HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/19/2013 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FDATE: March 19, 2013
STAFF: Wanda Nelson
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 19 and March 5, 2013 Regular Meetings, and the
February 12, February 26, and February 28, 2013 Adjourned Meetings.
February 19, 2013
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, February 19,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell
and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry noted the published postponement of Item No. 15, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 023, 2013, Amending the City Code to Prohibit the Disposal of Cardboard in the
Community's Waste Stream and to Amend Requirements for Recycling Applicable Solid Waste
Collection.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Urban Renewal Authority is insolvent.
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, alleged corruption with Larimer County courts.
Bill Mullaney, Fort Collins resident, alleged untruthfulness among Councilmembers.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, requested details regarding business assistance packages offered
by the City.
Virginia Farver, 1214 Belleview Drive, discussed cancer clusters relating to radiation from Smart
Meters.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain, announced a program at Poudre High School wherein students
are constructing sheds for victims of the High Park Fire.
Dick Thomas, 1901 Wallenberg Drive, questioned the portion of development fees paid by citizens
and stated too much advantage is given to developers in the city.
Ed Beers, 408 Jackson, asked about the status of Lieutenant Broderick.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, expressed concern regarding the rush of significant
items which come before Council just prior to elections.
333
February 19, 2013
Chris Eikenberg, 1245 East Lincoln, expressed concern regarding her housing situation and stated
she has been without a stove for months. She expressed concern regarding Building Department
officials.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat thanked Mr. Gascoyne for announcing his Seeds to Shelter project.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would advocate for Ms. Eikenberg and her housing situation.
City Manager Atteberry stated he would speak directly with Ms. Eikenberg regarding her concerns.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson refuted corruption allegations related to Council and City staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Intersection Improvements and
Traffic Signals Project for Timberline Road and Horsetooth Road Intersection
Improvements.
The City has received a federally funded grant through the North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization, category Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, for operational and
safety improvements at the Timberline Road and Horsetooth Road intersection. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, appropriates
unanticipated federal grant revenue into the City of Fort Collins Building on Basics
Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signals Fund for design, right-of-way acquisition and
construction of the dedicated right turn lane from southbound Timberline Road to westbound
Horsetooth Road.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding
Trees and Correcting a Cross-Referencing Error.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, amends the
Land Use Code to mitigate for additional tree species, amend the tree mitigation radius,
mitigate for cotton-bearing cottonwood trees and seed-bearing boxelder trees, and correct
a cross-referencing error in the Land Use Code.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2013 Authorizing the Extension of the Purchasing
Card Services Agreement with UMB Bank for an Additional Five Year Period.
In 2007, the City and Poudre School District did a cooperative request for proposal process
for Procurement Card (PCard) Services. The solicitation was for a five-year period with an
option to renew for an additional five years with the approval of City Council. This
cooperative bid was also open for participation of other governmental entities. Each entity
contracts separately with the selected bank but shares in the value of the combined spending
and services offered by the bank (UMB Bank). Participation in this cooperative contract has
grown from the original 2 to over 70 governmental agencies in Colorado. The participants
in the cooperative combine their volume of purchases which results in a higher rebate to
334
February 19, 2013
each participant based on their individual volume of purchases. The City’s estimated 2013
rebate amount is over $130,000. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
February 5, 2013, authorizes the extension of the contract with UMB Bank until March
2017.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property
at 6916 South College Avenue for up to Five Years.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, authorizes the
lease of this 17+ acre property, which is part of the Affordable Housing/Land Bank Program,
located at 6916 South College Avenue, as a ground lease for another five year period. This
lease is for land only and does not allow use of City-owned water on the property.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2013, Designating the Zimmerman Property, 712
Dartmouth Trail, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, designates the
Zimmerman Property, 712 Dartmouth Trail, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The property
owners, Jason Franikowski and Jennifer Haussmann, are initiating this request.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Designating the Crose-Scott-Dickey House
and Attached Garage, 618 West Mountain Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, designates the
Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage, 618 West Mountain Avenue, as a Fort
Collins Landmark. The property owners, William and Kathleen Whitley, are initiating this
request.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2013, Designating the Olyn and Ann Price Property,
1509 Westview Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City
Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, designates the
Olyn and Ann Price Property, 1509 Westview Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The
property owner, Anne C. Colwell, is initiating this request.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2013, Amending Section 2-35 of the City Code with
Regard to the Removal of Persons from City Council Meetings.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, amends City
Code to allow the presiding officer of a City Council meeting or City Council committee
meeting to order the removal of any person who significantly and intentionally disrupts such
meeting by failing to comply with the requirements of the presiding officer in maintaining
order during the meeting.
