non-arterial Streets to allow less than 15 feet of setback along three public streets has been evaluated and found not to be detrimental to the public good and equal to or better than a plan that would have otherwise complied with the standard in accordance with Section 2.8.2(H). 28 Building Three setbacks are found to be equal to or better than a plan that would otherwise provide for uniform 15 foot setbacks. Building Three features a level of architectural detail that exceeds the baseline and a sidewalk along Plum Street that exceeds the minimum width. The proposed setbacks are consistent with Buildings One and Two, thus promoting an attractive urban design perspective for Plum Street. 4. In evaluating the overall impacts the P.D.P. complies with the applicable standards relating to compatibility. The overall scope of the P.D.P. represents a significant change when compared with the existing development pattern of the immediate surrounding area. However this transition in use and scale was contemplated when the C-C zone and TOD were implemented. The development review process has allowed for a robust citizen participation process that has resulted in plan revisions that further promote neighborhood compatibility. The two public hearings provided ample time for the applicant and public to express their concerns and receive responses. 5. The vacation of two public dead-end streets is a separate process that must be properly completed in conjunction with P.D.P. and Final Plan. DECISION The Hearing Officer herein approves The District at Campus West P.D.P. #120003, subject to the vacation of two public streets as a separate procedure subject to approval by City Council. Dated May 7, 2012, per authority granted by Sections 1.49 and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. Richard V. Lopez Richard V. Lopez Hearing Officer ATTACHMENT 4 Staff Report (with attachments) Provided to the Administrative Hearing Officer Hearing held April 5 and continued to April 23, 2012 S SHIELDS ST W MYRTLE ST W MULBERRY ST S SHIELDS ST CITY PARK AVE BAYSTONE DR CONSTITUTION AVE S SHIELDS ST WAYNE ST GORDON ST S WASHINGTON AVE CRESTMORE PL ASTER ST DAISY ST COLUMBINE ST S WASHINGTON AVE DALE CT W MULBERRY ST SHELDON DR W LAUREL ST W MULBERRY ST W MYRTLE ST BROADVIEW PL W MYRTLE ST W MYRTLE ST MILLER DR W MULBERRY ST W MYRTLE ST CITY PARK AVE W MULB ERRY ST MONT E V ISTA A VE S WHITCOMB ST W ELIZABETH ST W MULBERRY ST P I O N E ER AVE W PLU M ST WESTVIE W AVE SUNSET AVE S HE L DO N D Swedish Columnar Aspen North facing wall Swedish Columnar Aspen (North facing wall) Corinthian Littleleaf Linden putative Littleleaf Linden near wall Different variety than Corinthian Littleleaf Linden growing in shade Different variety than Corinthian Crimson Sentry Norway Maple Pyramidal European Hornbeam Crimson Spire Oak ATTACHMENT 5 Materials submitted by Applicant to the Administrative Hearing Officer land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com 1. Planning Objectives Narrative Perspective Renderings of Project 2. City Plan Principles and Policies 3. Modification Request for Building Setback 4. Request for 4-Bedroom Units 5. Building Height Review Narrative Shadow Analysis Contextual Building Height Exhibit 6. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 7. Response to PDP Comments land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com March 23, 2012 Planning Objectives The District at Campus West Project Development Plan The District at Campus West is intended to be a student housing apartment project consisting of 193 units with 674 individually rented bedrooms. The site is located on approximately 3.32 acres of land west of Colorado State University, in the 700 block of West Plum Street. The site is located in the West Central Neighborhood Plan area. The Plan developed in 1999 incorporates policies and plans to direct development in the three square mile area west and south of the CSU campus. The District is proposed to be located in the Campus West/Community Commercial Area and is zoned C-C Community Commercial. The Community Commercial District is designed to provide a combination of retail, office, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. Several one-story, single-family rental houses built in the mid 1950's currently exist on the site. The intent is to remove the houses and replace them with a well-designed, multi-family project catering to CSU students. The project extends from Aster Street on the east side to City Park Avenue on the west side. Moving along Plum Street from west to east, the project consist of Building 1, a 5-story residential building that steps down to 4 stories on the north side, followed by Building 2, a 4-story parking structure faced with 3-story townhome-type units along the street facing facades, followed by Building 3, a 5-story residential building. Sunstone Condominiums are located to the north separated from the proposed District project by a linear parking lot. The site is bordered by multi-family housing on the east, Cambridge House Apartments, other multi-family buildings and single-family residences to the south and multi-family housing to the west. Two existing dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy will be vacated and removed with the development of this project. Bluebell Street will remain and connect through to Baystone Drive. Plum Street is classified as a collector street on the City’s Master Street plan. It has two travel lanes, striped bicycle lanes and parking is prohibited. It lacks adequate right-of-way width to The District at Campus West Planning Objectives Page 2 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com incorporate detached sidewalks. Currently sidewalks are attached and very narrow if they exist at all, forcing the student population to walk in the street as they head to campus. This project will dedicate additional right-of-way and construct wide, detached sidewalks creating a safe, convenient and attractive streetscape that will promote walking and increase bicycle safety on the street by greatly reducing pedestrian conflicts over what exists today. The spaces between the curb and the buildings are integrated into the streetscape to create visually exciting and functional urban spaces. These urban spaces and adjacent courtyards include special paving, a variety of seating opportunities, lighting, trees and ornamental plant materials, bike parking and internet access. The foundation planters along most of the building frontages incorporate a storm water function in addition to being attractive landscape features. The bio-retention planters will detain storm water before it drains to the storm water outfall. This allows for water to be released at the historic rate, allows pollutants to settle out and enables plant material to take advantage of the storm water reducing the need for artificial irrigation. The Applicant will work with City staff to insure that the planters meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. The 4-story parking garage will park 495 cars and 332 bicycles (282 more than required by the LUC). A centrally located transit stop is planned near the southwest corner of the parking garage with a covered waiting area and bench seating. Since the property is in the TOD overlay district, no minimum residential parking is required; however, adequate parking is essential from a leasing standpoint. The site location is within easy bike and walking distance of the CSU Campus, the Mason Street BRT and other activity centers. The proposed modern architecture is urban in scale and design. The design of the buildings also incorporates many sustainable components and is targeting Silver LEED designation. Buildings 1 and 3 have flat roofs with cornices making their overall height compatible with adjacent 3-story structures that have pitched roofs. The buildings have an attractive street appeal owing to upscale architectural articulation and detailing as well as the rhythm associated with two south facing courtyards and the pool complex. The courtyards include a variety of site amenities, such as seat walls, outdoor furniture, shade, special lighting, fire pits, generous landscaping and internet access. Each courtyard is unique offering a variety of places to sit, socialize, study or simply enjoy the outdoors. The clubhouse facility located in Building 1 is set off by an eye-catching overhead canopy. In addition to the outdoor pool the clubhouse will include a recreation room with pool tables, TV's, and other games; fitness center; a computer lab; and study rooms for group study sessions. The parking garage is faced with 3-story townhome units along street facing facades so the utilitarian aspect of the garage is not visible along the public street. On the north side where it is visible, it is buffered by existing trees and additional trees are proposed to be planted. The District at Campus West Planning Objectives Page 3 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com A neighborhood meeting was held on August 31, 2011. Concerns voiced by attendees included: management of the project, building height and shadowing, increased traffic, noise and property values. In response to concerns voiced by City staff in early discussions and in response to neighborhood concerns, the applicant has prepared a traffic study to look at impacts to the neighborhood and has made design changes in response to concerns about building height, density and shadowing. The following points illustrate how the District is addressing neighborhood concerns: • At the time of Preliminary Design Review the project was proposing 215 units and 732 bedrooms and included a 6-story parking structure. • At the time of the Neighborhood Meeting the parking structure had been reduced to 5 stories. • After the neighborhood meeting, the scale of the project was reduced down to 193 units and 674 bedrooms. Original plans to incorporate land on the south side of Plum Street into the project were abandoned. The parking structure was scaled down to 4 stories in height and the larger of the two residential buildings drops to 4 stories on the north side to reduce the shadow impact. • Outdoor activities such as the pool, and barbeque areas are located within the courtyards, so that the sights and sounds associated with the outdoor activity is effectively buffered by the buildings and does not impact the neighbors. The courtyards and the pool complex all face south to the street and away from adjacent residences. • The Traffic Impact Study concludes that after the project is constructed; all key intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. It also concludes that the site is outstanding in terms of opportunity to utilize alternative modes of transportation. • The District’s policy is to incentivize certain, key, management and security personnel to live on site. The property manager, may or may not live on site, but will live close enough to be responsive and effective. A second neighborhood meeting was held March 7th. The Applicant presented the changes made to the plans in response the neighborhood concerns. The project is requesting a Modification to the building setback for Building 3 along public streets and is requesting 4-bedroon units. Those requests along with a Special Height Review Analysis and Statement of City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the proposed plan are attached. The District proposes to be located in the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Area, as defined by City Plan and is supported by many City Plan Principals and Policies aimed at residential development. The District at Campus West will be achieving many of the City’s specific objectives in regard to infill development. • The District replaces a dilapidated student rental housing stock with safe, modern, and energy efficient units. The District at Campus West Planning Objectives Page 4 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • The District offers significant improvement to the currently deficient multi-modal transportation corridor along West Plum Street, by widening the right-of-way and incorporating generous detached sidewalks. • The District will concentrate higher density housing in a location that can be served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of activity. • The District will enable students to access the campus, jobs, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • The District will promote the revitalization of the Campus West commercial area, an existing, underutilized commercial area near campus. • The District will provide reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists. • The District will increase economic activity in an area that will benefit existing businesses and, will help provide stimulus for more redevelopment in the area. The District at Campus West will provide a high density, unique housing type designed to offer students the ability to live just off campus in an exciting urban environment, designed with their needs in mind. The rental apartments are designed to be safe, convenient, energy efficient, comfortable and affordable for the average student. We believe the proposed student housing project will be a very positive addition to the community, providing needed student housing in a great location close to campus and generally away from single family neighborhoods. land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com March 23, 2012 The District at Campus West Project Development Plan (PDP) is supported by the following Principles and Policies found in City Plan Fort Collins Adopted February 15, 2011 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Principle EH 4: The City will encourage the redevelopment of strategic areas within the community as defined in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood Principles and Policies. Policy EH 4.1 –Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas Create and utilize strategies and plans, as described in the Community and Neighborhood Livability and Neighborhood chapter’s Infill and Redevelopment section, to support redevelopment areas and prevent areas from becoming blighted. The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter) shall be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Policy EH 4.2 – Reduce Barriers to Infill Development and Redevelopment Develop new policies and modify current policies, procedures, and practices to reduce and resolve barriers to Infill development and redevelopment. Emphasize new policies and modifications to existing policies that support a sustainable, flexible, and predictable approach to infill development and redevelopment. The District at Campus West is proposed to locate within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted on Figure LIV 1 in the Community and Neighborhood Livability chapter). The area currently consists predominantly of single-family rental houses that are in poor condition and not being properly maintained. The quality of the existing housing is substandard in most cases. Pedestrian linkages are poorly defined or nonexistent altogether. Redevelopment of this property will remove the current blighted conditions and replace it with new, high quality, attractive student-oriented The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 2 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com housing close to campus. In addition to alleviating visual blight in the area, the student population that will be living in The District at Campus West will provide an economic boost to the adjacent Campus West commercial district. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Policy ENV 8.6 – Prevent Pollution Promote prevention of air pollution at its source as the highest priority approach in reducing air pollution emissions. Principle ENV 9: The City will reduce total mobile source emissions by focusing on both technology (e.g., tailpipe emissions) and behavior (e.g., driving patterns). The District at Campus West PDP will provide housing for 674 students located within easy bike and walking distance of the CSU Campus, the Mason Street BRT and other activity centers. The site is an ideal location for student housing because it will encourage students to use alternative modes of travel and help reduce vehicle miles traveled. Development of high-density student housing at this location will help the City reach their goals of encouraging alternative modes of travel. Policy ENV 17.4 – Construction Waste Reduction Encourage activities that help divert debris from construction-related activities. Explore the feasibility of requiring any City-subsidized projects to employ reduction and solid waste diversion practices that reduce the volume of material sent from city construction sites to landfills for disposal. The District at Campus West is pursuing LEED Certification. Construction waste reduction is one of many sustainable building practices that will be evaluated during the design and construction processes. COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES The principles and policies in this section carry forward the City Plan vision for a community with a compact land use pattern within a well-defined boundary, adequate public facilities, and development paying its share of costs of necessary public facilities and services. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of a Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements. Principle LIV 3: The City will coordinate facilities and services with the timing and location of development and ensure that development only occurs where it can be adequately served. The District at Campus West PDP is located within the City’s Growth Management Area where it can be adequately served by streets, utilities and urban services. Furthermore, The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 3 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com the property is located within the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas, which the City has determined to be a priority for future development, capital investment, and public incentives. Principle LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development. The developers of The District at Campus West will be paying City fees that ensure that the development pays its share of the cost of public improvements. INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies for Districts and Neighborhoods, as applicable. Principle LIV 5: The City will promote redevelopment and infill in areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map. Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill Encourage redevelopment and infill in Activity Centers and Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas identified on the Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map (See Figure LIV 1). The purpose of these areas is to: • Promote the revitalization of existing, underutilized commercial and industrial areas. • Concentrate higher density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are currently or will be served by high frequency transit in the future and that can support higher levels of activity. • Channel development where it will be beneficial and can best improve access to jobs, housing, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • Promote reinvestment in areas where infrastructure already exists. • Increase economic activity in the area to benefit existing residents and businesses and, where necessary, provide the stimulus to redevelop. By locating in a Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Area, The District at Campus West will be achieving many of the City’s specific objectives in regard to infill development. • The District will promote the revitalization of the Campus West commercial area, an existing, underutilized commercial area near campus. • The District will concentrate higher density housing in a location that can be served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of activity. • The District will enable students to access the campus, jobs, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • The District will provide reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists. • The District will increase economic activity in an area that will benefit existing businesses and, will help provide stimulus for more redevelopment in the area. Policy LIV 5.4 – Contribute to Public Amenities. Explore options for private development to help contribute to the additional public amenities needed in areas where infill and redevelopment occurs. Public amenities will be key to transforming outdated areas into distinct places with identifiable character and more marketable frontage that promotes redevelopment. Needed amenities The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 4 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com usually include pedestrian improvements like streetscapes, plazas, special walkways, and lighting; access improvements like new secondary streets; and landscaping and signage for identity and wayfinding. Options for helping developers with these amenities include tax increment financing, improvement districts, and context-sensitive design and engineering standards for streets and development. Principle LIV 6: Infill and redevelopment within residential areas will be compatible with the established character of the neighborhood. In areas where the desired character of the neighborhood is not established, or is not consistent with the vision of City Plan, infill and redevelopment projects will set an enhanced standard of quality. The District at Campus West will help transform the area along Plum Street into a distinct place with identifiable character and more marketable frontage that will promote redevelopment. Needed amenities will include pedestrian improvements like streetscapes, plazas, special walkways, and lighting; access improvements like new pedestrian connections; and landscaping and signage for identity and wayfinding. HOUSING Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well- served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing Encourage public and private for- profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of single- and multiple-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Policy LIV 7.6 – Basic Access Support the construction of housing units with practical features that provide basic access and functionality for people of all ages and widely varying mobility and ambulatory–related abilities. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population Plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. The District at Campus West will provide a high density, unique housing type designed to offer students the ability to live just off campus in an exciting urban environment, designed with their needs in mind. The rental apartments are designed to be safe, convenient, comfortable and affordable for the average student. Four accessible living units will be provided for handicapped students. There will be adequate parking facilities for bikes and cars as well as a centrally located transit stop. The location is convenient to campus as well as a variety of goods and services available at the adjacent Campus west commercial area. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 5 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com The clubhouse facility will include an outdoor pool, a recreation room with pool tables, TV's, and other games; fitness center, a theater room, a computer lab, and study rooms for group study sessions. In addition students living at The District are just one block from the CSU athletic fields and Moby Gymnasium and are also just a few blocks from City Park, which includes 172 acres of open space with sport fields, a lake, natural areas, a swimming pool, playground, and a golf course. Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. Policy LIV 8.4 – Retain Existing Affordable Housing Retain affordable housing options in existing neighborhoods so that long-term residents can “age in place” and to meet the housing needs of various household types. The District at Campus West addresses the need for affordability in several ways: • Locating high-density housing for students where they can access the campus, shopping, employment and recreational opportunities without using an automobile is a key component of reducing living expenses. The District at Campus West will allow 674 students to live in a location where they can easily get along without owning a car. This is not only highly desirable from an environmental perspective but also makes going to college more affordable to students on a budget. • High-density multi-family housing helps to achieve affordability because land costs and infrastructure costs are spread over more units. • The District will provide energy efficient 4-bedroom units that lower the student’s utility costs making the living unit more affordable. Policy LIV 9.1 – Increase Efficiency and Resource Conservation Reduce net energy and water use of new and existing housing units in order to conserve natural resources, and minimize environmental impacts. • The District will provide four-bedroom units which are more efficient in terms of material usage and are also more energy efficient. Data obtained from Conservice, a nationwide utility billing service that analyzes information from many properties and thousands of units indicates that electricity usage is on average 21.25% more efficient when comparing a 4-bedroom unit to two 2- bedroom units. In other words the same four people use less electricity when housed in a 4-bedroom unit vs. being split up into two 2-bedroom units. Likewise, natural gas is estimated to be 55.13% more efficient. • Additionally, less construction materials translates into less environmental impact from a construction standpoint. • The landscape plan proposed for the District is intended to provide an attractive and sustainable landscape for many years to come. Plants are selected for hardiness, low water consumption and ease of maintenance. Xeriscape The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 6 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com principles regarding plant material selection, soil amendments, mulches and irrigation will be incorporated throughout. • The District will be pursuing LEED Certification. In order to get the certification the project will be required to incorporate numerous green building practices and incorporate water saving fixtures. COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AND DESIGN STREETSCAPES Principle LIV 10: The city’s streetscapes will be designed with consideration to the visual character and the experience of users and adjacent properties. Together, the layout of the street network and the streets themselves will contribute to the character, form, and scale of the city. Policy LIV 10.1 – Design Safe, Functional, and Visually Appealing Streets Ensure all new public streets are designed in accordance with the City street standards and design all new streets to be functional, safe, and visually appealing, with flexibility to serve the context and purpose of the street corridor. Provide a layout that is simple, interconnected, and direct, avoiding circuitous routes. Include elements such as shade trees, landscaped medians and parkways, public art, lighting, and other amenities in the streetscape. Approve alternative street designs where they are needed to accommodate unique situations, such as “green” stormwater functions, important landscape features, or distinctive characteristics of a neighborhood or district, provided that they meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. (Also see the Transportation chapter.) The streetscape along the existing public streets adjacent to the project site are designed in accordance with the City street standards, allowing for a parkway, street trees, lighting and a public sidewalk located within the public right-of-way. The layout is simple, interconnected, and direct. The spaces between the public right-of-way and the buildings are integrated into the streetscape to create visually exciting and functional urban spaces. These urban spaces and adjacent courtyards include special paving, a variety of seating opportunities, lighting, trees and ornamental plant materials, bike parking and internet access. The foundation planters along most of the building frontages incorporate a storm water function in addition to being attractive landscape features. The planters will detain storm water before it drains out to the storm water outfall. This allows for water to be released at the historic rate, allows pollutants to settle out and enables plant material to take advantage of the storm water reducing the need for artificial irrigation. The Applicant has worked with City staff to ensure that the planters meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. Policy LIV 10.2 – Incorporate Street Trees Utilize street trees to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Preserve existing trees to the maximum extent feasible. Use canopy shade trees for the majority of tree plantings, including a mixture of tree types, arranged to establish urban tree canopy cover. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 7 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Street trees are used to reinforce, define and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Existing trees have been preserved where possible and trees that have been removed have been mitigated by planting trees that are larger than required on the site in locations where they will be both functional and attractive. Policy LIV 10.3 – Tailor Street Lighting While most of the lighting for The District at Campus West will be provided by the public streetlights along the adjacent streets, the developer proposes to add pedestrian scale lighting where it is needed to provide good visibility and security during the evening and nighttime. This low-level pedestrian scale lighting will be located in the courtyards, plaza spaces and at the proposed transit stop. The lighting will be designed to achieve the desired illumination level and preserve “dark sky” views at nighttime, avoiding sharp contrasts between bright spots and shadows, spillover glare, and emphasis of the light source. Fixtures will be selected to enhance the street environment by establishing a consistent style with height, design, color, and finishes. Principle LIV12: Security and crime prevention will be important factors in urban design. Policy LIV 12.1 – Design for Crime Prevention and Security Policy LIV 12.2 – Utilize Security Lighting and Landscaping All of the buildings at The District are oriented to public streets. This orientation heightens visibility that not only helps with police surveillance, but will increase observation by residents who feel a sense of ownership in the community. The landscape is designed to avoid hidden areas near building entrances, and the transit stop. The parking garage is an open-air facility. The interior is well lit and the structure is designed to avoid “hiding” spaces. The elevator is located to encourage students to primarily use the Plum Street access point, which is a safer egress since it is located along a busy public street. LANDSCAPE DESIGN Principle LIV 14: Require quality and ecologically sound landscape design practices for all public and private development projects throughout the community. Policy LIV 14.1 – Encourage Unique Landscape Features Policy LIV 14.2 – Promote Functional Landscape Policy LIV 14.3 – Design Low Maintenance Landscapes Plant material will be selected based on water requirements, hardiness and ease of maintenance. Plants will consist of trees that the City forester approves, evergreen and deciduous shrubs and high performing grasses and perennials that require only The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 8 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com seasonal maintenance. Turf areas are minimized. Xeriscape principles of utilizing soil amendments, mulches and efficient irrigation will be followed to ensure that the landscape is both attractive and sustainable. The foundation planters along most of the building frontages incorporate a storm water function in addition to being attractive landscape features. The planters will detain storm water before it drains out to the storm water outfall. This allows for water to be released at the historic rate, allows pollutants to settle out and enables plant material to take advantage of the storm water reducing the need for artificial irrigation. The Applicant has worked with City staff to ensure that the planters meet necessary safety, accessibility, and maintenance requirements. NOISE POLLUTION MITIGATION Principle LIV 18: The City shall reduce noise disturbances and pollution through enforceable, measurable, and realistic noise standards, and careful consideration of potential noise impacts. The pool area and courtyards are oriented to Plum Street and away from adjacent neighborhood residential projects. In addition The District’s management policies are designed to eliminate noise problems before they happen. Pool hours are limited and there are a restricted number of people that can be in the area at one time. The number of guest that residents can have at one time is also restricted. In addition to these policies, the project is patrolled by on-site surveillance people on a regular basis. APPLYING THE CITY STRUCTURE PLAN MAP Principle LIV 19: The City Structure Plan Map establishes the desired development pattern for the City, serving as a blueprint for the community’s desired future. Policy LIV 19.1 – Land Use Designations - Utilize the City Structure Plan Map to set forth a basic framework, representing a guide for future land use and transportation decisions. The District at Campus West is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Structure Plan. The high-density student housing project will replace existing substandard housing and urban blight conditions with a compact urban development pattern that achieves the following objectives: • Locates high-density residential housing adjacent to activity centers (CSU campus and Campus West Commercial area) so residents can work, shop and recreate close to home. • Contributes to an interconnected transit system. With a transit stop centrally located within the project students can conveniently access other activity centers in the community including the Mason Street BRT. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 9 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Encourages alternative modes of travel. With so many activities located within easy walking and biking distance, students will drive their cars less because it will be less expensive and more convenient to walk or bike. The end result will be fewer daily trips and overall reduced carbon emissions. • Contributes to the success of a transit-oriented activity center. Locating a large- scale, high-density student housing project adjacent to the Campus West Commercial area contributes to the success of both. Students will be attracted to The District because of the convenience of living so close to a diversified commercial area and the commercial area will benefit from the expanded student market. Principle LIV 20: Subarea and corridor planning efforts will be developed and updated as needed, tailoring City Plan’s citywide perspective to a more focused area of the community, such as individual neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and edges. The West Central Neighborhood Plan developed in 1999 incorporates policies and plans to direct development in the three square mile area west and south of the CSU campus. The District is proposed to be located in the Campus West/Community Commercial Area and is zoned C-C Community Commercial. The Community Commercial District is designed to provide a combination of retail, office, services, cultural facilities, civic uses and higher density housing. The District at Campus West Project Development Plan (PDP) is supported by the following policies found in the West Central Neighborhood Plan. Policy F3 New multi-family structures must be designed and managed in such a way that reduces conflicts with single-family neighborhood character and lessen infrastructure impacts on single-family neighborhoods. Policy F7 The City should encourage the development of additional student housing by Colorado State University on, or adjacent to, the Main Campus. Policy H2 Bicycle and pedestrian improvements should be made to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel within and to/from the neighborhoods. Policy J1 Adequate parking should be required in all development and redevelopment projects. Policy J2 Parking areas should be designed to consider the aesthetic impacts on the visual quality of the neighborhoods. PRINCIPLE LIV 21: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure, connected through shared facilities such as streets, schools, parks, transit stops, trails, civic facilities, and a Neighborhood Commercial Center or Community Commercial District. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 10 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy LIV 21.2 – Establish an Interconnected Street and Pedestrian Network Policy LIV 21.2 – Design Walkable Blocks Policy LIV 21.3 – Calm Traffic Policy LIV 21.4 – Provide Access to Transit The District at Campus West is designed to become an integral part of the Campus West neighborhood. Design characteristics that contribute to this integration include: • The District is oriented to existing public streets and reinforces the historic block pattern in the neighborhood. • Improvements to street sidewalks – Currently the streets adjacent to the project site have a rollover curb section at the edge of the street, which is inadequate to provide safe pedestrian movement. Students living in the area are forced to walk in the street on their route to the CSU campus or to the Campus west Commercial area. The District will provide wide detached pedestrian ways along the West Plum Street, Aster Street, Bluebell Street, and City Park Avenue. These pedestrian ways will not only be convenient and safe, but will also be fun, attractive urban places that contribute to the character of the neighborhood. • Adding a transit stop on West Plum Street in the heart of The District project will encourage transit use by residents of the District as well as other students living in the immediate vicinity. The transit stop will be easily accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. • A pedestrian connection through the fence at the north end on the west side of the parking structure is planned. • Existing bike lanes along Plum Street are adequate to provide safe and convenient bicycle movement through the neighborhood. Neighborhood Design and Character Principle LIV22: The design of residential neighborhoods should emphasize creativity, diversity, and individuality, be responsive to its context, and contribute to a comfortable, interesting community. Policy LIV 22.2 – Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design Policy LIV 22.3 – Offer Multi-Family Building Variation Policy LIV 22.4 – Orient Buildings to Public Streets or Spaces Policy LIV 22.5 – Create Visually Interesting Streetscapes Policy LIV 22.6 – Enhance Street Design and Image Most student-oriented multi-family housing projects in Fort Collins fit a suburban model of three-story buildings with 16-24 units in each. The architecture of buildings is identical or very similar. A centrally located clubhouse and pool is typically part of the plan. The buildings and associated surface parking are designed to create an enclave with an inward focus. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 11 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com The District offers a fresh student housing model unique to Fort Collins. The project is designed to be highly urban in character oriented to public streets with an outward focus. The highly articulated street facades of the buildings change their relationship to the street in an undulating pattern of alternating intimate or expansive pedestrian spaces at the ground level. The architecture of the building offers a variety of building materials including brick, stucco, metal and glass in a variety of color and textures that make the modern architecture exciting and appealing. The sizing of windows and doors as well as the articulation of other building design elements are careful to respect the human scale so that even though the buildings are large, they relate to the pedestrian and feel comfortable at the ground level. Building entries are oriented to the neighborhood street sidewalk and south facing courtyards provide access to sunlight and opportunities for social interaction. The pedestrian areas at the ground level offer a variety of seating opportunities, upscale street furniture and unique landscape details that include green wall systems, playful lighting, and multi-purpose rain-garden planters at the building foundation. All these amenities occur within the framework of tree-lined public streets with detached pedestrian sidewalks. The visual impact of the 4-story parking garage is mitigated by integrating three-story townhouse-like living units on the sides of the structure that face public streets. Existing trees visually buffer the north side of the garage. Principle LIV 26: Neighborhood stability should be maintained and enhanced. Most existing residential developments will remain largely unaffected by these City Plan Principles and Policies. Policy LIV 26.1 – Maintain Existing Neighborhoods Policy LIV 26.3 – Promote Compatibility of Uses The District at Campus West is oriented away from single-family neighborhoods and within the Campus West/Community Commercial area designated in the West Central Neighborhood Plan. The District is open to communicating and working with adjacent property owners to improve the safety, convenience, attractiveness and general livability of the immediate neighborhood, which includes a variety of student housing as well as commercial uses. We believe the District will raise property values and inspire other community improvements. Policy LIV 26.4 – Balance Resident Preferences with Communitywide Interests. In determining the acceptability of changes to parcels of land adjacent to existing residential developments, balance the adjacent residents’ preferences with communitywide interests A neighborhood meeting was held August 31, 2011. Approximately 24 people attended the meeting. Concerns raised by adjacent neighbors included building height, shading, property values, increased traffic, emergency access, parking and density. The The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 12 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Applicant listened to comments from the neighborhood and the design has responded to their concerns. The Community Commercial District does not have a maximum density and the building heights proposed by The District are at or below the maximum building height of 5- stories. The applicant reduced the height of the parking garage down to 4 stories and has stepped the largest building down to 4-stories on the north to reduce the shade impact on the adjacent development. The project is replacing poor quality single-family rental housing with new, higher density, upscale, energy efficient, student housing within walking distance of campus. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by ELB Engineering, LLC, indicates that existing infrastructure is adequate to handle the expected increase in traffic volume. The trip generation of the project is expected to be significantly lower than other multi-family projects due to the proximity of the site to CSU. Since the project is located in the Transit Overlay District (TOD), no on-site parking is required. The parking garage will provide 495 vehicular parking spaces, which equate to one parking space for 73% of the residents. In addition, the parking garage will accommodate 296 bicycle parking spaces, with additional bike parking in courtyard spaces for a total of 332. The Land Use Code would require 50 bike spaces. While property values are not considered a design criterion in the Land Use Code, we expect that the street and sidewalk improvements together with the upscale architectural design of the buildings will add tremendous value to the neighborhood over what currently exists. A second neighborhood meeting was held on March 7th. The changes the Applicant made to the project in response to the comments heard on August 31st were presented. Comments were mixed. The HOA presidents of Sunstone Condominiums were present and presented a statement reiterating the original comments concerning size, shadowing and property values. Policy LIV 26.5 – Retain Differences among Neighborhoods Retain the size and pattern of lots and blocks, building style, street design details, street and outdoor lighting, and landscape characteristics in ways unique to a given neighborhood as infill and redevelopment occur. The proposed project keeps the existing street and block pattern intact while adding street trees, upgrading the paving and generally enhancing the pedestrian experience. Policy LIV 30.3 – Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections within and to Commercial Districts as infill and redevelopment occur over time. (Also see the Transportation chapter.) • Provide direct access between commercial Districts and adjoining uses. • Clearly identify and distinguish pedestrian and bicycle travel routes from auto traffic through parking areas, across streets, and along building frontages. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 13 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Improve pedestrian/bicycle linkages across arterial streets and along transportation corridors. • Avoid superblocks, dead-end streets, and cul-de-sacs. • Coordinate with impacted neighborhoods to find context-sensitive solutions to address connectivity and neighborhood needs. Currently the sidewalks along Plum Street are either very narrow (2-3 feet) attached walks or they don’t exist at all. Pedestrians are forced to walk on the street competing with bicycles and cars for space. The existing situation is unsafe and a serious community concern since Plum Street is a collector street and a direct route to the CSU campus. The District project will be dedicating right-of-way and incorporating detached sidewalks along all street frontages, greatly improving pedestrian safety and connectivity in the neighborhood. In addition, the applicant is committed to working with the property owner to the north (Sunstone Condominiums) to maintain a safe, convenient cross access between the two properties. Currently there is a break in the fence to allow pedestrians to walk between the Sunstone parking lot and the existing property that the District intends to develop. This access point would occur behind the parking garage in the current site plan. The Applicant would like to move the access to align with an alley/courtyard space west of the parking structure. This connection would require re-striping the parking lot on the Sunstone property, but would create a more effective and secure pedestrian connection point. The Applicant is willing to pay for the re-striping if the adjacent property owner agrees. Policy LIV 30.4 – Reduce Visual Impacts of Parking Policy LIV 30.5 – Parking Structures Do not allow parking structures to dominate the street frontage. Other parking structure considerations include the following: a. Minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity for parking structures fronting primary pedestrian streets with retail or other uses with a high level of walk-in clientele along the ground-level frontage. b. On other streets where a parking structure’s ground level will be occupied by cars, require a landscaped setback to soften the visual impact on the street and sidewalk. c. Use architectural elements to establish human scale at the street level along the frontage of primary pedestrian streets, plazas, and public spaces where practical. d. Incorporate architectural design that is compatible with adjacent buildings. e. Locate auto entrances so as to minimize pedestrian and traffic conflicts. f. Provide a safe and secure environment for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Policy LIV 30.6 – Reduce Land Devoted to Surface Parking Lots To support transit use and a more pedestrian-friendly environment, reduce land devoted to surface parking lots as infill and redevelopment occur. Adhere to maximum parking ratios for commercial uses and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements for transit-supportive uses. Encourage alternatives such as structured parking, angled or parallel on-street parking, shared parking, and others as appropriate. Structured parking for The District dramatically reduces the amount of land devoted to surface parking, resulting in a more pedestrian friendly and convenient environment for residents. The visual impact of the 4-story parking garage is mitigated by integrating three-story townhouse-like living units on the sides of the structure that face public streets. The architectural facades establish human scale at the street level along the The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 14 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com frontages. The vehicular entrance to the parking garage is located on the side along an alley to reduce pedestrian vehicular conflicts. The parking garage is an open-air facility, with the interior being well lit at night. The structure is designed to avoid “hiding” spaces and the elevator is located to encourage students to primarily use the Plum Street access point, which is a safer egress since it is located along a busy public street. Policy LIV 31.7 – Housing Incorporate a variety of housing options in Commercial Districts as infill and redevelopment occur over time: • Residential units may be incorporated on upper floors of mixed-use buildings at the core of the Commercial District or in freestanding residential buildings along district edges. • Residential housing types along district edges should be compatible with the scale and massing of surrounding neighborhoods. • Incorporate residential amenities such as convenient parking, parks, plazas or other open spaces, gathering places, and recreation facilities to enhance the living experience in the district. • Concentrate high-density residential within one quarter (1/4) mile of existing and planned transit stops to provide ease of access and to promote increased ridership over time. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Purpose: Community Commercial Districts are higher intensity, mixed-use activity centers intended to serve as destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community. Community Commercial Districts offer a mix of retail, restaurants, offices, small civic uses, and higher density housing. Existing patterns and intensities of development in the City’s Community Commercial Districts vary greatly; therefore, both vertically and horizontally mixed-use development forms will be encouraged. Higher density development is encouraged in Community Commercial Districts to support their role as hubs of the City’s high-frequency transit system and to promote an active, pedestrian-friendly environment. The physical environment will promote walking, bicycling, transit use and ridesharing as well as provide a high quality urban life for residents. Examples of Community Commercial District areas include Campus West and the Foothills Mall. Principle LIV 35: Community Commercial Districts will be communitywide destinations and hubs for a high-frequency transit system. They will be quality mixed-use urban activity centers that offer retail, offices, services, small civic uses, and higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. Policy LIV 35.1 –Location Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors where they may be more readily served by existing or future transit. Policy LIV 35.2 – Mix of Uses Community Commercial Districts may include a mix of uses, as follows: • Principal uses: Retail, restaurants, offices, and other community services. • Supporting uses: Higher density housing, day care (adult and child), civic and institutional uses, pocket parks and other outdoor gathering spaces, and other supporting uses. Discourage drive-through facilities. Where such facilities are allowed, they should be secondary in emphasis to outdoor spaces for people, and relegated to secondary locations. Policy LIV 35.3 –Scale Encourage higher intensity infill and redevelopment in Community Commercial Districts to remote the creation of active destinations for surrounding neighborhoods and the community and to create concentrations of housing and employment sufficient to support high-frequency transit. Encourage vertical mixed-use; however, limit maximum building height to five (5) to six (6) stories. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 15 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy LIV 35.4 – Transform through Infill and Redevelopment Support the transformation of existing, underutilized Community Commercial Districts through infill and redevelopment over time to more intense centers of activity that include a mixture of land uses and activities, an enhanced appearance, and access to all transportation modes. (Also see the Infill and Redevelopment section in this chapter.) Policy LIV 35.5 – High-Frequency Transit Many of the city’s Community Commercial Districts are located along Enhanced Travel Corridors and are intended to serve as primary hubs of the city’s high-frequency transit system. Locate transit stops centrally and adjacent to the commercial core of the District. Retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be visible and accessible from the transit stop. Provide for transfers to feeder buses (local bus network) in the design and location of these stops. Provide comfortable waiting areas, appropriate for year-round weather conditions, at all transit stops. Passenger loading zones should be close to the stop, but should not interfere with pedestrian access. CAMPUS DISTRICTS Purpose: Campus Districts include the various campuses of Colorado State University and Front Range Community College, which serve as centers of higher education in the City. In addition to being education, research and employment centers, these Campus Districts also include supporting retail and residential areas either on or adjacent to the campus. The location and surrounding development context of each Campus District varies; therefore, unique urban design and environmental concerns will need to be addressed for each. Principle LIV 37: The campuses of Colorado State University and Front Range Community College will be integrated into the community structure, and treated as prominent community institutions and major destinations served by the City’s multi-modal transportation system. Policy LIV 37.3 –Supporting Uses and Housing Include student-oriented housing, retail, services, and entertainment designed to function as part of the Campus District. Form strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages throughout the district and provide connections to city systems beyond the campus. Policy LIV 37.4 –Campus District Edges Development within Campus Districts should be compatible with surrounding uses and their design characteristics. Mitigate negative impacts on surrounding areas as development occurs. Policy LIV 37.5 –Transit As primary multi-modal destinations within the city, serve all Campus Districts with high-frequency transit service. Transit service should link campuses. Develop transit stops as integral parts of the campus environment that serve as inviting gathering places for pedestrians, using materials of character and quality consistent with the desired image of the campus. Policy LIV 37.6 –Parking Structures Where appropriate (as shown on campus master plans), use parking structures to reduce the areas covered by parking lots, thereby making space available for infill and redevelopment opportunities. The District at Campus West project supported by all of the community and neighborhood livability policies listed above (31-37). The project is located in the Campus West Commercial area, a targeted infill and redevelopment area, specifically called out in City Plan. It will provide higher density housing, in an environment that promotes walking, bicycling, transit and ridesharing. The development is just a block away from the CSU campus, providing safe convenient, attractive, energy efficient and affordable units for CSU students. The proposed project is compatible with surrounding uses and the development will dramatically improve pedestrian connectivity and circulation in the neighborhood. In addition, the visual The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 16 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com quality of the neighborhood will improve with the proposed high quality architecture and upscale streetscape improvements. SAFETY AND WELLNESS PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Policy SW 1.5 - Maintain Public Safety through Design Provide a sense of security and safety within buildings, parking areas, walkways, alleys, bike lanes, public spaces, and streets through environmental design considerations, such as adequate lighting, visibility, maintained landscaping, and location of facilities. The outdoor courtyard spaces at the District are oriented toward the street to provide good visibility. Both the courtyards and parking garage are designed to eliminate hiding spaces and security lighting will be provided at night. In addition the District will have on-site personnel that will patrol the site on a regular basis. COMMUNITY WELLNESS Policy SW 2.3 - Support Active Transportation Support means of physically active transportation (e.g., bicycling, walking, wheelchairs, etc.) by continuing bike and pedestrian safety education and encouragement programs, providing law enforcement, and maintaining bike lanes, sidewalks, trails, lighting, and facilities for easy and safe use, as outlined in the Pedestrian Plan and Bicycle Plan Policy SW 2.4 – Design for Active Living Promote neighborhood and community design that encourages physical activity by establishing easy access to parks and trails, providing interesting routes that feature art and other visually interesting elements, and locating neighborhoods close to activity centers and services so that physically active modes of transportation are a desirable and convenient choice. Safety and Wellness policies are achieved by the District by virtue of locating high density housing in an area where tenants can walk or ride bikes to a variety of destinations including the CSU campus, the Campus West commercial area, and nearby parks and grocery stores. The District encourages the use of bicycles by providing convenient and secure bike parking spaces within the parking structure and at other locations on the project site. In addition the proposed pedestrian streetscape improvements will encourage other neighborhood residents to use alternative modes as well. TRANSPORTATION PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES Principle T 3: Land use planning decisions, management strategies, and incentives will support and be coordinated with the City's transportation vision. Policy T 3.1 – Pedestrian Mobility Promote a mix of land uses and activities that will maximize the potential for pedestrian mobility throughout the community and minimize the distance traveled. Policy T 3.2 – Bicycle Facilities Encourage bicycling for transportation through an urban development pattern that places major activity centers and neighborhood destinations within a comfortable bicycling distance. Policy T 3.3 – Transit Supportive Design Implement and integrate Transit Supportive Design strategies with respect to new and infill development opportunities along Enhanced Travel Corridors. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 17 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Policy T 3.4 – Travel Demand Management Manage development in a manner that minimizes automobile dependence, maximizes choices among other modes of local and regional travel, and encourages the use of telecommunications. The District project will help the City achieve the above land use planning objectives related to transportation. The District is ideally located to encourage alternative modes of travel. The District will be making streetscape improvements that will make walking and biking in the neighborhood safer, more convenient and more pleasant than it is now. A centrally located transit stop will be provided, and the District will be providing 332 bike parking spaces when only 50 are required by the LUC. Policy T 4.4 – Attractive and Safe Neighborhood Streets Neighborhood streets will provide an attractive environment and be safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers as well as having a well-designed streetscape, including detached sidewalks, parkways, and well- defined crosswalks. Policy T 4.5 – Infill and Redevelopment Areas Where the established street pattern and design may not conform to current street standards, allow for alternative contextual design. The District will provide an attractive environment designed to be safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. It will provide an upscale urban streetscape, including detached sidewalks, parkways, and well-defined crosswalks. The project is located in City Plan’s targeted infill and redevelopment area. Policy T 10.1 – Transit Stops Integrate transit stops into existing and future business districts and Neighborhood Commercial Centers in a way that makes it easy for transit riders to shop, access local services, and travel to work. Provide transit stops within easy walking distance of most residences and destinations. Design and locate transit stops as an integral part of these origins and destinations and provide adequate lighting, security, pedestrian amenities, wheelchair accessibility, bicycle parking, and weather protection. Policy T 10.5 – Connect Transit to Other Modes Connect public transit to other modes of travel through intersecting routes, shared facilities, schedule timing, and accessories such as bike racks on transit vehicles. A centrally located transit stop is planned. A covered area with seating located at the entry to the parking garage will be provided by the developer. Principle T11: Bicycling will be a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 11.1 – Bicycle Facilities Ensure safe and convenient access by bicycle in neighborhoods and other pedestrian and bicyclist- oriented districts. Policy T 11.3 – All Ages and Skill Levels Design a bicycle network that maximizes safety, convenience, and comfort for bicyclists of all ages and skill levels. Principle T 12: The pedestrian network will provide a safe, easy, and convenient mobility option for all ages and abilities. Policy T 12.1 – Connections The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 18 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com Direct pedestrian connections will be provided from places of residence to transit, schools, activity centers, work, and public facilities. Policy T 12.2 – Pedestrian Network Develop a complete pedestrian network in ETCs and Activity Centers. Policy T 12.3 – Pedestrian Plan The adopted pedestrian plan will be considered in the development of all transportation projects. Policy T 12.4 – ADA Compliance Pedestrian facilities will comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Policy T 12.5 – Safe and Secure Develop safe and secure pedestrian settings by developing and maintaining a well-lit, inhabited pedestrian network and by mitigating the impacts of vehicles. Connections will be clearly visible and accessible, incorporating markings, signage, lighting, and paving materials. Policy T 12.6 – Street Crossings Design street crossings at intersections consistent with Fort Collins Traffic Code, Land Use Code, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards with regard to crosswalks, lighting, median refuges, corner sidewalk widening, ramps, signs, signals, and landscaping. Policy T 12.8 – Safety The City will promote development of educational programs and appropriate utilization of traffic enforcement. Principle T 14: The City will be a responsible steward of transportation resources for multiple modes of travel, making it easy to choose transportation options that support a healthy lifestyle. By providing an enhanced streetscape along Plum Street that includes detached sidewalks and parkways, the project will improve the overall quality, safety and convenience for pedestrians of all ages utilizing Plum Street. Street crossings will be constructed with ADA accessible ramps and crosswalks. TRAFFIC FLOW Principle T 25: Transportation infrastructure will ensure the provision of high quality facilities for the movement of goods, people, and information. Policy T 25.1 – Level of Service Standards The City will have current Level of Service standards positioned in alignment with transportation and land use goals. Policy T 25.3 – New and Existing Roadways New roadways will be designed and constructed to ensure an acceptable Level of Service and design standards. Existing roadways will be enhanced as necessary to meet current and future needs and design standards. The Traffic Impact Study prepared by ELB Engineering, LLC indicates that: • Operation at all key intersections will meet City Level of Service (LOS) standards after full build-out of the project. • No new traffic signals or signal modifications will be required with the construction of the project. The District at Campus West City Plan – Principles and Policies Page 19 of 19 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Multi-modal LOS standards can be achieved with the project. Policy T 29.1 – Bicycle Safety The City and community will partner to develop educational and enforcement programs that promote safety and encourage respect by and for bicyclists and by bicyclists for traffic laws. Policy T 29.2 – Pedestrian Safety The City and community will partner to develop educational and enforcement programs that promote safety and encourage respect for pedestrians and by pedestrians for traffic laws. Principle T 30: Programs that establish awareness of the environmental and energy use impacts of transportation choices and affect travel choices and behavior will be promoted. Policy T 30.1 – Energy Efficient and Environmentally Sensitive Transportation Develop a program to promote energy efficient and environmentally sensitive transportation choices. The District is located in an area where students can easily walk or ride bikes to the CSU campus, to the Campus West commercial area, and to nearby parks and grocery stores. The District will encourage the use of bicycles by providing convenient and secure bike parking spaces within the parking structure and at other locations on the project site. In addition the District will be providing an on-site air pump and fix-it station for residents. Educating residents in regard to bicycle use and safety will be part of the District’s message to new residents. Promoting energy efficient and environmentally sensitive transportation choices fits right in with the applicant’s goal to attain Silver LEED certification. land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com February 28, 2012 Modification Request 3.5.2 Residential Building Standards (D) Residential building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size. (2) Setback from Nonarterial Streets. Minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building from any public street right-of-way other than an arterial street right-of-way shall be fifteen (15) feet. Reason for the Request West Plum Street in the vicinity of the District at Campus West includes two travel lanes and striped bike lanes within a 40-foot pavement section. The travel lanes and striped bike lanes are adequate for the volume of vehicular and bicycle traffic that exists currently and will also be adequate when the proposed development is in place (see Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by ELB Engineering, LLC. The pedestrian circulation system however, is seriously inadequate. Sidewalks in the area are strips of concrete attached to the curb, only 2-3-feet wide and in some locations sidewalks don’t exist at all, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street. City staff has requested the applicant to dedicate additional right-of-way sufficient to accommodate a 5-foot sidewalk and 6.5- foot parkway strip within the right-of-way. Building One includes a clubhouse and leasing office in addition to residential dwelling units which makes it a mixed-use building. Similarly Building Two, which is a parking structure with residential dwelling units along the street-facing facades, is also classified as a mixed-use building. Mixed-use buildings are not subject to the 15-foot setback from the right-of-way. In fact the LUC stipulates that mixed-use buildings shall be located no more than 15 from the right-of-way of an adjoining street if the street is smaller than a full arterial. (3.5.3(B)(2)b. Building Three, being a total residential building is required to be setback 15-feet from the right-of-way. The applicant is requesting a Modification to the building setback in order to provide a more varied streetscape pattern and to be consistent with Buildings 1 and 2. We are confident that the proposed setbacks and resulting streetscapes will meet the needs of the pedestrian as well as provide an interesting, upscale, urban The District at Campus West Modification Request – Building Setback Page 2 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com experience for neighborhood residents who walk along this corridor. The proposed building footprints are highly articulated and the setbacks vary. Building 3 Bluebell Street At the most constricted areas the building is setback 11 feet from the right-of-way. The setback is more at patios and at building indentations, averaging a 14.6-foot setback along the Bluebell Street frontage. There is a consistent 8.5 foot sidewalk adjacent to Bluebell Street with tree grates and a curb bulge at the Plum Street intersection. Building 3 Plum Street At the most constricted areas the building is setback 12.5 feet from the right-of-way. The majority of the façade on Building 3 is setback 17 feet or more and the setback extends to beyond 100-feet at the courtyard, averaging a 26.2-foot setback along the Plum Street frontage. In addition to these setback measurements that extend from the building face to the newly dedicated right-of-way line, there is a consistent 11.5 feet that includes a 5-foot walk* and 6.5-foot parkway along the curb line. Building 3 Aster Street At the most constricted areas the building is setback 10 feet from the right-of-way. The setback is more at patios and at building indentations, averaging a 15.8-foot setback along the Aster Street frontage. In addition to these setback measurements that extend from the building face to the existing right-of-way line, there is a consistent 11.5 feet that includes a 5-foot walk* and 6.5-foot parkway along the curb line. * Sidewalks along Plum Street and Aster Street are consistently 7-feet wide, however, only 5 feet is within the public right-of-way. Justifications The Land Use Code states that the decision-maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the decision-maker must also find that the Modification meets one of the following four criteria described in the LUC. (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; The District is a unique project designed specifically for this challenging site. All design projects require trade-offs to get to the best design fit. In this case, the design team believes that the unique architectural character, created by the building’s articulation The District at Campus West Modification Request – Building Setback Page 3 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com and street-facing courtyard space is more important, more valuable, and more attractive than a consistent 15-foot setback. The District at Campus West project proposes a safe, convenient, attractive streetscape in place of an inconsistent and seriously inadequate pedestrian system that currently exists in the Plum Street neighborhood. A developer could propose a building with less building articulation, without a street facing courtyard and maintain a consistent 15-foot setback. We believe the varied streetscape design proposed by the District is not only equal to but much better than a project that may provide a consistent 15-foot setback but not achieve the overall aesthetic and functional values that the proposed streetscape does. A student housing project proposed for this site and approved in 2009 known then as The Retreat at 1200 Plum Street PDP proposed nearly identical building setback distances from the curb line. The Retreat project, however, was not required to dedicate additional right of way. So as lines measured on paper, the “setback” from right-of-way was greater, but the physical relationship to the curb, streetscape, etc. is almost identical to what was previously approved (and what the new developer understood to be purchasing). The right-of-way line is invisible and doesn’t change the visual or functional quality of the streetscape. On Plum Street and on Aster Street the average setback exceeds the minimum requirement of 15 feet. The average setback distance for all three streets combined is over 20 feet. The District is located in the Campus West Commercial area. Commercial Districts often have no setback requirements at all. Commercial, mixed-use and residential buildings are constructed at the property line in commercial districts. Buildings 1 and 2 are mixed-use buildings and are not subject to the 15-foot setback. We believe the look and feel of the District’s varied setbacks will be appropriate to the new urban scale evolving in the neighborhood. Lastly, it is interesting to note that in the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (MMN) there is no minimum setback from the public right-of-way. Reducing or eliminating the setback requirement encourages streetscapes that are more urban in character, usually including, highly articulated spaces with street furniture, special paving, lighting, planters and a variety of seating opportunities, precisely the kind of streetscape proposed by the District at Campus West. (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; The District at Campus West Modification Request – Building Setback Page 4 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com The proposed project addresses important community needs in three ways: 1. The project is located within City Plan’s “Targeted Redevelopment Areas” and within the Campus West “Targeted Activity Area”. By locating in this neighborhood, the District at Campus West will be achieving many of the City’s specific objectives in regard to infill development. • The District will promote the revitalization of the Campus West commercial area, an existing, underutilized commercial area near campus. • The District will concentrate higher density housing in a location that can be served by high frequency transit and that can support higher levels of activity. • The District will enable students to access the campus, jobs, and services with fewer and shorter auto trips. • The District will provide reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists. • The District will increase economic activity in an area that will benefit existing businesses and, will help provide stimulus for more redevelopment in the area. 2. The project will be replacing inadequate, run-down student rentals with safe modern, and energy efficient units. 3. An attractive and functional streetscape will be added to this core circulation route, where students are currently forced to walk in the street. land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com March 23, 2012 District at Campus West Request for 4-bedroom Units The District at Campus West is planned to be a student-oriented apartment complex that will include 193 dwelling units located west of the Colorado State University (CSU) campus adjacent to West Plum Street. The apartment complex is planned to include 28 two-bedroom apartments, 42 three-bedroom apartments and 123 four-bedroom apartments. In the City of Fort Collins, the maximum occupancy allowed per multi-family dwelling unit is three unrelated persons, unless an exception is granted by the decision maker. In order to provide 4-bedroom units intended to be occupied by four unrelated persons, the City’s Land Use Code requires the Applicant to provide a written request as follows: 3.8.16 Occupancy Limits; Increasing the Number of Persons Allowed (E) Increasing the Occupancy Limit. (2) With respect to multiple-family dwellings, the decision maker (depending on the type of review, Type 1 or Type 2) may, upon receipt of a written request from the applicant and upon a finding that all applicable criteria of this Land Use Code have been satisfied, increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units. The decision maker shall not increase said number unless satisfied that that the applicant has provided such additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary to adequately serve the occupants of the development and to protect the adjacent neighborhood. Justification The Applicant has found that 4-bedroom units are a popular lifestyle alternative for many students. It allows four students to share an apartment in a well-managed environment. It is more secure than most single-family home rentals and the 4-bedroom unit costs less per bedroom and therefore offers a more affordable alternative to students on a budget. The tenants that are likely to occupy these units are also the ones likely to occupy single-family rental properties near campus. By providing safe, efficient, and high quality 4-bedroom apartment units The District is helping to relieve the burden on surrounding neighborhoods and is helping to free up affordable rental housing stock to families and employees of CSU. The District at Campus West Request for Four Bedroom Units Page 2 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com In order to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units, the applicant must show that there is adequate open space, recreation areas, parking and public facilities to serve the occupants of the development. There are no specific criteria in the Land Use Code that addresses how to determine how much is adequate. In the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (MMN), residential projects are required to be close to public parks or include a 10,000 square foot private park, central feature or gathering place. Although this is not a requirement in the Community Commercial District (CC), The District complies with both. The project is less than ½ mile from City Park and just two blocks from CSU athletic fields. The District will offer 16,500 square feet of courtyards and landscaped open space on the 3.34 acre site including a swimming pool and sun deck. The indoor clubhouse facility will provide an additional 7,000 square feet of indoor recreational opportunities. Further justification for 4-bedroom units at this location includes the following: Open Space and Recreational Amenities • The buildings are designed to create an attractive urban-living experience for the student interested in living near CSU where they can easily walk or bike to campus. The buildings are designed to create south-facing exterior courtyards. This has the benefit of getting sun light into more units and also creates outdoor space that is readily accessible to students. The courtyards are oriented to maximize exposure to the sun, so that students can enjoy the outdoors all year long on sunny days. The design of the courtyards includes special paving, generous landscaping, outdoor lighting, internet access, and a variety of seating opportunities. • The project incorporates open space and recreational amenities based on how many students are living in the complex. Four-bedroom units are factored into the equation. The 7,000 square foot clubhouse facility will include an outdoor pool, a recreation room with pool tables, TV's, and other games; expanded fitness center, a theater room, a computer lab, and study rooms for group study sessions. • The streetscape around the edges of the project adds to the urban-lifestyle by providing street trees, special paving, seat walls, planters, street furniture and convenient bike parking. • Students living at The District are just one block from the CSU athletic fields and Moby Gymnasium. • CSU’s newly renovated campus recreation center with swimming pool, gymnasium, climbing wall, fitness center and much more is less than ½ mile to the east. • Students are also just a few blocks from City Park which includes 172 acres of open space with sport fields, a lake, natural areas, a swimming pool, playground, and a golf course. Parking • The project is located within the transit-oriented development (TOD) overlay zone. Multi-family residential projects in the TOD have no minimum parking requirements; however, if the project were not in the TOD, it would require 441 parking spaces based on bedroom counts. The project proposes to provide 495 spaces. The applicant recognizes that many students do own cars even when they don’t need to use them on a regular basis. To insure that students don’t park their vehicles on neighboring properties the applicant proposes to provide parking for 73% of the students that will live in the complex in a centrally located on-site parking structure. The District at Campus West Request for Four Bedroom Units Page 3 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Parking permits will be required, but spaces will not be designated. It is anticipated that parking at the proposed ratio will be more than adequate to serve the needs of students that have cars with ample spaces left for guest parking. If a student has a car that they bring to college with them, they are required to purchase a parking permit and park it in the garage. • The applicant is interested in doing everything they can to encourage students to be environmentally responsible by promoting alternative means of transportation including walking, biking, transit and ride-sharing programs. The site is served by Transfort and there is a centrally located bus stop proposed in the project. Students can connect to the Mason Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) via bike or by using the bus. The BRT provides transportation to Downtown or to destinations and activity centers located in south Fort Collins. Public Facilities • The proposed site is adequately served with standard public infrastructure including water, wastewater, police and fire facilities. The existing street network has adequate capacity to absorb the additional traffic within level of service standards. See Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by ELB Engineering LLC. • The site is adjacent to Campus West commercial shopping area that includes many retail and personnel service shops as well as a variety of restaurants and entertainment venues that cater to the student population. • The site is also close to two grocery stores, being approximately 1 mile from Beaver’s Market at Mountain and Shields Streets and 1.5 miles from Safeway on College Avenue. The CSU campus offers many public facilities that are available for students to use including classroom facilities, auditoriums, medical care facilities, arts and entertainment opportunities as well as a variety of other amenities and services especially designed to serve the student population. Architectural Design • In addition, the 4-bedroom occupancy has positive effects related to architectural design and sustainability. Four-bedroom dwelling units are more efficient in the utilization of space, allowing more flexibility in building height. Sustainability • Locating high-density housing for students where they can access the campus, shopping, employment and recreational opportunities without using an automobile is a key component of being an environmentally responsible community. The District at Campus West will allow 674 students to live in a location where they can easily get along without owning a car. This is not only highly desirable from an environmental perspective but also makes going to college more affordable to students on a budget. The 4-bedroom unit is an essential component that allows higher density to work in this location. • The District encourages the use of bicycles by providing 332 convenient and secure bike parking spaces within the parking structure and in courtyards. In addition to being able to walk or bike to campus, the students will also have easy access to transit with a Transfort bus stop located in the heart of the project. • The four-bedroom units are more efficient in terms of material usage and are also more energy efficient. Data obtained from Conservice, a nationwide utility billing service that analyzes information from many properties and thousands of units indicates that electricity usage is on average 21.25% more efficient when comparing a 4-bedroom unit to two 2- bedroom units. In other words the same four people use less electricity when housed in a 4-bedroom unit vs. being split up into two 2-bedroom units. Likewise, natural gas is estimated to be 55.13% more efficient. The District at Campus West Request for Four Bedroom Units Page 4 of 4 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com • Additionally, less construction materials translates into less environmental impact from a construction standpoint. We believe the 4-bedroom units proposed in this development will serve the students by providing a fun, secure and affordable lifestyle alternative without impacting adjacent neighbors. To the contrary, the 4- bedroom units are necessary to keep building heights lower and more compatible with adjacent properties. Upscale urban courtyards and a large, state-of-the-art clubhouse/recreation facility provide recreational opportunities on-site, while City Park and the CSU campus offer expansive green spaces, sport fields, water bodies and natural areas nearby. More than adequate parking for both cars and bicycles is provided on site and there is a variety of shopping, dining, and entertainment opportunities located in the adjacent Campus West shopping center and on the CSU campus land planning g landscape architecture g urban design g entitlement Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com January 25, 2012 Building Height Review (1) Special Height Review/Modifications. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height. Its intent is to encourage creativity and diversity of architecture and site design within a context of harmonious neighborhood planning and coherent environmental design, to protect access to sunlight, to preserve desirable views and to define and reinforce downtown and designated activity centers. All buildings or structures in excess of forty (40) feet in height shall be subject to special review pursuant to this subsection (G). (a) Review Standards. If any building or structure is proposed to be greater than forty (40) feet in height above grade, the building or structure must meet the following special review criteria: 1. Views. A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Techniques to preserve views may include, but are not limited to, reducing building or structure mass, changing the orientation of buildings and increasing open space setbacks. The development of The District at Campus West will change the look of the Plum Street neighborhood but it will not alter the opportunity for or quality of desirable views from public places, streets or parks. There are no significant views to the foothills or to parks or open spaces from this site or adjacent sites that would be changed by the development of this project. 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and The District at Campus West Building Height Review Page 2 of 5 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure’s shape. The Community Commercial Zone District encourages taller building heights up to 5 stories and does not increase setbacks to avoid the shading that is unavoidable. The criteria in the LUC General Development Standards that limits shadowing do not apply in this zone district in order to encourage higher density in key commercial areas like Downtown and in the Campus West Commercial area. (LUC 3.2.3 (D) (1) The attached photos were taken December 23rd, 2011 to illustrate the existing condition at the site during the winter. The photos indicate that the existing one-story structures combined with the existing trees, many of which are over 50 feet tall, cast shadows across the existing parking lot and onto the adjacent Sunstone Condominium buildings. The District at Campus West Building Height Review Page 3 of 5 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com While the LUC is supportive of building heights up to 5 stories in the Community Commercial District, the applicant has reduced the height of the parking structure to 4 stories and has dropped the height of Building 1 down to 4 stories on the north side to decrease the shadowing on the adjacent property. This was done in direct response to comments received in the August 31st neighborhood meeting. The District project was The District at Campus West Building Height Review Page 4 of 5 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com scaled back and redesigned so that the shadow caused by the project is not substantially different from the existing condition. The attached shadow analysis depicts the shadows cast by the Buildings 1, 2 and 3 at 9AM, 12 NOON and 3PM, the 22nd day of the month in January, March, June, September, November and December. Each month shows the shadows cast by the project when all structures were proposed to be 5-story, followed by a depiction of shadows cast by the project when Building 1 is dropped to 4 stories on the north side and the parking garage is reduced to a 4-story structure as currently proposed by the Applicant. The analysis shows that shadows are cast across the parking lot and onto the adjacent buildings between November and January. By dropping the north side of Building 1 down to 4 stories and by reducing the parking structure to 4 stories, we can reduce the shadowing impact so that shadows cast by the new buildings will only impact the first floor units of the adjacent building and only in December. By January the first floor units have full access to the sun by noon. By reducing the scale of the buildings we are able to stay well within the criteria that require the project to avoid shading of windows for more than three (3) months of the year. The shadowing does not preclude the functional use of solar energy technology for adjacent properties. The next two photos taken December 23rd, 2011 show, the existing houses and tall trees shade the Sunstone Condominium parking lot during the winter. The District project has lowered the height of Building 1 and the parking structure so that the shadow cast by the buildings is not significantly worse than the shadowing that already exists. The District at Campus West Building Height Review Page 5 of 5 Thinking outside of the box for over two decades. 3. Privacy. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed to avoid infringing on the privacy of adjacent public and private property, particularly adjacent residential areas and public parks. Techniques to improve the level of privacy in a neighborhood may include, but not be limited to, providing landscaping, fencing and open space, and changing building or structure orientation away from adjacent residential development. Existing residential units in the Sunstone Condominium project are separated from units in the new project by a parking lot; therefore, we don’t anticipate that privacy would be an issue. 4. Neighborhood Scale. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass, and building or structure scale to human scale. The structures proposed for the District are incrementally taller than adjacent buildings in the neighborhood. For example the Sunstone Condominiums located to the north are 3-story structures while Building 1 and 2 of the District project are proposed to be 4 stories in height on the north side. The Sunstone project has pitched roofs while the District proposes flat roofs so the overall height difference is less than it would be if both projects had pitched roofs. A building height exhibit follows the shadow analysis at the end of this narrative. 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 g Fort Collins, CO 80521 g tel. 970.224.5828 g fax 970.224.1662 g www.ripleydesigninc.com HEIGHT COMPARISON 48'-8" 32'-8" - ----.- •• • •••• SHADOW STUDY - JANUARY 22 - CURRENTLY PROPOSED @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME @ N 12 NOON STANDARD TIME @ N 4PM STANDARD TIME 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A916 SHADOW STUDY - JANUARY 22 -5 STORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) @ N 9 AM @ N 12 NOON @ N 3 PM 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM A916A SHADOW STUDY - MARCH 22 - CURRENTLY PROPOSED 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME @ N @ N @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A911 SHADOW STUDY - MARCH 22 - 5 STORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM @ N @ N @ N ___J I 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM A911A SHADOW STUDY - JUNE 22 - CURRENTLY PROPOSED ~ ~---- --r-----t:=::J-i:jj l -----.I:!!~I--------l--.J -~..... -----------...J 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME @ N @ N @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A912 SHADOW STUDY - JUNE 22 - 5_ ST_ORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM @ N @ N @ N T:: .- -, I ,- ,- ~~.r=-- I ~-_. ~--~ , I • ] I • ~--~ ~ ,--,,~.. - -- , -" - - - - - - , , - - - - - - - 9 AM 12 NOON 3 PM A912A SHADOW STUDY - SEPTEMBER 22- CURRENTLY PROPOSED _/ 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME @ N @ N @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A913 SHADOW STUDY - SEPTEMBER 22 - 5 STORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) @ N 9 AM @ N 12 NOON @ N 3 PM 9 AM !L-__ J~ I 12 NOON II .. ~ J, -i, - -t - r' 3 PM A913A SHADOW STUDY - NOVEMBER 22- CURRENTLY PROPOSED @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME @ N 12 NOON STANDARD TIME @ N 4PM STANDARD TIME r I r -. r 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A915 SHADOW STUDY - NOVEMBER 22 - 5 STORY OPTION (PROPOSED AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING) @ N 9 AM @ N 12 NOON @ N 3 PM 9 AM 12 NOON II ..,...,. l J, ..,., 3 PM A915A SHADOW STUDY - DECEMBER 22 - CURRENTLY PROPOSED @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME @ N 12 NOON STANDARD TIME @ N 4PM STANDARD TIME 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A914 SHADOW STUDY - DECEMBER 22 - 5 STORY OPTION @ N 9AM STANDARD TIME @ N 12 NOON STANDARD TIME @ N 4PM STANDARD TIME 9AM STANDARD TIME 12 NOON STANDARD TIME 4PM STANDARD TIME A914-A Community Development and Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES Applicant has provided updated responses in red where appropriate. (1-25-12) PROJECT: The District at CSU DATE: August 31, 2011 APPLICANT: Derek Anderson and Consultants: Ripley Design Inc. and Northern Engineering PLANNER: Emma McArdle and Steve Olt Questions and Answers: 1) How many bedrooms are proposed in the project vs. the previous project? - 754 bedrooms in The District (Derek Anderson, Residential Housing Development(RHD)) - About 500 bedrooms in the past Retreat at Plum Street project (Nick Haws, Northern Engineering (NE)) At Submittal (1-25-12) there are 193 units with 674 bedrooms. 2) Is this a private development or is it associated with CSU? - It is a private developer that is not associated with CSU. (Derek Anderson, RHD) 3) Who is the developer? - Derek Anderson owner of Residential Housing Development, LLC 4) Does the developer/applicant currently own all of the properties that make up this site? - We own most of the property since March, but not all yet. (Derek Anderson, RHD) 5) How many total properties have you assembled and how many will be used in this project? - 19 properties are included in the site, we own 12 at the time of the neighborhood meeting (Derek Anderson, RHD) 6) Will you demo or donate the existing homes? - We are open to donating the homes, we don’t have an exact plan how we will deal with them at the moment. (Derek Anderson, RHD) 7) A resident that owns a condo in the Sunstone Condos, directly north of this proposed development, is concerned about a 63’ parking structure blocking 1 sunlight to their property. Will the developer consider putting a level of parking below grade? - We can look into the options. (Derek Anderson, RHD) Since the neighborhood meeting the developer has lowered the parking structure to 4 stories. The main structure is 45 feet tall. 8) A resident mentioned their concern about property values being impacted by this proposal. 9) It looks like the City would be vacating 2 streets for this project? Is that correct? - Yes, two streets would be proposed to be vacated (Daisy and Columbine Streets) with this proposal. (Emma McArdle, City of Fort Collins) 10) An owner in the Campus West Condos is concerned about the 5 story building and the traffic and noise associated with this size development. - The applicant’s traffic engineer was present (Eric Bracke), he described the traffic impacts this project is anticipated to have on the area: i. The proposal will increase approximately 1,000 trips a day over the current approximate 2,000 daily trips. ii. Plum Street is a collector, which is designed for 5,000 daily trips; therefore the increase would be acceptable from a traffic engineering standpoint. 11) How is it decided that you can get an enhanced crosswalk? This resident has requested enhancing a cross walk in her neighborhood with no luck. - The City’s Traffic Engineer and Transportation Planning would participate in review of a development proposal like this one. (Eric Bracke) - If residents have questions about changing existing intersections to having enhanced crosswalks, contacting the City’s Traffic Engineer would be a first step. Joe Olson is the City’s Traffic Engineer; he can be reached at 224-6062. (Emma McArdle, City) 12) What would the applicant/developer do if a pool party, like the recent party at Ram’s Point, were to happen at their development? - We have every interest in protecting our asset and for other student housing project’s we run we have live-on security and management. If something like the recent party were to happen on one of our properties, the management and security staff would be let go immediately. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 13) Will the pool area be lit? Even when it is closed? - Yes the pool will be lit, primarily with lights inside the pool. The pool will have secured access that is only accessible to the residents via a door buzzer system. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - The City requires lighting plans be included in the information provided to staff for review. Areas like entryways and gathering areas need to be lit 2 for safely purposes, but lighting needs to be down directional and not spill from the site according to our standards. (Emma McArdle, City) 14) What does the door buzzer system sound like? - It would buzz if a door was left open. The buzzer sound is not something that could be heard off of the site though. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 15) Would you consider adult property managers living on-site? - Yes, we do not allow student property managers. Security people will definitely live on-site. Regarding management living on-site, we are interested but it will depend on finding qualified management that is willing to live on-site. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 16) How many of your properties actually have live on-site managers? - 3 of 6 (Derek Anderson, RHG) 17) What is the project schedule? - If all goes as hoped, we want to deliver for late summer 2013, which means building by spring of 2012. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 18) Can you show how the traffic will enter and exit the parking structure and where could traffic back-up? Will there be a back-up of traffic on Plum Street? - Traffic enters the parking structure on Bluebell Street, the structure entry is set inside the structure far enough to help avoid too much back-up that would reach Plum Street. (Derek Anderson, RHG) At Submittal (1-25-12) there is one vehicular entrance to the parking garage off of the alley between Buildings 1 and 2. 19) What is the height of the structures? - One structure is 5 stories (the centrally located building south of Plum Street), which is approximately 64’ tall. - The other residential buildings are 4 stories and proposed at 54’ tall. - The parking structure is proposed as 6 tiers and 53’ tall. (Derek Anderson, RHG) Building 1 is 67’-1” to the top of the tower elements, the main building is 61’-1” and the 4-story portion on the north side drops to 48’-8”. Building 2, the 4-story parking garage is 41’-8”, with a 57’-8” tower element on the southwest corner. Building3 is 67’-1” to the top of the tower elements, the main building is 61’-1”. 20) An owner in the Sunstone Condos expresses his concern about the shade these structures will produce over his property from October to March. This will add to their snow removal costs in the parking lot. A 60’ building is overwhelming and will hurt our property values. 3 Building 1 has been lowered to 4 stories on the north and the parking garage has also been lowered to 4 stories in order to reduce the shadow impact. A shadow analysis has been submitted. 21) This is too dense and does not satisfy block standards. Could you put a street along the north side of Building 2? - A street behind Building 2 would not be preferred from the City as it would create an intersection too close to Plum Street, this would be a less than 200’ separation between streets. Old town blocks are range from 400’ to 600’ wide. (Steve Olt, City) - There is a local street connection standard that would apply to this project on the Plum Street side, if it were not for the existing development to the north making any connection this project made to the north a dead end. Therefore, this standard does not apply according to the Land Use Code. (Information not provided at the meeting, staff provides this as additional information to the neighborhood.) (Emma McArdle, City) 22) When will the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be available and can residents have a copy? - The TIS will be available for the formal submittal of a project development plan. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - Any information submitted to the City is public record and available for anyone to review. (Emma McArdle, City) - Eric Bracke described how the traffic is evaluated in the TIS. Intersections are rated on an A – F scale (A – best, F – worst). Three intersections were reviewed in the TIS (Plum and Shields, Bluebell and Plum and City Park Avenue and Plum) they currently are rated As. The additional traffic load maintained the intersections working at an A or B level, which is acceptable to the City’s Traffic Engineer. In fact, these ratings are better than most intersections are rated in the City. 23) How is the street (Right-of-Way (ROW)) vacation done and how can that affect the development if some property owners oppose it? - ROW vacations require all adjacent property owners be in favor of the ROW vacation and once the ROW is vacated the adjacent property owner’s would then be the owners of the old ROW to the center line. In the scenario the applicant is proposing, they would own all the properties adjacent to the subject ROW (Daisy and Columbine Street). The ROW vacation becomes a timing concern as it needs to occur after a plat is recorded, stating the applicant is the owner, and before a development plan is approved on the site. (Emma McArdle, City) 24) How is emergency access provided to these buildings? - From the streets around the project as well as in two emergency access easements that are required by Poudre Fire Authority adjacent to Buildings 3 and 4 (in the Scott Avenue ROW) and between the parking garage and Building 2. (Emma McArdle, City) 4 - Poudre Fire Authority participates in the Development Review Process and will review all plans submitted for any development application. (Emma McArdle, City) 25) Are any sound studies done for the mechanical units on the roofs of these buildings? In Denver they must be 50 decibels or lower. - No, none have been done on past projects. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - A sound study is not required by this City for this type of project. (Emma McArdle, City) 26) Will this project be LEED Certified? - Yes, that is our intent. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 27) A resident reminds the City that “no required parking” does not mean that no parking can be provided due to protection of the existing neighborhood and creating no adverse impact. - That is correct, though there technically is no required amount of parking in this area, due to the project site being located in the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone, there is a compatibility standard that addresses not adversely impacting the surrounding neighborhood. (Emma McArdle, City) - Although the site is located in the TOD, the applicants are proposing a parking ratio that would meet and exceed the required amount of parking spaces as it would be required if it were not located in the TOD. We are proposing more than 600 parking spaces even though we do not think the students will need their cars except to go off campus since this project is a block away from CSU. (Derek Anderson, RHG) At Submittal (1-25-12) we are proposing 495 parking spaces, enough for 73% of the residents. In addition the project provides 332 bicycle parking spaces. 28) Students do not behave the way you think they do. They will be driving at all times of the day and night to campus and elsewhere. 29) Where is trash collection located and when will it be picked up? - We are still working on those details. We have contacted Gallegos trash service to find out what our options are. (Derek Anderson, RHG) Trash collection areas are proposed on the east side of Building 1 and on the east side of Building 3. 30) Move-in and move-out times are always really problematic. Are you willing to have extra trash service during those times to prevent students from using nearby dumpsters? - Yes. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 31) Does the TOD negate the need to provide amenities for the 4 bedroom units? - No, the criteria of the Land Use Code regarding dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms will apply to this project. This standard asks projects including 5 4 bedroom units provide additional open space, recreational areas, parking areas and public facilities. (Emma McArdle, City) 32) What is the density of this development? - 46 dwelling units per acres. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - There is no density limitation in this zone district, but it is called out in the Land Use Code as a high-density zone district. (Emma McArdle, City) At Submittal (1-25-12) the gross density is 43.08 and the net density is 57.78. 33) Is the shadow analysis still done at the shortest and longest days of the year? - Yes, because the buildings are over 40’ tall the applicant is required to prepare and submit a shadow analysis according to the Land Use Code (LUC). However, the section reviewing the shadows in the code does not apply to this zone district or the Downtown zone district, as they have been called out as being “high density” zones according to the LUC. (Emma McArdle, City) 34) Just because it is allowed, because you can, why does this development have to be so big? Since the neighborhood meeting the overall size and scale of the project has been reduced. 35) Have you looked at other areas for this development? - Yes, we have looked around the City and this location is our preferred site. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 36) This development is really going to affect our quality of life and our property values. 37) The letter advertized “multi-family,” but you are proposing student housing? How can you mitigate the impacts on the surrounding neighborhood? - We are in the process of getting all the necessary studies done and want to do what we can to be good neighbors. (Derek Anderson, RHG) 38) Can you have a second neighborhood meeting after the project is submitted and you have more completed information about the development? - The applicant is open to the idea, but did not say yes, or no. (Derek Anderson, RHG) A second neighborhood meeting is planned after the project is submitted and first round comments are received. 39) When the Land Use Code was adopted it seems that the intent was not for this massive type of development. (Neighbor) 40) Who would the neighbors address comments and concerns to at the City? - Emma McArdle, I will be the project planner for this project if it is formally submitted. (Emma McArdle, City) Ted Shepard has replaced Emma McArdle as the planner for this project. 6 41) How does this process work? When this project goes to the public hearing and citizens have the opportunity to express comments and concerns, what effect do we have? - Interested neighbors can provide me written comments before the public hearing that will be provided to the decision maker (administrative hearing officer) or come to the public hearing and express their opinions about the project. (Emma McArdle, City) 42) Who is the decision maker for at Type 1 hearing? - The decision maker is an administrative hearing officer, usually a staff member of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services Department or an outside hearing officer if the project seems to be controversial. (Emma McArdle, City) 43) Does the City care about how many cars are generated by this development and will be on these streets? - Yes, this is why a Traffic Impact Study will be required to be submitted with this project. The City’s Traffic Engineer will review the TIS. (Emma McArdle, City) 44) How does the fire department get down the streets? - There is no parking on Plum and emergency access easements cannot be obstructed in the event of a fire. Emergency Access Easements are required to be 20’ wide and are generally part of the public and private street network. Poudre Fire Authority will review this project as it goes through Development Review. (Emma McArdle, City) 45) The bike box at Plum and Shields does not work at this time. - This is the first bike box the City has tried and the City will be reviewing how it functions. (Eric Bracke) 46) Is there a study that can be done to evaluate the impacts this project will have on additional snow accumulating behind the buildings? - Not that City staff or the applicants were aware of. 47) Is there any consideration for making this development a mixed-use project? - Yes, this is something we are interested in investigating. It will depend on viability. The spaces on the corners of the parking structure are proposed to be converted/finished as retail if and when the market is viable for that use. (Derek Anderson, RHG) - City staff has recommended this to the applicant also. (Emma McArdle, City) 48) The Land Use Code state that in this zone district (CC – Community Commercial) that secondary uses shall demonstrate how they contribute to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area. 7 - This CC area currently has a pretty good mix of commercial and residential use with Elizabeth Street located just a block away. This is something that staff will look at in our review of the project, but we do not see why this project would not contribute to the overall mix of the area. (Emma McArdle, City) February 29, 2012 Mr. Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Planning Department 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Ted, Responses to City staff comments for The District at Campus West, PDP120003, Round Number 1 follow. In addition to the revised drawings we have included one set of color rendering perspective views. These have also been provided on a CD for your use. If you need more printed copies please let us know. If you have any questions regarding these responses or any other issues related to this project, please feel free to contact us. Linda Ripley, Ripley Design Inc. responses in red 970-224-5828 Nick Haws, Northern Engineering responses in blue 970-221-4158 Comment Summary: Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Building Two contains two distinct uses, dwelling units and structured parking. Therefore, it is a mixed-use building and would be subject to the build-to line requirements per Section 3.5.3 rather than the residential setback requirements of Section 3.5.2. The same could be said for Building One as it contains the clubhouse and amenities in addition to dwelling units. Perhaps the leasing office could be added in order to strengthen the mix. Therefore, as with Building Two, Building One is subject to the build-to line and not the setback line. Building Three, however, appears to contain dwelling units only and, therefore, would be subject to the setback standards and the proposed Modification to Section 3.5.2. Our understanding is that Buildings One and Two meet Section 3.5.2 because they are considered Mixed- Use Buildings. Building Three will still require a Modification for Setbacks along Bluebell Street, Plum Street and Aster Street. The Modification Requests have been revised accordingly. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Regarding the Request for Modification for Building Three to Section 3.5.2, it appears that the most valid justification is the equal-to-or-better-than criterion of Section 2.8.2(H) (1). In your analysis, under justification number four, regarding the invisible right-of-way line, this justification should be moved under the aforementioned criterion. The Modification Request has been revised. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the site plan, a connection to the north is indicated at the north terminus of the access drive to the parking structure. This connection is laudable. Could you please provide information as to what this connection ties into on the Sunstone side of the property line. The attached sketch shows the relationship between the existing and proposed pedestrian connection between the Sunstone Condominiums and the District project. So far we have been unsuccessful in our attempts to contact the Sunstone Condominium Association. Department: Current Planning Contact: Ted Shepard, 970-221-6343, tshepard@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Current Planning supports the adjustments to the widths of parkways and sidewalks offered by Engineering. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the landscape plan, please label the "Enhanced Transit Stop Pull-in." Label has been added. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the architectural elevations, in order to match the project narrative with the character elevations, please provide a cornice detail, with dimensions. Cornice detail has been provided. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the architectural elevations, it is unclear as to the exterior material for the ground floor elevation for Building Two. Is this material to be different from stone? The proposed material for the clubhouse portion of building one will be either synthetic or real stone, but will look different than the stone veneer on the rest of the building in both color and pattern. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the architectural elevations, please indicate the depth of the balconies. Staff would be concerned if these balconies were merely of the "Juliet" variety. The balconies are approximately 3 feet in width. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Staff is concerned about the present depiction of the north character elevation of the parking structure. In the middle, there is a considerable gap in the deployment of masonry. The use of the masonry materials should be consistent across the entire north elevation. And, there appears to be no cornice treatment. Please note that Section 3.5.3(D)(6) requires the structure to have a recognizable top. Masonry treatment is now consistent on the north side of the garage. The stone veneer is left off of the ground floor where there is now a simple railing proposed. The first six feet of the north side of the parking garage will be screened by the adjacent fence. The cornice treatment is consistent on all sides of the building. In addition the visual quality of the north elevation is softened by existing mature trees and as well as proposed new trees planted on the north side of the building. Please see the perspective views of the parking garage as seen from Bluebell Street and from Sunstone Condominiums. Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Based on the Lighting Plan, there appears to be no lighting on the top deck of the parking structure, unless the top deck is covered. If covered, then there are no lighting issues. If uncovered, however, the lighting details need to be provided. Such lighting must be strategically located to avoid light spillover to the north. House-side shields may be needed. We have included the lighting for the top deck of the parking structure. We have also included a calculation for the ground level north of the structure for light spill over verification. Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: On the Lighting Plan, on sheet 7 of 10, please provide a schedule for the specifications of the proposed fixtures. Also, please note that the photometric plan must be calibrated such that the light loss factor is 1.00. If not done so already, this may require re-submitting the photometric so that it is properly calibrated. We have included a light fixture schedule on our plans as requested. We have changed the light loss factor to 1.0 as requested. On the light fixtures types LNR3 and LNR2 we have a light loss factor less than 1.0 because we only have a IES file for the type LNR4 48” fixture. These type LNR lights are LED and the lumens cannot be adjusted for different lengths of fixtures, i.e. LNR3 is a 36” version of type LNR4 and LNR2 is a 24” version so we have had to change the light loss factor to simulate the different lengths. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012:The request for four-bedroom units per Section 3.8.16 is acceptable. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/19/2012 02/19/2012: Significant progress has been made since the early submittal from 2011. The submittal documents are very organized and complete. Please refer to the redlined plan set for other minor comments. Acknowledged. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The variance requests regarding the street grade, cross slope, and pipe cover concerns are undergoing evaluation at this time and a response will be provided separately. Please note however that the last review for the previous iteration of the project had brought up the potential of using concrete streets as an option to help mitigate some of these concerns (including on Plum Street itself) and may need to be explored with this project. It is understood that the variance requests listed above necessitate further discussion, and that additional information will need to be provided in order to make a final determination. The Applicant also acknowledges that portions of concrete streets, alternative pipe materials, and other similar measures may be necessary to mitigate grade and cover issues. The type of information and detail necessary to fully evaluate these issues typically comes during Final design, as this level of engineering is not required at PDP. Again, the Applicant understands that there are potential cost implications associated with alternative construction means and methods. Therefore, even though it is not a requirement for PDP, the design team will continue to work with City Engineering Staff to provide additional detail necessary to evaluate the “vertical” variance requests. This on-going effort will likely span across the public hearing on the PDP, and may not conclude until Final Plans have been submitted. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: A profile of the north flowline of Plum Street should be provided to ascertain flowline grade and general drainage for the area along Plum Street. It was identified in the previous iteration that concerns regarding drainage exist, including the grade across Bluebell Street which appears to be at about .3% across the intersection. Intersection detail spot elevations should also be provided for this analysis on Plum with Aster and Bluebell. This is now provided on Sheet C502. Similar to the response to Comment Number: 5, above, additional evaluation needs to occur, particularly at the intersection of Bluebell Street. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The bus bay design does not meet the standard prescribed in detail 711 of LCUASS. The width of the bus bay from the face of curb to the flowline of Plum Street is required per this standard to be 11 feet when 9 feet appears to be provided. Additionally, the transition lengths leading in and out from the through movement of Plum Street is required to be 60 feet but are in effect 24 feet here. This item should be documented in a variance request; if this design is agreed to by Transit, then I suspect the modified design would be viewed favorably. (I noticed Transfort's comments in the system, it appear they will require some changes to the transition lengths, I'm still pending a response from them on the bus bay width). The bus bay design has been revised per Transfort Comment Number: 1. The bus bay width was originally coordinated with Kathleen Walker and Jerediah Burianek with Transfort. Once the bus bay configuration has been thoroughly vetted and informally approved by City Staff, an engineering variance request will be submitted to document the site-specific design solution. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The legal descriptions for right-of-way vacation to Columbine Street and Daisy Street should not include the areas along which right-of-way dedication is needed along Plum Street. Per a meeting with Jeff County and John von Nieda on 02/23/2012, it appears that there is still some uncertainty as to where the southern boundary on these two vacations should be drawn. The exhibits and legal descriptions will be revised, as necessary, pending a final decision on this issue. Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The variance requests regarding the parkway/sidewalk dimensions are undergoing evaluation at this time and a response will be provided separately. Please note however that PFA has concerns with the neckdown width of Bluebell which may leave an official response to Bluebell's streetscape design on hold for now. The parkway and sidewalk dimensions have been revised per Sheri Langenberger’s variance request response letter dated February 27, 2012. Bluebell Street has been modified after meeting with PFA on 02/23/2012. The streetscape design for Bluebell will be very similar to City Park Ave. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Encroachment permits for the private utility lines that cross right-of-way would ultimately need to be issued from Engineering Inspection. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: With the reconstruction of Aster Street, an access ramp should be provided facing south that allows for promoting the crossing of Plum Street. This appears to have been provided in the previous application submittal. The requested access ramp has been added. Department: Engineering Development Review Contact: Marc Virata, 970-221-6567, mvirata@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: Building 3 indicates a trash and compactor on the east elevation. Is this then needing a driveway cut off of Aster Street to facilitate this operation, as one does not appear to be specified. A curb cut has been provided. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The plat language (certificate of dedication, maintenance guarantee, etc.) has since been updated. Please update the language as attached (this can be emailed as well). The plat language has been updated to the current City standards. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The plat should indicate the intention with the ordinances to vacate Columbine Street and Daisy Street that within the ordinance language these area would be retained as access, drainage and utility easements by the City. Upon complete removal of the roadways and underlying utilities, an action to vacate the easements may then be processed. The plat now contains additional language to this effect. We are open to further refinement and suggestions. Department: Environmental Planning Contact: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143, lex@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/03/2012 02/03/2012: No comments. Department: Forestry Contact: Tim Buchanan, 970-221-6361, tbuchanan@fcgov.com Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/15/2012 02/15/2012: The District at Campus West Forestry Comments 2-15-12 These Forestry comments are offered: 1. The applicant should contact the City Forester for a second walk through for a review of the existing trees now shown to be retained. This review could determine if there will be any construction impacts that would limit proposed tree retention or if any tree qualities need further review. On-site review was conducted 2-27-12. 2. Tree condition information reviewed in the first walk through can be added to the inventory and mitigation table. Due to the number of trees, tree conditions were not noted during the first walk through. Only tree mitigation requirements were noted. 3. Tree Selection Choices: a. Tower Popular unfortunately is prone to many insect and diseases. This vulnerability has resulted in a rating of do not plant the Front Range Recommended Tree List. Swedish Columnar Aspen could be a good substitution for the Tower Popular. Swedish Columnar Aspen has been substituted for Tower Popular. b. Lanceleaf Cotton woods are used along the north perimeter in the 10 foot bed by rather high buildings. Lanceleaf cottonwood has a large mature size and broader mature canopy. In this smaller area near the buildings Crimson spire Oak could be a good choice. It’s tight pyramidal form could function in this area. Lanceleaf Cottonwoods have been removed and Crimson Spire Oaks have been added as suggested. c. European Fastigiate Hornbeam has a good shape for the north perimeter bed. Some designers prefer to use smaller quantities in anticipation of the occasional freeze damage that may occur. Since conifer trees are not used in the north perimeter bed perhaps one of the upright cultivars of Rocky Mountain Juniper could be considered in this area. European Fastigiate Hornbeam is used in smaller quantities. The applicant prefers to not use evergreen trees in the narrow space on the north for visibility and security reasons. d. In the narrow parkway along Bluebell the more upright growing Ivory Silk Tree Lilac would require less pruning than the broader Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn. This change is preferred by Forestry. Since Bluebell Street has been widened and the street light removed, we can now use taller street trees which can be limbed up in the future and not interfere with pedestrian circulation. A combination of Skyline and Shademaster Honeylocust are proposed. c. If incorporating a red flowering crabapple with a narrower crown form is to be considered in certain areas, particularly close to buildings, to contrast with the Spring Snow Crabs than Red Barron or Thunderchild are cultivars to consider. Red Baron crabapples have been incorporated. 4. Placing trees along the north perimeter as far away from the buildings as possible will help reduce pruning and other conflicts. Explore planting tree close to the property line to help provide separation. Acknowledged. 5. Please add the following landscape note: • The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. Note has been added. Department: Light And Power Contact: Doug Martine, 970-224-6152, dmartine@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: The developer will need to coordinate power requirements and electric utility charges with Light & Power Engineering (970-221-6700). Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: Light & Power Engineering will need a 1-line diagram of each electric service in order to design the electric utility system. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: Due to the existing 8" SS along the east side of City Park Ave., Light & Power facilities will need to be installed under the roadway. The developer will be responsible for asphalt repairs as necessary. It is kindly requested that Light & Power provide a rough estimate for this item as soon as practicable. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: It appears that building #1 is planned to have two electric services. It is believed that to accommodate this, a firewall is required to isolate the two electric systems. Please confirm this with the Ft. Collins Building Inspection department. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: Light & Power Electric Construction Practices and Procedures require that all electric meters shall be located for easy access 24-7 by Utility personnel. It is generally regarded that this means the meters should be outdoors. If outdoor metering is not practical, they may be indoors provided that the builder provides a Knox Box (keyed to the Light & Power key), containing the key(s) necessary to access the meters. Meter access shall not require utility personnel to obtain permission or an escort. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: The street light shown on the N. side of Plum St. (appx. 35 ft. E. of City Park Ave. will not be located as shown. It is planned to be 65 ft. farther east than where shown. The street tree locations need to be adjusted to provide required clearances (40 ft. if a shade tree, 15 ft. if an ornamental tree). Street light has been moved and street trees adjusted. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/06/2012 02/06/2012: The method of metering the electricity for the fire pump needs to be coordinated with Light & Power Engineering early in the building design process. Acknowledged. Department: PFA Contact: Ron Gonzales, 970-221-6635, rgonzales@poudre-fire.org Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: This will be a fully fire sprinklered (NFPA 13) project due to reduced access. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: Buildings 4 or more stories in height require a standpipe system. This system shall provide a minimum of 100 psi at the highest point of the system. Therefore, a properly sized UL listed fire pump will be required to augment the additional pressure required of the highest standpipe of each edifice. One master pump will suffice for the campus provided the volumes and pressures are available. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: The PFA anticipates conflict with other vehicles utilizing the Emergency Accessment Easement; i.e. trash and garage traffic. The proposed EAE has been deleted. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: The building address for each one is required to be visible from the street fronting the property. Minimum 6-inch numerals are required to be posted on a contrasting background for visibility. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: The water supply for this project will be 1500 gpm at 20 psi; with hydrant spacing of 300 feet to the building and on 600 foot centers thereafter. These distances are to be measured as the hose would lay, not as the crow flies. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: Because calcium hypochlorite > 50% = a Class 3 oxidizer, the normal quantity limit is 10 Lbs. However, because this product is utilized for swimming pool maintenance quantity limit is increased to no more than 200 lbs maximum when storage containers and the manner of storage is approved. Please provide a storage plan for approval if 11-200 lbs is to be stored, or 10 lbs will be the limit without an approved plan. It is anticipated that no more than 10 lbs. of calcium hypochlorite will be stored on site. If more is needed, a storage plan will be provided. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/10/2012 02/10/2012: All fire appurtenances shown in the courtyards, including the bar-b-q area shall be at least 10 feet away from any combustible surfaces; and there shall not be any wood or charcoal allowed to be stored and/or burned. Wood is problematic for storage, embers, cooling, disposal of hot embers in ash, and the production of smoke. All fire appliances shall only be gas-fired, with natural gas preferred over propane. The barbeque grills are located four feet from a masonry wall. Is this acceptable? All fire appliances shall be gas-fired. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: Because this project is a multi-story, multi-family comples it is imperative that the fire department standard width of 30-feet for a 3 or more story edifice be provided throughout. Please contact Ron Gonzales, Assistant Fire Marshal of the Poudre Fire Authority at 970-219-5316 if further details are needed. The design of Bluebell Street has been revised pursuant to a meeting with PFA on 02/23/2012. Please note the request to prohibit parking on the east side of Bluebell. Department: Stormwater Engineering Contact: Wes Lamarque, 970-416-2418, wlamarque@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Staff is still reviewing the HCRAS modeling provided for the water surface elevation comparison in Plum Street. No major concerns are anticipated and the City concurs with the design assumptions and design criteria. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The planters which have 2 feet of quantity detention depth are draining through the media which may burden the media and increase clogging. The extra detention depth should have its own outlet works to avoid draining through the media. Agreed. Additional consideration and detail will be forthcoming with the Final Plan submittal. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: All of the drainage infrastructure, SOPs, etc. that is being designed by others will need to be reviewed and accepted during the final compliance stage and before signing of mylars. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: At final there will be many drainage design details that will need to be designed and reviewed including the outlet works for the detention planters, proportionate area to the detention planters, and the parking garage detention system. Agreed. Additional consideration and detail will be forthcoming with the Final Plan submittal. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/16/2012 02/16/2012: Drainage easements are required for the planter detention areas. The detention area in the parking garage will be discussed in the development agreement. The City is still deciding what the best options are for securing perpetual compliance for the garage detention. We welcome any suggestions from the applicant. Following initial discussions with legal counsel, Private Drainage Easements are now shown on the preliminary plat. There will likely be additional refinement as this issue is discussed further. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Building Elevations Comment Number: 16 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There is a line over text issue on sheet 10 of 10. This has been corrected. Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 17 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add benchmark descriptions to sheet C000. The benchmark descriptions have been added to Sheet C000. Comment Number: 18 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please remove "preliminary" from the titleblock on all sheets. The word “Preliminary” has been removed from the titleblock on all sheets. Comment Number: 19 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: The title of sheet C502 doesn't match the sheet index. This has been corrected. (Please note, “Typical Roadway Sections” is now Sheet C504). Comment Number: 20 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There are line over text issues on sheets C100, C101, C200, C201, C301 & C500. These have been corrected. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 21 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There is some confusion with the coordinate control on sheet C000. It doesn't match the information shown on the subdivision plat. Sheet C000 now matches the Plat. Topic: Easements Comment Number: 22 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Both ROW vacations do not close. These have been corrected. Comment Number: 23 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add a basis of bearings statement to the Daisy Street ROW vacation. The requested statement has been added. Topic: Landscape Plans Comment Number: 14 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 4 of 10. These have been corrected. Topic: Lighting Plan Comment Number: 15 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There are many line over text & text over text issues on all plans. The line over text areas have been corrected on the Light Plan sheets. Topic: Plat Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: The subdivision plat boundaries & legals close. Acknowledged. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add the redlined distance on Bluebell Street along the north boundary lines. The requested distance has been added. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please address the controlling monuments. The controlling monuments have been addressed. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add a total square footage/acreage. Total acreage has been added to the Plat. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Are there any lienholders? If so, please add the signature block. Ownership, lienholders, and the like will be confirmed during the Final Plan phase prior to printing mylars to ensure that the most current and correction information is listed. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please show how the street right of ways were dedicated. Please see the listing under “Existing Right-of-Way Documents” on Sheet 2 of 3. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please remove "Plat of" from the titleblocks & borders. The requested change has been made. Comment Number: 8 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please provide current monument records for all public corners show on this plat. Current copies of the monument records have been provided with the re-submittal. Comment Number: 9 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please change "A Tract" to "Tracts" in the legal description. The requested change has been made. Department: Technical Services Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com Topic: Plat Comment Number: 10 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: If the easement in block 2(Rec. # 95042342) was not dedicated to the City of Fort Collins, it can not be vacated by this plat. This is a City of Fort Collins Utility Easement. Topic: Site Plan Comment Number: 11 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please change "A Tract" to "Tracts" on sheet 1 of 10. Change has been made. Comment Number: 12 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: Please add a total square footage/acreage to sheet 1 of 10. Total square footage has been added. Comment Number: 13 Comment Originated: 02/17/2012 02/17/2012: There are line over text issues on sheet 2 of 10. Line over text has been corrected. Department: Transportation Planning Contact: Emma McArdle, 970-221-6197, emcardle@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/07/2012 02/07/2012: "Enhanced Transit Stop" - The pull out is nice for traffic flow, but needs a few things to make it work for bus operators and other drivers in the area. - A 60' articulated bus will be utilizing this stop. Manuals suggest that pull outs have 40' departure and arrival tapers for buses to maneuver in and out of the pull out. Please add about 10' to the east side of the pull out and a slightly modified curb to the west may be necessary to allow the bus to exit the pull out without running over the curb consistently. - A "Yield to Bus" sign is needed for vehicles exiting the parking structure onto Plum. - A "Right Turn - Do No Pass Bus" sign is needed to notify those turning into the parking structure that they cannot pass a bus stopped in the turn lane to turn into the parking structure. - A "Turn Lane - Except for Buses" is needed in the turn lane. The requested changes have been made to the plans. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/07/2012 02/07/2012: The bench is hidden from bus operators by the building. Please consider modifying the structure to allow for a line of site for bus operators and those waiting for the bus. The bench is placed so that it is under cover in a protected area, in case of rain, snow or wind. We prefer this location, which leaves the main sidewalk free of obstacles. Please contact us if you believe keeping the bench where it is not acceptable. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Provide notes outlining how the water and sewer mains in Daisy and Columbine are to be abandoned. The existing water and sewer mains in Daisy and Columbine will be abandoned back to the respective mains in Plum Street. Preliminary Utility Demolition Plans have been provided as Sheets C102 & C103. These plans are expected to be further refined during Final design. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Is the 1.5" water service for irrigation? The 1½” water service to Building 1 is provided for the main floor “commercial” clubhouse uses. Drip irrigation is assumed to come off the buildings at this time. Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering Contact: Roger Buffington, 970-221-6854, rbuffington@fcgov.com Topic: Construction Drawings Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The location of the 3" and 4" water meter vaults are unacceptable. For safety reasons, the vaults cannot be in busy pedestrian routes. Ideally the vaults would be in landscaped areas, but it doesn't appear that there is much of that on this project. The location and orientation of all water meter vaults was coordinated with the Water Utility and meter shop on 02/22/2012. Custom details will be provided during Final design, and close communication and coordination will be maintained. Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: The 1.5" and 2" appear to be in conflict with the underground electric. Show the curb stops on these services. The proposed underground electric is intended to route around the meter pits/vaults and run under the sidewalk in these locations, as shown on the plans. Topic: General Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: Provide water service sizing calculations for the three buildings. Water service sizing calculations will be provided during Final design. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/14/2012 02/14/2012: See redlines for other comments. See redlines for additional responses. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 1 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 The applicant has already noted the setbacks for residential buildings and buildings along nonarterial streets are 15 feet. A Modification of Standard has been submitted but may not be necessary per the interpretation of Mixed-Use Buildings per Current Planning. It should be noted that if there were some commercial/retail use in the buildings then the setback would not apply and a required build to line would be in place, making the proposed buildings in compliance. Thank you for pointing this out. Checking with Ted Shepard, we now know that Building One qualifies as mixed-use because of containing the clubhouse and leasing office. Building Two also qualifies as mixed- use because of the parking garage and residential units within the same building. There are some safety/privacy concerns in having residential units on the ground floor. Perhaps the height of the window placement could be considered as an extra measure of security. We believe window coverings offer more flexibility and can provide the degree of privacy that the tenant prefers, without sacrificing views and natural light. Comment Number: 2 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 Applicant has provided request in accordance with LUC 3.8.16(E)(2) for an increase of the number of unrelated individuals allowed to reside within an individual dwelling unit. In this request it is mentioned that a parking permit would be necessary to park in the spaces that are to be provided. It is unclear if this will satisfy the parking needs if the spaces are only available at additional cost to the occupants. Parking permits are sold individually and are not part of the rent for the dwelling unit, however, students that have cars are required to purchase a parking permit, insuring that they will not be parking their cars in the neighborhood. Comment Number: 3 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 Trash/recycling enclosures are required and need to be placed in convenient locations. Such enclosures shall be on a concrete pad and setback at least 20 feet from the public ROW. Also trash/recycling enclosures shall be designed to allow walk-in access without opening the main service gate. Trash/recycling centers are located within the building at two locations on-site. One is located on the east side of Building One and the other is located on the east side of Building Two. The applicant believes these two locations will adequately serve the residents. Department: Zoning Contact: Noah Beals, 970-416-2313, nbeals@fcgov.com Topic: General Comment Number: 4 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 Elevation drawings provided are not printed to scale. Please provide individual elevations for all sides of the buildings. All elevations are provided. If there is a discrepancy between the scaled drawing and the printed dimension, the dimension prevails. Comment Number: 5 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 With 60 or more trees only 15% of total can be one specie. The only tree that exceeds the 15% rule is the Swedish Columnar Aspen which is used extensively on the north side of the project where it is an ideal selection because of its tall and narrow growth habit. Tim Buchanan indicated he would support this design approach even if the 15% is exceeded. Comment Number: 6 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 Mechanical/utility equipment shall be screened/painted. Please indicated all such equipment on the plans, including in elevation drawings. Roof mounted mechanical equipment is screened by a parapet wall. Ground mounted equipment will be screened and addressed in more detail at Final. Comment Number: 7 Comment Originated: 02/13/2012 If 495 vehicle spaces are being provided then 50 bikes spaces are required. It is encouraged to exceed the minimum bike parking requirements. The project is providing 332 bicycle parking spaces. 296 of those are located in the parking structure. SUNS NEED TO SHIFT & RESTRIPE PROPOSED CONNECTION EXISTING CONNECTION BLDG 01 BLDG 02 An interactive computer simulation modeling the shadowing effect of the proposed project was presented by the applicant at the Administrative Hearing on April 5 and April 23, 2012. This simulation is available for viewing in the City Clerk’s Office, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., through July 17, 2012 The applicant will present this simulation at the Appeal Hearing on July 17. ATTACHMENT 6 Materials submitted by Citizens prior to the Administrative Hearing April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 ATTACHMENT 7 Materials submitted by Citizens at the Administrative Hearing April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 1 Previously Requested Minor Modifications ‐Increased setback distance to 15 feet ‐Viable tree plan ‐Reduced building height to mitigate shadowing and conform to the neighborhood pattern ‐Offset windows on garage to mitigate noise from squealing tires, car alarms, and reduce flying debris ‐We don’t want to stop development. We want minor changes. Without them the developer is in violation of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. In it’s current form it is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The Developer is In Violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1C • Section 3.5 Relates to Project and Building Compatibility • C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. . Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater‐ corner block face at the nearest intersection. (See Figure 7.) • How is a Building One, a massive five story, 65 foot tall structure, similar in size and height to existing structures in neighborhood? It’s not. Its twice as tall and volumetrically at least ~10x (2x taller, 2x longer and 3x wider) the size of adjacent condos in the our neighborhood? Building One is NOT subdivided. It’s one massive structure. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 2 THIS… Figure 7 NOT THIS!!! The Developer’s Plan is In Violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1D • (D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses • How does having dozens of units overlooking a Sorority House maximize the opportunity for privacy? • The ZTA girls don’t want a bunch of people staring down on them as they try to tan in their own backyard – See signed petition from ALL OF THEM Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 3 The Developer’s Plan is In Violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1G.2 • The purpose of this Section is to establish a special process to review buildings or structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height… • 2. Light and Shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to…contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. • Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure’s shape. Our accurate shadow study shows the developer is in violation of the LUC. • My background – Bachelors in physics – M.S in Engineering w/ emphasis in biomedical optics • Presented at OSA conferences, published my research in respected optical journals – Courses in Physical Optics, Biomedical Optics, Astronomy, Fourier Optics, Lens Design, and Laser Physics • I will explain our study’s methodology. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 4 Lengths and Heights Derived from developer plan • North face of Bldgs 1 and 2 are 48.66 feet tall. • North face of Bldg 3 is 61‐67. 61 feet used in our analysis. Our estimates of shadow impact are conservative for Bldg. 3. • The distance to our units is derived from measurements of the devloper’s blueprint. In good agreement with distances presented by developer on 4/6 AND my own physical measurements. Source of Solar Angle Data: US Naval Observatory Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 5 Provides Sun’s Azimuthal and Altitude (Polar) Angle in table format for anytime of the day in Fort Collins, CO Solar Position is Defined By Just Two Angles Azimuthal: Where the sun is relative to north along the horizon Altitude: How high the sun is above the horizon Basic Shadow Math The District SUN Altitude Angle (A) Shadow Length (L) Building Height (H) Tangent (A) = opposite/adjacent Tangent(A)=H/L L=Shadow Length=H/Tangent(A) H ranges from 48.6 to 67 feet on North Side of complex Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 6 Shadow Height vs. Time of Day Football Field Sized Shadows!!! Shadow Heights vs. Azimuthal Angle Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 7 Raw Shadow Length in Feet Bldg 3 Time Oct 31st Nov 6th Dec 21st Feb 4th Feb 8th 9:00 142 153 246 192 182 12:00 87 94 126 94 90 3:00 179 197 254 154 147 Bldgs 1/2 Time Oct 31st Nov 6th Dec 21st Feb 4th Feb 8th 9:00 113 122 196 153 145 12:00 69 75 100 75 72 3:00 143 157 202 123 117 Computation of Effective Shadow Length Seen By Sunstone and ZTA House The District Sunstone Shadow length= L Az Cos(Az)=adjacent/hypotenuse Cos(Az)=D/L D=L*Cos(Az) Effective Shadow Length Cast in Direction of Angle Az is Sunstone = D determined using the azimuthal angle of the sun and corrected for angular orientation of the buildings relative to North Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 8 Distance to Buildings and Effective Shadow Length Seen By Buildings Bldg 3 31‐Oct 6‐Nov 21‐Dec 4‐Feb 8‐Feb 9:00 AM 97.31 107 175.2 118.3 110.1 12:00 86.57 94.1 125.4 93.41 89.66 3:00 121.3 136.2 196.8 118.1 111.4 Bldgs 1/2 31‐Oct 6‐Nov 21‐Dec 4‐Feb 8‐Feb 9:00 AM 77.53 85.24 139.6 94.25 87.72 12:00 68.97 74.97 99.89 74.43 71.43 3:00 96.65 108.5 156.8 94.11 88.73 Conclusion: Portions of Sunstone are shadowed continuously for more than three months a year. ALL of ZTA House is shadowed for much more than three months a year. October 31st 9:00 12:00 3:00 Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 9 October 31st Composite Shadow Map Daily Shadowing indicates massive shadowing throughout the day!!! February 8th 9:00 12:00 3:00 Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 10 No Sun=Frigid Sidewalks=Instant Icing • The District will cast a permanent shadow on our sidewalks all winter, and our basement dwelling will only be exposed to sunlight for a few minutes at high noon each day. • LUC: “Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to…contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year.” • Clear Violation on our property. Shadow even worse on ZTA due to Bldg 3 (61‐67 Feet!) Implications of shadow study on tree growth, compliance with tree protection plan • Trees are continuously shaded 365 days a year. • A newly planted 16 foot high tree, with a radius of 4 feet will receive no direct sunlight at any time of the year, even at the summer solstice!!! • A solar angle of 74 degrees is required. The sun is never more than 73 degrees above the horizon in Fort Collins, CO. Ever. • Old growth trees are being cut down and replaced with trees that may never thrive. We have seen no visual evidence that the Linden or Hornbeam can survive in such an environment. May be challenging to grow in such a narrow, light constricted space. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 11 Can a Corinthian Linden Survive when Planted Five Feet from a 48 foot North Facing Wall? This wall is south facing and the tree appears to have a radius of 10 feet. Will there be enough space to grow if planted so close to the wall? We have seen no visual evidence that such a tree can grow under the conditions proposed by the developer? If fact… One of the largest tree nurseries in CO states a mature radius of 15‐17.5 feet? Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 12 Can a European Hornbeam survive when Planted Five Feet from a 48 foot North Facing Wall? City staff has provided no visual evidence that they can. This is a newer office park. The trees are fully exposed to light and not yet fully mature. They should become much bigger when mature In fact… The mature radius is up to 12.5 feet. Sun to filtered shade needed. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 13 Email to John Rizza, CSU Extension, Land Stewardship and Forest in Range • Hi Mr. Rizza, My name is Tim Erickson. I am an engineering student here at CSU. I had a question related to tree planting in Fort Collins. If one wanted to plant trees on the North side of a 48 foot tall building, what is the recommended planting distance from the building? How would shading by the building affect their growth rate, and specifically how do think the following types of trees would do long‐term: Crimson Spire Oak, Swedish Columnar Aspen, European Fastigiata Hornbeam, and Corinthian Linden? Best regards, Tim Erickson Key Points in Response Email • “The distance away from the building all depends on the projected size of the tree at maturity, to illustrate this point, take a look at an interesting link: http://www.arborday.org/trees/righttreeandplace/righttree.cfm” • also, in addition to growing space, you need adequate root space. in many urban landscape situations, folks plant big trees in little spaces (between sidewalks), they need more room than that, giving them space will give them a better chance for survival. following illustration should make my point: http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/resources/New_TreePlant ing.pdf • (Will forward entire email to staff. Have a hardcopy ready now.) Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson 14 Conclusion • The developer’s current plan is in violation of the land use code on many fronts. – Shadowing, Neighborhood compatibility due to massive scale, Possible Tree Issues • This project needs to be put on hold until the developer can submit a plan in compliance with code. Powerpoint presentation given at Administrative Hearing 4/5/12. Presented by Tim Erickson ATTACHMENT 8 Verbatim Transcript of Administrative Hearing April 5, 2012, continued to April 23, 2012 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Thursday, April 5, 2012 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: The District at Campus West, P.D.P, #120003 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Richard Lopez STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Ward Stanford, Traffic Engineer 2 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER RICHARD LOPEZ: Okay, good evening. 2 We’re going to start this hearing. As a way of introduction, my name is Richard Lopez, I’m the 3 Hearing Officer. I’ve actually been the Hearing Officer for the City of Fort Collins for the past 4 three years, this is my fourth year. I am a City Planner, I’ve done that for about forty years, and 5 I’ve been an attorney for the last twenty years. I’ve served as a staff planner for cities, as a 6 consultant, I’ve actually sat on a Planning Board, Planning Commission, and spent some time as 7 a City Councilmember. I’ve also litigated a number of land use cases and actually enjoy land use 8 and city development and neighborhood issues immensely. 9 Tonight we’re going to have a hearing on a project that’s been proposed called The 10 District. I want to remind everyone to sign on the sign-up sheet. At the end of the hearing, I will 11 not be making a decision. I have ten working days to draft a written decision and that’s why, we 12 want to be able to send you a copy of this written decision. 13 The order of presentations tonight will begin with a staff presentation followed by an 14 applicant presentation, then staff will have an opportunity to respond to anything that the 15 applicant may have brought up, and then we’ll conduct a public testimony and everyone will 16 have an opportunity to talk, make your presentations. If you’re making a technical presentation, 17 using any sort of graphics…in order for me to enter that into the record, I will need a copy. I 18 know there was some shadow analysis that was done by some neighbors. The copy I’ve got is 19 not really legible, it’s a Xeroxed copy. I’d like to have either in a disc form, thumb drive, or 20 whatever, so I can make that part of the record. After the public testimony, there will be an 21 opportunity for the applicant to respond to any questions or concerns and then the staff will have 22 an opportunity to respond to anything that’s been said as a result. At the end of that, the hearing 23 will close and I will take the information and the presentation, your comments…I will draft a 24 written decision based on the regulations, the evidence that’s been presented, and your 25 testimony. As I said, we’ll try to get that done within ten days. They tend to be very detailed so 26 it ends up taking me pretty much the whole ten days. So, with that, Ted, would you like to start? 27 CHIEF PLANNER TED SHEPARD: Thank you Mr. Lopez. This is a request for a 28 Project Development Plan to redevelop sixteen houses along four short streets in the Campus 29 West neighborhood for a multi-family project. This project would consist of 193 dwelling units 30 on approximately 3.34 acres, located on the north side of Plum Street between Aster Street and 31 City Park Avenue. The parcels are zoned CC – Community Commercial, and also located within 32 the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District, also known as the TOD. The dwelling units 33 would be distributed among three buildings and include a mix of one, two…just, no, two, three, 34 and four bedroom units, no ones, and would be divided in the following manner: 28 two- 35 bedroom units, 42 three bedroom units, and 123 four-bedroom units. There would be a total of 36 674 bedrooms, each of which would be leased individually. There would be 495 off-street 37 parking spaces located within a parking garage that is located in the middle of the three 38 buildings. There are also 332 bicycle parking spaces. The two dead-end streets, Columbine and 3 1 Daisy, would be vacated. We have a condition of approval that says those two vacations have to 2 be done properly by action by City Council before final approval could be granted. 3 There are…the project also includes clubhouse, pool, fitness center, and computer lab. 4 There is also a request for a modification to Section 3.5.2(D), which is a setback standard, for 5 building three, which is the eastern most building. Staff is recommending approval of the 6 modification and approval of the P.D.P., subject to the one condition that you have in your staff 7 report. And that concludes my presentation. 8 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, very good. Who, on behalf of the applicant will be making a 9 presentation? Okay, would you please step forward and give us your name, address. 10 MS. LINDA RIPLEY: Thank you Mr. Lopez, my name is Linda Ripley with Ripley 11 Design, Inc. We’re land planners and we represent, this evening, Residential Housing 12 Development, the developer of the project, and Derek Anderson is also here this evening to 13 represent that company as the developer. 