335
February 19, 2013
14. Items Relating to Animal Control.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2013, Amending Chapter 4, Article II and
Chapter 19, Article V of the City Code so as to Decriminalize Certain Offenses
Related to the Care and Keeping of Animals.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 4, Article II, of the City Code.
Ordinance No. 021, 2013 amends Chapter 4, Article II of the City Code to decriminalize all
offenses related to the care and keeping of animals, except for the vicious, dangerous, public
nuisance, and cruelty sections, to provide better, more responsive customer service. The
changes in the Animal Protection and Control (APC) protocol would ensure responsiveness
and flexibility to citizen concerns and complaints. City staff recommends transferring the
management of the APC contract from Police Services to Neighborhood Services. These
changes will enable the City to make progress in addressing the issues of barking dogs and
other animal nuisances in the community.
Ordinance No. 022, 2013, clarifies the licensing and rabies vaccinations requirements, and
adds a numerical distinction of 80 degrees Fahrenheit to indicate when it is illegal to confine
an animal within a parked vehicle. As requested by Council at First Reading, language has
been added to this Code section to provide clarity regarding when a violation exists. These
Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013.
15. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2013, Amending the City Code to
Prohibit the Disposal of Cardboard in the Community's Waste Stream and to Amend
Requirements for Recycling Applicable Solid Waste Collection to March 19, 2013.
Staff is requesting postponement of Second Reading of this Ordinance to March 19 to
develop an Implementation Plan, detailing how the Ordinance will be carried out during the
first twelve months.
16. Postponement of Items Relating to the Planned Development Overlay District Pilot to
February 26, 2013.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the
Addition of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add
or Clarify Certain “General Standards” and “Purpose” Statements Related to the
Planned Overlay Development District.
Staff is requesting postponement of Second Reading of these Ordinances to February 26,
2013 to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to consider the addition of properties into the
pilot boundaries.
336
February 19, 2013
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds for the Art in Public Places Program.
In 2012, Article XII of Chapter 23 of the City Code relating to Art in Public Places (APP)
was amended by Ordinance No. 078, 2012. Part of those changes included an administrative
policy change to move APP art projects from lapsing to non-lapsing capital project accounts
to improve the accountability and transparency of APP projects. This Ordinance will
complete that process by moving all reserved APP funds as of December 31, 2012 to new
non-lapsing capital project accounts or to a lapsing administration and maintenance account.
18. Items Relating to the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of Parcels
of Real Property on North College Avenue to the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
The North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox is a multimodal improvement
project that extends from Conifer Street to Willox Lane. This project will construct
improvements in accordance with the City of Fort Collins North College Corridor Plan and
the US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report. The project is planned to begin construction
in 2014, addressing the remaining section of the North College Corridor. The project budget
consists of both federal and local funds. To construct these improvements, the City will
need to acquire certain lands adjacent to the project area. The acquisitions include both
rights-of-way and permanent and temporary easements. Timely acquisition of the property
is necessary to meet the anticipated construction schedule. This project is one of the highest
ranked roadway projects in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan.
19. Items Relating to the Removal of Signs.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter
17, Article III, Section 17-42 of the City Code Regarding Signs in the Right-of-Way.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding
the Removal of Election Signs.
Ordinance No. 030, 2013, amends City Code Section 17-42 to eliminate the 24-hour
notification requirement that the City must provide before removing signs that are illegally
placed in the right-of-way. It also recommends providing notice to the business or entity
identified on the sign after its removal, and holding the sign for ten (10) days to allow the
owner the opportunity to retrieve the sign before disposal, unless the sign is insignificant in
value or it advertises or promotes an event or activity that has already occurred. Also
recommended is the ability for staff to immediately dispose of the sign if it is a repeat
337
February 19, 2013
violation within a 12-month period. This section applies to all signs placed in the right-of-
way.
Ordinance No. 031, 2013, amends Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the City’s Land Use Code to extend
the length of time allowed to remove election signs from private property from four (4) days
after an election to five (5) days after an election. This section applies only to election signs
on private property.
20. Resolution 2013-009 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.
21. Resolution 2013-010 Making an Appointment to the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
This Resolution fills a vacancy on the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Intersection Improvements and
Traffic Signals Project for Timberline Road and Horsetooth Road Intersection
Improvements.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding
Trees and Correcting a Cross-Referencing Error.
8.Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2013 Authorizing the Extension of the Purchasing Card
Services Agreement with UMB Bank for an Additional Five Year Period.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2013, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property
at 6916 South College Avenue for up to Five Years.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2013, Designating the Zimmerman Property, 712
Dartmouth Trail, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Designating the Crose-Scott-Dickey House
and Attached Garage, 618 West Mountain Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the City Code.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2013, Designating the Olyn and Ann Price Property,
1509 Westview Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City
Code.
338
February 19, 2013
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2013, Amending Section 2-35 of the City Code with
Regard to the Removal of Persons from City Council Meetings.
14. Items Relating to Animal Control.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2013, Amending Chapter 4, Article II and
Chapter 19, Article V of the City Code so as to Decriminalize Certain Offenses
Related to the Care and Keeping of Animals.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 4, Article II, of the City Code.
29. Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, Adopting an Update to Appendix C
of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Pertaining to “Streetscape
Standards” for the City of Fort Collins.
.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code and the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate Provisions
Implementing Low Impact Development Principles.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds for the Art in Public Places Program.
18. Items Relating to the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North
College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of Parcels of Real
Property on North College Avenue to the Colorado Department of Transportation.
19. Items Relating to the Removal of Signs.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter
17, Article III, Section 17-42 of the City Code Regarding Signs in the Right-of-Way.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding
the Removal of Election Signs.
26. First Reading Ordinance No. 032, 2013 Amendment to the City Code Which Would Impose
a Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing and Certain Storage of Waste within the City.
339
February 19, 2013
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2013, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code Pertaining to Implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Character Study (Option A or Option B).
Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item No. 19, Items Relating to the Removal of Signs, from the
Consent Calendar.
Chris Eikenberg withdrew Item No. 13, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2013, Amending
Section 2-35 of the City Code with Regard to the Removal of Persons from City Council Meetings,
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. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Removal of Signs, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 17,
Article III, Section 17-42 of the City Code Regarding Signs in the Right-of-Way.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding the
Removal of Election Signs.
Ordinance No. 030, 2013, amends City Code Section 17-42 to eliminate the 24-hour notification
requirement that the City must provide before removing signs that are illegally placed in the right-
of-way. It also recommends providing notice to the business or entity identified on the sign after
its removal, and holding the sign for ten (10) days to allow the owner the opportunity to retrieve the
sign before disposal, unless the sign is insignificant in value or it advertises or promotes an event
or activity that has already occurred. Also recommended is the ability for staff to immediately
dispose of the sign if it is a repeat violation within a 12-month period. This section applies to all
signs placed in the right-of-way.
Ordinance No. 031, 2013, amends Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the City’s Land Use Code to extend the
length of time allowed to remove election signs from private property from four (4) days after an
election to five (5) days after an election. This section applies only to election signs on private
property.
340
February 19, 2013
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Signs in the Right-of-Way
In the summer 2012, Neighborhood Services took over the enforcement of Section 17-42 of the City
Code regulating signs placed in the right-of-way. The Engineering Department asked for assistance
from Code Compliance in order to more quickly address items illegally placed in the right-of-way.
The Code Compliance Inspectors are in the neighborhoods more frequently and could more quickly
and efficiently enforce this provision.
During October 2012, the month prior to the election, a seasonal code inspector worked full-time
specifically to address signs that were illegally placed in the right-of-way. This inspector was in
addition to the other four inspectors looking for illegally placed signs while out doing their regular
patrols. Neighborhood Services primarily used proactive enforcement while giving highest priority
to complaints. The Code currently requires the City to give 24-hour notice before removing any
signs placed in the right-of-way.
Staff notified each campaign office early in October regarding legal sign placement. Neighborhood
Services also used press releases and social media to get the same information to the public. Staff
talked directly with any business that had a sign in the right-of-way adjacent to their business. For
a sign placed in the right-of-way directly in front of a residence (mostly in the parkway space
between the sidewalk and the curb), staff used door-hangers to let each resident know that they
needed to move their sign onto their private property. The majority of people did not recognize a
public right-of-way, and failed to realize that they placed their sign in an illegal location. The door
hangers helped prevent homeowners from thinking their signs had been stolen and helped them
understand where they could legally place their signs.