14 I’m going to start my presentation tonight with just a little bit of history. Back in 2009, 15 just three years ago, a similar, a very similar project was approved on this site called The Retreat 16 at Plum Street, or 1200 Plum Street. The site plan was very similar, it proposed 197 units 17 compared to our 193. It was…the density was 74 dwelling units per acre compared to ours at 58 18 dwelling units per acre. The Retreat was a combination of four and five-story buildings, as our 19 project tonight also is. And, proposed setback distances from the curbline are also very similar 20 as well. So, the Residential Housing Development bought this property and they added 21 additional property so the project extends now all the way to City Park Avenue. And these are 22 the four blocks that Ted mentioned in his report, that contain the sixteen existing single-family 23 houses that are currently rented out to students. And, many of those are in deteriorating 24 condition now. The houses will be replaced by three new buildings. Building one is a mixed- 25 use building that contains a clubhouse. The front of the building facing Plum Street is five 26 stories, the back of the building is four stories tall, so relatively, the front of the building is 61 27 feet, one inch, the back of the building is 48 feet and eight inches tall. The building in the 28 middle, building two, is a parking structure which is faced with three-story housing units on the 29 street sides. It is a four-story parking garage and 48 feet tall. Building three is a completely 30 residential structure, its five stories in height and 61 feet, one inch tall. The project will provide 31 193 units and contain 674 individual bedrooms. 32 The approximately, well, not approximately, there are 130 existing trees on the site. A 33 few of those trees are being retained, however, most of them are going to be replaced with new 34 trees planted along the streets and along the north side of the project and within the courtyards. 35 This aerial slide is included in our presentation to show what exists around the site. The 36 Sunstone Condominiums are located north of the project, multi-family…other multi-family 37 projects exist on the east, south, and west. Campus West Shopping District is located just a 4 1 block further south and the CSU campus is one block to the east. City Park is located further to 2 the north, just about a half a mile away. Two existing dead-end streets on the project will be 3 vacated, while Bluebell Street will remain and connect through to Baystone Drive. Plum Street 4 has a 40 foot pavement width and a 50 foot right-of-way. It has two travel lanes and striped bike 5 lanes. Currently, sidewalks in this neighborhood are wholly inadequate. This project will 6 dedicate additional right-of-way and provide detached sidewalks along Plum Street. 7 The architecture proposed for the project is urban in scale and design. The materials 8 include stone and stucco with metal accents. Buildings are designed with south-facing 9 courtyards so that we get a nicely articulated street frontage. So, the setback varies quite a bit. 10 Some places we’re relatively close to the street and then the building bends into these sunny 11 courtyards that will capture a lot of sun for extended seasonal use. All the buildings have 12 foundation planters that actually serve a dual function: the ground the building to the site, they 13 are aesthetic, but they also provide stormwater function of capturing a lot of our stormwater and 14 detaining it, as well as providing water quality before that as the water is released to its eventual 15 outfall. 16 The clubhouse is located in building one, it’s architecturally distinct from the rest of the 17 buildings by having a different kind of stone material. It includes an outdoor pool, a recreation 18 center, pool tables, TV games, fitness center, as well as study rooms. Building two, our parking 19 garage, as I mentioned, is faced with townhouse-like units on the street-facing facades. It 20 provides five levels of parking in a four-story height. The project is located in the Transit 21 Overlay District so no parking is actually required of this project; however, if The District were 22 located outside of the TOD, it would be required by the City Code to have 441 parking spaces. 23 Our project provides, in the structure, 495. So they are providing 54 more parking spaces than a 24 project would be required anywhere in Fort Collins, even though technically they’re not required 25 to provide any. Any student who lives in this project, and has a car, will be required to purchase 26 a parking permit and park that car in the garage, and so, therefore, they won’t be parking out in 27 the neighborhood and that’s how it’s policed. In addition, the project will provide 296 bicycle 28 parking spaces as well as a bicycle fix-it station and bike pump. All that’s located in the garage. 29 Thirty-six more are located in the courtyards, for a total of 332 parking spaces, when I believe 30 only fifty are required. Is that correct? Anyway, it’s a very small number that’s required. 31 The garage is well-lit for safety with no hiding spaces. Our photometric plan that was 32 submitted shows that light doesn’t spill onto neighboring properties. Noise typically isn’t a 33 problem with a parking garage because the sound coming from car wheels is deflected back into 34 the garage by masonry parapet walls. 35 I’d like to move on now to talk about how this project meets the policies, goals, and 36 objectives contained in City Plan, in the West Central Neighborhood Plan, and the Campus West 37 Commercial District Study Report. The project addresses all three of these. City Plan has 38 policies that include economic, environmental, livability, safety and wellness, and transportation 5 1 policies. The District addresses economic policies, first of all, by locating in the targeted infill 2 and redevelopment area, as defined in City Plan. This means that the City encourages 3 redevelopment in this area to revitalize the area that is in decline, in some respects, to provide 4 high-density housing where residents can walk or ride bikes to campus, jobs, shopping, and other 5 services, to increase economic activity to benefit local businesses, and to promote investment in 6 areas where infrastructure exists. So, the City is trying to provide incentives to encourage 7 development in this targeted area; however, I want to point out that this developer is not 8 requesting any financial support from the City to develop this project. 9 Currently, the site consists of single-family rentals that, I mentioned, are in poor 10 condition, sub-standard pedestrian access which can fix with bikes. Even though Plum Street has 11 nice bike lanes where…Plum Street is a main route to campus, it’s a straight shot right into the 12 campus, collects kids from a large area of multi-family. But, because kids have to walk in the 13 street, because there are no sidewalks, there are all these conflicts at high-volume times. So, the 14 project’s going to replace these blighted conditions with high-quality, attractive housing, 15 allowing more students to live an easy walking distance of both CSU as well as the Campus 16 West Commercial District. 17 The project also meets the City Plan’s environmental policies. Not only is this project 18 going to meet the City’s new green building standards, The District is being designed to achieve 19 silver certification under the LEED for Homes program. As part of that certification, a long list 20 of features are targeted for implementation. I’ve got that long list, I’m not going to take the time 21 to go over it in this presentation, but I would like to submit it into the record at the end of my 22 presentation. 23 The project supports livability policies by substantially upgrading the streetscape. The 24 project provides a wider right-of-way, creating wide detached sidewalks and providing street 25 trees, seating, pedestrian-scale lighting, planters, and other urban amenities. The project will 26 contribute positively to the identity and character of the neighborhood. Currently, students walk 27 to campus on the street and have to battle with cars and bicycles for safety. Providing affordable 28 housing for students just a block from campus is consistent with the City’s vision for compact 29 land use patterns, and helps reduce vehicle miles travelled. 30 Aside from locational aspect, transportation policies are met in three other ways: the 31 project encourages bicycle use by providing adequate parking in a secured, covered location, and 32 providing on-site air pump and a fix-it station. The development incorporates a transit stop in 33 the center of the project to encourage students to use public transportation, and the enhanced 34 streetscape will promote walking by making it safer and more convenient, and just generally 35 much more pleasant than it is today. 36 The Land Use Code also has standards in two chapters: chapter four is the Zone Districts 37 and chapter three are the General Development Standards. The project, as designed, meets all of 6 1 the land use standards in the Community Commercial zone district. Since the project is less than 2 ten acres, it’s not required to meet the secondary land use criteria aimed at creating a mix of land 3 uses. Even so, we believe that this map taken from the Community Commercial District study 4 report, prepared in 2001, illustrates that high-density student housing contributes very favorably 5 to the mix of land uses that exist in the neighborhood. So, you can see the blue areas are mixed- 6 use or commercial buildings, and then the pink are more multi-family, and then feathering out to 7 single-family further out, out of the core. 8 Buildings are…in our project, buildings are located along pedestrian-oriented streets. 9 The project provides several gathering places and outdoor site amenities, including two 10 courtyards and a pool complex. A transit stop is integrated into the project. By orienting all the 11 buildings to public streets, the project meets the block standards. The zone district allows 12 building heights up to five stories and our project is a mix of four and five stories. The project 13 also meets the development standards for projects in the transit overlay district that are designed 14 to promote land uses and densities that support transit. 15 The property, as designed, also meets all of the general development standards in the 16 Land Use Code, with one exception. And, we are requesting a modification for that exception 17 because building three does not meet the fifteen foot minimum setback standard. First of all, I 18 want to talk about building one, includes a clubhouse and a leasing office in addition to dwelling 19 units, so it is classified as a mixed-use building. Similarly, building two is a parking structure 20 with residential units on the street-facing facades, so it’s also classified as a mixed-use building. 21 Mixed-use buildings are not subject to the fifteen foot setback from the right-of-way, and, in fact, 22 the Land Use Code stipulates that they cannot be any further from the right-of-way than fifteen 23 feet. So, in order to be consistent with those buildings, we’re trying to…we’re requesting a 24 modification for building three. The applicant is requesting that modification in order to be 25 consistent. We’re confident the setbacks and resulting streetscapes will meet the needs of 26 pedestrians as well as provide an interesting, upscale, urban experience for neighboring 27 residents…for neighborhood residents who walk along the corridor. The building footprints are 28 highly articulated and the setbacks vary. These two slides, or these two illustrations, depict what 29 the setbacks are on the streets around our residential building three, and also what the average 30 setback is. So, along Bluebell Street, the most constricted area is eleven feet from the right-of- 31 way. The setback is more at patios and at building indentations, averaging a 14.6 setback along 32 the whole frontage on Bluebell. And, there is a consistent 8.5 foot sidewalk adjacent to Bluebell 33 Street with tree grades and a curb bulge at Plum Street…at the Plum Street intersection. On 34 Plum Street, at the most constricted area, the building is set back 12.5 feet from the right-of-way, 35 the majority of the façade on building three is set back seventeen feet or more, and the setback 36 extends to beyond 100 feet at the courtyard. So, the average all along Plum Street is 26.2 feet 37 from the right-of-way. In addition, the setback measurements that extend from the building to 38 the face of the dedicated right-of-way, there is a consistent 11.5 feet that includes the five foot 39 walk and a 6.5 foot parkway along the curbline. On Aster, the most constricted were ten feet 7 1 away, the setbacks more at patios and building indentations, the average is 15.8, and there is a 2 consistent 11.5 feet in the right-of-way that includes a five foot walk and 6.5 foot parkway. I 3 want to point out, too, that along Plum Street and Aster Street, there is actually…the sidewalk is 4 seven feet wide, but only five feet is in the public right-of-way, but it’s a consistent seven feet 5 wide so it’s plenty wide for the population that lives here and so much better than what exists 6 today. 7 So the Land Use Code gives the decision maker four different criteria to choose from to 8 see if the modification can be approved. The first one that we believe applies is that the plan 9 needs to be equal to or better than a plan which would comply with the standard. We believe 10 that’s true, any time you develop a project like this, there are a series of design trade-offs that 11 need to be made. It’s clear that this project could be designed and have a fifteen foot setback; 12 however, what we’d be giving up is the building articulation and the varied setback. So, we 13 believe that the varied setback of having the courtyards that face the street and go way far from 14 the street, and then having it bend in at entrances and bend in at patios, but then come closer, 15 makes for a much more interesting streetscape, even though at certain points, we are less than 16 fifteen foot. So, we’re seeking the modification rather than creating a building that is less 17 interesting than the other two proposed. Yes? 18 MR. LOPEZ: I have a question. 19 MS. RIPLEY: Sure. 20 MR. LOPEZ: When I was visiting the site and the area nearby, one of the things I noticed 21 was the pedestrian traffic in and around some of these units. In fact, one person was actually 22 cutting through a fence that had been knocked down, or partially knocked down, I think it was to 23 the north of this site. What is the…do you plan to have fencing around the development, The 24 District, or how will circulation, pedestrian circulation, operate. 25 MS. RIPLEY: I can talk to you where we are with that. Brent, could we go to a site plan? 26 Okay, the area, currently there’s a connection between the Sunstone Apartment project and this 27 site right here. There’s an opening in the parking lot and there’s an opening in the fence so 28 students can go from Sunstone, go through this site, and get to Plum Street. We’ve talked to the 29 homeowner’s association presidents north of this, and expressed to them that we would like to 30 create a similar connection here at the end of this courtyard, and offered to restripe their parking 31 lot. We’ve looked at it in detail so that they wouldn’t lose any parking spaces, but there would 32 be a need to restripe their parking lot because we’d really like to move the access so it doesn’t 33 come out in back of the garage. We think it’d be safer and more convenient for everyone if it 34 lined up with this courtyard. So, we’ve offered to do that, and, to date, they haven’t responded to 35 that offer. So, does that clarify? 36 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, it does. I was there, I saw that connection earlier today and the 37 other…I was…the place where the person was cutting through a downed fence was a little bit 8 1 further to the north and to the east, but I was…this is a pedestrian area, we have a lot of students 2 that will take the closest route to their unit and… 3 MS. RIPLEY: Understood. 4 MR. LOPEZ: But, you know, I think maintaining the openness and the accessibility is 5 probably beneficial to your development and probably to neighboring developments too. 6 MS. RIPLEY: We absolutely agree, we’d like to have that. I’d also like to point out, in 7 this fifteen foot setback modification, that, if we were in our MMN district, our medium mixed- 8 use neighborhood district, where you tend to find most of our multi-family projects, there is no 9 minimum setback from the right-of-way. So, it seems a little bit inconsistent that the City has 10 this fifteen foot setback in the CC zone. But, it is what it is. We think our plan is better than a 11 plan that would meet it. 12 Another criteria that can be used for approving the modification is that the granting of the 13 standard would substantially alleviate an existing described problem of City-wide concern, or 14 would result in a substantial benefit to the City. We think that our proposed plan addresses 15 important community needs in three different ways. First of all, by locating in the targeted 16 redevelopment area, The District is promoting the revitalization of the Campus West commercial 17 area. The District is concentrating high-density housing in a location that can be served by high- 18 frequency transit. The District will enable students to access campus job services with shorter 19 auto trips. The District will provide a reinvestment in an area where infrastructure already exists 20 and The District will increase economic activity in an area that will benefit existing businesses. 21 Secondly, the project will be replacing inadequate, run-down student rentals with safe, modern, 22 and efficient units. Third, an attractive and functional streetscape will be added to this core 23 circulation route where students are currently forced to walk in the street. I think there’s actually 24 a fourth one here that didn’t occur to me this very moment, but, by this project being approved, 25 we’re also creating more opportunity for rental housing in our neighborhoods to be more 26 available to low-income people, rather than all of it being taken up by students. Which leads me 27 to the next topic to cover, which is our request to have four-bedroom units in the project. 28 Since the City, a few years ago, adopted the no more than three-unrelated rule, multi- 29 family projects that want to offer four-bedroom units need to specifically request this option, and 30 demonstrate that residents will be adequately served without adversely impacting the 31 neighborhood. So, The District at Campus West plans to include 28 two-bedrooms, 42 three- 32 bedroom apartments, and 123 four-bedroom apartments, so most of their units are designed to be 33 four-bedroom apartments and this is why. The applicant has found that four-bedroom units are a 34 popular lifestyle alternative for many students, it allows for students to share an apartment in 35 well-managed environment, it’s more secure than single-family home rentals, and the four- 36 bedroom units cost less per bedroom, and therefore offer a more affordable alternative for 37 students that are on a budget. The tenants that are likely to occupy these units are also the ones 9 1 likely to occupy single-family rental properties near campus, so it helps alleviate that problem in 2 some neighborhoods. In order to increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in 3 individual dwelling units, the applicant must show that there’s adequate open space, adequate 4 recreation areas, adequate parking, adequate public facilities to serve the occupants in that 5 development. So, first of all, in terms of open space and recreational amenities, students living at 6 The District are just one block from the CSU athletic fields, Moby Gymnasium, and the newly 7 remodeled student rec center. Students are also just a few blocks from City Park which includes 8 172 acres of open space with sport fields, a lake, natural areas, a swimming pool, playground, 9 and a golf course. In addition, The District will offer 16,500 square feet of courtyards and 10 landscaped open space on the 3.3 acre site, including a swimming pool and sundeck. The south 11 facing courtyards include special paving, generous landscaping, outdoor lighting, internet access, 12 and a variety of seating opportunities. The project incorporates open space and recreational 13 amenities based on how many students are living in the complex. So, four-bedroom units are 14 factored into that equation. The 7,000 square foot clubhouse will include the pool, a rec room, 15 pool tables, and all of those things I mentioned earlier. In addition, the streetscape around the 16 edge of the project also adds to the urban lifestyle providing street trees, special paving, seat 17 walls, and street furniture, as well as convenient bike parking. 18 We believe that the project provides more than adequate parking, given that it provides 19 54 more parking spaces than it would located anywhere, and it is in the Transit Overlay District 20 which specifies no minimum parking requirements. The applicant is also interested in doing 21 everything they can to encourage students to be environmentally responsible by promoting 22 alternative means of transportation including walking, biking, transit and ride-sharing. The site 23 is served by Transfort and there is a centrally located bus stop. Students can connect to the 24 Mason Street bus rapid transit via bike, or by using the bus. The BRT provides transportation to 25 downtown, or destinations and activity centers south Fort Collins. 26 In terms of public facilities, the site is well-served. It obviously has the typical water, 27 wastewater, police, and fire facilities. The site is adjacent to Campus West commercial shopping 28 that includes retail, personal service shops, as well as restaurants and entertainment venues. The 29 site’s also close to two grocery stores; approximately one mile from Beaver’s Market, and 30 approximately one and a half miles from the Safeway on College Avenue. 31 The four-bedrooms also add to the sustainability aspect of this project. We did a little 32 research and I’m seeing data from Conservice, a nationwide utility billing service that analyzes 33 information for many properties, and thousands of units indicated that electricity use, on average, 34 is 21% more efficient when comparing a four-bedroom unit to two two-bedroom units. 35 Likewise, it found that natural gas is estimated to be 55% more efficient when four students are 36 living in a four-bedroom unit compared to two two-bedrooms. And, lastly, less construction 37 materials are used because it’s just physically more compact. So, we believe that the four- 38 bedroom units proposed in this development serve the students by providing secure and 39 affordable lifestyle alternative without negatively impacting adjacent neighbors. 10 1 Neighborhood compatibility is the issue that’s had most talk, I guess, from the 2 neighborhood. We started working with the neighborhood in August, that was when we held our 3 very first neighborhood meeting. And, the concerns that we heard at that first neighborhood 4 meeting were concerns about the building height, shadowing, increased traffic, noise, property 5 values. So, in response to concerns, the applicant did prepare a traffic study that was prepared by 6 Eric Bracke; he is here tonight and can expand on that if we need him to. We’ve also made 7 changes to the project to try to address some of the concerns that we heard. At the beginning of 8 our design process, the very first time we showed the project to the City, the project was much 9 larger. It contained 215 units and 732 units and it had a six-story parking garage. The project 10 actually extended south of Plum Street and included development along Scott Avenue. At the 11 time of the first neighborhood meeting, we had already reduced the project to five-stories, and 12 after that neighborhood meeting, the scale of the project was reduced down to 193 units, the 13 current 674 bedrooms, and the parking structure was scaled down to four stories in height, and 14 the larger of the two residential buildings drops down to four stories on the north side, 15 specifically to reduce the shadow impact. The outdoor activities are located in the courtyards 16 facing south towards the street so that the noise and activity associated with those courtyards 17 don’t impact neighbors directly. The traffic impact study concludes that, after the project is 18 constructed, all key intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. It also 19 concludes that the site is outstanding in terms of opportunity to use alternative modes of 20 transportation. We held a second neighborhood meeting after we made these changes, on March 7 th 21 . The 22 applicant presented the changes made to the plans in response to their concerns. Since building 23 height and shadowing were still big concerns, I want to spend just a little time demonstrating 24 how the project changed in response to the concern, and why we believe we meet the City 25 standards that relate to building height and shadowing. Next slide. This slide shows the 26 comparison of the height of the Sunstone Apartments, which are 32 feet, 8 inches tall to the top 27 of their pitched roof. Our parking garage is 48 feet tall and the north side of building one is 48 28 feet, 8 inches tall. The height of building one and the parking garage were brought down to four 29 stories to be more compatible with the neighboring condos. The neighbors to the north were also 30 very concerned about the visual impact of the parking garage. These slides show that the 31 view…next slide…these slide show that the view is now…these slide show that the view now, 32 compared to what it will look like if the parking garage is built. So, the parking garage is an 33 open air garage, so first of all, it’s not a solid box. The parapet walls screen the cars, shield the 34 headlights, and block sound from moving vehicles. The stone façade is incorporated on the first 35 two levels of the parking garage on the back side to increase the visual interest. And, luckily, 36 there are large existing trees on the Sunstone property very close to the property line that serve to 37 buffer the visual impact of the garage, that it will buffer initially, and new columnar trees are 38 planted all along the north to ensure that this buffering continues into the future. 11 1 So, there are two criteria in the Land Use Code that govern shadowing. The first is 2 Section 3.2.3, Solar Access, Orientation, and Shading, and this is the criteria that applies in most 3 places in the City, but it does not apply in the Community Commercial zone district. However, it 4 says that, to the maximum extent feasible, projects should not cast a shadow onto structures on 5 adjacent property greater than a shadow cast by a 25-foot wall placed on the property line. The 6 other section…the other standard that does apply is Section 3.5.1 in the Building Height Review, 7 where it says that buildings over 40 feet should be designed so that they do not have substantial 8 adverse impact on the distribution of natural light on adjacent properties. It goes on to say that 9 the project shall not preclude the functional use of solar energy or solar technology, and we don’t 10 preclude that. It says the project shall not create adverse solar reflectants or glare, and we don’t. 11 The criterion also addresses the accumulation of ice and snow, and shading of windows or 12 gardens for more than three months of the year, both of which are concerns of people that own 13 property or live in the Sunstone Condos situated to the north. First of all, it’s fortunate that those 14 buildings are separated from our project by a fair distance, and that distance varies. They’re 15 never closer than 52 feet, our buildings from their buildings. The farthest they get, well, not the 16 absolute farthest, but, going back to that location, is 91 feet, and the average is about 70 feet 17 from our buildings to theirs. Our team has prepared an extensive shadow analysis that illustrates 18 two things: first, that the shadows produced by the proposed buildings do not shade windows for 19 more than three months of the year, and secondly, that the shadow cast by the building does not 20 make the shading of the parking lot substantially worse than the natural distribution of light that 21 currently exists. 22 Alright, I need to make a clarification at this point in the presentation because it wasn’t 23 until today that I found a discrepancy in something we submitted. I’m showing you the shadow 24 analysis that we submitted to the City a while back and it is correct, and we stand by it. If, for 25 some reason, it is not correct, we will lower our buildings so that the shadow will never be more 26 than what is shown on these graphics. The reason I have to clarify this is because, subsequently, 27 we submitted a shadow analysis where the buildings were shown to be slightly higher; therefore, 28 the shadow went up, and we want to make sure that there’s no confusion. This is what we’ll live 29 by, and we will prove it with further analysis if we need to. But, this is the shadow analysis that 30 we used to make the decision to drop the parking garage to four stories and to drop the back side 31 of building one to four stories. So, let me show you how that happened. This first slide shows 32 what the shadow is like in November. So, in November, we’re…our buildings…it actually 33 shows two things too, it shows the top row is our currently proposed project and the bottom row 34 shows the project as it was originally proposed when the garage and building one were all five 35 stories. So, what you see is that, in November, if we kept the five story option, we are shading 36 that first story of apartments on Sunstone. But, if we drop to four stories, we’re shading them at 37 9:00 a.m. in the morning, but by noon, that shadow is down to the ground and off of those units. 38 Then, when we get to December, and December, you know, the sun is at its lowest angle, and so 39 those units are shaded in December, even, all day long, at 9:00, and noon, and at 3:00 p.m.; 40 however, it’s just one month, it’s much less than three. By lowering the height of the north side 12 1 of building one and the height of the parking garage to four stories, we were able to keep the 2 shading of the windows in these closest apartments to under three months. 3 Now I want to shift to talking about shading of the parking lot. This illustration shows 4 what a shadow would look like if a 25-foot hypothetical were placed on the property line. And, 5 if you’ll recall, there’s that one standard in the Code that doesn’t apply to us; however, it’s the 6 general standard everywhere else in the City that says you don’t want to go beyond this. So, but, 7 it’s okay if your shadow is equal to what a 25-foot wall would do. Well, the 25-foot wall would 8 put the whole parking lot in shade. We also took a look at, well, what if our buildings were only 9 three stories? What would that do? You know, what if we were three stories like the other 10 apartment buildings in the neighborhood. That would still shade the parking lot all winter long. 11 And, the fact is, that the parking lot…next slide…the parking lot is shaded all winter long now, 12 for the most part, by the existing trees. One hundred and thirty trees on this site, even without 13 their leaves, they produce a lot of shadow. And this is taken, like midday, 12/23 this year. 14 MR. LOPEZ: Excuse me. 15 MS. RIPLEY: Yes. 16 MR. LOPEZ: You mentioned 133 trees…are those trees on your property or on… 17 MS. RIPLEY: Those trees are on our property. 18 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 19 MS. RIPLEY: Some of the trees you see in this slide actually are on the Sunstone…to the 20 father right, the fence line is the property line. So, the…we use the picture just to illustrate that 21 it’s unfortunate, but this parking lot is in a place where it’s shaded right now much of the winter 22 and it’s difficult to keep it clear. 23 MR. LOPEZ: Just to follow up a little bit on that…since most of the trees are on your 24 side of the property line, as I understand, there’ll be a number of them removed? 25 MS. RIPLEY: Uh, huh. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Have you done any analysis on how that might change the shadowing, once 27 those trees are removed? 28 MS. RIPLEY: Well, our buildings will create a shadow similar to these trees. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 30 MS. RIPLEY: The trees…as you can see, there are patches of sunlight, so, with our 31 building, in our shadow analysis, if you go through that, there won’t be those little striations of 32 sunlight. But then, on the other hand, some of those trees shade buildings all the way up to the 13 1 top story because those trees are actually taller than our buildings will be, so it’s sort of a mixed 2 bag. Some of the shadows are taller but our buildings will block in a more solid pattern across 3 that parking lot for sure. But anyway, we don’t believe that we’ve created a substantial adverse 4 impact on the parking lot since the accumulation of ice and snow is a condition that already 5 exists and would exist with any urban scale project proposed for this site. The shadowing is no 6 worse that a shadow cast by the previously approved housing project, just three years ago. 7 Another issue that the neighborhood has voiced concern about is noise, both in 8 association with rooftop mechanical equipment and cars in the parking structure. So, we did a 9 little research on that with our mechanical engineer, and found out that the condenser units that 10 are on top of the buildings…we have two types, a 1.5 ton condenser unit and a 2.5 condenser 11 unit, fewer of those…but they are relatively, 49 decibels and 54.7 decibels. So, what does that 12 mean? He also gave us this little chart which shows what that sound is relative to things that 13 we’re all familiar with. And, in that range of 49 to 54 decibels, is about how much sound a 14 dishwasher makes when you’re in the other room. So, sound also travels out and up, so if we’re 15 talking about the sound of the dishwasher, we’re not going to be hearing it four levels down on 16 the street, or 90 feet across in an apartment on the other side of the parking lot. So, we don’t 17 think that those are real concerns, it’s never been a concern on other projects that this developer 18 has built, but we wanted to give some data that supports that. Similarly, noise created by the 19 wheels of the car would also be blocked by the parapet walls, because the sound would tend to 20 bounce back into the parking garage. 21 Now, I would like to turn it over to Derek Anderson and have him talk a little bit about 22 how the project is managed, because management is always a concern to neighbors that live next 23 door to a multi-family project. 24 MR. DEREK ANDERSON: Thank you, Linda. As Linda said, my name is Derek 25 Anderson, I’m a partner with Residential Housing Development, the developer of The District at 26 Campus West. While Linda has done an excellent job at presenting many of the major facets of 27 our project, I’d like to briefly address a few items that pertain to the management of them. First, 28 let me reiterate that Residential Housing Development is a developer of student housing, and, 29 while we do have extensive experience in the management of student housing projects, which 30 gives us insight into how to responsibly develop student communities, we do hire competent 31 third party management for our communities. We do this because the projects are a significant 32 investment, and as such, we believe it is best to have professional management on property 33 whose sole focus is that management. 34 Universities and the students…and the student communities that serve them, are a vital 35 and vibrant part of their communities; however, we recognize that they also pose certain 36 management challenges that, our experience shows, that with the right management policies and 37 procedures in place, can be successfully addressed. While we, as developers, strive to design 38 projects that foster a sense of community, it is important that management be present and 14 1 policies be in place to control social events so that they are carried out responsibly and with the 2 utmost respect for right to quiet enjoyment of our neighbors. And, I might point out, the 3 neighbors within our community. So, unlike many larger communities that rely solely on the 4 services of a few resident assistants, who do play an important role in property management, we 5 insist our management budget and implement a number of additional measures to better ensure 6 against disturbances to our neighbors and damage to our properties. 7 Our first measure is policies and procedures. Each resident, as well as his parent or 8 guardian, is provided with a copy of the rules and regulations of our community. Our 9 management is specifically instructed to go through these rules and regulations with the resident, 10 and residents are required to acknowledge their understanding and receipt of them, and the 11 associated fines and ramifications for their violation. Our community policies dictate hours of 12 operations for the amenities and specifically limit the size of gatherings permitted in their 13 apartments. These hours are limited so that outdoor activities occur during appropriate hours, 14 gatherings are limited to an appropriate size so that the resident neighbors within our community 15 are respected as well. As mentioned, fines for the violations of rules and regulations are clearly 16 detailed in our leasing package, and they are enforced, both by management and the professional, 17 third-party security service we hire to look after each of our properties. These patrol services are 18 tailored to each community so that the appropriate manpower is present to guard against, and 19 when necessary, diffuse potential incidents. These are uniformed personnel that are a resource 20 for our residents, but also serve to visibly remind our residents of our policies and procedures. 21 We believe in on-site management. To us, that means that the manager lives on-site. As 22 such, we incentivize our property managers to live on-property by offering a unit as part of their 23 compensation package. The social integration of our managers into the community and their 24 exposure to the property, not just during the hours of nine to five, but rather all hours of the day 25 and night and every day of the week, is a win-win-win, in our opinion. It helps us to better 26 understand our residents and their needs and respond to the unique challenges all properties 27 have. It is a resource for our residents, and it better ensures that our community is run in a 28 fashion that compliments and enhances the surrounding community. 29 Lastly, some questions have been raised about move-in and move-out procedures and 30 their impacts on the surrounding community, and I want to briefly touch on that. While the 31 rhythm of academic life dictates that most of the residents will move in and move out within a 32 relatively brief time, let me point out that Campus West, including our immediate neighbors on 33 all sides, is dominated by student housing, and this will not be a challenge unique to our 34 property. This is one of the important reasons why we identified this area as being the most 35 suitable for a development that meets the housing needs of CSU. We, as developers, are keenly 36 aware of the logistical challenges and our communities are designed with this factor in mind. 37 Some of the ways we address these challenges are by staggering move-in dates and assigning 38 key pick-up times to spread out move-in and move-out traffic. We provide extra trash 39 receptacles to handle the increase trash volume, and designate temporary spaces to facilitate 15 1 logistics. Also, I will note that our communities are furnished to include TVs, and unlike most 2 other communities, this significantly reduces the amount of trash and time required to move in or 3 out of our community. 4 I hope that the foregoing statement, as well as those of our team member, serves to 5 illustrate that this student community has been thoughtfully designed and will be responsibly 6 managed. We have listened to our neighbors, having not just one, but two meetings at the 7 request of some neighbors, to gather feedback, explain plans and changes that we have made 8 specifically to respond to community concerns. Unlike some developers who perhaps rely on 9 their employees or consultants to sit in on these meetings, I personally attended these meetings to 10 hear our neighbors. The City staff can surely attest to the significant redesign of the project that 11 we have made in response to its, and the neighbors comments. These redesigns have come at 12 considerable expense, which can be measured in, quite honestly, the hundreds of thousands of 13 dollars, and compromise to the feasibility of the project. I say this merely to illustrate the 14 seriousness with which we have considered all comments, both concerns and considerable praise 15 for the project’s merits. I say considerable praise because it’s the nature of our democracy and 16 these proceedings, that concern is what is overwhelmingly voiced, and it might lead one to 17 believe that concern is the dominant sentiment. But, it is important to note that this is a project 18 that fulfills the community at large’s goals and vision of an urban student community in the west 19 campus area, as voted on in the West Central Neighborhood Plan. We have received numerous 20 letters and other expressions of support from the immediate neighbors. With this in mind, I 21 respectfully request that you carefully consider the many merits of our proposed project and 22 approve our requests. Thank you for your time. 23 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, I just wanted to add, to let you know, that a couple other members 24 of our team that are with us tonight. Nick Haas with Northern Engineering is available to answer 25 or address questions about utilities, drainage, streets, or stormwater detention. Eric Bracke with 26 ELB Engineering did our traffic analysis and is here to answer questions regarding that, and, 27 unfortunately Yeau Yu, our architect with Humphries and Partners, is on his way; however, his 28 flight was delayed today, so we do think he’ll be here before the end of the hearing. So, with 29 that, we’ll conclude and we’re…Derek and myself, as well as the rest of our team, are available 30 for comments, questions. 31 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. Ted, is there any response, comments? 32 MR. SHEPARD: I have no response. 33 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, at this point, we’ll start the public testimony. I would like you to 34 come up one at a time, give us your name and address so we can make sure we get a copy of this 35 decision to you, and…how many people are planning to speak? Okay, that seems fine, it’s only 36 6:00 so we should be able to get through everyone. 37 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 16 1 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, why don’t you go ahead and tee that up. Okay. 2 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do you want us to sign in before we speak? 3 MR. LOPEZ: That would be great. 4 MR. SHEPARD: The purpose for signing in is because Mr. Lopez’s decision will be in 5 writing, and we want to get it out to everyone who participates, and this is the best way to do it, 6 and, if you can write legibly, we’ll send it electronically. And, if you don’t have electronic, then 7 we’ll send it to your address. 8 MR. BOB MEYER: Thank you, my name is Bob Meyer, I represent the Sunstone 9 Condominium Homeowners Association, I’m the president of one of the Associations, building 10 C and D. So, my comments tonight are going to be collective comments from our Homeowners 11 Association Board, they’ve asked me to present, and then, I think we have several people…will 12 be expanding on some of the points and concerns that we have in that. And then…so, I do have 13 some prepared comments, which I will leave with you Mr. Lopez. 14 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 15 MR. MEYER: And, when I get done with those, I do have a couple little, just little, things 16 I do want to say regarding what the applicant previously presented, if I may. Thank you for the 17 opportunity to discuss our position and relay the concerns of our homeowner’s association, related to the proposed development, at this public hearing. During the recent March 7 th 18 19 neighborhood meeting, we provided more detailed written comments to the City Planning 20 Department, which I hope have been provided to you for your review. Today I would, again, 21 like to summarize our continuing concerns with the project as currently proposed. 22 Concern number one, this concern centers around the shadowing impacts of the proposed 23 development immediately to the south will have on the buildings and parking lot of our 24 properties. In the shadowing study presented by the developer, and in studies conducted by 25 those representing our interest, which you will hear shortly, significant shadowing is predicted to 26 occur directly on the Sunstone buildings themselves, beginning in mid-November through 27 February. This building shadowing encompasses over one-half of our buildings existing 28 structure depending on the time of day, and likely will occur for the four-month period of 29 November to February, at least four months is what our shadowing study shows. And, our 30 studies show the shadowing effect to be substantially greater than that presented by the 31 developer. Casting shadows as far as 131 feet north of the proposed parking structure. Negative 32 economic impacts of 25% or more on our property values have been estimated by realtors related 33 to this shadowing effect. Our HOA requests that the impacts of our modeling results also are 34 considered in the decision making process. 17 1 Of equal concern is the shadowing effect on our main parking lot. The studies show that 2 at no time during the months of November through February, will our parking lot see the sun at 3 all. Certainly we can all understand and appreciate the resulting impacts which may occur if a 4 late fall or early winter storm dumps snow resulting in ice formation. Without sun, the ice would 5 likely remain all winter, potentially resulting in injuries to our residents and visitors from falling 6 down or from increased automobile accidents. 7 Economically, our HOA will be impacted by the increased cost of snow removal from the 8 parking area. And, I would just like to make a side comment. As I was viewing the applicant’s 9 pictures, I think we need to keep in mind that, even though they showed that the building by their 10 currently proposed model, the shadow and noontime, during December, I believe it was 11 December, only comes to the base. I think what’s really important to remember is, we have 12 garden apartments, and some of those windows are down there, they’re going to be shadowed 13 there. So, the structures aren’t quite really represented on the drawings as they really exist today. 14 We have garden apartments, is what I’m saying there. 15 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 16 MR. LOPEZ: Along that line, can you tell me what the height is from ground level to, 17 let’s say, the floor level. So, you have a ground…a garden apartment that’s recessed into the 18 ground I’m assuming. 19 MR. MEYER: Right. 20 MR. LOPEZ: So, what is the height from the ground level up to the floor level for the 21 second floor? 22 MR. MEYER: Five feet. 23 MR. LOPEZ: It’d be five feet, okay. 24 MR. MEYER: Concern number two. This concern centers around the traffic impacts and 25 available parking for our residents and tenants. The project proposal indicates that as many as 26 674 residents would be housed at The District, if all rooms were occupied. Although no one 27 knows for sure how many cars the proposed project would eventually attract to the area, 28 potentially 674 cars would need to be parked, if all residents arrived in Fort Collins with a 29 vehicle. Considering that the proposed parking structure will accommodate 495 cars, 179 cars 30 would be seeking parking in other places in the nearby neighborhood, likely on the surrounding 31 streets of City Park Avenue and Baystone Drive, and probably in the Sunstone parking lot, 32 resulting in a significant spillover effect that will need to be continually addressed by our 33 homeowner’s association. These streets are already being occupied by residents of both the 34 Sunstone and Baystone Condominium complex, and additional cars will only add to existing 35 pressures of locating an available parking spot. Of even greater concern to Sunstone 18 1 Homeowner’s Association members, is the impact that such a spillover effect will have on our 2 own residents’ available parking in the Sunstone lot. 3 We would all be naïve to think that District residents would not quickly figure out that 4 parking in the Sunstone lot was more convenient to their apartments, especially if they are being 5 charged for parking in their own facility, which was brought out at the last neighborhood 6 meeting, that…the developer said that they expected to charge for the parking there. And, they 7 would certainly test our resolve until such time penalties that the Sunstone Homeowners 8 Association would need to impose, were successful at getting the message out of don’t park in 9 the Sunstone lot, or you will get towed. Such a situation places Sunstone managers in the 10 unenviable position of becoming parking lot police, which, without a doubt, will incur increased 11 costs for our Association, and will likely not serve to promote friendly relations with our 12 neighbors. Our Homeowners Association will not appreciate being placed in such a position. 13 Concern number three. Our third concern centers around what we will term building 14 effects. In particular, we are very concerned about the visual, lighting, and noise impacts that 15 may occur from having a large parking structure literally in our backyard. The new proposal 16 describes very nice looking apartments adorning the southern and east faces of the parking 17 structure, thus to make the parking structure visually appealing for those travelling down either 18 Plum or Bluebell. In contrast, our inspection of the plans in the proposal shows that the northern 19 face of the parking structure, that Sunstone residents will view everyday, is a 20 bit…unimaginative. A few trees planted outside likely will do little to mitigate such effects, 21 either from a visually-friendly, or property value impacts perspective. Not to mention, it’s going 22 to take a while before they get any size that might even potentially have any impact. We hope 23 that the final decision makers will understand we cannot accept this as currently proposed. 24 We are also concerned about the effects of lighting and noise coming from the parking 25 structure that will be so close to our property. We need to have more assurance that lighting and 26 noise coming from the structure is sufficiently mitigated, such that disturbance to our residents 27 does not occur. Our reading of the proposal does not address those concerns sufficiently, in our 28 opinion, and we…I acknowledge that we do have more information now that was presented at 29 this meeting, which we will be interested in reviewing more closely. There. 30 Our fourth concern, and final more general concerns, relates to the overall mass and scale 31 of this project. This project is huge in terms of physical size and the concentration of people and 32 their associated vehicles in a relatively small area. It dwarfs most all other residential facilities 33 in the immediate area. We ask consideration of the following: are four and five story buildings 34 located in generally residential type areas compatible with existing structures? And, is this the 35 vision that most Fort Collins planning officials wish to embrace? We are of the opinion they are 36 not. Number two, 674 residents in the proposed complex, of which the majority will likely be 37 CSU students, in our view is cause for particular concern. Many of us have been college 38 students before and, as we all know, once the weather warms, as it’s doing right now and has for 19 1 the past weekend, in that area, younger folks often have a tendency to kick back, call some 2 friends, and start a party, which can quickly grow to hundreds of participants. And, history has 3 repeatedly shown that those areas in which the proposed project is located, west of CSU campus, 4 are especially prone to be of greater risk for such activities to develop. We have concerns that 5 the tendency for large-scale parties to develop and spill over into the neighboring properties will 6 be incrementally increased based merely on the size of this development and the number of 7 persons that will locate there. 8 And, third, we question why an accommodation allowing four persons to occupy an 9 apartment is being allowed with this project. Such accommodation will likely encourage other 10 property owners in the nearby area to increase their occupancy levels…limits also, without 11 obtaining prior permission, since they may challenge Fort Collins’ three-unrelated person 12 maximum rule as being discriminatory and unfairly applied or enforced. Please understand that 13 Sunstone Homeowners Association is not opposed to redeveloping the proposed area, in fact, we 14 welcome it. But this particular proposal is not compatible with our interests. Again, we thank 15 you for the opportunity to provide our input and listen to our concerns. And, one final comment 16 I will make…the applicant said they…to date, we have not received any written, formal request 17 for them to meet with us or a proposal about what they would want to do related to this access 18 issue and things, but we certainly are open to meeting with them once we receive a formal 19 request to do so. Thank you very much. 20 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Meyer, I have one question. In your presentation, and I think in the 21 written material that was submitted, you mentioned that a 25% reduction in property value as 22 estimated by real estate persons. Do you have that report or that estimate? 