Between October 1 and November 6, staff inspected over 186 locations with illegally placed signs
(some locations had multiple signs). Of those, 131 were election signs and the remainder were
advertising, real estate, stadium, or other signs. (See Attachment 1 for more details)
Some of the trends noticed were:
• Aside from election signs, real estate and advertising signs are most often illegally placed
in the right-of-way.
• Most of the violations occur in the parkway strip between the sidewalk and the curb.
Some of the lessons learned and changes planned for the future are:
• There were election signs placed in the right-of-way the weekend prior to the election – in
the future, staff will work this weekend in order to remove illegally placed signs.
• Additional outreach needs to be done with real estate agents and real estate companies.
• Door hangers were a good way to inform residents of sign placement requirements – most
complied once notified.
• Taking the time to talk to businesses was very well received and another good way to ensure
businesses were aware of the requirements – all complied once notified.
341
February 19, 2013
Land Use Code Removal Requirement for Election Signs on Private Property
Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the Land Use Code states that all election signs must be removed four days
after an election. After the four days, the City can notify property owners who still have election
signs on their private property that they must remove the signs. Unlike signs illegally placed in the
right-of-way, signs in violation of Section 3.8.7(L)(1) are on private property. City staff cannot go
onto private property and remove signs. If the property owner does not remove the signs after being
notified, the City must issue a Municipal Court summons for the violation.
Elections normally occur on a Tuesday, which means the existing regulation requires that signs be
removed from private property by 12:01 a.m. on the Sunday after the election. However, staff
currently does not begin inspecting for remaining signs until the Monday after the election.
Notification to property owners to remove remaining signs also begins on the Monday after the
election. Amending the Code to extend the time limit for the removal of election signs to a normal
work day will bring the Code in line with actual practice and will alleviate the concern that staff
should be inspecting for violations on a Sunday.
RECOMMENDED CODE CHANGES
Signs in the Right-of-Way
In an effort to more efficiently enforce Section 17-42 of the City Code that prohibits signs from being
placed in the right-of-way, staff recommends removing the 24-hour notice requirement. This would
enable City staff to immediately remove signs that are illegally placed in the City’s right-of-way.
Staff also recommends providing notice to the person, business, or entity identified on the sign after
removal and holding the sign for ten (10) days to allow the owner the opportunity to retrieve the
sign, unless the sign is insignificant in value or it advertises or promotes an event or activity that
has already occurred. If the sign is not retrieved, staff may dispose of the sign. Staff recommends
immediate disposal of signs illegally placed in the right-of-way for a second (or more) occurrence
within a 12-month period.
Land Use Code – Election Signs on Private Property
Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the Land Use Code (LUC) requires that all election signs must be removed
from private property within four days after an election, which means that the removal day is
normally Sunday. City staff does not work on Sundays, so enforcement of the regulation does not
begin until the Monday after the election. Staff recommends amending the Code to extend the time
limit for the removal of election signs from four (4) days to five (5) days. This will make it a normal
work day which will bring the Code in line with actual practice, and alleviate the concern that staff
should be inspecting for violations on a Sunday.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its January 17, 2013 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously voted to recommend
approval of the LUC change as part of its Consent Agenda.
342
February 19, 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
An article explaining the recommended code changes and requesting feedback was in the January
Neighborhood News newsletter which has over 800 subscribers. One person provided feedback,
asking that proactive education still occur so people will know the regulations about the legal
placement of signs.”
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern there would be no enforcement of the removal of
election signs, given the proposed five day requirement, which would typically place the sign
removal requirement on a weekend. Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor, replied the Tuesday election
day goes until the end of that day, therefore signs would currently need to be removed by Sunday.
Extending the limit to five days would bring the Code in line with the actual practice of
enforcement.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the enforcement would be changing from only weekday hours and
asked about signs on public rights-of-way. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager replied
signs are illegal in public rights-of-way and stated the seasonal inspector and regular inspectors will
be working at least part of the weekend prior to an election to remove those signs. Barnes replied
there are no additional plans to enforce after hours. Signs are generally removed by the first work
day after elections.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 030, 2013, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 031, 2013, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to a Ban of Hydraulic Fracturing and
Certain Storage of Waste within the City, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading Ordinance No. 032, 2013 Amendment to the City Code Which Would Impose
a Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing and Certain Storage of Waste within the City (Operator
Agreement in place).
OR
Resolution 2013-011 Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City a Proposed Amendment
to the City Code Which Would Impose a Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing and Certain Storage of
Waste Within the City (Operator Agreement in place).
343
February 19, 2013
AND
B. Resolution 2013-012 Requesting Statutory Power to Regulate Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production, Supporting the City of Longmont in its Litigation with the State of Colorado
Concerning the Regulation of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production and Authorizing
Negotiations with Larimer County Regarding Oil and Gas Regulations in the City’s Growth
Management Area.
Staff also requests Council direction regarding which option(s) to prepare for future Council
consideration regarding City-owned lands outside the city limits.
On February 5, 2013, City Council directed staff to prepare City Code changes prohibiting the use
of hydraulic fracturing, and limiting the open pit storage of waste or flowback created in connection
with the fracturing process in the city limits. Those changes are reflected in the proposed
Ordinance No. 032, 2013. If no action is taken on Ordinance No. 32, 2013, staff prepared an
optional resolution for Council to consider:
• Resolution 2013-011 Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City a Proposed
Amendment to the City Code Which Would Impose a Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing and
Certain Storage of Waste With the City (Operator Agreement in place).
In addition to the options presented banning hydraulic fracturing, staff developed Resolution 2013-
012:
• requesting the Governor and Attorney General support the Colorado General Assembly in
enacting legislation that will explicitly grant power for home rule cities in the State of
Colorado to regulate oil and gas exploration and production within municipal boundaries
• supporting the City of Longmont in its litigation with the State of Colorado concerning the
power of home rule cities to regulate the exploration for and production of oil and gas
development
• directing negotiation with the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County for the
establishment of County regulations on oil and gas exploration outside the City, but within
the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In December 2012, City Council authorized a moratorium preventing any further drilling of oil and
gas wells in the city limits or on City-owned lands until July 31, 2013. Since that time, citizens asked
the Council to consider banning hydraulic fracturing in the city. During the January 22, 2013 Work
Session, Council discussed the pros and cons related to banning hydraulic fracturing (Attachment
10). Following this discussion staff was directed to prepare a Resolution banning hydraulic
fracturing and storage of related waste materials for the February 19, 2013 regular Council
meeting.
Council also asked that the staff report include more information on local geology, scientific data
relative to hydraulic fracturing, the likelihood of local earthquakes due to fracturing, and the
financial impacts of a ban or an adverse incident if hydraulic fracturing were not banned.
344
February 19, 2013
Staff was further directed to pursue an operator agreement with Prospect Energy seeking
compliance with the strictest measures proposed for Land Use Code adoption prior to the
implementation of a moratorium. During a Council meeting on February 5, 2013, staff was asked
to prepare an Ordinance banning hydraulic fracturing and open pit storage except on existing well
or operating pad sites, or if the pad site becomes the subject of an operator agreement with the City.
Council also asked staff to develop options for regulating or banning hydraulic fracturing on City-
owned lands outside the city limits.
On February 11, 2013, the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission (COGCC) adopted rule changes
moving setbacks from well pads to 500 feet in most areas and 1000 feet from buildings that house
larger numbers of people. This change reduces the area that may be subject to oil and gas
development to 11% inside the City limits.
Geology
Staff was asked to review the geology beneath Fort Collins and adjacent lands to determine what
potential oil and gas resources may exist. Staff reviewed information provided by geologists at
Colorado State University (CSU), the Colorado State Geologist, and the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). Most of the academic and professional mapping and articles available on the North
Front Range focus on the Greater Wattenberg Area (GWA); very few mention Fort Collins or the
Fort Collins Field by name. Geologists cite the lack of information as an indication of a low
probability of oil and gas production within the community. In 2009, the Natural Areas Department,
as part of the Energy by Design project, developed a map depicting potential oil and gas
development (Attachment 8). Mapping of oil and gas development potential indicates that the most
likely production area is expected in the northern part of Fort Collins, where the present field exists
(Attachment 9). Recent activity in Northern Colorado has focused on the Niobrara formation ; in
Fort Collins, the Niobrara development potential is estimated as “moderate” (Attachments 8 or 9).
Potential Fort Collins Oil and Gas Activity
To determine oil and gas potential, staff reviewed the historic record of drilling in Fort Collins, the
current operations, and the regional geological information.
• The historic record indicates that the Muddy “J” has been the only productive formation in
Fort Collins. Niobrara development has been the focus of the recent activity in the Greater
Wattenberg Area.