23 MR. MEYER: No, these were from property…different…no we don’t have a written 24 report, we have opinions that some of our Homeowners Association members and our Board had 25 talked to certain realtors on that. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 27 MR. MEYER: We don’t have any written report to give you on that. 28 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, do you have any names of the realtors? 29 MR. MEYER: I don’t, sir. 30 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you. 31 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 32 MR. MEYER: I will say we’ll try to provide a report, I won’t say we could do it in a few 33 days. 34 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. 20 1 MR. MEYER: Would you like this just brought to you right now? 2 MR. LOPEZ: Just give it to Mr. Shepard. Thank you. Next person? Yes, sir. 3 MR. TIM DUDLEY: Hello, Mr. Lopez, I’m Tim Dudley, I’m a Sunstone condominium 4 owner and I’m also on the Board of Directors of the Sunstone for C and D. And I’m here to talk 5 a little bit about the shadow study and how it compares to a study that we have done just on our 6 own. So, if you don’t mind, I’d like to drive from the keyboard if I could because I’ve got a 7 presentation. 8 MR. LOPEZ: That sounds fine. 9 MR. DUDLEY: Okay, now it’s on with the screen, okay. Okay, so, I did a shadow study, 10 just to… I originally did this when we first heard about this project, based on the heights of the 11 buildings that they were at the original proposal, so I’ve since modified this to adjust for 12 basically 49-foot residential structure and the garage. And, this shows…and actually I got this, 13 built this information out of two references, the U.S. Naval Observatory has a site where you can 14 show…get the angle of the sun at any date and time in any location, and then this planetarium, 15 the Sanburg Center for Sky Awareness has another tool that you can use then to show, based on 16 the angle of the sun at a height of a certain unit, how long the shadow will be. So, that’s how I 17 built this. If you look at basically the six months from the fall equinox to the spring equinox, 18 September through March, the minimum shadow is going to be almost 41 feet long, from their 19 parking structure…now there is…parking structure and the building. I believe that’s an eight 20 foot setback on the north side of their development, is what I was told in the neighborhood 21 meeting. So, when I do the next slides and show how far that shadow goes into our parking lot, 22 I’ve adjusted for that eight feet, and I’ll show you that. So…and I don’t have the data from the 23 developer, all I have is their slides that they presented so that’s why I’m doing some comparisons 24 on that. 25 So, this is a…basically just a Google Earth shot from space of our development and their 26 site. And, over here, this is basically the property line. I’m a little bit south of the property line 27 here, but, so, for September and March, between September and March, this yellow line and the 28 red and green dot represent the length…minimum length of a shadow for that six months. And, 29 again, I’ve subtracted the eight feet from this, that would extend out in to this area. And, if you 30 can see here that, starting in September, that shadow is the majority of our parking lot. In fact, if 31 you draw this over, it’s almost to the sidewalk of the furthest south sticking out buildings here, 32 so most all of this parking along here and most of the driveway is going to be in the shadow 33 starting at that point. I mean, if you look at the developer’s shadow study, and this is two views, 34 and I got this right from the shadow study that they submitted to the City. Down here at the 35 bottom, you can see there, where they estimate their shadows, doesn’t come nearly as far up into 36 the parking lot as what my study shows. And so, again, I don’t have their data that shows what 37 these shadow lengths actually are, but there’s really I don’t think is representative of what I 21 1 believe the impact is going to be to the shading of our parking lot. So, that’s basically what it’s going to look like September to March. After that, they were using November 22 nd 2 as a date, I’m not sure why, but I looked at it November 22 nd 3 as well, and the length of the shadow there is 4 actually 86 feet, so I’ve drawn a line 78 feet here, and so the shadow starting in November goes 5 well beyond our parking lot. So, starting in November, so November, December, January, and 6 into February, four months, not only is the parking lot going to be in shade, but all of our 7 sidewalks are going to be in shade, and actually up into, you know, some of the stairwells and 8 things like that. So, again, this is ground level, I don’t have the information about how high up 9 the building it’s going to go, but that’s basically for four months, that’s how long the shadows 10 are going to be. If you look at their study, now this changed from what they showed today. This 11 actually was pulled from their original design or model that they showed at the neighborhood meeting of what this would look like on November 22 nd 12 . The one they just showed indicated that 13 the shadows were barely going to touch the bottom of this building. The ones they submitted 14 earlier…this is…right here is the next floor of the building, so all of these basement windows, 15 these garden level windows, are in the shade for four months, based on the first shadow study 16 that they submitted. So, again, I don’t have the data that actually shows the length and things 17 like that. I will say, if you look at this bottom, where it shows just how long the shadows will be, 18 that is very similar to what my study shows. I mean it’s…mine goes a little bit farther out here, 19 but that’s very compatible, not…the first…the September through March one, I think their 20 shadows were much shorter, but in the rest of these slides, their shadows are pretty much the 21 same as what my study showed. So, this, again, this is November, and all the garden level 22 windows are covered for basically about four months. Here’s what it looks like in December, so 23 this is the longest the shadows get, in December, so it goes way out into our driveway. So, you 24 know, we’re pretty much, I don’t know how far up the building it’s going to go honestly, but 25 actually I think in their picture, it does show now the shadows getting up into the second story 26 windows on these. So, I don’t know how many months that’s going to be, but certainly at the 27 height, or the low point of the sun in the winter, it’s going to be getting into the second story 28 windows. Also, their shadow lengths that they show on here is very compatible with what my 29 study shows, about how far the shadows will go from their buildings into our parking lot and into 30 our buildings. 31 The other thing I wanted to point out here before I move on, is if you look at this model 32 that they built here, it’s a little misleading in my mind because of the perspective that this model 33 is built in. The model is skewed more towards our side of the parking lot, so it makes…so, when 34 you look, have to look farther away at their building. If you look at this, it makes it look like 35 their buildings are basically the same height as our buildings, and they really aren’t. Their 36 buildings are actually 50% higher, taller, than our buildings, 32 feet compared to 48 feet. So, I’ll 37 come back to that point in just another slide, but I wanted to illustrate it on this one because it’s the best one. Here’s one of the pictures that they took on December 23 rd 38 to show that the parking 39 lot’s always a mess. Well, here’s the point…this…I think this was taken right after a snow. 40 There’s cars that still have not been scraped off, you see the cars that have been moved still have 22 1 snow on the top of them, and even though there are a lot of shade from the trees, and honestly 2 there’s very few trees that are 50-foot tall on that south side of that lot, and they go way up the 3 building here. Even though there are some shadows, there’s also a lot of daylight here. And, if 4 we go back to theirs, there is no break in the shadows that their buildings are going to cast on our 5 parking lot and our buildings. So, this is actually just solid shadow, basically starting, for six 6 months of the year, it’s going to be solid shadow well into our parking lot. I just want to look 7 here and make sure I’m hitting all my points. 8 Let me go back up one slide. The developer has talked about what changes they made to 9 the buildings to adjust for the shadowing. In fact, they…you know, lowered the back side, the 10 north side of the buildings down to four story, but, in reality, what’s happened is, during…and 11 this is…of course, this is my opinion, but, if you looked at the first…and they showed a slide of 12 their original proposal. All of these courtyards open to the north, which actually would give our 13 development a lot more sunlight, because all this stuff would be opening to the north. I believe 14 that after our first neighborhood meeting when we started talking a lot about the shadowing and 15 the shading and ice build-up and snow build-up, and one of the ladies tonight here talked 16 about…they put the courtyards here so that they could use the best ability of sunlight and stuff. 17 In reality, that’s harmed us more than it’s helped us, because now we have a solid line of shadow 18 for buildings A, B, and C, where before there was at least some breaks in there before they 19 redesigned. So, a lot of talk about they’ve done some work to lower this section to mitigate the 20 shadowing, but in reality the redesign has just made it much worse for our neighborhood, or for 21 our development. 22 The other thing I want to talk about, around this…sort of this…what I think is a 23 misleading of the perspective that they’re showing here. Again, this is the same thing that they 24 showed up here earlier, but in reality, because of the perspective that this model is built closer to 25 this corner and we’re looking up it here, this actually is not an accurate depiction of what the 26 height…and they call this their height comparison. So, their building is 50% taller than our 27 buildings, so 32 and 48. So, I got out the old plastic ruler and measured, you know 50% 28 difference, so this section of the line should be 50% of what this section is, and in reality it is not. 29 This line is short by about 30% of what it should be. In reality, this line should be stretched up 30 into this area someplace. So, again, I think they’re using their modeling and the perspective of 31 how this modeling is set so that this actually is not an accurate depiction of the comparison of the 32 heights of the buildings. So, I just wanted to point that out. 33 And then, related to what the garage is going to look like, I’ve got another thing I want to 34 start up here real quick. They showed a view of what the parking structure would look like with 35 the trees and stuff and that’s really not that bad. That view was taken from out in Baystone 36 Street someplace, it really doesn’t accurately depict what we’re going to see on our front 37 sidewalk. I work at a college campus in downtown Denver, we have two parking structures on 38 that campus. I went out to our 45-foot structure, paced out 30 paces, which is 75 feet, and just 39 turned around with my iPhone and took a picture of what that structure is going to look like, and 23 1 I think this is an accurate depiction of what this is going to look like from our front walks. So, 2 even though it might not look that intrusive from out in Baystone Street someplace, it’s a little 3 different from our front porches here. So, again, that’s just a different perspective on what this 4 garage is going to look like, and again, this is from our…this is not from out in the middle of the 5 parking lot, this is what it’s going to look like from our sidewalks and our front steps. 6 And then, the one last slide that I have is just talking a little bit about compatibility and 7 harmonious, you know, being harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. So, the Sunstone 8 Condos, which is in the same block as the new development, is really compatible with the rest of 9 the developments right…they’re two and three developments, there’s a lot of open space with 10 grass and trees, there’s lots of parking available, and I…we just don’t feel that this development 11 in this particular block, especially with this existing development on the same block, is really 12 compatible with the neighborhood or the existing development. It’s just too overshadowing, too 13 high-density, too massive. It’s just… I don’t believe that it really meets compatibility or 14 harmonious with the rest of the neighborhood. As far as that zoning, the Community 15 Commercial zoning, the main purpose as I read that zoning, was to have multi-use buildings 16 from the standpoint of, like, retail on the first floor, and maybe multi-unit housing on the second 17 floor. Similar to what’s just south of this on Elizabeth Drive and things like that. When the 18 developer was asked the question at the neighborhood meetings: why is there not any retail in 19 this development? The answer was, it’s just not feasible in this location. It’s just not a good 20 location for retail. So, to me, while this might meet the actual standards in that zoning, or that 21 district, in reality, this whole area is just not…I believe that it’s just not feasible for retail and 22 things like that. In my opinion, this block should be rezoned to be more similar to what the 23 zoning is in the surrounding areas, to be more compatible. So, that’s all that I have today. 24 MR. LOPEZ: Is that presentation available in a form that I can utilize. 25 MR. DUDLEY: Yeah, you know I can…I can’t give you this flash drive, but I could 26 copy it to this machine, or I can email it to you, or I can get it to…Ted, I’ve got your address. 27 MR. LOPEZ: Why don’t you give it to Ted and then Ted will transfer it to me. 28 MR. DUDLEY: Okay. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. 30 MR. DUDLEY: Okay, thank you. 31 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, sir. Have you loaded up? Sure. 32 MR. SHEPARD: Tim, while you’re doing that, can someone sign you in? Does someone 33 know Tim’s…okay. 34 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 24 1 MR. LOPEZ: Is there someone else that might go and talk while the gentleman is loading 2 up. Why don’t you come ahead sir. Thank you very much and sign in. 3 MR. SHEPARD: Be sure to turn off that microphone while Mr. Gavaldon is speaking. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. JERRY GAVALDON: Good evening Mr. Lopez, Mr. Shepard, and audience. I’m 6 Jerry Gavaldon. I live at 1252 Solstice Lane, Fort Collins. I have clients that own property over 7 in Sunstone and Baystone, so I’m here to represent their interest tonight and, Ted, can I make 8 sure I get a copy of this, because I think I haven’t gotten the last two copies. 9 MR. SHEPARD: Copies of what? 10 MR. GAVALDON: I mean, of the decision maker, because… 11 MR. SHEPARD: If you’ve signed the sheet, yes. 12 MR. GAVALDON: Okay, I tried last two times, so hoping I could. I wanted to share a 13 segment on the traffic, parking, pedestrian, bike analysis. And, I want to thank Ted Shepard for 14 his excellent help for getting me the information I needed. Ward Stanford as well, I have 15 worked with him before when I served on the P & Z Board a number of years ago, and got to 16 learn the process pretty well. So, what I’m going to share is observations and, Mr. Lopez, do 17 you have a copy of Eric’s TIS, Transportation Impact Study? 18 MR. LOPEZ: Yes. 19 MR. GAVALDON: I want to draw your attention, if you can go to…look at, I’ll put this 20 on record, I was looking at Eric’s analysis on current and his proposed on it, and if you look on 21 his tables on page six and page fourteen, and looking at the impacts of this, you’re seeing that the 22 accumulation effect of this, which is important, and sometimes we don’t get to make decisions 23 on it, but…the accumulation effect can cause this to be more of a concern than just a point by 24 point impact saying that well, our doesn’t effect it any more. We’re going to be at level E, D, D 25 and C in the Plum…Shields and Plum. If you look on six, he pretty much mirrors the same 26 thing…bless you…with the exception that one becomes a B, from C to B, and…but I have a 27 concern with the observation on the data and I tried to look at Eric’s details, and tried to run a 28 regression analysis and I’m still not coming up to where this project is going to be in the same 29 service level and vehicle miles travelled, and I’m looking and the accumulation of cars, 30 pedestrians, and bicycles. And, as you look at today, there’s…a lot of concern was brought up 31 by the neighbors about the stacking and how many times you have to wait to get to Shields from 32 Plum. I know you can spill over to City Park and beeline it to Elizabeth and come down that 33 way, but you’re going to add accumulation onto Shields whether you go north and south. That’s 34 going to be another section I want to cover in a few moments. My view is, and listening to the 35 neighbors, I feel that the service level could be higher in looking at E going to F. Your D’s 25 1 going to E’s, maybe F in some respect. And, if you start getting down to the detail and getting to 2 the granular of the analysis, now you would see how the effect on the AM and PM, coupled with 3 the morning rush from Shields going north and south, shows in the PM, you’re going to have an 4 impact where a person’s going to be waiting a few light cycles to get through. Now, Ward and 5 them can look at it operationally to see where they need to improve the cycling of the traffic 6 light, but you’re going to see a cause and effect. Someone’s going to be waiting longer than 7 someone else is going to get through. And, then, that is my concern on this, so I would ask if 8 you can really look at the traffic analysis and see where the impacts are, and I didn’t see too 9 much improvement being made. I know Linda’s brought up a lot of, we’re going to improve the 10 sidewalks, blah, blah, blah, and it looks great, but if you look at the width of the sidewalks, for 11 example, connecting, to the existing sidewalk. In Eric’s report, he says it’s going to be nice and 12 wide until it gets to, off the property it’s going to be narrow sidewalks. And he says, verbatim, 13 while the City needs to improve and add more width to the sidewalks and make improvements, 14 that’s going to impact the other homeowners. So, this project is giving me a concern called 15 accumulation factor, which is going to probably cause more concerns and issues. By the way, 16 I’m a licensed realtor, and I’m going to look at the market analysis to see if there is a cause and 17 effect on property values for adjacent property owners, but that’s not for me tonight, but just 18 wanted to share that. 19 But, my concern is that the accumulation of this project is going to be intense enough, 20 just on the traffic itself. Now, let’s go to parking. 21 MR. LOPEZ: Excuse me, before we leave the traffic analysis that you’re referencing on 22 page six and page fourteen, table two is existing analysis, existing traffic capacity analysis. You 23 talked about changing the levels from E to F…which of these on page fourteen are you disputing 24 in terms of the level. 25 MR. GAVALDON: Oh, that’s easy, if you look at the first section of the table, Shields 26 slash Plum with the signal, eastbound left through right, I would say that could be an F. And 27 looking at westbound through left, westbound right, being E’s, I’m being generous, but in 28 sometimes it could be a failure, be going to F. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Are you talking about the morning or afternoon? 30 MR. GAVALDON: Well, I’m looking…this is the capacity analysis I’m looking on it. 31 MR. LOPEZ: On table four. 32 MR. GAVALDON: Pardon? 33 MR. LOPEZ: Table four. 34 MR. GAVALDON: Yeah, table four. That’s their capacity…I was trying to get into 35 Eric’s analysis on Appendix A, and while I was looking at it, I was finding that it’s hard to bring 26 1 it back to the tables to see where everything’s at. Traditionally, we were able to see AM tables 2 and PM tables. But, it looks like there’s been some updates. 3 Another point I want to share before I get to the parking is…is the effect of this is going 4 to have on traffic on Shields. And, I notice on one of Ward’s memos, I don’t know if you have a 5 copy of this, this is a copy of a memo that Ward sent to Eric, an email on 8/9/2011, talking about 6 some of the analysis changing from 75 to 25, and Ward was looking at his 65, 35 mode split. 7 Been trying to understand more about what’s the difference and how’s the effect of this going to 8 be on this project. But, I didn’t have to into the detail because accumulation that I’m looking at 9 is having a potential impact when it gets built out and you start looking at all the Cambridge 10 House, Sunstone, Baystone, and all the folks from Ram’s Village going down Plum, because 11 that’s quite a traffic spot, and the City’s done some biking analysis and is telling me that this is 12 going to add more to it. And, the taxpayers are going to be burdened with having to make 13 substantial improvements, changes in behaviors, and…so people can get across, let alone, 14 accommodating the folks going north and south on Shields. And, I’m looking at Mulberry down 15 to Elizabeth. A person could be waiting a few lights, and of course you don’t want to hit 16 anybody, and of course you’ve got the human behaviors that go with it, so… 17 But, to parking, and it was covered by Bob Meyer, and Tim Dudley on parking. You’ve 18 got 175 extra cars that are not going to be available to park in the parking structure parking 19 garage. Where are those guys going to go? They’re going to probably end up going on Bluebell, 20 they’re probably going to be going on Sunstone, Baystone Drive, City Park, on all the adjacent 21 streets. Again, that is going to increase some concern on enforcement in Baystone, enforcement 22 at Sunstone. Someone’s going to have to pay to have additional monitoring and enforcement. I 23 don’t want to be a parking policeman, and I don’t want that job, I don’t think anybody else wants 24 it. But, we need to look at what traffic calming, parking accommodations are going to be. But, 25 if you’ve got four people in a unit, what if you have guests, overnighters, and things like that. 26 We always do that as kids when we’re in school. You’re going to have more parking, people are 27 going to be scrambling to find parking spots. And, you may have to open up Bluebell to allow 28 people to park on the street, take some of the pressure off. You may have to even look at Plum 29 Street becoming additional parking. But, again, you narrow the scope of flow of people going 30 east and west, and that’s something that I have not seen in Eric’s or anyone’s report, but 31 operations is going to have to take this big toad and make it fit with the big accumulation going 32 in the neighborhood. And, so, I know I’m harping on accumulation, but I look at the big picture 33 versus…my project’s okay, I’m going to stack another project on top of it, and another one. The 34 intensity of this is no different that mass and scale and orientation and stuff, and impacts on 35 Sunstone. This is going to add more to it, and, unfortunately, the taxpayers, not the developer, 36 are going to have to pick up the tab on making some more adjustments. I don’t know if they pay 37 any over street sizing fees, I don’t know if that’s still available as it was years ago, but hopefully 38 the development will come forward and make some points and mitigate pedestrian, bicycle, and 27 1 automobile, because all these combined together brings up a different story. And that’s a 2 concern I have, so I wanted to share that. And you should have all the related documents on it. 3 Then…in closing, the development mentioned, we’re going to have people pay to park 4 there in the parking structure, have to offset those costs. That’s current with other large 5 developments. What if people don’t want to pay? Is it going to make them? If you’re going to 6 live in my unit, you’ve got to tell me if you have a car or not, and you’re going to have to pay 7 extra dollars a month to park in this…to be there. Well, we as kids will scratch our head, we get 8 creative, and we’re going to come up with wonderful ideas and say…and I’d like to know how 9 they’re going to enforce that, accommodate, because if he has less cars in that parking structure, 10 he has no accommodation for guests, visitors, overnight stay folks. They’re going to spill over 11 into other neighborhoods, and I hate to see the folks having to pay largely more for enforcement, 12 towing…and, when you start towing people’s cars and they can’t find them, they get the boot 13 and stuff like that, that creates a disharmony in terms of being a good neighbor. I hope that this 14 developer…and I’m not against development, I’m a realtor; however, I look at the intensity and 15 mass and just hope The District at CSU, whatever they get to build, are able to build and be 16 harmonious and be a good neighbor. I think of FDR with the good neighbor policy in 1939. I’d 17 like to see more of that, so that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, feel free 18 to let me know. 19 MR. LOPEZ: Yes, Mr. Gavaldon, going back to the tables and your assertion that the 20 traffic levels are going to be going from E to F, how…what are you basing that on? 21 MR. GAVALDON: I’m basing it on the accumulation of everybody using that 22 intersection. Cambridge House, folks through…in Baysone, Sunstone, Ram’s Village. And if 23 you look on City Park, if you go on the big map, if someone could pull it up, you got CSU 24 married student housing over there. I’m looking at the big picture, where that’s going to….effect 25 everybody. 26 MR. LOPEZ: And how far out are you basing your…? 27 MR. GAVALDON: A quarter mile, half mile. I could be generous, I could go a half mile 28 and you could see more. Bring up the…Google map of the development. 29 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 30 MR. GAVALDON: How about your presentation…that’s not yours, okay. Well, when 31 you look at the big pictures, I ask that you look at the student housing on City Park, that’s 32 married student housing CSU. Now City Park and Plum, which is not even…less than half a 33 mile. Then you got other student housing, married student housing, south of there on City Park 34 and Elizabeth…if Elizabeth is crowded, they’re going to go on Plum. Then Cambridge House 35 has their own fair share number of people which are more pedestrians and cyclists, which, when 36 I lived there, that was easy to get through. But, you’ve got folks today and different behaviors, 28 1 different modes and habits, and I’m looking at AM…and I’m looking at the high points, that’s 2 AM and PM, and that’s where I’m basing it on, and I’m sure if I had more detail and do a 3 scientific on it, I could probably give some numbers. But, I feel the accumulation is something 4 that needs to be reckoned, and factored in, so everybody can live together in nice harmony and 5 be good neighbors. 6 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. 7 MR. GAVALDON: You’re welcome, thank you. 8 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, are you cued up? And your name please. 9 MR. TIM ERICKSON: Yeah, my name is Tim Erickson, I’m a resident at the Sunstone 10 Condos. I’ve been a resident for over two years, and before I start my prepared remarks, excuse 11 me, I haven’t used a microphone in a while…I would like to mention my personal opinion on the 12 traffic impact study. There will be over 600 students living in the unit, and the traffic impact 13 study stated that there would be approximately 67 trips during peak hours. I can tell you that 14 most of the students do have classes that start at either eight or nine in the morning, spread out, 15 and already there’s a significant amount of traffic getting to campus during those hours. And a 16 good way to actually compute how many trips there would be for the hour would be to take a 17 small random sampling of CSU students and look at their morning schedules, and they do attend 18 class, and I’d estimate that approximately one-third of the students would be leaving at eight, and 19 about one-third would be leaving at nine. So, looking at those numbers with about 600 students, 20 one could anticipate about 200 trips during the peak hour, which is very different than what the 21 traffic impact study stated, which is around I think 60 to 70 trips. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Are you referring to vehicle trips or pedestrian trips? 23 MR. ERICKSON: Total number of trips. 24 MR. LOPEZ: So, bike, vehicle, pedestrian. 25 MR. ERICKSON: Yes. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 27 MR. ERICKSON: So, on to my prepared remarks. This is a picture of our neighborhood. 28 One great aspect of our neighborhood is that there’s lots and lots of trees everywhere. It adds a 29 lot of character to the neighborhood, and I wanted to show you some pictures of existing 30 complexes in our neighborhood. Up top is the Clocktower Lofts, this is the International House, 31 this is another unit close to McDonald’s, and several others. And, one thing to touch on is that 32 they’re all very far recessed back from the street, and they do have a lot of trees. And, so, 33 basically, the standard in our neighborhood is three stories and lots of trees. And, what the 34 developer is proposing is just completely unprecedented. We don’t have massive parking 29 1 structures and the magnitude and height of the structure is unbelievable. I read in the City Code 2 that five stories are allowed within the zone, and each story is allowed to be twelve feet and eight 3 inches; however, on the south side of the complex, on parapet is over 67 feet. So, if you multiply 4 twelve feet by eight inches times five stories, that height may well exceed what the Code 5 requires. And, so I wanted to also remind, Mr. Lopez, that where the developer has this project 6 proposed is actually at the edge of the zoning boundary. So, if they were to move it over by less 7 than about 200 feet, there’s no way that they could get five stories, it would be against the Code, 8 three stories are allowed. 9 So, I believe that the developer’s plan is actually in violation of Land Use Code 3.2.1(C), 10 and I’m going to go ahead and read that off. The intent of this section is to require a preparation 11 of landscape and tree protection plans that ensure significant canopy, shading to reduce glare or 12 heat build-up, and contribute to the visual quality and continuity within and between 13 developments. And, so my question is that, does the tree protection plan specifically enhance the 14 appearance of the development and neighborhood? And, does it protect significant trees? And, 15 there are numerous trees along the property boundary; however, within the property that they 16 proposed to develop, over 92% of old growth trees are going to get the ax, and that will 17 dramatically change the character of this neighborhood. So, the developer has proposed putting 18 trees on the back side of the unit, but as shown in their plan, they only allow 8.5 feet for these 19 trees, and the trees that they have lined up to be planted are Crimson Spire Oak, Corinthian 20 Linden, a European tree and Swedish Columnar Aspen. Interestingly, the Crimson Spire Oak 21 has a diameter of about fifteen feet when it’s fully matured, the Linden is about fifteen feet, and 22 the European Fastigiata is about twenty to thirty feet. I did speak with the arborist today, of the 23 City, Tim Buchanan, and he did express concern about the minimal amount of space that is 24 allotted for these trees. He also mentioned that the Swedish Columnar Aspen which are to be 25 planted, are not very tolerant of low light conditions. And, if we’ve gained anything from the 26 shadow study, it’s very obvious that it’s going to be an incredibly low light area. So, the City 27 arborist did provide me a picture, on the left is his picture, of a Corinthian Linden, and, as you 28 can see, it does need a fair amount of space. And, so, if the developer is only leaving five feet 29 for this tree, there’s not going to be sufficient enough room for the tree to grow, and it’s probably 30 going to die, or it’s not going to reach a significant height at all. On the right, this is a picture of 31 a European Fastigiata, and this definitely needs more space. This is the tree that will grow 32 twenty to thirty feet in diameter, and that’s according to the Florida Horticultural Department 33 website. So, they’re basically trying to crowd the property line as much as they can, and the tree 34 protection plan isn’t a tree protection plan, it’s basically a tree destruction plan, with 92% of the 35 trees gone, and they’re not leaving enough sunlight and room for these trees to grow, and this 36 was a concern that the City arborist shared. I wish he was here to render his professional 37 opinion. And, so, I wanted to show…should have brought this slide up a little bit earlier…the 38 trees that they have proposed in…they’re just several feet from where the parking garage is 39 going to be. And, so, I think that the current plan is wholly inadequate and not consistent with 40 the Land Use Code. We’d like to see a tree protection plan where the trees that they plant 30 1 actually have a chance of establishing a root structure and surviving, and I think it would be 2 reasonable to establish about a fifteen foot buffer zone instead of the 8.5 foot buffer zone, so the 3 trees have a chance of making it. And, this is also consistent…well, it’s not…it’s similar to the 4 other part of the City Code which does require about a fifteen foot setback. 5 There are some other known issues that have been discussed; I think shadowing has 6 already been talked about. But, given that it’s going to create a permanent shadow over the 7 parking lot for all of the winter months, I’d like to know if the developer would be willing to 8 help defray some of the snow removal and ice removal costs in a contract over time…that the 9 HOA will accrue, and it’s likely that if they don’t, our HOA fees will probably have to go up to 10 cover the cost. 11 MR. LOPEZ: I have a quick question. 12 MR. ERICKSON: Yes? 13 MR. LOPEZ: I was going to ask previously, does the HOA have a snow removal service 14 presently? 15 MR. ERICKSON: Yes, they do. So, we are concerned. I’m a graduate student; I’m on a 16 limited income. A lot of other students are on a limited income and, you know, if rental fees go 17 up to cover the HOA, it’s going to make things even tighter. The other thing I’d like to talk 18 about is I did go to the University of Texas at Austin. I actually lived in one of these complexes 19 in UT’s west campus, that was a five story complex, so I have very personal experience with 20 this. I was a sophomore once, I can tell you what goes on in these complexes in all hours of the 21 night, especially when you have over 600 people. There’s going to be squealing tires, it does 22 slightly depend on how they surface the parking lot. So, if it’s that smooth concrete, even if 23 you’re not driving fast, your tires will squeal, especially if you’re a student and you have a car 24 and the tires are a little bit out of alignment. Car…the car alarms go off. The more cars you 25 have, the higher percentage you’re going to have of one going off because somebody bumps it, 26 somebody drives by with their boom box blaring and it sets of the alarm. So, it’s going to create 27 a nightmare for the people that are actually right across from the parking garage in the current 28 configuration, because there will be parking alarms that go off at three AM, more often than 29 we’d like. If it was, you know, a couple times a year, maybe you could live with it, but I think 30 this will be a repeated occurrence. 31 Also, college students like to drink, and sometimes…they’re usually pretty good about 32 not drinking and driving, but when they’re headed off to a party, they do what’s called pre- 33 gaming…you drink a little bit before you get to the party, and they’ll be carrying beer bottles and 34 stuff, and the driver is going to say, hey don’t have those in my car if I get pulled over, or maybe 35 I’ve already had a couple, I’ll get a DUI. It’s actually illegal to have an open container in a car. 36 So, the college students are probably going to wind up doing something with their beer bottles. 37 They might just set it in the parking garage, they might be really drunk and just…so I’d be really 31 1 worried about trash and other debris falling on the cars and people in our parking lot, and it could 2 really create a dangerous situation if the parking lot is designed as it is now, with large open 3 windows. And, I can tell you, like…just looking at the alley that faced the rear end of our 4 parking garage, there is a tremendous amount of trash and beer bottles, so this is a real concern 5 with a large development. So, to address that, I think that the developer could change the 6 parking garage, and other neighbors have mentioned that it looks foreboding, it’s drab, it kind of 7 looks like a prison wall. And, the front that, excuse me, Mrs. Ripley showed, actually looks 8 really nice, they did a nice job with that. So, my question is, why…if they’re going to build a 9 garage, why can’t they do that on the back, make it look nice, and also put up some fencing or 10 some windows like this that would both reduce noise and prevent beer bottles from breaking the 11 windshield of my car. And, so, I just want to say, I mean, I live on the third story of the 12 complex, so it would be a nightmare for me if I lived on the first story. My heating costs would 13 go up. In the winter months, if I didn’t take vitamin D, I’d probably wind up with Rickets or 14 something. 15 So, with that in mind, we would like this complex…it’s good that they’re developing it, 16 but we’d like it to be compatible with the neighborhood, and I think that there’s some things that 17 need to be done. We need probably a fifteen foot standoff so that the trees can grow, and we 18 need the parking garage to be redesigned so that it looks halfway decent, and so it reduces the 19 noise that will inevitably occur. And, so, you know, basically I’m looking for a win-win 20 situation where the developer can make some small changes that will allow the trees to flourish 21 and that it will be harmonious with the existing neighborhood. Thank you for your time. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you Mr. Erickson. And, will you be able to provide that 23 Power Point to Mr. Shepard? 24 MR. ERICKSON: Yes, I will. Would you like it over email? I’ll bring it to your office, 25 in hard copy if it’s necessary. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Or, whatever. 27 MR. ERICKSON: Okay, will do. 28 MR. LOPEZ: If you could transmit it to my… 29 MR. ERICKSON: Okay, thank you. 30 MR. LOPEZ: Next person please. Thank you, and please step up. Be sure and sign in. 31 MS. JOYCE PRATT: I don’t know how to run this. Hi, my name’s Joyce Pratt and I 32 own property at 1209 West Plum, and I…the initial proposal, I didn’t make the second meeting, 33 but the initial proposal had a complex next to our property as well and so I do have a question on 34 what will happen to that property on the south side of the street. And then, the other thing, I do 35 have some concerns, again, about parking going onto our property because, when you look at 32 1 these numbers…I’ve worked at CSU for several years and I worked in housing, so I know…I 2 actually was an office manager in one of the resident halls. I know what 600 people in a resident 3 hall do, and the amount of trash for move-in is astronomical. Whether they are…what do you 4 call that? Furnished or not, the amount of trash that is during our resident move-ins was 5 astronomical, and all the resident halls in CSU are furnished, so I have a concern about that. 6 They also indicated that there would be low-income. Well, if you have low-income and you’re 7 charging for parking, where are those low-income residents going to park? And, typically, low- 8 income students have to work, which means they need a car. And, if you’re charging for 9 parking, I’m not sure how that financially makes sound decisions. So, I have a concern about 10 that. 11 One of the other concerns that I have is the amount of traffic that will enhance, or 12 increase, in the area. And, University Village is one of the areas, and they have small children, 13 and so, how is that being addressed? So those are my concerns that I do have, and that’s pretty 14 much what I wanted to say. 15 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. Next person that would like to speak, please 16 come forward. 17 MS. PRATT: I’m sorry, I do have one other concern, is the noise. 18 MR. LOPEZ: Sure. 19 MS. SAMANTHA PETERS: Good evening, my name is Samantha Peters. I was born 20 and raised in Fort Collins; I’ve seen this city change a lot. I’m a disabled city individual, my 21 husband is also disabled. I own a condo unit in the Baystone property. I’ve lived there for 22 fifteen years, I’ve raised two children there. Needless to say, at the end of Baystone Street, we 23 have sororities, fraternities, and I think that’s the party center of the city, you know. It…I think 24 if they’re expecting to put some sort of a police officer or some sort of person to try and 25 discipline so-called student population of up to 600 people, not to party in their building, or be 26 fined, that the students will simply drift over to Sunstone or Baystone, or just go to the street if 27 it’s a warm night. Certainly, as it currently stands, the parties start Thursday night on a main 28 weekend, and end sometime early Sunday morning. And, it’s quite noisy and we usually have 29 fireworks all year long, for whatever reason. 30 Personally, I’ve seen Plum Street dilapidate over the years, and I do know that trash and 31 tree limbs can stay in the front yards and on the street for months, and that Plum Street doesn’t 32 have sufficient sidewalks. It’s difficult to get…I…my husband and myself have to use the bus 33 service, which is inadequate already. They have routes three and eleven, which are not 34 continued during the student year. Apparently, it’s only the student population that is taking the 35 bus service. You have to go all the way over to Elizabeth Street during student holidays and then 36 it’s a roundabout; it takes about an hour to get back to the area. So, what I want to say about the 37 bus though is, in the morning or in the afternoon, if you…from two to four, if you’re…in the 33 1 afternoon…if you’re attempting to catch the bus going to Plum Street from the University, there 2 is standing room only on the bus. And, I would imagine the majority of those students do have 3 bicycles or cars, but they get that free ram card pass, they don’t have to deal with the parking 4 issues on campus, so they simply catch the bus. It’s easy and they go in a group, this group 5 ascends on the bus. Same thing with Ram’s Village, and it’s…if a disabled person does get on 6 the bus, and they have further issues with a wheelchair or walker or whatever service animal they 7 choose to bring with them, during…they simply cannot travel during those times, because there’s 8 no access. 9 They…the promoters mentioned that they…this would be low-income housing. I’m 10 wondering if they were opening it up to Section Eight? They didn’t mention any type of 11 disability access, or, if it is specifically for CSU students who are not disabled, or to the 12 community. I think that developing Plum Street is an excellent idea. I’d like to see it happen in 13 a realistic manner. I think the shadowing and the noise are legitimate concerns, and I wish they 14 would also consider disabilities at this time. There was no mention of it, so that’s all I have to 15 say. Thank you. 16 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. Next person, anyone else in this first section? 17 Okay, we’ll move to the center section, is there anyone in the center section that wishes to 18 speak? 19 MR. CHRIS RAY: Okay…my name is Chris Ray and I own the Cambridge House 20 Apartments, which is directly south of the proposed project, and I have a few concerns I just 21 wanted to go over. I think it’s about time that somebody developed that particular block, it’s 22 pretty bad right now, but my really number one concern about this is pedestrians and traffic. I 23 have about 215 college kids that live at Cambridge House, and I think that, from what I have 24 understood, and I have not seen the traffic study. Eric, maybe you can tell me this, but I don’t 25 think it has a pedestrian…where’d Eric go? Alright, well, okay, he left. Does the traffic study 26 really have a pedestrian study component to it? Can anybody answer that? 27 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 28 MR. RAY: Okay, okay, so…because I don’t think it does, and let’s just make that 29 assumption. And, I really think that this particular area, especially Shields and Plum, really 30 needs some in-depth study about that because there’s a sidewalk in front of Cambridge House 31 that is…you know, in the City right-of-way, and it continues east towards the University, and 32 then it dead-ends because there’s a property between my property line eastwardly to another 33 smaller sidewalk that picks up, that doesn’t have a sidewalk in it. There’s a fence that goes 34 across there. So, we have a sidewalk that just dead-ends, and then what happens is all the kids 35 who are on the south side of Plum Street will walk and then they will walk over across my 36 property median, and then, you know, dish out into the bike lane. It’s very dangerous. I office, 37 and have for the last eleven years, at the Cambridge House Apartments, so I’m in and out of 34 1 that…and I watched that subdivision, or that intersection, you know, breathe every day, and 2 it’s…it can be dangerous and I think it’s the only one in the town that has what’s called a green 3 box, which is designed for bicycles to have the right-of-way, have the premier right of the road 4 and not just the bike lane. It’s an area that cars are not supposed to park in. It’s a great idea, a 5 lot of people don’t know how to run it, but… 6 Something else I want to say that I’ve seen happen a hundred times, and I…is that the bus 7 that goes eastward to campus…we have a little bus stop right out in front of Cambridge House, 8 and there’s…there’ll be, you know, thirty or forty kids lined up to get on that bus. The bus 9 comes and there’s no room on the bus because it’s all filled up, the bus continues on. Those kids 10 don’t want to wait for the next bus, so there they start traipsing down, going to that intersection. 11 I think that intersection is…really needs to be looked at, and the pedestrian, because you’re 12 going to have so many kids down there with this many new beds and people that they’re going to 13 be at that intersection, and that intersection’s going to have to change the timing of it. And, 14 because that is a major arterial street, that has…that timing is going to affect stuff, you know, for 15 five miles south and probably three miles north…or, yeah, three miles north. So, that’s all going 16 to have…that’s all, there’s a big impact of what’s going on with just more people at that 17 intersection. 18 A question I have, and I can either…I just want to ask it maybe now, or not. But…I 19 believe that the new development has a bus stop right in front of their, in front of your project. 20 That’s only going to be for western-bound buses right? An eastern-bound bus can’t come in and 21 pull into there? Okay, so, I think what’s going to happen is all those kids from The District are 22 going to go across the street to my bus stop, basically, that’s in front of the Cambridge House. 23 That’s…that really needs to be looked at, because there’s not going to be enough buses to come 24 by to pick those people up, there’s not right now because it also picks up people all the way 25 down to Ram’s Village, so I really think that that needs to be studied and looked at as a resolve. 26 I also have a problem with the mass and scale. It is out of place, but I’m not going 27 to…we’ve had enough people talk about that. I think that that’s…you know, enough has been 28 said about it. I think it also has a compatibility problem. I believe that in the CC zone, 29 compatibility is not perceived as an issue, or is not weighted as an issue. But, it is in the rest of 30 the Land Use Code, so I really think that that needs to be looked at. And, you know, I just want 31 to say one other thing about the four-bedroom…the number of four-bedroom units is roughly 32 500 beds. That intention of creating that modification of the Code is really to help a project get 33 through financially and make it work, but I don’t think it’s really designed to have three-quarters 34 of the project be four bedrooms. And, I think that just goes to show that they’re just trying to 35 maximize the profit motive on it, which is fine, but it does affect everything else around it. So, I 36 would like to see a project there, I just… I think this one is just way too many people and way 37 too intense in scale and mass, so, that’s all I have. Thank you. 38 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. 35 1 MR. BEN KING: Hi, my name is Ben King, and I own the property 1109 West Plum, 2 which is just to the east of Cambridge House, and I’m the one with the parking lot that basically 3 is in front of the building where there is no sidewalk. Before I bought that building, I had asked 4 the City if there was going to ever be a requirement that I put any kind of sidewalk there, because 5 then there would be no space for parking. And, they said no, as long as I didn’t change the use. 6 So, I figured, you know, it’s okay, and I, you know, I come and go a lot there. I just want to 7 address this issue that Chris brought up. And, the way you get into that parking lot basically is to 8 put straight in, there’s six spaces there. And the way you get out is to back out. And, with the 9 traffic that does go down on Plum Street, on that south side between pedestrians, bicyclists, 10 skateboarders, and vehicles, all going at different speeds, it’s really difficult to get out of there. 11 And, also, scary that you’re going to hit somebody because they come at different speeds and 12 they’re going in both directions. So, it’s actually quite confusing, and if you add…I hadn’t even 13 thought about this before, but, if that…the people from that building are going to be coming 14 across the street to pick up the bus and then not get it, it’s going to be impossible to get out of 15 there. And, that’s…you know, that’s…I’ve already…since they put in that green box, it’s funny 16 because there’s no right turn on red, and you know, the bicyclists have the right-of-way, I have 17 noticed that I have to wait several light changes before there’s even space enough to back out on 18 to Plum Street. I realize this is kind of a small issue, just this one little unit, but it just, it 19 just…just as a personal note, it’s just that it’s already really bad there and it’s only going to get 20 worse. And, so that’s…that’s what that part. 21 My biggest issues are with the density of, you know, the number of students living in, 22 you know, that concentrated of a space. And, also the size and mass of the, you know, the 23 project. I think everybody that’s gone before has done a much better job than I can to articulate a 24 lot of these issues, but I do believe that it’s really out of place, that it’s not compatible with the 25 neighborhood, and that it’s going to add a bigger strain with respect to the number of people in 26 that small area. Along with the number of people, I can see, you know, the parking is already an 27 issue over there. People really gravitate towards those few parking places that are on those 28 streets, two of which are going to be vacated, and two which I guess there probably won’t be any 29 parking on. For my place, like I say, I only have six spaces, and any visitors, that gives them an 30 opportunity to park there. There won’t be any, and again, it’s a small thing, it’s just a little 31 fourplex. But, at the same time, the number of visitors that are going to be going to that 32 building, and the parking issues, if they’re not even allowed to park in their parking structure, 33 that’s really going to cause a lot of trouble and, as it was said, bad attitudes, a lot of people 34 getting towed, a lot of people being upset, that kind of thing. 35 Also, you know, the number of people…the gentleman over here that gave the 36 presentation, giving a good view of what it is actually like to be a student. I think so much of 37 that is missed when we do these meetings and the building looks good, and we have this number 38 of units and stuff. But the attitude, or the actions of a lot of young people, college students, you 39 know most especially at that time, is a little bit off the wall. And, it’s basically, feels to me, like 36 1 this is basically a dormitory that’s just set off campus, without the…at least the controls that the 2 University can, kind of, impose on them. They talk about having a live-in manager, but you’ve 3 got 600, 700 people, you’re going to have parties every night, multiple ones, probably. And I 4 just think that it’s too big, and there’s too many people, and that it’s in the wrong place. Thank 5 you. 6 MR. LOPEZ: Just a quick question. When you first started, did you say your property 7 was the one that didn’t have the sidewalk? 