• Prospect Energy indicates that current operations have targeted the Niobrara formation but
those efforts have not proved economical.
• The geologic record indicates that the Niobrara is located near the surface in Fort Collins
and the Niobrara is not deep enough to yield quality gas or oil.
Fort Collins
The wells drilled within the Fort Collins Field were drilled with several target formations in mind.
Initially, wells drilled in 1925 sought to reach the Hygiene (Pierre Shale) or the Muddy “J”
sandstone. This is consistent with the discovery in 1923 of oil from the Muddy “J” in the Wellington
Field to the north of Fort Collins. The Wellington Field was the first set of wells producing from the
Muddy “J” in the Denver Basin. Muddy “J” sandstone near Fort Collins exists at a depth of
345
February 19, 2013
approximately 4,500 feet with an average thickness of 25 feet. Going east from Fort Collins, there
is greater depth beginning along Interstate 25. The shallow portions of the rock to the west of the
City are not likely to have marketable oil and gas supplies. Prospect Energy’s operations in the Fort
Collins Field are in the Muddy “J” formation. The company tested the Niobrara in the Fort Collins
Field but has not yet found a well that would be profitable. These results reflect the historical
development of oil and gas in Fort Collins where operators attempted to produce oil and gas from
the Lyons, Lakota, Dakota, Codell, Niobrara and the Hygiene formations. A detailed review of
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) records indicates the Muddy “J” is the
only formation that has ever profitably produced within Fort Collins. As hydraulic fracturing and
drilling technology advance it remains possible that other formations lying beneath Fort Collins
might produce oil and gas. For a more detailed analysis, see Attachment 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Air Quality
Several current studies pertinent to the Front Range or Rocky Mountain region were reviewed to
support the following conclusions (citations are provided in Attachment 2):
• Measurable emissions of several pollutants attributable to drilling, construction, material
storage and treatment, production, and transmission activities from oil and gas operations
have been detected, including the following:
N Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are ozone
precursors
N Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) including several carcinogens (primarily benzene
and formaldehyde) and other air toxics associated with chronic and sub-chronic
health effects (respiratory and neurologic disease and head, throat, and eye
irritation)
N Particulate matter including dust and aerosols
N Odors (hydrogen sulfide and odiferous hydrocarbons)
N Nitrogen and sulfur compounds that contribute to visibility impairment (haze) and
atmospheric deposition (acid rain)
N Methane, a potent greenhouse gas and ozone precursor.
• Oil and gas development activities can emit raw (non-combusted) natural gas which has a
unique signature that can be differentiated from motor vehicle emissions and other industrial
or combustion sources. Elevated levels of volatile organic compounds associated with
natural gas operations (drilling and venting) were found in the Front Range area.
• Hydrocarbons emitted from oil and gas activities along the Front Range (primarily propane
and other alkanes) comprise some of the highly reactive precursors important in the complex
atmospheric chemistry responsible for winter ozone formation. Winter ozone formation is
a recently discovered phenomenon that has clearly been attributed to emissions from oil and
gas development and production activities in the Green River Basin (Wyoming) and Uintah
Basin (Utah).
• Associated impacts to human health including excess cancer risk and chronic non-cancer
health impacts have been measured at locations within 0.5 miles of active well pad sites.
Additional studies, many of which are currently ongoing, will help to define the potential risk
to human health, effectiveness of air emission control strategies, and potential impacts to
air quality from oil and gas development activities.
346
February 19, 2013
Water Quality Environmental and Health Concerns
• While there is no scientific consensus and studies are few, there is some indication of a
potential link between high-pressure underground injection (i.e., underground injection
wells for wastewater) and gas migration near the well (movement of methane into
groundwater.) The associated risk to humans is that methane that is found in drinking water
sources could potentially build up in confined spaces and cause explosions. Methane gas is
not considered toxic if consumed in drinking water and is not regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA).
N A USGS study by Ellsworth near wastewater wells (Class II Underground Injection
Control (UIC) wells) in Menlo Park, CA suggests the high pressure injection might
make well cement cracks more likely. Findings by other researchers suggest a
similar finding, but conclude further research is needed. Although this may have
implications for high pressure injection techniques used in hydraulic fracturing,
there is no scientific consensus on the probability of its occurrence or the
mechanisms involved. Local wells classified as UICs are actually injecting at sub-
fracturing pressures; see more below under earthquakes.