8 MR. KING: Did not. Well, there’s some that also don’t, but I’m actually just on the 9 south side of Plum, just to the east side of the Cambridge Apartments. 10 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 11 MR. KING: So, the Cambridge Apartments sidewalk just dead-ends into my property. 12 So, they all kind of funnel out and walk behind the cars. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Looks just like my phone. Okay, next person please. 14 MR. MATT LLOYD: Hello, my name is Matt Lloyd. I live over at the Sunstone 15 Condominiums, I’m in the Unit D, the one that’s going to be blocked by the parking garage. 16 But, I also work at a consulting firm that does emergency response planning. One thing I wanted 17 to point out…I hate to beat a dead horse, it seems like everyone is concentrating on the Shields 18 and Plum exit, but to get to work every day, I actually circumvent that area because I don’t feel 19 like waiting at the stoplight for two or three times. So I actually go City Park to Plum. One 20 problem with that is it’s actually a four-way stop that exhibits high amounts of not only car 21 traffic but bike traffic and pedestrian traffic. About two weeks ago, I actually had a bike run into 22 my car at a very slow speed. He wasn’t paying attention at the stop sign, ran into me. If you add 23 600 more people, at least a third, a quarter of them are going to think like me. They’re going to 24 say I don’t want to wait two or three turns at Shields, I’m going to go to Plum and City Park and 25 get out that way. So, in one respect, the city’s going to be either bearing some sort of extra cost 26 changing the stop lights at City Park and Plum…adding some sort of stoplight, or instituting 27 something. Because, eventually, a four-way stop, in my opinion, just based on the work I’ve 28 done in emergency response planning, is probably not going to be adequate into the future. 29 Moreover, you also would have the continued problems with the increased traffic at Shields and 30 Plum. So, that’s all I have to say, actually have to make it to my niece’s birthday party which 31 started about half an hour ago. But, thank you very much for allowing me to speak. 32 MR. LOPEZ: I’m sure they’ll save you some cake, but please sign your name. 33 MR. LLOYD: I will do that. 34 MR. LOPEZ: The ice cream may be gone though. 37 1 MR. LLOYD: That’s always the first thing to go. 2 MR. LOPEZ: And will the next person that’s not going to the birthday party, please come 3 up. 4 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 5 MR. LOPEZ: Can we get through everyone first, and then if we have time, we’ll come 6 back to you. 7 MR. LLOYD: And, just out of curiosity, what is the proper protocol for considering some 8 sort of an evacuation, if that were to occur. A tornado, some sort of fire, onto Shields or onto 9 Plum out of there? Is that taken into consideration at all? 10 MR. LOPEZ: We’ll see if the staff or the applicant has any response to that. You may 11 miss it, but, hopefully it’ll be in the report. 12 MR. LLOYD: Thank you very much. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, is there anyone else in the center section here that wishes to speak? 14 Okay, did you have a brief comment? 15 MR. DUDLEY: Yeah, it’s Tim Dudley again. He touched on a little bit, we were 16 wondering if, you know, fire and police and emergency, EMTs and things like that, have been 17 consulted on this project and if they think they’re going to have to adjust patrols or equipment or 18 anything to support this environment. 19 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, we’ll probably get a response to that. Okay, if there’s no one else 20 wishing to speak, we’re going to turn this back to the applicant for some responses. And, I think 21 you’ve been taking notes, but I know the questions will be revolving around parking, guest 22 parking, some of the landscaping concerns that were mentioned in that rear area in terms of 23 space for the trees, noise, shadow analysis, and snow and ice removal. 24 MS. RIPLEY: We did take notes; however, could we request a fifteen minute break to 25 organize our team to decide the best person to respond to each thing so we could do it more 26 organized? 27 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, can you do it in ten minutes? 28 MS. RIPLEY: We’ll do it in ten, thank you. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you. 30 MS. RIPLEY: Are we ready? Okay, thank you very much for giving us that time, it was 31 helpful. There’s a lot of new things presented tonight that we had not seen before. And, 32 certainly there are a lot of things that we can address relatively quickly here, but there are other 38 1 things that we feel like, in order to be able to address very clearly, and we believe for you to 2 make a proper decision, you’ll want a clear record of evidence, as would the City Council if this 3 project were to be appealed, that we think we may want to request a continuance for several 4 reasons. But, before we get to that, I’d like to start with addressing some of the comments that 5 we clearly can do pretty well this evening. So, I’d like to start with some of the traffic concerns. 6 Eric, could you come to the podium and deal with some of those? 7 MR. LOPEZ: Ms. Ripley, let me go ahead and interject a little bit. 8 MS. RIPLEY: Sure. 9 MR. LOPEZ: I do understand that there was information and, the request for a 10 continuance is something that you can make. To the extent that you can respond fully to some of 11 the questions and issues that were raised tonight, please do so. If you feel that it’s much more 12 appropriate to defer that to another meeting, then go ahead and we’ll defer that. 13 MS. RIPLEY: Okay. 14 MR. LOPEZ: I think the audience deserves responses fully. 15 MS. RIPLEY: Absolutely. 16 MR. LOPEZ: And, if you need more time to do that, then… 17 MS. RIPLEY: And we’ll do the very best we can, but as we get into it, I think everybody 18 will see where the…it’s difficult. And could be more clear if we had a little more time. So, I’ll 19 get back to Eric. 20 MR. SHEPARD: And, any of the team, feel free to use these seats and microphones here 21 to save time, if anyone would like to. 22 MR. ERIC BRACKE: Eric Bracke, ELB Engineering. I was the one hired to conduct the 23 transportation analysis for this project. And, the scoping of this project was done in conjunction 24 with the City of Fort Collins, the Traffic Operations Department. The first thing, one of the 25 questions that came up was about the mode split; there was an understanding…a 26 misunderstanding of how we got to the 35% distribution, and that was somewhat discussed with 27 Mr. Stanford of the Traffic Operations Department. This is not an automobile-oriented 28 development at all. This is a student housing project, and we use rates to generate trip generation 29 and take an estimate, but we knew that this was not a normal project, and this was going to have 30 significant amount of alternative modes as part of the project: the bikes, the peds, the transit all 31 reduce the amount of peak hour trips. And, this study does look just at the peak hour trips, and 32 that’s the impact that the City requires. The 35% is probably conservative; in my professional 33 opinion, it’s probably going to be significantly higher than that and we’re going to have almost 39 1 all bike and ped trips and transit trips that are coming out of here during the peak hours. During 2 the day, there will be other trips, people going to work, things like that. 3 In the distribution of this, that was also negotiated with the City, and almost all the trips, 4 80%, are going into the CSU campus for their, what would be their work trips, would be going to 5 school. That absolutely seems reasonable since it’s a student housing project. The…all the 6 intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. Acceptable level of service is D, 7 and level of service goes from A to F. These are operating at A and B. An approach to an 8 intersection can go to level of service E, as long as the intersection as a whole remains D or 9 better. And, in a movement can actually go to F. So, if there’s a specific left turn movement, 10 that might fail, that could do that, according to the standards. But, this meets all of the standards 11 and it’s within all the criteria established by the City. 12 The…and, then I took all the trips that took existing traffic, took the…and that includes 13 everything that’s already built within the area that’s using it now, so, the Ram Village and the 14 International House. All that traffic is already included in the existing counts. Then the new 15 traffic is added to it, then we assume that there’d still be background traffic growth and that was 16 at a one and a half percent per year. That’s actually also very conservative since most traffic 17 counts, even in this area, have actually gone down since 2005, or 2007. So, this is an aggressive 18 analysis that shows probably worse conditions than what’s actually out there. The study did 19 include a bicycle, pedestrian, and transit analysis, and it met all the criteria. The criteria 20 somewhat qualitative rather than quantitative, but this does, for the pedestrian in particular, that 21 the sidewalks are already substandard; this will definitely improve the walking experience. So, 22 we’re looking at continuity, visual appeal, things like that…the distance to the walking sites. So, 23 this is a definitely walkable type of development. Transit, it’s served by several routes. There 24 are transit there. The pedestrian at Shields and Plum, in particular, crosswalks are in good shape, 25 they have pedestrian phases, there’s more than significant time to adequately get pedestrians 26 across. 27 There was questions on the bike box. The bike box is an interesting project. There are a 28 couple of them in Colorado, there’s a number of them in some other places. This is probably the 29 best location to put a bike box; it really does increase the safety for the bicyclists. It eliminates 30 that right turn hook accident for the bicycle going straight through and a car making a right turn. 31 The eastbound approach to this intersection at Shields and Plum is a single lane approach, and 32 so, when we took a look at it…to make the bike box work, you have to eliminate the right turn 33 on red. And, so, it does add a little bit more delay to the east bound vehicles, whether they’re 34 going left, through, or right, because they are stalled behind the stop bar, and if there’s gaps in 35 traffic, they can’t go. But, there are a lot of bikes that use this, so, on the whole, I think safety 36 weighed out. The…it does add delay. The analysis tools are not that good for analyzing a bike 37 box, because all you can do is eliminate or add a right turn on red, and basically it’s adding a 38 couple of seconds of delay per each vehicle over the peak hours. But, then again, there’s…what 39 it doesn’t take into account are, there are some start-up times for the bikes, that it probably adds a 40 1 few additional seconds on top of that. But, it does operate at acceptable levels of service and it 2 has improved the safety for bikes and peds. So, did I hit all the questions? 3 MR. LOPEZ: I believe so. 4 MR. BRACKE: Okay, if you have any more, just let me know. 5 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, thanks Eric. Alright, next, I’m going to have Brent Cooper, who’s 6 with Ripley Design, Inc., who actually handled…worked with the City Forester, Tim Buchanan, 7 not only to inventory the site but also to decide what to plant on the site with the new project. 8 So, I’m going to have him go through the process that him and the City Forester went through. 9 MR. BRENT COOPER: Yeah, and I worked…can you hear me pretty good? I worked 10 with Tim Buchanan, the City Forester, and also Ralph Sessins, who’s another City Forester, and 11 we started out by going out to the site and we went around and looked at every tree on the site. 12 We noted what the species was, what the size of the tree was, and what the condition was, and 13 then Ralph and Tim came up with a mitigation number that would be required, if any, for each of 14 the individual trees. Then we went back and I created this tree inventory and mitigation plan, 15 which is in the set, which basically numbers all of the trees and then provides a list of all those 16 trees with those things we looked at. And, after I compiled this, we went through and looked at 17 all the trees that we thought might be able to be preserved, and I went back out with Tim 18 Buchanan onto the site and specifically looked at those, each and every one of those trees that we 19 thought we maybe could preserve, and a lot of them were in really bad shape, really bad 20 condition, or they were nuisance trees to Fort Collins, and hazardous trees. Once we were done 21 with that, this is kind of a summary of what we found. 22 We inventoried 130 trees and most of those were on the site. There was about five trees 23 that were just to the north of the property line but we still looked at those. All of those trees are 24 being preserved. Seventy-five of the 130 trees required no mitigation because they were 25 nuisance or hazardous trees. So, then there was fifty-five trees that would require some 26 mitigation if they were removed. So, of those fifty-five trees that would require mitigation, we 27 preserved ten of them and we removed forty-five of those, but then have mitigated with 128 28 upsized trees, all on this site. And, just to clarify a little bit more what an upsized tree is…we 29 normally plant a tree, it’s a certain caliper, and to upsize it, if it’s a deciduous tree, we make it 30 one inch more caliper on the trunk, and if it’s a coniferous tree, we increase it by two feet in 31 height. So, they’ll be substantially bigger trees right from the beginning. So, I think that’s 32 about…that’s about how that process went. 33 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 34 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, now Derek Anderson is going to talk about some of the 35 management issues that were brought up. 41 1 MR. ANDERSON: Good evening, I specifically want to address some of the concerns 2 about the parking and give my perspective on it. Parking is certainly a critical issue for any 3 developer of a student housing project. The real fact of the matter is that overbuilding parking, 4 especially when it’s structured parking, is very, very expensive. But, the fact of the matter is that 5 underbuilding it is even more expensive. Those students that do have cars value those cars, they 6 don’t like to leave them in the street, they don’t like to walk a quarter of a mile, or half a mile, to 7 go park with them, to go find them. They don’t like to carry groceries back like that. There are 8 just a number of reasons why they wouldn’t want to do that. And, so, what happens is that they 9 don’t live with you when they don’t feel like they can park anywhere conveniently for your 10 apartment complex. But, fortunately, we actually do have some data within our system that 11 gives us some guidance on what levels we should park to. We have two other properties that are 12 within similar distances to the campus and have operating data for a number of years for those, 13 and we’ve gone back, well before these issues were raised because we consider them ourselves. 14 And, the truth of the matter is, is that what we have found is that those loads in our parking 15 garage tend to be about…those residents that have cars, tend to be within about sixty-three to 16 sixty-seven percent of the residents. Now, those are in cities, like Tucson, that quite honestly 17 have more of a car culture than Fort Collins I think, arguably, that do not take some of the 18 initiatives they do to promote bike…to promote biking and pedestrian traffic. And, another 19 one’s in Norfolk, Virginia, I mean…it does not…they do relatively very little to promote those 20 types of traffic. So, I did want to point that out. 21 The other thing that I wanted to point out is that we are willing to go to the measure of 22 having the resident sign a form in our office when they sign the lease, stating whether or not they 23 actually have a car. This is not something we have to do other places. And, we are willing to 24 have their parents, who by the way, sign on just about ninety-nine percent of all the leases that 25 we have. We are willing to have them sign to that effect also. So, look, I will point out what 26 just…it would take some collusion in order to go around that system. If anybody wants to pose a 27 better system, we’re more than happy to discuss implementing it. But, the very fact of the matter 28 is, is we believe we have adequate parking in the first place. We well exceed the standards that 29 are required of us, and so, we don’t believe it’s going to be a problem in the first place and, 30 so…but, yet, as an extra measure of comfort, we are willing to go to those measures and we’ll 31 even consider others. Thank you very much. 32 MR. LOPEZ: Could you address the guest parking concern? 33 MR. ANDERSON: We provide guest parking on the first level of the garage. There is 34 also, I think contrary to someone’s statement, there is parking provided for on, is it Blue Bonnet, 35 or Bluebell rather? 36 MS. RIPLEY: Bluebell, yeah, there’s actually parking both sides of the street, Bluebell, 37 Aster, and City Park Avenue. 42 1 MR. ANDERSON: And, the garage is significantly in excess…significantly larger than 2 what we anticipate our residents will utilize, so… 3 MR. LOPEZ: Can you give me an idea of how many spaces would be considered guest 4 spaces? 5 MR. ANDERSON: I haven’t drawn the interior of the garage at this point, but I think 6 it’s…we’d probably end up with at least fifty, right? Around fifty, around fifty spaces. 7 MS. RIPLEY: I guess I might just add that that’s kind of consistent with the City’s 8 general policy. As I mentioned before, this project provides fifty-four more parking spaces than 9 it would be required to if it was not in the TOD, and if you provide more parking than is 10 required, then the City doesn’t actually require you to have additional guest parking. They just 11 assume that you…that will work out because you’ve got more than you need. So, they provide 12 fifty, they have fifty-four more than they need by our standard, so that should work. 13 Well, I’m going to try to play clean-up here with the rest of the comments I heard. I want 14 to go back to Brent’s process with Tim Buchanan. Brent covered very well what the process of 15 which trees were retained, which ones were eliminated, why, and all that, but I also want to point 16 out that we worked very closely with Tim in terms of selection of trees, and Tim was well aware 17 of where we were planting them, that they’re on the north side, that they were in this 8.5 foot of 18 space and gave us some suggestions, rejected some trees that we had proposed, offered different 19 ones, and eventually approved our plan with the trees proposed. Just as a side note, I have a 20 tree…cherry tree that has to bloom and bear fruit planted four feet from the north side of my 21 house. As a landscape architect, I had doubts whether that would work, but I get more cherries 22 than anybody in the neighborhood. So, just because a tree’s on the north side doesn’t mean it 23 doesn’t get enough light to grow. 24 Moving on, property values…just want to touch briefly. Property values are not 25 something that the City’s Land Use Code governs, so it’s not a criteria. However, I’ve been 26 working on several student housing projects over the last several months and one project in 27 particular, when they got the same comment from that neighborhood, they did a little research, 28 mostly in the Denver area, but some in Fort Collins, and discovered that property values indeed 29 did not go down. I want to correct something that I said that was misleading, because I 30 mentioned that the apartments, especially the four-bedroom apartments are more affordable for 31 students. They are more affordable because they cost less per bedroom, but this is not a low- 32 income project whatsoever. It’s actually a higher level than most projects, so it’s not a Section 33 Eight, low-income, affordable project in that context. 34 The neighbors said that we didn’t talk to them about the fencing between our lots, or the 35 access. And, I thought I’d made it clear that we wanted to talk to them, and gave me their card, 36 and they gave me their card too, so I could have, I suppose, been more proactive, but I assumed 37 if they wanted to negotiate that, they would have contacted me. So, we would still like to do 43 1 that, and that’s one of the first reasons why a little more time might be helpful, is that we could 2 have that conversation with them and get that worked out. 3 Evacuation plan… 4 Just a little correction, the request for four-bedroom is not a modification, it’s simply 5 something that needs to be a written request, but it’s not a modification to City standards. 6 Crowed buses were mentioned, that’s something that I was not particularly aware of, but 7 it’s also something that our project can’t deal with, but I would hope that our City would provide 8 more buses if we’re promoting more student housing and we’re promoting it in areas that are 9 close to campus, and, we want people to ride transit, that we would provide more buses and solve 10 some of those problems. 11 Okay, I think that brings me down to the two issues that were perhaps the most 12 cumbersome to straighten out. The first of those is the shadow analysis, and the gentleman that 13 had his presentation and used some of our graphics to illustrate his points. He was actually using 14 the second shadow analysis, which was incorrect. The very first shadow analysis we did was the 15 one I used, and that’s the one that we’re committed to and that we can guarantee our buildings 16 will not cast a shadow so that that ground level would be shaded more than three months. We’re 17 committed to meeting that standard. But, I don’t have the ability to prove that tonight, or show 18 what was incorrect about his presentation, or show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mine is 19 correct. I would like to have more time to be able to do that. 20 And then, the last, and it’s similar, was the discrepancy on the scale. It’s a fact that the 21 Sunstone buildings are thirty-two feet, eight inches tall. It’s a fact that we’re promoting our 22 building one, at its tallest side, is forty-eight feet, eight inches tall. But the ground isn’t level 23 everywhere across a building this large, the ground slopes and there’s a two foot differential that 24 helps to explain partially why that graphic is a little confusing. And, when he started talking 25 about it, it was very confusing to me. But, we were able to talk with our architect over the break 26 and begin to understand a little bit better why that’s the case, but I don’t think I’d convince 27 anybody in this room without being able to show more graphics that illustrate it appropriately. 28 So, those two reasons, as well as liking to have an opportunity to have a conversation with the 29 neighbors about the pedestrian access between the two, as well as the shared fence line. We’d 30 like to take some additional time to do that, if you’d be willing to delay your decision. 31 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I believe we have the ability to continue this matter to a date certain, 32 is usually how I’ve done it in the past. So, I’d have to take a quick look at my calendar and, Ted, 33 would you be prepared to offer some dates. 34 MR. SHEPARD: I don’t have my calendar with me, but I know that we cannot do 35 Tuesday nights, because that’s when Council is here in the Chambers. We need to stay away from Thursday, the 19 th 36 , because that’s a Planning and Zoning Board evening. Those are the two 44 dates that I recall. So, no Tuesdays, no Thursday, the 19 th 1 . Generally speaking, Mondays, 2 Wednesdays, and Thursdays work, but not Tuesdays. 3 MR. LOPEZ: And, how much time would you believe we’d need to have the 4 conversations, revise your material, and be ready to present it here? 5 MS. RIPLEY: I think two weeks would be good. MR. LOPEZ: So, we’re looking at the…late in the week of the 16 th 6 , or the following week is the week of the 23 rd . I could meet any…during the week of the 23 rd 7 , I could meet a 8 Monday or Wednesday. 9 MR. SHEPARD: Okay, I’ll check on the Council Chambers availability, which I have to 10 do through the City Manager’s Office, and I can send out an email to you and the people who’ve 11 signed up on the sign-up sheet, and we can go ahead and schedule, and we can commit to another 12 mailing. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 14 MS. RIPLEY: So, did we pick a date, or just a general week and you’ll have to check? 15 Okay. MR. LOPEZ: So, it would probably be either the 23 rd or the 25 th 16 . 17 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah, I think that’s helpful for everybody in the room to plan a little bit if 18 we look at those two. Great, thank you. 19 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 20 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: We have some concerns that it may not be 21 helpful to everyone in the room. 22 MR. LOPEZ: Why? 23 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, I have to keep driving up from 24 Denver…which is not an easy task for me, especially if they’re at five o’clock in the afternoon, I 25 have to take time off of work…so if they’re addressing my concerns, I’d like to have them 26 addressed as soon as…I mean, tonight. Otherwise, I’m going to have to plan another trip and 27 I’m going to have to look at my calendar…and see if I can get up here for that or not. 28 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, it’s the applicant’s…have that ability to request a continuance, and 29 the hearing officer will grant a continuance of this matter. In terms of a time, perhaps we can set 30 a later time. I don’t think this is going to be a long subsequent meeting. I think we could 31 probably handle this in probably an hour or so. So, Ted, what time would work? 45 1 MR. SHEPARD: We’re open. We generally pick five o’clock for convenience, but we’re 2 open to any time that works for all the parties in interest. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, if we did a six o’clock? 4 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do it at seven, there’s…that might help 5 for…get off work at five…driving, there are several of us that are in that situation. 6 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, okay. The applicant, would a seven o’clock meeting work for you? 7 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 8 MR. LOPEZ: Let’s hope there’s no tornadoes there. Okay, then I’m going to…did you 9 have anything else you want to add, or any other comments, or do you want to… 10 MR. SHEPARD: You mentioned earlier that, with the folks here in attendance that would 11 like to get out as much information as possible, and I do believe we have a staff response. We 12 have some very brief staff response, just in the interest of having the folks here. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, why don’t we continue on with that, and then we’ll continue the 14 meeting. So, we’ll have the staff response right now. 15 MR. SHEPARD: Yeah, and I’m going to work backwards. The question about did the 16 Poudre Fire Authority have a chance to review these plans. The answer is yes, they review all of 17 our plans. They come to all of our meetings and their comments have been duly noted. The 18 Poudre Fire Authority has been involved in the review of this project. So, is there evacuation 19 protocol? No, that’s not part of the Land Use Code. A lot of questions about the behavior of 20 students. I think, I’ll just remind the folks, but I think everyone knows that the nature of the 21 occupant is not in the Land Use Code. We’ve talked about that at the neighborhood meeting. 22 Ward Stanford, our Traffic Engineer, is here, but we talked also at the neighborhood meeting that 23 pedestrians, per se, don’t create impact. They don’t cause congestion; they’re the answer to 24 congestion. Those folks are not in cars, they don’t cause delay at the intersections, and that’s 25 why the review of the pedestrian level of service is qualitative, not quantitative. The definition 26 of compatibility is in Article Five of the Land Use Code, it’s in the staff report. Compatibility 27 has a very lengthy definition; one of the clauses in there is that compatibility does not mean the 28 same as. As mentioned by the applicant, our City Forestry department has been involved in the 29 review of this project. Guest parking has been addressed, I’ll tell the hearing officer that we’ve 30 done some field surveys of other apartment complexes, particularly Ram’s Village on Plum 31 Street, that it’s our finding that as many residents leave on weekends as guests come in on 32 weekends, and that kind of balances out. In fact the same ratios for this project…well, for…have 33 been in effect for parking as Ram’s Village, as would be for this project were it not in the TOD. 34 And, let’s see…the height…I think Mr. Erickson brought up the height. Twelve feet, 35 eight inches is a residential story. But, that section of the Code specifically exempts buildings in 46 1 two specific zone districts, the Downtown zone and the Community Commercial zone, so that 2 maximum residential height per story is not in effect in the CC. And, that’s all I had unless 3 Ward and Marc wanted to add anything else. 4 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, gentlemen? 5 MR. WARD STANFORD: Been a while since I‘ve been here. Good evening, my name 6 is Ward Stanford, I’m with the Traffic Department in the City. Just to touch on a couple of the 7 items that were brought up, Ted’s aspect is quite correct. I mean, yes, pedestrians can have an 8 impact, but timing of streets and intersections are not relative to one or twenty kids, like they are 9 with cars. Cars…ten cars have much bigger impact than ten kids do, or ten pedestrians. 10 Crossing a street…the timing is based on the walking speed of people and the distance they have 11 to cross. Pedestrians…that’s the same for one or forty, because they can go as a group. 12 Completely different for cars, so the impact of pedestrians is substantially different than the 13 impact of a comparable amount of cars. 14 One of the aspects that Eric had touched on, that I think Mr. Gavaldon had brought up, 15 was that memo I had provided about the mode split. Typically, my comfort level without 16 additional evaluation, is about a 25% reduction in expected trips, generated by some use. This 17 aspect, looking at its location, its proximity to the college, the fact that it is designated to be 18 student housing…and we are definitely expecting that there will be a higher rate of pedestrians 19 than car users at this location than most others that are, you know, a mile or two away. It didn’t 20 seem reasonable to put out a conservative view of what kind of traffic it would generate, 21 vehicular traffic, when we don’t even expect that vehicular traffic to be there. And then to make 22 them, possibly, have to mitigate something that we don’t even expect to happen. So, we did go 23 with a higher mode split, and that’s that sixty-five thirty-five characteristic that Mr. Gavaldon 24 was speaking about. The aspect of the amount of students, the gentleman brought up about 25 sixty-three expected trips in the morning come from this at the morning peak hour, and there’s 26 674 bedrooms. Well, in all reality, those people don’t all leave and exit their home at one time, 27 they’re spread out through the day. Yes, there is a higher amount of them during those peak 28 hours, but these numbers and how they’re derived are actually done from going to these type of 29 facilities, to apartments, to banks, to grocery stores, to whatever the use may be. People sit out 30 there and physically count how they come and go, and then from that, that data is analyzed to 31 create this work. And, it is reasonably accurate. I mean, over the years it proves to be 32 reasonably accurate. So, the reality is that during that morning peak hour rush, when everybody 33 is going out there, yes, there will certainly be kids coming out. We hope they are walking and 34 biking, over cars, but all 674 bedrooms are not going to empty out at that time. 35 As far as the access, or the use of the transit facility, the possibility exists that if…if the 36 use of it is heavy enough that not everybody can be served, Transfort will look at that and make 37 adjustments, and otherwise, the kids that may be not be able to be served at that particular 38 time…experience kind of shows us that, that timeframe, they’ll continue to walk. They’ll find 47 1 the other way to work it until the transit service catches up. To have them left stranded and stuff 2 is not an expectation or anything that we observe. And, with that, I guess, I did do some review 3 even above and beyond to kind of make the point of peds’ impact. I took the future expectation 4 of peds with the future expectation of traffic for that intersection, increase them by one and a half 5 times…the bed and bike, I left the traffic as it was. And, it took that level to make a level of 6 service change. Now, from that, I looked at what do I have to Shields Street…timing 7 adjustment, to mitigate that, or improve that. It only took a couple of seconds taken away from 8 Shields and given to Plum Street to mitigate that level of service change. So, it takes quite a bit 9 of pedestrian activity to cause a change. And, it’s not necessarily so difficult to change it. Now, 10 currently, the timings out there are truly based on the time it takes a person to walk across the 11 roadway, so we give a lot of time to Shields, only because of the pedestrian timing, not because 12 of the vehicle traffic that’s there. So, we have room to make adjustment, and it doesn’t require 13 three to five miles of analysis up and down stream for this kind of condition. 14 I guess probably the last thing I’ve got is the four-way stop characteristics around the 15 other possible alternative routes out of here. Yes, we do believe some people will use that, but 16 it’s not a primary destination route for the people that will live at this unit. Will some of them 17 certainly head out to City Park Drive? Sure, there’s restaurants and stuff over there. Are they at 18 the morning rush hour, or maybe the evening rush hour? There might be a few, but they will not 19 be the congregate amount. So, will they have a great impact? We don’t expect so. Will they be 20 there in some amount? Yes, we expect they will be. But that is just typical of an urban setting, 21 and not every location can be signalized. We wouldn’t want to do it, it would definitely congest 22 the area much worse. And, that’s pretty much what I have. 23 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. 24 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 25 MR. LOPEZ: No, we’ve closed that portion of the hearing, so thank you very much. 26 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE 27 MR. LOPEZ: No, actually. We’ve had the public testimony portion, we had the 28 responses, we’ve had some staff responses. The applicant has requested a continuance which we 29 will do, we’ve made adjustments so that members of the audience can travel from work, and we 30 have a later starting time for your benefit. So, I think, with that, we’re going to bring this 31 hearing to an end. You will be notified of the exact date. It’ll be at seven o’clock. It’ll either be 32 on that Monday or that Wednesday, and I look forward to seeing everyone back at that time. 33 Thank you very much for your comments and input, we appreciate it. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Monday, April 23, 2012 (Continued from April 5, 2012) City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: The District at Campus West, P.D.P, #120003 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER: Richard Lopez STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Ward Stanford, Traffic Engineer 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER RICHARD LOPEZ: PDP #120003, The 2 District at Campus West. I have…we’re going to go ahead and allow a, sort of a modified 3 procedure tonight. I think we’re going to begin with the applicant, who requested the 4 continuance to provide some more detailed and revised analysis. Then, I will open up for a 5 public hearing portion for testimony, then we’ll come back and allow both staff and the applicant 6 to respond. This is a little unusual, but within the authority of the Hearing Officer, and I think 7 given the interest, and the fact we continued this… a number of people have returned, we’ll give 8 everyone an opportunity to talk. So…and, if you have spoken before, your previous comments 9 are in the record, I’ll still have those. There’s no need to repeat what you said at a previous…at 10 the previous hearing. So, with that, is there any more introduction you’d like to add? 11 CHIEF PLANNER TED SHEPARD: No, this is a continued hearing, and…but I’ll just, for the audio tape, say that this is the April 25 th 12 continued hearing for The District at Campus 13 West, and…as modified by the Hearing Officer for order of proceedings. Just a reminder, I’ll 14 just read one paragraph from my staff report. This is a request to redevelop sixteen houses along 15 four streets in the Campus West neighborhood for a multi-family project consisting of 193 16 dwelling units on 3.34 acres, located on the north side of West Plum Street between Aster Street 17 and City Park Avenue. The parcels are zoned CC – Community Commercial, and within the 18 Transit Oriented Development Overlay District. And, that’s just a brief reminder of the project 19 at hand tonight, and I’ll turn it back over to you. MR. LOPEZ: And, for the record, the hearing is on the 23 rd of April, not the 25 th 20 . Okay, 21 Ms. Ripley? 22 MS. LINDA RIPLEY: Thank you, Mr. Lopez, thank you, Ted. I first want to express my 23 appreciation for allowing us to continue this hearing. As you recall from the last hearing, at the 24 very last minute, we discovered a discrepancy in our shadow analysis from the one we had to 25 present that night from when we had submitted earlier…hadn’t been able to get ahold of the 26 architect who had done that one, and couldn’t explain it, quite frankly, did understand what the 27 difference was. So, we felt uncomfortable about it. This extra time, of this two weeks, has 28 allowed us not only to verify the shadow analysis that we have to share with you tonight, but also 29 to be absolutely certain that it’s accurate and that it’s comprehensive. What we ended up doing 30 is, our office took over responsibility for the shadow analysis, so we’ve done it in a different…a 31 little bit different format tonight that’s much more comprehensive, so we’re going to be able to 32 show you what happens to the sun, not only during the course of the day, but also throughout the 33 year. And, it will be available to anyone who wants to look at that later, or who wants to explore 34 it further at tonight’s hearing. So, anyway, we appreciate that opportunity and we will try to just 35 stick to the basic issues that weren’t made clear at the last hearing. And, from our perspective, 36 that really centered on the building height, it’s mass, the shadowing effect of the building, and 37 it’s appearance from the north side, particularly of the parking garage. 1 So, the first thing I’d like to talk about is simply looking at how tall our building is 2 compared to how tall other buildings are in the neighborhood. This aerial photograph shows our 3 project striped in red, right there, going from City Park to Aster, just one block from the CSU 4 campus. So, our buildings actually have a range in height; the first building is a five-story 5 building, the parking garage is a building that is three stories on the front, with residential facing 6 the street, and five levels of parking, but four stories of height on the back, of about 48 feet in 7 height. Although, I’ll get into that in a little more detail later. And then, the building one, is 8 actually five stories on the south, and it had been dropped down to four stories on the back 9 specifically to drop down adjacent to the neighboring structures, and also, directly to reduce the 10 shadowing effect. So, other buildings around the neighborhood, Sunstone is 32 feet, 8 inches, 11 and that’s…these are all heights that were verified by our surveyor, so, Brent, could you just 12 point out some other building heights, and, I can’t see them from here in the… 13 MR. BRENT COOPER: So, Sunstone is 32 feet, 8 inches, the frat house here is 38 feet, 14 there’s some 28 foot, a 58 foot building, 30 foot, 43 foot, and then the twelve-story dorms right 15 over here. 16 MS. RIPLEY: So, the twelve-story dorms are significantly higher than anything in this 17 neighborhood, but very close proximity. The orange area on the vicinity map represents the 18 Community Commercial zoning district. And, I think it’s important to point out that that area 19 was specifically called out as an area that the City wanted to have more height, more urban level 20 density. So, five stories are allowed in the orange part of this area, and the City’s actually 21 targeting infill in this area to be taller and more dense, so…next slide. This slide just shows the 22 distance between our most adjacent, our closest neighbor, which is the Sunstone Condominiums 23 to the north, and the distances range from 52 feet at the closest, to 91 feet, and average about 70 24 feet across the parking lot there. 25 And then this graphic we brought along tonight…we had a similar graphic at the last 26 hearing that we were also a little confused about. We were asked the question, well, your 27 building is sixteen feet higher than our building, why doesn’t it look that way, proportionally? 28 And, what we discovered after analyzing it…it was because of it actually being a two-point 29 perspective, and we had simply taken this line across and there was an optical illusion there that 30 caused it to look less. It was not attempt to try to make it look smaller, so, tonight we wanted to 31 show you…this is the actual differential that are on the submitted drawings. It’s sixteen feet 32 difference between the backside of our building one and the 32 foot Sunstone building. 33 However, since the last meeting, since we went back to looking at the shadow analysis and trying 34 to figure out we could show it more comprehensively, we also took another look at the building, 35 or the architect and the developer did, and they looked at this cross-section and said, well, gee, 36 that part of the building that we had reduced to four stories…if we change that to a sloped roof 37 instead of a flat roof, we could knock off another five feet on that corner, which would help the 38 visual scale of the building on that side of the building, drop it down by five foot, and it would 39 also have an effect on lowering of the shadow a bit too. So, we offer that as an alternative 1 tonight, to lower that side of the building even further, if that’s what everyone agrees is the best 2 approach. Next slide? 3 What were we doing with this? Well, the next part is to get into the actual shadow 4 analysis and…the first thing I want to talk about is the standard in the Land Use Code, 3.2.3, 5 which is just mentioned in the staff report, but it’s the strongest section in the Code that 6 addresses solar access, orientation, and shading. And, specifically, the last sentence of that 7 standard in the Code says that it doesn’t apply in the Downtown District or in the Community 8 Commercial District. Again, emphasizing that the City intentionally, in those two zone districts, 9 wanted to be able to encourage height. So…however, Section 3.5.1, which is the section that if 10 you are over 40 feet in height, so if you’re greater than a three-story building, you are required to 11 do a shadow analysis. So, we have complied with that, we have a shadow analysis to show you 12 tonight that we believe is very comprehensive, it’s accurate. We used a 3D, a very sophisticated 13 3D model that taken into account where we are on the earth, what the sun does from sunrise to 14 sunset, as well as what it does through each month of the year. So, we can take you through all 15 of that. But our purpose is really to show that we do not create a substantial adverse impact on 16 adjacent properties. We have to show that we do not preclude the use of solar technology, that 17 we’re not going to create any offensive solar reflectants or glare, that we’re not going to increase 18 the shading of adjacent parking areas over what exists today, and that we’re not going to be 19 shading adjacent structures for more than three months of the year. So, I’m going to have Brent 20 run through this modeling exercise. He’s going to tell you a little bit about how he built it, and 21 then walk you…walk you through kind of worst case scenario of the start and finish of the three 22 month worst time of the year, and then show you a little bit what happens all year long. 23 MR. BRENT COOPER: So, the program I used to do this model…it’s called Google 24 Sketch Up, and it allows you to mass different objects, pull them up, to the right scales. And, to 25 ensure everything was at the right scale, I actually just overlaid everything onto our site plan 26 here, so that I was sure that we had the right setbacks and that the relationship between Sunstone 27 Condos and The District project was the right separation. You can see the boundary line here, 28 and the offset that we have with our project, and then Sunstone Condos here. Another neat thing 29 that this program allows is for us to actually turn off and on the shadows and to use the sun to 30 dictate where those shadows go. So, I put our project into the time zone that we’re in, and I 31 can…I can manipulate this from any time in the day, or any time in the year, and it tracks how 32 the sun moves through the sky. So, this is a lot more accurate than just triangulating something 33 with the building height and the sun angle, and just getting a triangulated calculation, this 34 actually tracks it the whole way and I can look at any day, any time of the whole year. So, I 35 guess I’ll… 36 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah, so, starting, we wanted to focus in on the three-month period, forty- five days from the worst day of the year, which would be December 22 nd 37 . So, what day do you 38 go back to in November? MR. COOPER: So you go back to November 6 th 1 , is what you would go back to so…the end of the nine month period would be November 5 th 2 . So, I’m going to…I can put in that date. 3 Eleven, five, and then I’ll go through from the morning to the night on that day, and you can 4 track what happens. So, this is six, seven o’clock, eight o’clock, nine o’clock, ten o’clock, 5 eleven, twelve, one, two, three, four, and then to sunset. 6 MS. RIPLEY: So, what…I think what that illustrates is that on forty-five days off of the 7 worst day of the year, those buildings are still getting a significant amount of sun...sun during the 8 day, and then something very, very similar happens in February at the end of that three-month 9 period. MR. COOPER: So, February 5 th 10 , I’ll do the same thing from the morning, eight o’clock, 11 nine, ten, eleven, twelve, one, two, three, four, five, to sunset. 12 MS. RIPLEY: And, now, just for fun, why don’t you take us through the whole entire 13 year. MR. COOPER: Okay, so this at twelve PM, noon, starting January 1 st 14 , February, March, 15 April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 16 MS. RIPLEY: So, so what we’re illustrating is that, although we definitely will cast a 17 shadow on the building at the extreme early hours in the morning and late in the day, there’s no 18 doubt about that, we…all the buildings receive a stantial amount of sunlight all year long, and 19 certainly most of the building are…have sunlight for most of the day for a nine-month period. 20 MR. LOPEZ: Ms. Ripley… 21 MS. RIPLEY: Yeah. 22 MR. LOPEZ: The shadows cast in this analysis, are they of the original building or the 23 one that you mentioned that will have a sloped roof? 24 MS. RIPLEY: This one has a sloped roof; however, we have the other roof with us 25 tonight too, if you want to see the difference. It’s not a huge difference, but it’s somewhat 26 different. 27 MR. LOPEZ: If it’s easy to load up, I’d like to see the difference. 28 MR. COOPER: Sure. 29 MS. RIPLEY: Maybe, Brent, we should also talk about the parking garage. MR. COOPER: So, this is noon on October 12 th 30 . This is the shadow cast by our newly 31 proposed building one, and there’s the shadow of the previous condition. So, you can kind of see 1 the difference it makes…on that day. If you went a little bit later into the year, around 2 December, it would make more of a difference. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Do you have the ability to spin that view around and imagine we’re in 4 Building B, or one of the buildings over to the north…look towards the south. MR. COOPER: Okay, so, I’ll just put in on November 3 rd 5 at noon. So, there’s the 6 difference. 7 MS. RIPLEY: So, like I…like I said, it’s not huge, but we think it’s worth doing. We 8 don’t think it downgrades the building. Our client doesn’t lose units…I think it’s a good 9 example of what I always find when we have neighborhood opposition to our projects that it 10 forces us to look closer to see how we can make improvements. So, that’s one thing that we 11 came up with that we, quite frankly, hadn’t thought of before, for the last hearing. 12 In that same regard…Brent, could we go to show the idea we had for the parking garage 13 too? The parking garage was always four stories tall, forty-eight feet on the back side, as 14 presented in the original submittal. But, again, since the last meeting, we discovered that we 15 could bend the one side of the parking garage down a story and the lowest part of the parking 16 garage then would be…is it thirty-seven feet? Something? Thirty-seven feet and change, so it 17 gets that part of the parking garage much closer to the scale of the thirty-two foot Sunstone 18 buildings, and, again, helps with the shadow. Not dramatically, but makes a difference. So, we 19 can offer that. There is a cost to that change, however, is because we do lose nine parking spaces 20 in the parking garage. But, if you’re recall, we already were overparked by fifty-four if we had 21 to meet normal standards, and, in this Transit Overlay District, there are zero parking 22 requirements. So, if it seemed like a beneficial trade-off, we’re happy to do that change as well. 23 So, do you have more questions about the shadow analysis before I go on? We can 24 certainly bring it back up. 25 MR. LOPEZ: Sure…the public will have a chance to ask questions and then you’ll have a 26 chance to respond, so if you’ll just hold those questions up there. Great, thank you. 27 MS. RIPLEY: Absolutely, we’d love to be able to answer as many questions as we can 28 tonight. The last subject that I wanted to go over was just the visual aspects of the parking 29 garage itself, because there was some time spent with that last meeting. Not just the shadowing 30 of it, but the visual aspect of it. So, we showed this at the last meeting, and, what it shows 31 is…the top is a photograph of the view of our site from the Sunstone Condominiums, and then 32 the bottom picture shows what it will look like when the parking garage is built. And, what 33 we’re trying to illustrate there is that the big trees that you see are trees that exist, and you can 34 see them in the top photo. They exist on the Sunstone property so they are not coming down 35 with our project. And then, our trees are smaller, they’re columnar, they’re planted in a straight 36 line behind our parking garage. So, the combination of the two helps to buffer the impact of the 1 parking garage. But, in addition, the parking garage isn’t an ugly concrete box either. It’s open- 2 air parking garage, it has stone facing on the back side for the first two stories. So, it’s a 3 relatively attractive looking building, and we’re buffering it as well as we can in the space we 4 have available to do it. We did work really hard with the City Forester to decide what to plant 5 back there, to do the best job possible. That was…some gentleman from the neighborhood took 6 issue with that last time. I contacted Tim Buchanan after the meeting and asked him to reiterate 7 that he had confidence in the species selection because he had actually provided them to us. And 8 we have five different trees planted back there, all of which he feels will do well, and he 9 approved the project. So, I don’t know what else we can do as developers, if not rely on the 10 advice of the City Forester. However, I notice in my email tonight, about five o’clock as 11 I checked it, that…and I’m sorry, I can’t remember the gentleman’s name, but he had contacted 12 Tim after he saw his letter, because he had been copied, and asked some more questions about 13 tree growth rates and how much sun they need, and how big they’re going to get. And, Tim 14 Buchanan responded to that as well, quite a lengthy response. So…Ted has that and we’d like 15 that submitted into the record as well. 16 MR LOPEZ: I have a copy, I believe this is the one, Ted? 17 MS. RIPLEY: So, you have both of them? The one today, and the one a few days ago? 18 Because there’s two now. 19 MR. LOPEZ: There’s a three page… 20 MS. RIPLEY: That looks like it, yeah, the first one was just a page. Okay. So, with that, 21 I think those address the issues that we were a little shaky on last time, and didn’t feel that we 22 had adequate information. So, we’d like to turn it over to the neighborhood, or to yourself, and 23 be available for questions to clarify as much as we can. 24 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, let me just clarify and make sure I understand…the two 25 modifications that you’ve illustrated, the sloping roof on the building and the slope on the 26 parking garage, are modifications that you find acceptable if the Administrative Hearing Officer 27 makes that? 28 MS. RIPLEY: Absolutely. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. Very good. Okay, we’re going to open this up for public testimony, 30 and if you’ve…come on up, if you’ve given your name before, that’s great, we have you in the 31 list and you’ll get information. But go ahead and state your name again. 32 MR. BOB MEYER: If I could take just thirty seconds to load my presentation. 33 MR. LOPEZ: Good luck. 1 MR. MEYER: Good evening and thank you again, Mr. Lopez, for the chance to speak. 2 My name is Bob Meyer. I’m the president of the Homeowner’s Association for Sunstone, 3 Buildings C and D. Last public hearing, and at the neighborhood meeting, we submitted our 4 prepared comments, so, in respect for the time of everyone here, I will not go through those 5 comments again. I would just like to summarize a couple things with a couple slides here. Can 6 you put that on slideshow please? So that will go up a little bigger. 7 I think generally, right now, our concerns haven’t changed. Our really concerns haven’t 8 changed. As I listed to the previous discussion by Ms. Ripley, they certainly haven’t changed. 9 We do not feel, right now, the shading and the shadowing has been adequately addressed, even 10 with the new modifications they’ve made. And, also, since these are new modifications, 11 different, we have not had a chance to review that data either, at this point, so…there. But, 12 basically, to just come to the bottom line is…I’ve got a couple slides here to talk about the Land 13 Use Code. And, really, my comments before…just the mass and scale of this project, we still 14 feel is just, does not meet the neighborhood or the intent of what our visionaries in Fort Collins 15 intended for that area. The, basically, to look at building size in that Land Use Code, buildings 16 shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing 17 that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures…that is proportional to the mass and 18 scale of other structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face, or caddy-corner 19 block faces of the nearest intersection. Well, basically, we don’t see…these are three huge 20 buildings and there is no subdivided articulation that tends to blend with any other structure in 21 the area. Basically, the third…building one, massive five-story…or, five-story, or actually it’s 22 building three of theirs, which is…that’s a misprint…sixty-five foot tall structure. Similar in size 23 and height to existing structures in the neighborhood? It’s not, it’s twice as tall, and 24 volumetrically at least approximately ten times the size of adjacent condos in our neighborhood. 25 Building one is not subdivided, it is one massive structure. That’s building three. Next slide 26 please? Thank you. 27 So, our concern here is still…articulates what we’ve articulated before, the sheer mass 28 and scale. The second slide I’d like to talk to, talks more about…gets into the shadowing, but 29 basically, light shadow. Buildings or structures greater than forty feet shall be designed so as not 30 to have substantial adverse impact on that distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent 31 public and private property. Adverse impacts, which I think is really critical to the discussion, 32 include, but are not limited to, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the 33 winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three months of 34 the year…for more than three months of the year. In the next slide I’ll show you our analysis 35 went for a hundred days. The analysis you just showed from them only went for three months. 36 It would be interesting to compare our analysis and have their model, which is very neat, to…in 37 fact, to go out to a hundred days, and I will bet our data will match. But, the point I’m trying to make here…if we go between 31 st of October to 8 th 38 of February, that’s a hundred days. I’ve 39 drawn some lines here, and I think you’re going to see this in more detail in the future, so I’ll 1 make it quick…other discussions here tonight. At nine o’clock, you can just see the blue line 2 here…the blue line here. I just took the very smallest number, which is 77.53, at nine o’clock, 3 and just drew it across. You can see every building, including the sorority house, which has not 4 been discussed tonight, which is behind a much taller building, there…it’s got significant 5 shading. At noon, taking 68.97, the minimum, it’s going to be right at the bases of ours, most of 6 them, although our bookends, the one far on the left, the far and the right, and I think, as I 7 remember, their analysis showed the same thing, it’s shaded. And, look at the sorority house, it’s 8 got it too. And then if you go at…that’s at noon, the green, but now if you go up, three PM, 9 which you’d expect would be similar to nine, it’s just under, but it’s shaded there. So, these are 10 the…you know…for corrected the angles of the sun and the shading, we still feel we’ve 11 tremendous shading. And, the biggest thing on that Code, it not only just talks about shading on 12 buildings, but it talks about shading on our parking lots, and on our gardens. And, that’s the 13 concern. So, we still, Mr. Lopez, we still have those same concerns, and thank you for your 14 time. 15 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 16 MS. PAT WOOSTER-JACKSON: Mr. Lopez, I’m Pat Wooster-Jackson, I represent the 17 sorority. On the models that you did, the sorority structure was not on there at all, so I had to 18 kind of extrapolate, use my imagination as you moved through the shadowing on it. It appears to 19 me that the sorority house, which is thirty-eight feet tall, is adjacent sixty feet away from a 20 structure that is at least sixty-three feet high. And, from the modeling that you showed, it looks 21 to me that the sorority house is in shadow virtually the entire time. The only time that the 22 sorority house is not in shadow, based on what you went over earlier, I think, is the three months 23 of the year when none of the students are there, which is high summer. The rest of the year, the 24 sorority house is going to be completely in shadow, it’s going to be dwarfed by a structure that is 25 two stories taller. The parking is going to be an issue because of its…because the bulk of the 26 parking is between the projected building of this developer and the back of…the south side of the 27 sorority house. So, I have a lot of concerns about that. 28 I also would like to address the parking density issue. Within this project, there are five 29 sorority and fraternity houses. Most of the…in general, each house holds about fifty residents. 30 However, the size of the groups is about a hundred and twenty each. The…the houses, each one 31 of the houses, is the communal area which is used by the entire group constantly for meetings, 32 gatherings…it’s the center of activity. None of the houses have that kind of parking, so when all 33 of them are doing their activities…they’re conducting their business as a recognized student 34 group, the amount of additional parking that it throws onto the street side around that one block 35 radius, is arguably, more than four hundred additional cars. Again, the…you know, when you 36 dial in the impact of the snow and ice, and being able to mitigate that, it just adds to an already 37 difficult situation. I would like to see what…I wish that you had drawn the sorority in there. I 38 apologize that we weren’t…that we were not represented at earlier meetings and, boy, I’m glad 39 I’m here tonight. 1 So, for us, our things are threefold. It’s the density…the population density over there, 2 it’s the parking issues, and it’s the shading. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 4 UNINTELLIGIBLE REMARK FROM THE AUDIENCE. 5 MR. LOPEZ: Go right ahead. 6 MR. TIM DUDLEY: Hello, Mr. Lopez, I’m Tim Dudley. Just a couple of things, one is 7 just a note that the Sunstone Condos…the south side of those roofs all drain down into the 8 parking lot. And, if you’ll notice on their shadow study, that parking lot, for almost six months 9 of the year, does not get any sun at all. So, with the roof draining down in there, we’re just going 10 to have a real ice accumulation, not to mention, you know, additional snow accumulation there 11 as well. And then the other point…or the other thing I wanted to ask the developer was a point 12 that was brought up last meeting, and that was about putting in some type of screening in the 13 parking garage so that students and tenants can’t throw things out of the parking garage right 14 onto the Sunstone cars that are down below. I don’t know if there was any consideration of any 15 changes there or not, but…that would certainly be something that I think would help us feel 16 more secure about having all that stuff towering up above our vehicles. Thank you. 17 MR. LOPEZ: Very good, thank you. 18 MR. TIM ERICKSON: My name is Tim Erickson, I’ve prepared a presentation and I’m 19 going to try and be as brief as possible in my remarks. I’ve actually expanded on the shadow 20 study, and our shadow study does include the sorority house so I’m going to be able to touch on 21 that. Our previously…we made some previous requests to the developer, and these included 22 increasing the setback distance, putting forth a viable tree plan, and reducing the building height 23 to mitigate shadowing, and conform to the existing neighborhood pattern. We also requested 24 minor changes to the parking garage structure, so there could be some screening windows that 25 would reduce noise and the chance of objects flying onto our cars in the parking lot. We 26 basically just want to work with the developer, we don’t want to stop development, we want 27 something that’s just compatible with the neighborhood. We do fee, as Bob stressed, that the 28 developer is in violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1(C), which relates to the building size, height, 29 mass and bulk. And, that’s particularly true for the building which is directly across from the 30 ZTA sorority. In the Code, it mentions to look at Figure 7 for compatibility, and when we look 31 at Figure 7, it shows the top figure in the Land Use Code, it doesn’t show what’s on the bottom, 32 a structure which is well over twice the size in height of our condos. The ramparts on the back 33 side of building three reach over sixty-seven feet, which is more than double 32.8 feet. 34 We also feel that the developer may be in violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1(D), and this 35 relates to privacy considerations. Elements of the development plan should be arranged to 36 maximize the opportunity for privacy of the residents of the project, and minimize infringement 1 on the privacy of adjoining land uses. So, basically, the situation we have with the sorority 2 house, is there’s going to be dozens of units overlooking their backyard. And, as I’ve discussed 3 the situation with members of the sorority, they’re concerned because they like to go out there 4 and tan, and they don’t want basically a bunch of random people looking at them. I went over 5 and discussed this, and the girls signed a petition which I’m going to present to you, which reads: 6 We, the members of the Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority, oppose the construction of The District on the 7 ground of the excess shadowing caused by this five-story structure will lead to the accumulation 8 of ice and snow in our parking, creating a hazardous and unsafe condition for months at a time. 9 In addition, we have privacy concerns related to the views of our backyard that would be 10 afforded by such a tall structure. Please take our concerns into consideration. 11 We also feel that the developer’s…is in violation of Land Use Code 3.5.1(G.2), and this 12 is something that Bob’s discussed already, and I’m going to go into detail with our own shadow 13 study. So, first of all, I’m pretty qualified to perform a shadow study. I have an extensive 14 background in optics, I actually have a Master’s in biomedical optics and I’ve taken courses in 15 physical optics, worry optics, biomedical optics, astronomy, lens design, and laser physics. And, 16 so, I’m actually going to go ahead and explain the methodology we used for our shadow study, 17 so that you can be one hundred percent sure that it’s truthful and accurate. 18 The lengths and heights were derived from the developer’s plan, and, at this point, I 19 would like to get a quick clarification from the developer on what the maximum height of the 20 north side of building one would be, because in my shadow study, as presented by the plan at the 21 last meeting and most up-to-date documents, I used a height of forty-eight feet and eight inches. 22 Is that still correct? The height on the back side? It is five feet less? Okay, so since it is, that 23 will make the height forty-three feet, approximately, on the back side? Okay, so I do appreciate 24 the developer doing that, and that does somewhat skew my analysis then, and it…we may need 25 to request a continuance. But one thing that hasn’t changed, very notably, is the height of 26 building three, which is directly across from the sorority house. And, in the design, that height 27 ranges from sixty-one feet to sixty-seven feet…I just wanted to check that that has still remained 28 constant. Is that still the same, on building three? The towers are sixty-seven, and I think the 29 rest is about sixty-one, right? Okay, so, the analysis that holds for the building across, the 30 sorority, is still correct then. 31 So, basically, the source of our data came from the Naval National Observatory, and they 32 actually have a website where you can put in the day, the time of day, and the location, and from 33 that they infer the latitude and longitude, and get the solar angles. And, so, there’s basically two 34 solar angles, there’s the azimuthal angle, which tell you where the sun is relative to north along 35 the horizon, and then there’s the altitude angle, which tells you how far above the horizon the 36 sun is, or basically how high in the sky it is. So, on the left I just showed an example table, and 37 if we go through…and do that analysis, and just understand some basic shadow math, I’ll spare 38 everybody the trig lesson, but I’ve included it for future reference. Basically, the length of 39 shadow at any given time is derived from the solar altitude angle, where it’s just the height of the 1 building divided by the tangent of the solar altitude angle. And, so that tells you how long the 2 shadow will be cast, but it doesn’t tell you…it doesn’t correct for the direction that it’s cast in. 3 And, for that, you actually need to take into account the azimuthal angle. So, I just showed some 4 quick plots here of the shadow height versus time of day, and as you can see here, it’s for five 5 dates. So, I’ve included what was discussed in our shadow study, that hundred day period between October 31 st , Halloween, and February 8 th 6 , and then I’ve included the winter solstice, 7 and then basically the ninety day period that’s been discussed by the developer. So, looking 8 over, specifically, at building three, since it’s much taller than the other structures, and I used just 9 the height of sixty-one, so my estimates, actually, for the shadow are pretty conservative, 10 because it’s doesn’t include the ramparts on that building. We are seeing, you know, at a 11 minimum during this time, of height shadow lengths of approximately ninety feet. And, during 12 the winter solstice, it’s particularly acute in that it gets up to about a hundred and thirty feet. 13 And then, in the early morning hours and the late afternoon hours, around nine and three PM, the 14 shadow length is almost the size of a football field, it’s upwards of like two hundred and fifty 15 feet. So, the shadows cast by building three are definitely huge. This just shows how the 16 shadow length is a function of the sun’s azimuthal angle, which is basically where it is…where it 17 rises in the east, and sets in the west. That tells you what the…that’s what the azimuthal angle is. 18 So, these are just the raw shadow lengths in feet for the period of time, that’s a hundred days. 19 And, so, for building three, we’re seeing shadows that are a hundred and forty-two feet in the 20 morning, a hundred and seventy feet in the evening, and, at the high noon hour, the minimum is 21 eighty-seven feet. And, so, as Bob alluded to in our presentation, it’s not just the shadow length, 22 it’s the shadow length that’s in the direction of our condominium that counts, and…our shadow 23 study, that was corrected, and so those lengths that Bob showed, were derived from the 24 mathematics included in this slide. 25 And, so, Bob’s already discussed this, but what we are basically seeing here, even at the 26 noon hour, is shadow infringement on our property, particularly at the bookends, that are just 27 fifty-five feet, and here you can see it’s about sixty-nine feet, and it’s fifty-two feet over here, so, 28 during this entire time, parts of our units are shadowed for the entire day, for over a hundred 29 days. And then, this problem becomes particularly acute when we look at what happens to the 30 sorority house, which is just sixty-three feet away from the structure. And, since the structure is 31 so much taller, it’s bathed in the shadow, even at high noon…I mean the shadow over-reaches by twenty-three feet here, and on December 21 st 32 , the shadow is basically going to cover the entire 33 building. And, so, we’ve done our own shadow study based on this data, and we can see what’s going on here for October 31 st 34 . It’s a little bit difficult to see the outlines of the building on this 35 one, and I apologize for that. On the computer screen you can see them, so the outline is a little 36 bit faint, but I will point because I can see it on my screen, where the sorority house begins, right 37 here. And, so this is at nine, and then the sorority house is right here, so you can see it’s getting 38 shaded pretty badly, even on Halloween, and then, keep in mind this is also their parking lot too 39 and I think they do have a garden back here on one side, so that’s getting shaded. And, to make 40 it a little bit clearer, this is like the composite shadow study, which is an overlap of shadowing 1 during different parts of the day, so we’ve overlaid the shadowing at nine, twelve, and three, and 2 we can see that we’re getting significant shadowing at some time in the day. And, so, to make it clearer, I’ve drawn this out so it’s a little bit easier to see, of what’s going on on December 21 st 3 at 4 nine, twelve, and three. And, so, our…this is the solstice, and our…not only is like our entire 5 unit shadowed, but we see that the shadow lengths would protrude all the way out to here, 6 although they’re probably going to be just getting very high up on our buildings. And then if we go over at high noon on the 21 st 7 , the entire Zeta house is shadowed, and so this problem that they 8 left out of their analysis, which they really should have included shadowing of the Zeta house, is 9 extreme, and is clearly a violation of the City Code, because it’s much longer than three months. 10 I mean, we’ve shown it’s a hundred days. And, if I were to bring out the analysis time, it would 11 probably be something closer to a hundred and twenty days. So, this also shows basically what’s going on February 8 th 12 , and since it’s the same amount of time from the winter solstice, it’s basically the same shadowing that we get on October 31 st 13 , consistent with the developer’s results. This is the February 8 th 14 composite. And so, the whole issue with not getting any sun on our 15 parking lot is also, you know, it’s going to create ice in the parking lot, but the shadows reach all 16 the way up to our sidewalks, so the sidewalks are going to be really cold, and they’re never going 17 to get any sunlight. And, as a result of that, as soon as snow falls on them, it’s going to ice up. 18 And so, you know, typically if snow falls, you know, you can say, you know, you can get 19 somebody to come out and remove it. But, here, our concern is really that the sidewalks are 20 going to be so cold that it’s going to ice up instantly and create a really dangerous condition for 21 our residents. And, you know, the Land Use Code does say that adverse impacts, once again, 22 include contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice. And, this is definitely going to 23 accumulate to the contribution of snow and ice…or lead to more accumulation of snow and ice, 24 and we see that this is a clear violation of our property, and shadowing is much, much worse on 25 the Zeta house due to building three. 26 So, I wanted to briefly discuss the implications of our shadow study on tree growth, as 27 the City Land Use Code requires a tree protection plan. And, we see that these trees are going to 28 be shaded at first before they have a chance to grow up, they’re going to be shaded three hundred 29 and sixty five days a year. I did a quick calculation for a sixteen foot high tree. I don’t know if 30 the saplings that they’re going to plant are even going to be that high, but if we assume that that 31 tree has a radius of four feet initially, it will receive no direct sunlight at any time of the year, 32 even at the summer solstice. And, so we have a situation where these established, old growth 33 trees are being cut down and replaced with trees that may never thrive. I did get some emails 34 from the City Forester, and he showed one clear photo where the Swedish Columnar Aspen was 35 planted on the north face of a building, and it looked to be doing pretty well. So I asked him if 36 he had any other photos, any visual evidence that trees could survive on the north face of 37 buildings that were almost fifty feet, and he said he didn’t have any photos of those. So, I’m still 38 not really convinced that these trees can grow, and if we look at…you know, on the CSU 39 campus, where they plant the trees so that they can thrive…in the background here, we see a 40 building that’s approximately fifty feet tall, and there’s a reason why they don’t plant the trees 1 there and they plant them here. Because, when they’re planted here, they can grow and thrive, 2 they get plenty of sunlight. And, if they’re planted here, it’s…it might be a mixed bag, and the 3 trees very well might not be able to survive. So, I guess the question, is basically can…in the 4 developer’s tree plan, they want to plant a Corinthian Linden five feet from a forty-eight foot 5 north facing wall. And, as shown in this picture, the tree’s actually south facing, because you 6 can see the sun’s over here, because the shadow’s here. And this tree gets to be pretty wide, 7 from this image and this image, you can see that they grow to be about, you know, ten to fifteen 8 feet. So, I guess my concern is that they’re going to have trees growing into their building, and if 9 they prune them, the tree might not be able to survive. So, I did get some data from one of the 10 largest tree nurseries in Colorado, and for this Corinthian Linden, it states that the mature 11 spread…meaning the diameter, is thirty to thirty-five feet, so we’re going to have a fifteen foot 12 radius. And, if there’s only five feet, I have no idea how this tree’s going to be able to grow. 13 And then the same question comes up for the European Hornbeam, and the staff provided this 14 image, and it’s planted out in the middle of a parking lot, and you can see that these trees aren’t 15 anywhere near to being fully grown, and already their radius is probably exceeding five feet. So, 16 given how little space the developer has left between their building and our property line, it’s 17 very doubtful that some of these trees are going to be able to reach their full maturity size. 18 And, so, to get a little bit more information, I emailed a gentleman named John Rizza, 19 who works for the CSU Extension. He’s a specialist in land stewardship in forest and range. 20 And, so, this is basically my email question, it’s if one wanted to plant trees on the north side of 21 a forty-eight foot tall building, what is the recommended planting distance from the building? 22 How would shading by the building affect their growth rate? Specifically, how do you think the 23 following types of trees would do long term: Crimson Spire Oak, Swedish Columnar Aspen, 24 European Hornbeam, and Corinthian Linden? And, some of the things that he wrote back are: 25 the distance away from the building all depends on the projected size of the tree at maturity, and 26 then he gave me a link to illustrate this point. And, he said also, in addition to growing space, 27 you need adequate root space. In many urban landscape situations, folks plant big trees in little 28 spaces between sidewalks. They need more room than that, giving them space will give them a 29 better chance for survival. And, so, these narrow sidewalks are probably similar in size to the 30 five-foot distance that the developer has left for the trees. I do have a hard copy of this email 31 that I will go ahead and forward on to you. And, so, I guess my conclusion is that the 32 developer’s current plan appears to be in violation of the Land Use Code on many fronts. 33 Shadowing, which is particularly harsh on…for building three, and then there’s the whole 34 neighborhood compatibility issue, do the massive scale of the project. There’s definite tree 35 protection plan issues as the trees may not be able to thrive. And, I feel like this project needs to 36 be put on hold until the developer can submit a plan that’s in compliance with Code. Thank you 37 for your time. 38 MR. LOPEZ: Mr. Erickson, did you get a copy of the three-page from the City Forester? 39 MR. ERICKSON: I did. 1 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, good. Next person? One other thing, Mr. Erickson, do you have a 2 copy of you Power Point? 3 MR. ERICKSON: It’s saved on this computer, do you want me to email it? Or, I can 4 drop a hard copy off at the office tomorrow. 5 MR. LOPEZ: Just get a copy to Mr. Shepard and he’ll make sure I get it. 6 MR. ERICKSON: Okay. 7 MS. SAMANTHA PETERS: My name is Samantha Peters. This kind of…you know, I 8 don’t want to be disappointing, I can’t give you a trigonometry lesson. But, I just have some 9 concerns. My experience is from walking from Baystone Street to Plum Street to catch the bus 10 during the winter. The dead-end streets tend to flood when the snow is melting, and that 11 floodwater kind of runs down Plum Street to the traffic light area. And, I don’t have any 12 engineering experience or anything, so…but, I’m wondering, I’m curious…maybe somebody 13 here with a laptop can answer this, what will happen with the…when the snow on top of these 14 five buildings melts, where is that going to go? Is it going to be greater than the amount of 15 flooding we have currently? Are they going to have to…the City going to have to do some extra 16 work underneath the streets? I don’t quite…it doesn’t seem to fit for me, because I know there’s 17 already a water issue and drainage there. Just from having to…seeing the girls in their very 18 attractive galoshes going through that. And, I was born in Fort Collins and I’ve been raised here, 19 and I know that when the…we had a building boom here in the 80’s and 90’s. Fort Collins went 20 to great pains to not just be a city, a pretty city, but a community. And, I think that the reputation 21 of our community has made us what we are today. It would be a shame to pock-mark our 22 community with large buildings in the interest of profit and throw the baby out with the 23 bathwater and then have this…have our…you know, lose our reputation for what we have built 24 for so many years. I don’t think that’s necessary. I think we can go forward. We do need to 25 continue to grow, but we can do it rationally. And, let’s see…that’s what I have to say. Thank 26 you. 27 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you Ms. Peters. Anyone else in this first section? I guess we’re 28 moving to the second section. 29 MS. JOYCE PRATT: My name’s Joyce Pratt, and I was here last time, and I own 30 property and am on the board for Campus West Condominium. And, after talking to some of our 31 members, we are concerned about the noise issues and violations of densities in that area. We 32 have several graduate students that live in our residences, and part of the reason they like it is 33 because it is close to campus, and, for the most part, it has stayed relatively quiet. There are 34 some concerns when the sororities and fraternities have the rush, but that only happens 35 occasionally. So…and then the parking issue, you know, overflowing into our parking area. We 36 don’t have a permit system at all, and we don’t want to have to go to one. And, so that’s what 37 we would like to address. 1 MR. LOPEZ: Joyce, what was your last name again, and your address? 2 MS. PRATT: Pratt. 3 MR. LOPEZ: Pratt? Okay. 4 MS. PRATT: Yes. 5 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, is there anyone else in this center section or the right section? It 6 looks like we have just two sides. We’ll go back to the left section here. 7 MR. DAVID BOLTHROP: Good evening, my name is David Bolthrop and I own two 8 condos in the Sunstone units, one in Building A and one in Building C. I use these primarily as 9 housing for my children who are attending CSU. My son is a senior this year, he’s in Building 10 C, and my youngest daughter will be a freshman this fall, she’ll be staying in Building A. My 11 main concern echoes the shadowing problem, and mainly it’s safety. I agree that the parking lot 12 and the sidewalk areas will be in shadow most of the entire winter. This is going to turn into an 13 ice rink in there. It’s going to be not safe walking in and out and, if it gets onto the stairwells at 14 all, it’s just going to compound that problem. I have a couple questions for the applicant. One 15 concerns the parking garage. Is there any plans to make that into any kind of public parking? If 16 they only rent out three hundred of the four hundred and fifty-four units, or four hundred and 17 forty-five units now that they’ve reduced it by nine, are they going to try to make a public 18 parking for the remaining hundred a fifty units, a day, or monthly, or weekly, or whatever. 19 Primarily, that’s because this is a two-lane road, Plum is, and, like the applicant mentioned in 20 their last meeting, this is an arterial feeder street onto the CSU campus. And, by…if you try to 21 introduce that much additional traffic in that area, it’s just going to become a mess. 22 Second concern I had with the parking garage was, I don’t think it’s big enough for the 23 number of residents in this proposed unit. Alright, if you take The Grove, for example, which is 24 another housing development that’s taking place over of Centre and Rolland Park. It’s similar in 25 size, about six hundred and twelve units, but they have over six hundred parking spaces, almost 26 one to one. This development is more, three units…two parking spaces for every three people 27 staying in the unit, in the complex. So, even if you…you know, worst case you have fifty to a 28 hundred cars extra that are left over, that have no place to park, that’s just going to spill out onto 29 the street, which is already full. You drive over there any evening and there’s no parking places 30 on the street. 31 I guess, finally, I would just wrap up and say, my main objection is just the sheer scale of 32 the building itself. I don’t feel it fits with the neighborhood plan. The density, putting that many 33 people in basically a half a square block area, just…I think will ruin the quality of life in the 34 neighborhood, and destroy the property values of the surrounding buildings. Thank you Mr. 35 Lopez. 1 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. Yes, sir, step right up. 2 MR. MATT LLOYD: Sorry to bring you back over here. My name is Matt Lloyd, I live in Unit D. I just wanted to point out real quickly that in the July 20 th 3 of 2011 meeting, I 4 submitted the meeting minutes to you, but the Transportation Advisory Board to the City 5 Council discussed the problems that already occur on Plum Street with the bicycles. So, I just 6 wanted to make sure that was on record. Basically, as he says, the rationale is that there is a very 7 high cyclist volume and no right turn lane. We wanted to avoid a potential clash. And then the 8 other gentleman says there’s already one reported right hook crash. In theory, you’re doubling 9 the number of people that are going to be there, more traffic problems. I also wanted to just put 10 on the record that I wanted to take a bunch of photos of the parking situation as it already stands. 11 I took a bunch of photos on my iPhone tonight. I figured I’d choose a random event, such as 12 tonight, and I just…I’ll email those to Ted, but that’s all I have. 13 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, did you send the photos, or…? 14 MR. LLOYD: Yeah, I’ll email them to you. 15 MR. LOPEZ: Okay. 16 MR. LLOYD: Thanks. 17 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you Mr. Lloyd. Is there anyone else in this left…this section here? 18 Are you getting up to talk? Again? 19 MS. WOOSTER-JACKSON: Mr. Lopez, may I take a second real quick turn here, 20 because a point was raised about the privacy issues that I think that I need to address on behalf of 21 the sorority house. And, by the way, I’m Pat Wooster-Jackson and I am a national officer for 22 Zeta Tau Alpha. And, the girls that live in that house…the house is not air conditioned. The 23 first floor is, but the dorm rooms where they live are not. So, what that means is windows are 24 open, shades are open. I…you know, I didn’t bring this up because I didn’t…I don’t know why I 25 didn’t, but I would like to make the point that, for a safety and security issue, having that five- 26 car, that five-story garage right…excuse me, condominium, apartment complex, right behind us, 27 is going to afford people to look directly into the girls’ bedrooms. And, that is a concern for us 28 as well. Thank you. 29 MR. LOPEZ: Anyone else in this section over here? We got you all. There we go. Step 30 right up. 31 MR. ANDREW BARNES: Hi Mr. Lopez, I’m Andrew Barnes. I own a unit in Building 32 B. Also own a house on the south side of Elizabeth and have been a homeowner here for about 33 five years and love Fort Collins. But, yeah, if you’re in the area to golf or whatever one here 34 said, it’s also…it’s already very dense during the school year. I’m not in school, but if you’re in 35 the area you understand, people who come to the college from other areas come to drive there, 1 and I know that’s one reason for building this. I’m not opposed to development closer to the 2 college, but with their proposed parking structure and Plum Street, which he mentioned, the main 3 artery into the college there. The traffic would just be insane I think. Along those lines, also, 4 one thing Tim brought up was the parking garage directly borders Sunstone property, and, yeah, 5 some sort of screening or something. Back in 2004, there was a riot in the exact same area and, 6 primarily college students are going to be living in this and now it’s fairly quiet for most of the 7 year. But, I think, you know, injecting six hundred people into that one area is going to be very 8 concerning and a lot of potential for hazards to our property. Everything else that I have concern 9 for has been touched on by everyone else here, so thank you. 10 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I thank you for your brevity. But, I will make a note that you share 11 many of the other concerns, too. Okay, is there anyone else in this section over here, to my left? 12 I think we’ve almost heard from everyone. Okay, in the other section? Yes, sir, please step right 13 up. 14 MR. LLOYD WALKER: Good evening, my name is Lloyd Walker. I was involved with 15 the development of the West Central Neighborhood Plan, so I’m pretty familiar with the issues in 16 this area, and the surrounding West Central Neighborhood, which covers…this is sort of the 17 northern edge of that. And I, you know, I understand what people are saying about specifics. I’d 18 like to give a little more contextual issues in terms of you know, how this fits in the community 19 and so forth. And, basically, I support this project because I think, ultimately, it is a benefit to 20 the community for a variety of reasons. In the West Central Neighborhood Plan, it stated that we 21 need more convenient, well-located high-density residential development with all the amenities 22 of state-of-the-art student housing. And, I think that this addresses that particular concern in the 23 West Central Neighborhood Plan. I think it’s a well-known fact that we are deficient in high- 24 density student housing. This area is also very underutilized. You look at it, and you know, 25 these are ranch-style houses that are being…that are going to be removed. And, so I think, given 26 the location, it’s a very underutilized site. And, I think certainly upgrades and makeovers would 27 be appropriate given the fact that Fort Collins has built out to its city limits, and now we’re going 28 to be looking more and more, almost exclusively, at infill and redevelopment. And so, in that 29 regard, when we talk about redevelopment, I think when you look at City Plan and the policies 30 and principles of City Plan, I think this is the kind of project that is envisioned for 31 redevelopment. And, particularly given the area it’s in. It was mentioned it’s in the Transit 32 Overlay zone…Overlay District, I mean, one of the things that really is driving the city on a lot 33 of fronts, is that we’ve got to provide alternative methods for getting people around than the 34 automobile. And, of course, this project, where it’s located, it’s going to facilitate walking and 35 biking given the nature of the residents and where they spend their day, which is, you know, 36 across Shields basically. So, it provides the opportunity to provide more housing that’s needed 37 without adding to a traffic load significantly, because of the opportunities for walking. And, it 38 should be noted that the provisions they’d had for bicycle use, in terms of, you know, facilities 39 that would promote bicycle use, they are far in excess of the Land Use Code standard. So, I 1 think that, you know, it’s also being developed as a silver LEED project, means it’s going to 2 address energy efficiency standards. They’re important now, they’re going to be increasingly 3 essential in maintaining our community in a sustainable fashion, so I think the fact that the 4 development is proposed is going to, you know, be highly energy efficient, is something that 5 should be considered in the broader context, as I say. And, I think it’s a kind of…again, 6 we’re…I appreciate the fact that we’ve got this kind of discussion going on, and these points that 7 have been brought up. And, I think, you know, as we work through a project like this, and as 8 we’re seeing more of these kinds of higher density projects, I think, you know, if we can…if we 9 can sort of sort out the issues and come up with a workable solution, I think it’ll serve as an 10 example of the type of redevelopment that our community expects to address our future needs. 11 And, the other thing, again, rather more contextual, is that we need more appropriate 12 student housing in our community, you know. We’ve had a policy, sort of a de facto policy, that 13 says that students are going to basically be living in single-family homes, and we’ve seen that 14 throughout the city, because there aren’t enough higher-density apartment buildings. 15 Interestingly enough, the single-family houses that were built near the campus, particularly to the 16 west, were originally built as affordable housing for CSU employees, and, of course, over time, 17 they have evolved into the place where a lot of our students live. And, I think what that’s done is 18 it’s taken away the opportunity for affordable housing for a broad range of citizens in Fort 19 Collins. You know, we talk about, well, we’ve got an affordable housing crisis, and, of course 20 affordable has different levels. But, I think that providing a more appropriate type of housing for 21 students in a higher-density apartment complex provides the opportunity to free up some of these 22 single-family houses that can reestablish the function of neighborhoods as family neighborhoods, 23 as affordable housing for a broad range of citizens; that provides more social stability. So, I 24 think that there’s a lot of things beyond just the, you know, some of the points that are 25 considered here, that I’d like to be given consideration as you make your decision. Thank you. 26 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, thank you very much Mr. Walker. Is there anyone else in this 27 section? 28 MR. DOUG BROBST: Good evening, my name is Doug Brobst. You’ll have to excuse 29 me, I didn’t realize we would have an opportunity to speak tonight so I didn’t have any real 30 prepared comments. But, as you’re probably aware, over the next ten years, it’s projected that 31 the student enrollment at CSU is going to grow approximately ten thousand students. Presently, 32 with the enrollment being at around twenty-six thousand or so, we’re having a real problem with 33 housing shortage around the campus area. What we’re…the present situation is that we’re 34 spreading out farther and farther…the housing for the students mainly dependent upon single 35 houses being bought up by investors and used for student housing. And, this just can’t continue. 36 I’ve been involved with the issue of student housing for about six or eight years now, and during 37 that time, the University has not been able to keep up on their own with the enrollment growth, 38 and our neighborhoods are just being overwhelmed, in many cases, by the business of rental 39 properties spreading to our neighborhoods. I’ve said it in the past, and something’s got to give. 1 Nobody likes to have…apparently nobody likes to have student housing in their neighborhood. 2 Every time that any development like this is proposed, it meets a great deal of opposition, but 3 this particular project seems to satisfy a lot of the needs for student housing. It’s close to 4 campus, as Lloyd just mentioned, it is silver LEED, so it’s going to be energy efficient. That’s 5 certainly a problem we have presently. Investors and landlords have no real incentive to make 6 the single-family dwellings that they purchase anywhere near silver LEED as far as energy 7 efficiency is concerned. The issue was brought up tonight about the traffic that would be added. 8 I think what you’ll find is it’ll be mostly walking and biking traffic, not going to be a lot of car 9 traffic, but it is good to see that they have the parking available there on site for those students 10 that care…choose to have an automobile. 11 I don’t know all the ins and outs of the Land Use Code; I’m going to leave that up to the 12 people of the City, such as Ted, to work those kind of details out. But, I certainly think they can 13 be worked out in this particular situation, and this will be a very good project for CSU and to 14 help out our neighborhoods. Thank you. 15 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. I think there was a gentleman over here that was 16 getting ready to stand up. 17 MR. BOB BRODIN: Good evening, sir. My name is Bob Brodin, I’m the president of 18 Sunstone One Condominium Association, that’s Building A and B, so it’s on the west side of the 19 Sunstone development there. I just…sorry, I got here a little bit late, had a long drive from down 20 south. I am a property owner as well as on the Board of Directors for the Association. 21 Our…we’ve had an opportunity within our Board of Directors recently to get together and…as 22 well as get a lot of our opinion from property owners. A high degree of concern about the 23 shading, increased costs around landscaping, snow and ice removal…all the things that I heard 24 mentioned earlier too. We’re…I personally am…would like to see a lot of development, a lot 25 more housing, that kind of thing. But, as the gentleman just mentioned, you know, suitable 26 designs and reasonable solutions in those things…in those cases that…and, the scale as 27 mentioned by a number of people tonight. The scale of this, it just dwarfs the…our buildings 28 and our lot to the north of it. If there was a way to alleviate some of the shadowing, alleviate 29 these concerns, then that would be great. But, so far, the economics I don’t think have driven 30 that way. I think that’s all I’ve got to say so thanks. 31 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from this section? Okay, I’m 32 going to return it to…staff, do you have any responses at this time? 33 MR. SHEPARD: No response. 34 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, then, the applicant? Ms. Ripley? 35 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, thank you, thank you for the opportunity to address some of those. 36 The first thing I’d like to talk about is…and, Brent, before you do that. I’m going to have him 1 pull up the sorority house. The sorority house didn’t come up at the last meeting, there were no 2 questions, no one ever contacted us, they didn’t come to the neighborhood meeting so, we hadn’t 3 used it. But, we did model it because we were curious, so we can show you that this evening. 4 And, maybe we’ll just do that first. So, there it is. Simplified a little bit, but the correct height 5 and shape and modeled from the drawings that we have. Brent, do you have a dimension for 6 how far away that building is from our building? 7 MR. COOPER: I can get it real quick. About sixty-one feet, eleven inches…sixty-two 8 feet. 9 MS. RIPLEY: So, you know, we were accused of using a narrow window. We only used 10 a narrow window to save time. We can take you through a hundred days, a hundred and fifty 11 days, three hundred and sixty-five days if you want. We’ve got all the data. So, maybe what we 12 should do, for starters, is just to go through the year, nine AM, and just watch what happens, and 13 then we’ll watch what happens at noon, and then we’ll watch what happens at three. And, it’ll 14 definitely get worse during the winter, and then during the summer, it’ll get better, and in 15 between it’ll be what it is. So, Brent, I’ll just let you talk. MR. COOPER: Okay, here’s nine o’clock on January 1 st 16 , February, March, April, May, 17 June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 18 MS. RIPLEY: So, you see in those three months, we start shadowing that building, but, 19 when you stretch it out, and I think that’s probably why the three month got…ended up in the 20 Code. But, it’s not total shade, even for the three months. Now, go twelve noon. 21 MR. COOPER: Okay, here’s twelve noon, starting in January, February, March, April, 22 May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. 23 MS. RIPLEY: And… 24 MR. COOPER: And, three? 25 MS. RIPLEY: Three. 26 MR. COOPER: Okay, three o’clock on January, February, March, April, May, June, July, 27 August, September, October, November, December. 28 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, I can’t dispute any of the numbers that they’re shadow study had. I 29 suspect if we compared notes and we got the building heights the same, our data would be the 30 same, because I trust that this gentleman got accurate data, and we got accurate data. Ours looks 31 different because we can show it a little differently, but I don’t think we disagree on facts, 32 necessarily. And, I don’t think we disagree that we will put some shadows on those buildings 33 during the winter. That’s a fact. But it’s also a fact that you can’t build what’s allowed in this 34 zone district…what’s actually encouraged in this zone district, to build five-story buildings and 1 high-density student housing without creating more shade. The…I take issue with…I think we 2 meet the test that we haven’t shaded the structures for three solid months, that you’ve got nine 3 months of the buildings not…of being mostly sunny. So, the parking lot is a different matter, but 4 it’s also covered by a different section of the Code. The shadow analysis doesn’t require you to 5 have a parking lot free of shadow, at all, not even if you had to comply with 3.2…whatever that 6 number was with the hypothetical twenty-five foot wall, because that hypothetical wall would 7 shade the parking lot. So, the Land Use Code didn’t…it doesn’t preclude that happening. So, 8 that’s just a matter of clarity. That section doesn’t even apply to us, and, if it did, it’s still many 9 many project do that, so, it’s unfortunate that we haven’t had a chance to talk to the neighbors. 10 We held two neighborhood meetings, we opened the door to discussion; we specifically wanted 11 to talk about interaction between the two properties. We took some extra time, we hoped that 12 we’d be able to talk to some representatives of the Homeowner’s Association between the last 13 hearing and this one, but they declined that until you made a decision. And, I guess I can 14 understand that, they’re hoping the project would be denied and…but, we do have some things 15 that we could offer if that were appropriate, if they were willing to come to the table and talk 16 with us. Can we take stories off the building? No. You know, can we just go away or make it a 17 three-story building that’s fifty feet from their property line? We can’t make those kind of 18 sweeping changes, but there are some things we can do, and we’d be happy to talk to anybody 19 who wants to meet with us about those things. 20 Let’s go back to talking about mass, scale, articulation…just one moment, if we could go 21 maybe to a plan view? And, then…plan view of the project…the rendering. Actually, let’s just 22 stay there for a second. Okay. Okay, get off of the model, go to there, stop. Okay. I just 23 wanted to point out that these buildings are articulated. That’s why you see smaller portions of 24 the building, and courtyards, and lots of ins and outs all around the buildings. The parking 25 garage has less of that than the others, but they all have, to a certain degree, much more 26 articulation than many buildings of this type and scale have. Now, let’s look at the perspective. 27 Yeah, and I think that shows too how the architect has tried very hard to break up the mass and 28 scale of the building by not having just one big block of a building, especially as it relates to 29 streetscapes in the neighborhood. And, yes, these buildings are a lot taller than the existing 30 buildings adjacent, but this whole area is slated for redevelopment and change over the years, 31 and this is what’s encouraged. I don’t…I don’t think it’s a downside, I think it’s going to be a 32 beautiful project, but, even if you thought the architecture wasn’t the right size, there are so 33 many other improvements in terms of detached sidewalks that…no sidewalks exist now. Kids 34 are fighting their way to campus with the bikes and the cars in the street. So, lighting and 35 landscaping, and just upgraded streetscapes all around this thing are going to make vast 36 improvements in this neighborhood. 37 Let’s go on to just parking…I’m not going to talk a lot about parking because we’ve 38 covered it. We’ve got way more than we’re required to by Code, but I did want to reiterate that 39 any student that owns a car is required to purchase a parking permit, has to park the car in the 1 garage. And, the response from the neighbors has always been, well, students will simply lie. 2 And, one of the safeguards we have is that the student and the parent both have to sign an 3 affidavit saying that they either don’t own a car and won’t have one, or that they do, and 4 therefore, they’ll purchase a permit. So, we kind of hope that parents and students don’t lie 5 together. We think there wouldn’t be much of that. I think maybe we could just have our civil 6 engineer address the drainage problem from the roof quickly? 7 MR. LOPEZ: Sure, before you move off parking, there was a question about whether you 8 would be using that as public parking if you were not able to sell, or get enough permits. 9 MS. RIPLEY: No, no intention to do whatsoever. It would be for people who live in the 10 development and their guests only. Okay. Nick? 11 MR. NICK HAAS: Nick Hass with Northern Engineering. I wanted to quickly address, I 12 think this woman’s comment on flood problems, particularly near the intersection of Plum and 13 Aster Street. It’s a known drainage deficiency in the city drainage system. This project has gone 14 through extensive efforts to not have any additional impact to that. While we won’t be entirely 15 fixing the city-wide stormwater issue there, we’ve integrated these multi-purpose planter boxes 16 that you can see on the rendering here. Not only do they provide seat walls and a nice 17 streetscape amenity, but they also mitigate stormwater. So, this project’s roof rain and snow 18 melt will be directed through those planter boxes then before draining back into the city storm 19 system. And, it’s all been reviewed by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department, and 20 there’ll be additional technical details at final design. But, it has been seriously thought about in 21 part of the proposed plan, and the parking garage also will have a large stormwater vault in it for 22 similar purposes, so as not to increase the existing drainage situation at Plum and Aster Street. 23 MR. LOPEZ: Thank you. 24 MS. RIPLEY: Was there anything else that we should be addressing that you took note of 25 that I haven’t? I just wanted to reiterate that we did extend an invitation to talk about these 26 things at the neighborhood…those email responses are in the record. 27 You know, I understand the concern about the height and the shadowing. It’s different, 28 there’s tradeoffs when a city wants to become more urban and more dense. It’s the right 29 direction to go because of the proximity to campus and the number of students we have to house. 30 It’s not easy, but this client has done his very best to try to accommodate the neighborhood, even 31 more than, I believe, the Code would require. But, we hope to be able to continue a relationship 32 with the neighborhood, to keep talking about it as we go forward. 33 MR. LOPEZ: Going through my notes, here, I know there was some comments made 34 about potentially screening the parking…the windows along the parking to deter or prevent 35 objects from being thrown. 1 MS. RIPLEY: From flying out…the beer bottles. We actually did talk about that as the 2 comment came up, and that’s one of the kinds of things that we could talk about doing with the 3 neighborhood. Our client would be willing to look into that. 4 MR. LOPEZ: I do remember you talking about the height of the walls in terms of 5 mitigating noise… 6 MS. RIPLEY: Right, all of the garage levels have parapet walls that are tall enough to 7 screen headlights as well as bounce back the sound of any wheels, and then they would have 8 people that area on site to monitor anybody who drove inappropriately in the parking garage…to 9 monitor that. 10 MR. LOPEZ: Yeah, if you want to comment on the trees again. 11 MS. RIPLEY: You know, the trees are, as Tim…his long, his three-page response to…is 12 it Mr. Erickson? Covers it really well, I had a chance to read it before coming over here tonight, 13 just skimming it really. But, he points out in there that trees actually don’t have to have direct 14 sunlight. They do need to have light, but there are trees that grow under the shade of other 15 trees…I think most of that experience that in forests. So, it does occur. Is it optimal? No, it’s 16 probably not optimal, but they will grow. We’re committed to seeing that they do. If a tree 17 should die, it would have to be replaced, per Code. He mentioned that it needed more room, that 18 often trees are placed in places where they don’t have enough root space. And, I think what that 19 person was probably referring to is when we’re trying to grow trees in tree grates in our 20 downtown urban areas, and those trees actually grow, even though their root systems are fairly 21 confined. And, in this case, it’s nothing even close to that, because we have eight and a half feet 22 of open area for those roots, and no hardscape on top of them. So, comparatively to the streets 23 on the south side that are all along the street, these trees have more root space and more 24 opportunity for rain water. But, obviously, they’ll be irrigated and well cared for. 25 MR. LOPEZ: Going through my notes, I think I have enough information. 26 MS. RIPLEY: Okay, thank you, and again, thank you for the continuation. We really 27 appreciate it. 28 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I’ll give you one last chance, Ted, if you have anything to add. 29 MR. SHEPARD: No, I do not. 30 MR. LOPEZ: Okay, I want to thank everyone for returning tonight for the continuance of 31 this hearing. As I stated originally, I will take your information, the documents, everything 32 that’s been submitted and is part of the record, and render a decision within ten working days. 33 It’ll be a written decision, so if you’ve signed up, you will get a copy. And, I want to thank you 34 very much again for coming back and making yourself heard. This is concluded. ATTACHMENT 9 Site Visit Summary July 10, 2012 1 The District at Campus West City Council Site Inspection July 10, 2012 Members of City Council were invited to inspect the site of the proposed multi- family development referred to as The District at Campus West Project Development Plan in conjunction with two appeals of the Hearing Officer’s decision. City Council is scheduled to consider the appeals at their July 17, 2012 meeting. City Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson Councilmember Ben Manvel Councilmember Wade Troxell City Staff Present: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Laurie Kadrich, C.D.N.S. Director Ted Shepard, Chief Planner The site inspection began at 3:30 p.m. along West Plum Street near the intersection of City Park Avenue. Staff pointed out that there will be three buildings aligned along Plum Street between City Park Avenue on the west and Aster Street on the east. Buildings are number sequentially from west to east. The site presently contains 16 one-story houses served, from west to east, by Daisy, Columbine, Bluebell and Aster Streets. All sixteen houses would be demolished. Two streets, Daisy and Columbine, would be vacated. Plum Street would be widened and continue to feature on-street bike lanes. The existing attached curb and gutter would be replaced by a parkway with street trees and a detached sidewalk that is wider than what is required. A westbound bus pull-in lane would be provided for Transfort. Building One is a long rectangular building which would be five stories in height along the south then taper down to four stories along the north. This lowering is intended to minimize shadowing to the north. This building contains a one-story component along Plum which includes the pool, clubhouse, leasing office and fitness center. Building One would require the vacation of Daisy Street. 2 Building Two would include the five-level parking garage and would be include apartments facing Plum Street. Access to the garage would be from a private drive, not from Plum Street. This building would require the vacation of Columbine Street. Bluebell Street would divide Buildings Two and Three. Building Three would be five stories in height. Aster Street forms the eastern boundary of the project. Councilmembers walked the site from west to east along Plum Street and then walked north along Bluebell Street to the north property line. The tour then turned west and walked through the Sunstone Village parking lot located between The District’s north property line and the existing Sunstone Village condominiums. A Councilmember asked what was the zoning on the site and how long has this zoning been in place? Staff answered that the zoning is C-C, Community Commercial and has been in place since the adoption of City Plan in March of 1997. A Councilmember asked about the status of the existing trees. Staff replied that the existing trees have been inspected and evaluated by the City Forester and a mitigation schedule has been made a part of the Landscape Plan. Nuisance trees such as Siberian Elm and Russian Olive do not have a mitigation factor. A Councilmember asked, approximately, how many trees will be replaced. Staff stated that about 120 trees will be removed and replaced by about 128 new trees. A Councilmember asked if the healthy shade tree at the immediate corner of Plum and Bluebell would remain and the answer was yes. A question was asked on which side of the shared property line between The District and the condos is the existing fence. In reply, the fence is north of the shared property line. Will the developer be building a new fence? Yes. Would there be an opening in the fence for pedestrians? Yes. What would the fence look like? It would be six feet high, solid and constructed out of metal pickets for durability. A question was asked if a traffic study had been done for the project. In reply, a Transportation Impact Study was submitted by the developer’s consultant and evaluated by the City’s traffic engineer and the project is feasible from a traffic 3 engineering standpoint. A significant number of trips are captured by alternative modes due to proximity to campus. Regarding the number of parking spaces, is there a sufficient amount of parking? Staff responded that the project provides 495 vehicle parking spaces and 332 bicycle parking spaces both of which exceed minimum requirements which are not applicable since the project is located within the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay zone. Would the new buildings be L.E.E.D. certified? Staff does not know the answer at this time. But would the new buildings be subject to the City’s new Green Energy Code? Yes. In general, are there any environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of this site? Staff replied that there are no environmental impacts. Were any Modifications of Standard granted by the Hearing Officer? Staff responded that a Modification to the minimum required setbacks from public streets for Building Three was granted. The result of the Modification was that all three buildings would be uniformly aligned in relation to Plum Street. This is because Buildings One and Two are mixed-use buildings and subject to the build-to line requirement in contrast with Building Three which is not mixed-use and subject to the minimum setback requirement. Aligning all three buildings in a consistent manner along Plum Street was determined to be equal to or better than having Building Three set further back than Buildings One and Two. In general, what the issues related to the two appeals? Broadly speaking, the issues on appeal pertain to shadowing and building compatibility. The tour concluded at about 4:00 p.m. back at the point of beginning after a circumnavigation of the site. ATTACHMENT 10 Staff Powerpoint presentation to Council July 17, 2012 1 1 The District at Campus West July 17, 2012 Two Appeals of the Hearing Officer’s May 7, 2012 decision to approve The District at Campus West Project Development Plan •ZTA Appeal • Meyer Appeal 2 Aerial Map 2 3 Project Facts • 193 dwelling units •3.34 acres • Redevelopment of 16 existing houses • Between Aster Street and City Park Avenue • Vacation of two public streets ‐ Columbine and Daisy • Bluebell Drive would connect to Baystone Drive •Three new buildings • Includes 5‐level parking structure • Clubhouse, pool, computer lab, fitness center 4 Unit and Parking Detail •28 two‐bedroom (14%) •42 three‐bedroom (22%) • 123 four‐bedroom (64%). • Total of 674 bedrooms •Each bedroom leased individually • 495 off‐street parking spaces • 332 bicycle parking spaces 3 5 • Community Commercial zone • Allows a maximum height of five stories • Building One –5 stories – stepping down to 4‐stories on the north side • Building Two –5 level parking structure & 3‐story residential component • Building Three –5 stories Zoning 6 • First Neighborhood Meeting – August 31, 2011 •Project submitted –January 25, 2012 •Second Neighborhood Meeting –March 7, 2012 • First Public Hearing –April 9th •Second Public Hearing –April 23rd •Hearing Officer’s Decision –May 7th •ZTA Appeal –May 21st • Meyer Amended Appeal –May 29th Chronology 4 7 • Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: • Sections 3.2.3(A) –Access, Orientation, Shading ‐ Purpose “It is the City's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar energy systems for heating air and water in homes and businesses, as long as natural topography, soil or other subsurface conditions or other natural conditions peculiar to the site are preserved. While the use of solar energy systems is optional, the right to solar access is protected. Solar collectors require access to available sunshine during the entire year, including between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21, when the longest shadows occur. Additionally, a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan elements do not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon adjacent property owners. Thus, standards are set forth to evaluate the potential impact of shade caused by buildings, structures and trees.” ZTA –– First Allegation 8 ZTA –– First Allegation Continued •Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: •Section 3.2.3(D) – Shading “The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty‐five‐foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high‐density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial.” 5 9 ZTA –– Second Allegation Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: Section 3.5.1(B) “Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and outdoor spaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and door patterns, and/or the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stone masonry shall be considered compatible with wood framing and other materials.” 10 Meyer Appeal –– First Allegation Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: Section 3.2.3(D) – Shading versus Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. –Light and Shadow Shading “The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum extent feasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty‐five‐foot hypothetical wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following high‐density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial.” 6 11 Meyer –– First Allegation Continued •Light and Shadow “Buildings or structures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or gardens for more than three (3) months of the year. Techniques to reduce the shadow impacts of a building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning of a structure on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or redesigning a building or structure’s shape.” 12 Meyer Appeal –– Second Allegation • Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: • Section 3.5.1(D) –Privacy “Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.” 7 13 • Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1. –Views “A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunity for, and quality of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Techniques to preserve views may include, but are not limited to, reducing building or structure mass, changing the orientation of buildings and increasing open space setbacks.” Meyer Appeal –– Third Allegation 14 • Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code: – Section 3.2.3(A) –Solar Access, Orientation, Shading –Purpose Statement – Section 3.2.3(D) – Shading – Section 3.5.1(B) – Building and Project Compatibility – Architectural Character – Section 3.5.1(C) – Building and Project Compatibility – Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale – Section 3.5.1(D) – Building and Project Compatibility –Privacy Considerations – Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1. –Building Height Review –Views Question Council Needs to Address: DATE: July 17, 2012 STAFF: Ted Shepard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 41 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, makes a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2012 annual update of the Land Use Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - June 5, 2012 (w/o attachments) 2. Powerpoint presentation COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: June 5, 2012 STAFF: Ted Shepard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has identified a variety of proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2012 annual update of the Land Use Code. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last update. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and “user-friendliness” of the Code. The proposed revisions were considered by the Planning and Zoning Board at its May 17, 2012 regular meeting. All but one of the proposed revisions included in the Ordinance have received unanimous approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. For Bicycle Parking, the Board voted 4 – 2 to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. (One member refrained from participating due to a conflict of interest.) FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Code revision number 909 provides greater opportunities for craft brewers, distillers and vintners to set up shop in the community by permitting their trade in a wider variety of zone districts, subject to maximum thresholds. This change allows the Land Use Code to respond to changing trends and conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Code revision number 915 requires a higher number of bicycle parking spaces for most new residential and commercial land uses. Additionally, there are new qualitative standards associated with increased number of spaces. This change reflects Council’s direction during its deliberations of a recent appeal of a student-oriented multi-family project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On May 17, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code and took the following action(s): 1. For all the changes with the exception of Bicycle Parking, the Board voted 7 – 0 to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. 2. For Bicycle Parking, the Board voted 4 – 2 to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council. (One member refrained from participating due to a conflict of interest.) COPY COPY COPY COPY June 5, 2012 -2- ITEM 15 For the four members voting in the affirmative, the proposed revision is found to be an important step in encouraging multi-modes of travel and works in tandem with Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). Disconnecting the quantity from vehicle parking makes sense and fixes a glitch in the TOD Overlay where there is no minimum required vehicle parking. The change will place an emphasis on providing bicycle infrastructure on a citywide basis and the alternative compliance provision allows for some flexibility to respond to unforeseen circumstances. For the two members voting in the negative, concern was expressed that the proposed revision goes too far and that in our community, bicycle usage does not need any encouragement. The requirements are not needed and would be too onerous on small businesses. The revision does not account for bicyclists to simply adapt to the urban environment and crosses a line and becomes an example of social engineering. The change is too regulatory and that bicycle parking, in general, can be satisfied by the laws of supply and demand. PUBLIC OUTREACH Item 909 – Amend Article 4 – Permitted Uses and Article 5 – Definitions to create definitions for micro – brewery/winery/distillery, place into 11 zone districts and fix the Code to allow bar/tavern in the CG zone. For Item 909, multiple contacts were made with local micro-brewers, micro-vintners and micro-distillers, as well as with their respective trade associations, liquor licensing officials, retailers and the State Department of Agriculture. Based on feedback from these various entities, the proposed code language has been constructed so that it conforms to standard industry practices and complies with applicable local and state statutes. Item 915 – Amend 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities – to increase the minimum required number, add an Alternative Compliance provision, add qualitative improvements, and add two definitions for enclosed and outdoor racks. For Item 915, the concept of introducing both quantitative and qualitative aspects to minimum required bike parking changes was discussed and refined in conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Board at four work sessions between February and May of this year. ATTACHMENTS 1. List of Land Use Code Issues 2. Summary report of all the issues 3. Cross-reference of the issues to the Ordinance section numbers 4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 17, 2012 1 1 Land Use Code Amendment, Bicycle Parking 2 What? Update to the Land Use Code that changes the current code by updating: ‐ How bicycle parking requirements are calculated ‐ The type of bicycle parking required ATTACHMENT 2 2 3 Why? Out of date requirements that are: ‐ Tied to automobile parking ‐ Requires/results in very little bicycle parking in the downtown ‐ Does not provide for long term bicycle parking 4 What’s New? ‐ Required bicycle parking will be tied to type of land use ‐ Introduces two types of bicycle parking, fixed and enclosed 3 5 How was this developed? ‐ Based on national best practices and guidance ‐ Modeled after other gold and platinum level bicycle friendly communities ‐ Modified specifically for Fort Collins based on feedback from staff, the City Attorneys office and the Planning and Zoning Board Example: Fixed 4 7 Example: Enclosed (within a hallway) 8 Example: Enclosed (within an entryway) 5 9 Example: Enclosed (bike room) 10 Example: Enclosed (covered facility) 6 11 Impact? ‐ Provides flexibility in how to comply ‐ The amount of physical space compared to automobile parking is minor ‐ Encourages bicycle ridership by providing critical end of trip infrastructure, which is an important element to achieve the communities goals of bicycle mode share and moving towards platinum level 1 ORDINANCE NO. 051, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 051, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed the Land Use Code and identified and explored various issues related to the Land Use Code and have made recommendations to the Council regarding such issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interest of the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 1.5.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.5.1 Continuation of Use (A) A nonconforming use may be continued and a nonconforming building or structure may continue to be occupied or used, except as otherwise provided in this Division as long as such use complies with the following limitations: (1) The hours of operation of a nonconforming use may not be extended into the hours between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. (2) The nonconforming use shall not be converted from a seasonal to a multi- seasonal operation. (3) Light intensity and hours of illumination shall not be changed except in compliance with the site lighting standards contained in Section 3.2.4 of this Code. (4) Any proposals for the addition of trash receptacles and/or the relocation of existing trash receptacles shall comply with the location and design standards in Sections 3.2.5 and 3.5.1(I) of this Code. 2 (5) Outdoor storage areas shall not be expanded, nor shall they be relocated closer to any adjoining residential use. Section 2. That Section 1.6.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.6.2 Continuation of Use (A) An existing limited permitted use may be continued except as otherwise provided in this Division as long as such use complies with the following limitations: (1) The hours of operation of a nonconforming use may not be extended into the hours between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. (2) The nonconforming use shall not be converted from a seasonal to a multi- seasonal operation. (3) Light intensity and hours of illumination shall not be changed except in compliance with the site lighting standards contained in Section 3.2.4 of this Code. (4) Any proposals for the addition of trash receptacles and/or the relocation of existing trash receptacles shall comply with the location and design standards in Sections 3.2.5 and 3.5.1(I) of this Code. (5) Outdoor storage areas shall not be expanded, nor shall they be relocated closer to any adjoining residential use. Section 3. That Section 2.1.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1.4 Effect of Development Application Approval . . . (C) Criteria. In considering whether to approve any application for abandonment pursuant to this Section, the appropriate decision maker shall be governed by the following criteria: (1) The application shall not be approved if, in so approving, any portion of the property remains developed or to be developed in accordance with the previously approved development plan and, because of the abandonment, such remaining parcel of property would no longer qualify for development approval pursuant to either the standards and requirements of the most current version of this Land Use Code or, if such remaining parcel of property was not reviewed and approved under this Land Use Code, then the standards and requirements of the Transitional Land Use Regulations dated August 1997, on file in the office of the City Clerk shall apply. 3 . . . Section 4. That Section 2.2.6(D) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Supplemental Notice Requirements. Minimum Notice Radius Sign Size All developments except as described below. 800 feet 12 square feet Developments proposing more than fifty (50) and less than one hundred (100) single-family or two- family lots or dwelling units. 800 feet 12 square feet Developments proposing more than twenty-five (25) and less than one hundred (100) multi-family dwelling units. 800 feet 12 square feet Nonresidential developments containing more than twenty-five thousand (25,000) and less than fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of floor area. 800 feet 12 square feet Developments proposing one hundred (100) or more single-family or two-family lots or dwelling units. 1,000 feet 12 square feet Developments proposing one hundred (100) or more multi-family dwelling units. 1,000 feet 12 square feet Nonresidential developments containing fifty thou- sand (50,000) or more square feet of floor area. 1,000 feet 12 square feet Nonresidential developments which propose land uses or activities which, in the judgment of the Director, create community or regional impacts. 1,000 feet; plus, with respect to neighborhood meetings, publica- tion of a notice not less than seven (7) days prior to the meet- ing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 12 square feet Zonings and rezonings of forty (40) acres or less. 800 feet 12 square feet Zonings and rezonings of more than forty (40) acres. 1,000 feet 12 square feet Section 5. That Section 2.6.2(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.6.2 Applicability (A) A Stockpiling Permit shall be required for stockpiling soils or similar inorganic materials upon property that is not subject to the provisions of a valid Development Construction Permit. . . . Section 6. That Section 2.9.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4 2.9.2. Applicability Any and all amendments to the text of this Land Use Code and any and all changes to the Zoning Map must be processed in accordance with this Division. Only the Council may, after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, adopt an ordinance amending the text of this Land Use Code or the Zoning Map in accordance with the provisions of this Division. Section 7. That Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.9.4. Text and Map Amendment Review Procedures An amendment to the text of this Land Use Code or an amendment to the Zoning Map may be approved by the City Council by ordinance after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board. Any such proposed amendment shall be processed through a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board, which hearing shall be held either prior to City Council consideration of the proposed amendment or between first and second readings of the ordinance approving the amendment which will provide a recommendation to the City Council. (See Steps 1 though 12 below). The City Clerk shall cause the hearing by the City Council to be placed on the agenda for a future City Council meeting; and the public hearing before the City Council shall be held after at least fifteen (15) days' notice of the time, date and place of such hearing and the subject matter of the hearing and the nature of the proposed zoning change has been given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. On a proposal for a text amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board shall hold a hearing, which hearing shall be held either prior to City Council consideration of the proposed amendment or between first and second readings of the ordinance approving the amendment. Notice shall be given as required for ordinances pursuant to the City Charter. The City Council shall then approve, approve with conditions, or deny the amendment based on its consideration of the Staff Report, the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation and findings, and the evidence from the public hearings, and based on the amendment's compliance with the standards and conditions established in this section. (See Steps 8 and 9 below). . . . Section 8. That Section 3.2.1(J)(3)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (e) Sprinkler Performance Audit. 1. A sprinkler performance audit shall be performed by a landscape irrigation auditor who is independent of the installation contractor, and who is certified by the Irrigation Association (a nonprofit industry organization dedicated to promoting efficient irrigation). 5 Sprinkler systems that are designed and installed without turf areas are exempt from this requirement. 2. The audit shall include measurement of distribution uniformity. Minimum acceptable distribution uniformities shall be sixty (60) percent for sprayhead zones and seventy (70) percent for rotor zones. Sprinklerheads equipped with multi-stream rotary nozzles are considered rotors. . . . Section 9. That Section 3.2.2(C)(4) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (4) Bicycle Facilities. Commercial, industrial, civic, employment and multi- family residential uses shall provide bicycle facilities to meet the following standards: (a) Required Types of Bicycle Parking. To meet the minimum bicycle parking requirements, the development must provide required bicycle parking for both Enclosed Bicycle Parking and Fixed Bicycle Racks. (b) Bicycle Parking Space Requirements. The minimum bicycle parking requirements are set forth in the table below. For uses that are not specifically listed in the table, the number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be the number required for the most similar use listed. Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space Minimums % Enclosed Bicycle Parking / % Fixed Bicycle Racks Residential and Institutional Parking Requirements Multifamily Residential 1 per bedroom 80% / 20% Fraternity and Sorority Houses 1 per bed 80% / 20% Group Homes No Requirement n/a Recreational Uses 1/2,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0% / 100% Schools/Places of Worship or Assembly and Child Care Centers 1/3,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0% / 100% 6 Use Categories Bicycle Parking Space Minimums % Enclosed Bicycle Parking / % Fixed Bicycle Racks Small Scale Reception Centers in the U-E, Urban Estate District 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0% / 100% Extra Occupancy Rental Houses 1 per bed 0% / 100% Non-Residential Parking Requirements Restaurants a. Fast Food b. Standard 1.5/1,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 1/1,000 sq. ft. , minimum of 4 0% / 100% 0% / 100% Bars, Taverns, and Nightclubs 1/500 sq. ft., minimum of 4 0% / 100% Commercial Recreational 1/2,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20% / 80% Theaters 1 / 30 seats, minimum of 4 0% / 100% General Retail 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20% / 80% Personal Business and Service Shop 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20% / 80% Shopping Center 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20% / 80% Medical Office 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20% / 80% Financial Services 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20% / 80% Grocery Store, Supermarket 1/3,000 sq. ft. , minimum of 4 20% / 80% General Office 1/4,000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20% / 80% Vehicle Servicing & Maintenance 4 n/a Low Intensity Retail, Repair Service, Workshop and Custom Small Industry 4 n/a Lodging Establishments 1 per 4 units 80% / 20% Health Facilities 1/5000 sq. ft., minimum of 4 20% / 80% Industrial: Employee Parking 4 n/a (c) Alternative Compliance. Upon written request by the applicant, the decision maker may approve an alternative number of bicycle parking spaces that may be substituted in whole or in part for the number that would meet the standards of this Section. 1. Procedure. The alternative bicycle parking plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal requirements for bicycle parking plans. Each such plan shall clearly identify and 7 discuss the modifications and alternatives proposed and the ways in which the plan will better accomplish the purposes of this Section than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. 2. Review Criteria. To approve an alternative plan, the decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purposes of this Section equally well or better than would a plan that complies with the standards of this Section. In reviewing a request for an alternative number of bicycle parking spaces, the decision maker must consider whether the proposed land use will likely experience a lower than normal amount of bicycle traffic. Factors to be taken into consideration in making this determination may include, but need not be limited to: (i) the nature of the proposed use; (ii) its location in relation to existing or planned bicycle facilities or infrastructure; and (iii) its proximity to natural features that make the use of bicycles for access to the project infeasible. Section 10. That Section 3.3.3(A) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.3.3 Water Hazards (A) Lands which are subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainageway shall not be approved for development or redevelopment unless the following conditions are met: (1) the project development plan complies with the Basin Master Drainageway Plan as applicable. (2) the project development plan complies with the City's Stormwater Criteria Manual. . . . Section 11. That Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.3 Water Quality The development must comply with all applicable local, state and federal water quality standards, including, but not limited to, those regulating erosion and sedimentation, storm drainage and runoff control, and the treatment of solid wastes, and hazardous substances. Projects must be designed such that all runoff draining from development sites is treated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Stormwater control and treatment measures may include, but are not limited to: 8 ● grass buffers ● grass swales ● bioretention (rain garden or porous landscape detention) ● extended detention basins ● constructed wetlands ponds ● sand filters ● retention ponds ● constructed wetland channels ● permeable pavements Section 12. That Section 3.10.5(G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (G) Windows. Standard storefront window and door systems may be used as the predominant style of fenestration for non-residential or mixed-use buildings as long as the building facade visually establishes and defines the building stories and establishes human scale and proportion. Minimum glazing on pedestrian-oriented facades of buildings shall be sixty (60) percent on the ground floor and forty (40) percent on upper floors. Projects functionally unable to comply with this requirement shall mitigate such noncompliance with ample, enhanced architectural features such as a change in massing or materials, enhanced landscaping, trellises, arcades or shallow display window cases. Section 13. That the table contained in Section 4.16(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: . . . B. INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC Old City Center Canyon Avenue Civic Center . . . Micro-brewery/distillery/winery BDR Type 2 Type 2 . . . Section 14. That Section 4.17(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 13 which reads in its entirety as follows: 13. Micro-brewery/distillery/winery. Section 15. That Section 4.18(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 26 which reads in its entirety as follows: 26. Micro-brewery/distillery/winery. Section 16. That Section 4.19(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 25 which reads in its entirety as follows: 25. Micro-brewery/distillery/winery. 9 Section 17. That the table contained in Section 4.21(B) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use I-25/SH 392 (CAC) General Commercial District (C-G) A. RESIDENTIAL . . . Mixed-use dwellings Type 1 Type 1 Multi-family dwellings Not permitted Type 1 . . . B. INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC . . . Bars and taverns Not permitted Type 1 Micro-brewery/distillery/winery Not permitted Type 1 C. COMMERCIAL/RETAIL . . . Equipment rental establishments without outdoor storage Not permitted Type 1 Equipment, truck and trailer rental Not permitted Type 1 Exhibit hall Not permitted Type 2 Adult day/respite care centers Not permitted Type 2 Outdoor amphitheaters Not permitted Type 2 . . . Section 18. That Section 4.22(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 42 which reads in its entirety as follows: 42. Micro-brewery/distillery/winery. Section 19. That Section 4.23(B)(3)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 7 which reads in its entirety as follows: 7. Micro-brewery/distillery/winery. Section 20. That that table contained in Section 4.24(B)(2) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Land Use Riverside Area All Other Areas B. INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC . . . Micro-brewery/distillery/winery Type 1 Type 1 . . . 10 Section 21. That Section 4.27(B)(2)(c) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 13 which reads in its entirety as follows: 13. Micro-brewery/distillery/winery. Section 22. That Section 4.28(B)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph 17 which reads in its entirety as follows: 17. Micro-brewery/distillery/winery. Section 23. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Bicycle parking, enclosed” which reads in its entirety as follows: Bicycle parking, enclosed shall mean bicycle storage in lockers, a room or other space within a parking structure or other building, including, without limitation, a shed or carport. All types of enclosed bicycle storage must be easily accessible to entrances and walkways, secure, lighted and protected from the weather. Each storage space shall provide a minimum of six (6) square feet in area. The storage space shall not impede fire exits or be located so that parked bicycles interfere with public access. Section 24. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Bicycle parking, fixed” which reads in its entirety as follows: Bicycle parking, fixed shall mean bicycle parking that allows the bicycle frame and both wheels to be securely locked to the parking structure. The structure shall be of permanent construction such as heavy gauge tubular steel with angle bars permanently attached to the pavement foundation. Fixed bicycle parking facilities shall be at least two (2) feet in width and five and one-half (5½) feet in length, with additional back-out or maneuvering space of at least five (5) feet. Section 25. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Micro-brewery” which reads in its entirety as follows: Micro-brewery shall mean a facility that produces no more than fifteen thousand (15,000) barrels per year of fermented malt beverages on site and shall include a taproom in which guests/customers may sample the product. Section. 26. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Micro-distillery” which reads in its entirety as follows: Micro-distillery shall mean a facility that produces no more than fifteen thousand (15,000) gallons per year of spirituous beverages on site and shall include a tasting room in which guests/customers may sample the product. Section 27. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Micro-winery” which reads in its entirety as follows: 11 Micro-winery shall mean a facility that produces no more than one hundred thousand (100,000) gallons per year of vinous beverages on site and shall include a tasting room in which guests/customers may sample the product. Section 28. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Stockpiling” which reads in its entirety as follows: Stockpiling shall mean the act by which soil or similar inorganic material to be used in connection with anticipated development on such parcel of property is deposited on such property. The stockpiling of material is intended to be temporary in terms of the appearance, shape and grade of the material. Stockpiling shall not include activities such as the grading, leveling, or compaction of the deposited material or the surrounding ground. Stockpiling shall also not include residential landscaping activities. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 5th day of June, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk R JACKSON AVE SCOTT AVE S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE BLUEBELL ST C O O K D R SCOTT AVE CANYON AVE HOME R D R LEESDALE CT S B RY A N A V E MANTZ PL S WHITCOMB ST W MULBERRY ST S BRYAN AVE M ERIDIA N AVE E C O Y D R W C O Y DR W PLUM ST ORCHARD PL CRESTMORE PL BIRCH ST AR M STRO N G AVE WAGNER DR S WHITCOMB ST DEL NORTE PL BIRCH ST S LOOMIS AVE S GRANT AVE S BRYAN AVE W PLUM ST LAKESIDE AVE MERIDIAN AVE WESTVIEW AVE MOBY DR CONS T I T U T I O N A V E S BRYAN A V E S GRANT AVE S LOOMIS AVE W ELIZABETH ST CITY PARK AVE UNIVERSITY AVE CRESTMORE PL W ELI ZABETH ST UNIVERSITY AVE W PLUM ST The District at Campus West CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: July 06, 2012 Scale 1:2,400 © 0 100 200 300 400 Feet The District at Campus West Parcels Community Commercial U LBERRY ST E COUNTY ROAD 38 E COUNTY ROAD 32 E VINE DR E COUNTY ROAD 48 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR IN T ERSTATE 25 STRAUSS CABIN RD E COUNTY ROAD 52 E P R OSPECT RD N US HIGHWAY 287 C ARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 KE CHTER RD 9TH ST COUN TY ROAD 54G S SHIELDS ST W HORSETOOTH RD W MULBERRY ST N T A FT H I LL R D S COUNTY ROA D 7 N COUNTY ROAD 11 S TAFT HILL RD N TIMBERLINE RD N COUNTY ROAD 5 N LEMAY AVE E LI N COLN AVE W DOUGLAS RD MAIN ST E DOUGLAS RD LAPORTE AVE W DRAKE RD W VINE DR W TRILBY RD E TRILBY RD E COUNTY ROAD 54 N COUNTY ROAD 9 E HORSETOOTH RD W WILLOX LN E DR A KE RD N COUNTY ROAD 17 W HARMONY RD S COUNTY ROAD 11 W PROSPECT RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 COUNTRY CLUB RD E WILL O X L N COUN T Y ROAD 42C S SUMMI T VIEW DR E COUNTY ROA D 30 S COUNTY ROAD 19 W COUNTY ROAD 38E E HARMONY R D S TIMBERLINE RD S LEMAY AVE ZIEGLER RD N COLLEGE AVE S C O UNTY R O A D 23 N SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE TERR Y L A K E RD S OVERLAND TRL RIVERSIDE AVE N OVERLAND TRL G R E G ORY RD S CE N TENNIAL DR City RedistrictingCollins of Fort - Option 5 CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: July 09, 2012 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale360 1:63, © Redistricting Option 5 Mayor - Keren Weitkunat District 1 - Ben Manvel District 2 - Lisa Poppaw District 3 - Aislinn Kottwitz District 4 - Wade Troxell District 5 - Kelly Ohlson District 6 - Gerry Horak Redistricting Calculations District Population Percentage of Ideal Percentage Change from Ideal Absolute Value 1 23534 98.07% -1.93% 2 25132 104.73% 4.73% 3 25205 105.03% 5.03% 4 22878 95.33% -4.67% 5 22886 95.37% -4.63% 6 24353 101.48% 1.48% Total Population 143988 23998 Lowest -4.67% 4.67% Highest 5.03% 5.03% 9.70% Ideal = Total divided by number of districts Maximum deviation = sum of Absolute Value of both the highest and lowest population districts Precinct Precinct 11 58 moved moved from from District District 1 5 to to 2.6. Precinct 69 moved from District 6 to 1. Websitefor Scan URL N COLN AVE W DOUGLAS RD MAIN ST E DOUGLAS RD LAPORTE AVE W DRAKE RD W VINE DR W TRILBY RD E TRILBY RD E COUNTY ROAD 54 N COUNTY ROAD 9 E HORSETOOTH RD W WILLOX LN E DR A KE RD N COUNTY ROAD 17 W HARMONY RD S COUNTY ROAD 11 W PROSPECT RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 COUNTRY CLUB RD E WILL O X L N COUN T Y ROAD 42C S SUMMI T VIEW DR E COUNTY ROA D 30 S COUNTY ROAD 19 W COUNTY ROAD 38E E HARMONY R D S TIMBERLINE RD S LEMAY AVE ZIEGLER RD N COLLEGE AVE S C O UNTY R O A D 23 N SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE TERR Y L A K E RD S OVERLAND TRL RIVERSIDE AVE N OVERLAND TRL G R E G ORY RD S CE N TENNIAL DR 38 36 37 34 40 41 35 39 32 42 27 31 29 30 28 43 25 44 45 21 22 46 23 24 47 48 49 50 18 19 20 8 16 17 52 51 53 14 15 11 54 56 12 55 57 13 59 58 60 10 9 64 7 61 62 63 65 6 66 4 67 69 68 70 2 3 72 33 26 5 1 71 City RedistrictingCollins of Fort - Option 4 CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: July 09, 2012 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale360 1:63, © Redistricting Option 4 Mayor - Keren Weitkunat District 1 - Ben Manvel District 2 - Lisa Poppaw District 3 - Aislinn Kottwitz District 4 - Wade Troxell District 5 - Kelly Ohlson District 6 - Gerry Horak Redistricting Calculations District Population Percentage of Ideal Percentage Change from Ideal Absolute Value 1 24049 100.21% 0.21% 2 24194 100.82% 0.82% 3 25205 105.03% 5.03% 4 22878 95.33% -4.67% 5 24537 102.25% 2.25% 6 23125 96.36% -3.64% Total Population 143988 23998 Lowest -4.67% 4.67% Highest 5.03% 5.03% 9.70% Ideal = Total divided by number of districts Maximum deviation = sum of Absolute Value of both the highest and lowest population districts Precinct 53 moved from District 5 to 2. Websitefor Scan URL U LBERRY ST E COUNTY ROAD 38 E COUNTY ROAD 32 E VINE DR E COUNTY ROAD 48 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR IN T ERSTATE 25 STRAUSS CABIN RD E COUNTY ROAD 52 E P R OSPECT RD C ARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 KE CHTER R D 9TH ST COUNTY ROAD 54G S SHIELDS ST W HORSETOOTH RD W MULBERRY ST N T A FT H I LL R D S COUNTY ROA D 7 N COUNTY ROAD 11 S TAFT HILL RD N TIMBERLINE RD N COUNTY ROAD 5 N LEMAY AVE E LI N COLN AVE W DOUGLAS RD MAIN ST E DOUGLAS RD LAPORTE AVE W DRAKE RD W VINE DR W TRILBY RD E TRILBY RD E COUNTY ROAD 54 N COUNTY ROAD 9 E HORSETOOTH RD W WILLOX LN E DR A KE RD N COUNTY ROAD 17 W HARMONY RD S COUNTY ROAD 11 W PROSPECT RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 COUNTRY CLUB RD E WILL O X L N COUN T Y ROAD 42C S SUMMI T VIEW DR E COUNTY ROA D 30 S COUNTY ROAD 19 W COUNTY ROAD 38E E HARMONY R D S TIMBERLINE RD S LEMAY AVE ZIEGLER RD N COLLEGE AVE S C OUNTY R O A D 23 N SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE TERR Y L A K E RD S OVERLAND TRL RIVERSIDE AVE N OVERLAND TRL G R E G ORY RD S CE N TENNIAL DR City RedistrictingCollins of Fort - Option 3 CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: June 19, 2012 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale360 1:63, © Redistricting Option 3 Mayor - Keren Weitkunat District 1 - Ben Manvel District 2 - Lisa Poppaw District 3 - Aislinn Kottwitz District 4 - Wade Troxell District 5 - Kelly Ohlson District 6 - Gerry Horak Redistricting Calculations District Population Percentage of Ideal Percentage Change from Ideal Absolute Value 1 24049 100.21% 0.21% 2 24242 101.02% 1.02% 3 23699 98.75% -1.25% 4 24858 103.58% 3.58% 5 23411 97.55% -2.45% 6 23729 98.88% -1.12% Total Population 143988 23998 Lowest -2.45% 2.45% Highest 3.58% 3.58% 6.03% Ideal = Total divided by number of districts Maximum deviation = sum of Absolute Value of both the highest and lowest population districts Precinct Precinct 60, 64 moved 61 and from 62 moved District from 5 to District 6. 6 to 5. Precinct Precinct 51 27 moved moved from from District District 5 3 to to 4 2. Websitefor Scan URL E MULBER R Y ST E COUNTY ROAD 38 E COUNTY ROAD 32 E VINE DR E COUNTY ROAD 48 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR IN T ERSTATE 25 STRAUSS CABIN RD E COUNTY ROAD 52 E P R OSPECT RD C ARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 N US HIGHWAY 287 KE CHTER RD 9TH ST COUNTY ROAD 54G S SHIELDS ST W HORSETOOTH RD W MULBERRY ST N T A FT H I LL R D S COUNTY ROA D 7 N COUNTY ROAD 11 S TAFT HILL RD N TIMBERLINE RD N COUNTY ROAD 5 N LEMAY AVE E LI N COLN AVE W DOUGLAS RD MAIN ST E DOUGLAS RD LAPORTE AVE W DRAKE RD W VINE DR W TRILBY RD E TRILBY RD E COUNTY ROAD 54 N COUNTY ROAD 9 E HORSETOOTH RD W WILLOX LN E DR A KE RD N COUNTY ROAD 17 W HARMONY RD S COUNTY ROAD 11 W PROSPECT RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 COUNTRY CLUB RD E WILL O X L N COUN T Y ROAD 42C S SUMMI T VIEW DR E COUNTY ROA D 30 S COUNTY ROAD 19 W COUNTY ROAD 38E E HARMONY R D S TIMBERLINE RD S LEMAY AVE ZIEGLER RD N COLLEGE AVE S C O UNTY R O A D 23 N SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE TERR Y L A K E RD S OVERLAND TRL RIVERSIDE AVE N OVERLAND TRL G R E G ORY RD S CE N TENNIAL DR City RedistrictingCollins of Fort - Option 2 CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: June 19, 2012 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale360 1:63, © Redistricting Option 2 Mayor - Keren Weitkunat District 1 - Ben Manvel District 2 - Lisa Poppaw District 3 - Aislinn Kottwitz District 4 - Wade Troxell District 5 - Kelly Ohlson District 6 - Gerry Horak Redistricting Calculations District Population Percentage of Ideal Percentage Change from Ideal Absolute Value 1 24049 100.21% 0.21% 2 24242 101.02% 1.02% 3 23699 98.75% -1.25% 4 24858 103.58% 3.58% 5 24015 100.07% 0.07% 6 23125 96.36% -3.64% Total Population 143988 23998 Lowest -3.64% 3.64% Highest 3.58% 3.58% 7.22% Ideal = Total divided by number of districts Maximum deviation = sum of Absolute Value of both the highest and lowest population districts Precinct Precinct 51 27 moved moved from from District District 5 3 to to 4 2. Websitefor Scan URL R Y ST E COUNTY ROAD 38 E COUNTY ROAD 32 E VINE DR E COUNTY ROAD 48 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR IN T ERSTATE 25 STRAUSS CABIN RD E COUNTY ROAD 52 E P R OSPECT RD C ARPENTER RD S COUNTY ROAD 5 N US HIGHWAY 287 KE CHTER RD 9TH ST COUNTY ROAD 54G S SHIELDS ST W HORSETOOTH RD W MULBERRY ST N T A FT H I LL R D S COUNTY ROA D 7 N COUNTY ROAD 11 S TAFT HILL RD N TIMBERLINE RD N COUNTY ROAD 5 N LEMAY AVE E LI N COLN AVE W DOUGLAS RD MAIN ST E DOUGLAS RD LAPORTE AVE W DRAKE RD W VINE DR W TRILBY RD E TRILBY RD E COUNTY ROAD 54 N COUNTY ROAD 9 E HORSETOOTH RD W WILLOX LN E DR A KE RD N COUNTY ROAD 17 W HARMONY RD S COUNTY ROAD 11 W PROSPECT RD S COUNTY ROAD 9 COUNTRY CLUB RD E WILL O X L N COUN T Y ROAD 42C S SUMMI T VIEW DR E COUNTY ROA D 30 S COUNTY ROAD 19 W COUNTY ROAD 38E E HARMONY R D S TIMBERLINE RD S LEMAY AVE ZIEGLER RD N COLLEGE AVE S C OUNTY R O A D 23 N SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE TERR Y L A K E RD S OVERLAND TRL RIVERSIDE AVE N OVERLAND TRL G R E G ORY RD S CE N TENNIAL DR City RedistrictingCollins of Fort - Option 1 CITY GEOGRAPHIC These and were map OF not products FORT designed and INFORMATION COLLINS or all intended underlying for general data SYSTEM are use developed by members MAP for use PRODUCTS of the by the public. City The of Fort City Collins makes for no its representation internal purposes or only, warranty dimensions, as to contours, its accuracy, property timeliness, boundaries, or completeness, or placement and of location in particular, of any its map accuracy features in thereon. labeling or THE displaying CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARTICULAR MAKES PURPOSE, NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OF MERCHANTABILITY OR IMPLIED, WITH OR RESPECT WARRANTY TO THESE FOR FITNESS MAP PRODUCTS OF USE FOR OR THE UNDERLYING FAULTS, and assumes DATA. Any all responsibility users of these of map the use products, thereof, map and applications, further covenants or data, and accepts agrees them to hold AS the IS, City WITH harmless ALL from made and this against information all damage, available. loss, Independent or liability arising verification from any of all use data of contained this map product, herein should in consideration be obtained of by the any City's users having of these liability, products, whether or direct, underlying indirect, data. or consequential, The City disclaims, which and arises shall or not may be arise held from liable these for any map and products all damage, or the loss, use thereof or by any person or entity. Printed: June 19, 2012 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Scale360 1:63, © Redistricting Option 1 Mayor - Keren Weitkunat District 1 - Ben Manvel District 2 - Lisa Poppaw District 3 - Aislinn Kottwitz District 4 - Wade Troxell District 5 - Kelly Ohlson District 6 - Gerry Horak Redistricting Calculations District Population Percentage of Ideal Percentage Change from Ideal Absolute Value 1 24049 100.21% 0.21% 2 24242 101.02% 1.02% 3 23699 98.75% -1.25% 4 24336 101.41% 1.41% 5 23933 99.73% -0.27% 6 23729 98.88% -1.12% Total Population 143988 23998 Lowest -1.25% 1.25% Highest 1.41% 1.41% 2.65% Ideal = Total divided by number of districts Maximum deviation = sum of Absolute Value of both the highest and lowest population districts Precinct Precinct 60, 64 moved 61 and from 62 moved District from 5 to District 6. 6 to 5. Precinct Precinct 53 27 moved moved from from District District 5 3 to to 4 2. Websitefor Scan URL Commercial Corridor District Neighborhood Commercial District Employment District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Rural Lands Community Separator Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors Adjacent Planning Areas Printed: May 17, 2011 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Framework Plan Site - Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 ATTACHMENT 4 Commercial Corridor District Neighborhood Commercial District Employment District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Rural Lands Community Separator Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors Adjacent Planning Areas Printed: May 17, 2011 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Framework Plan Site - Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 ATTACHMENT 4 Commercial Corridor District Neighborhood Commercial District Employment District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Rural Lands Community Separator Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors Adjacent Planning Areas Printed: May 17, 2011 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Land Use Framework Plan Site - Kechter Annexations 1, 2 & 3 ATTACHMENT 4 L I NC OLN AVE R I V E R SI D E AV E N COLLEGE AVE W ELIZABETH ST COUNTRY CLUB RD N TAFT HILL RD N LEMAY AVE REMINGTON ST W VINE DR N TIMBERLINE RD E MULBERRY ST E W I L L O X L N W WILLOX LN W LAUREL ST W MOUNTAIN AVE 9TH ST TURN B ER R Y RD S MASON ST JEFFERSON ST N TAFT HILL RD W VINE DR NEWT Project Overview and Previous City Easement Conveyances NEWT Phase 1 NEWT Phase 2 Previous conveyances Current easement request / Attachment 2