• Most shallow water contamination resulting from hydraulic fracturing and conventional oil
and gas production has been linked to surface activities resulting in releases of wastewater
due to accidents, poor management of wastewater storage and disposal, and illicit dumping.
• Most aquifer contamination (i.e., potential drinking water resources) from conventional oil
and gas production has been linked to well casing failures. There is not enough research for
hydraulic fracturing operations to show a similar link.
In response to public concern and industry growth, the US House of Representatives requested in
2009 that the US EPA conduct scientific research to examine the relationship between hydraulic
fracturing and drinking water resources. The project planning phase involved agency consultation
with other federal agencies, state and interstate regulatory agencies, industry, non-governmental
organizations, and others in the private and public sector to determine the focus of the study
regarding potential impacts on human health and the environment. The primary research focused
on investigating impacts to drinking water resources. The first progress report on the results of this
research was published by the EPA, December 2012, Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, Progress Report, EPA 601/R-12/011, Office of Research
and Development.
The research consists of 18 research projects and is organized around five stages of the hydraulic
fracturing water cycle:
1. Water acquisition: What are the possible impacts of large volume water withdrawals from
ground and surface waters on water resources?
2. Chemical mixing: What are the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing fluid surface spills
on or near well pads on water resources?
3. Well injection: What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on
water resources?
4. Flowback and produced water: What are the possible impacts of both types of wastewater
surface spills on or near well pads on water resources?
5. Wastewater treatment and waste disposal: What are the possible impacts of inadequate
treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewater on water resources?
347
February 19, 2013
The results from the study, which are not expected until 2014, are intended to inform the public and
provide policymakers at all levels with high-quality scientific knowledge that can be used in
decision-making. The research involves collection and analysis of existing data from 24,925 wells
that have been hydraulically fractured, complex modeling conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, toxicity assessments of 1,858 chemicals associated with hydraulic fracturing,
and case studies. The EPA also manages the two most comprehensive databases on toxicological
data that are used for risk assessments nationally and internationally.
The literature reviews for this study are subject to a separate quality review that assesses the
soundness, applicability and utility, clarity and completeness, uncertainty and variability, and
evaluation and review of the data and information before inclusion in the research. Attachment 3
includes references accepted for inclusion in the EPA report that are organized by research topic
related to water quality. This list is a subset of references reviewed to date that cover the most
relevant research topics being investigated; for a complete list refer to the 2012 EPA report cited
above. The EPA has compiled and continues to search for literature relevant to the research
questions posed in this report including a recent Federal Register notice requesting peer-reviewed
data and publications relevant to this study. There has not been any preliminary data released from
this effort.
Waste and Wastewater Environmental Concerns
• Hydraulic fracturing produces higher volumes of wastewater that surface as flowback in a
shorter period of time than conventional drilling techniques. This creates more challenges
for capture, storage, and disposal of wastewater and associated emissions than for
conventional drilling operations (e.g., more VOC emissions if not captured adequately, more
potential for accidental spills).
• Wastewater management and disposal may be the single most important issue associated
with environmental and human health protection. The Bureau of Land Management has
proposed new requirements for submission of wastewater management plans prior to
drilling. Deep injections of wastes in Class II UIC wells, not fracturing operations, have
been linked to earthquakes to date.
Earthquake Potential in Fort Collins
Water disposal in the oil field involves injecting waste water into a deep disposal well. This process
usually increases pressure in the rock above the native state (pre-water disposal) of the rock.
Usually there is not any fluid removed from the rock, only fluid (wastewater) added, thereby
increasing reservoir pressure. Many other industries and the Federal government also use water
disposal wells. There have been noted cases of water disposal wells causing seismic activity.
National Academies of Science concluded a study in 2012 and listed three major findings:
1. “the process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery
does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events;”
2. “injection for disposal of wastewater derived from energy technologies into the subsurface
does pose some risk for induced seismicity, but very few events have been documented over
the past several decades relative to the large number of disposal wells in operation”; and
3. “Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) due to the large net volumes of injected fluids, may
have potential for inducing larger seismic.”
348
February 19, 2013
The factor that appears to have the most direct consequence in regard to induced seismicity is the
net fluid balance.
The Bureau of Reclamation stated it has not done any independent studies regarding hydraulic
fracturing or deep injection wells. However, it did state that the work done between 1999 and 2004
on all the Horsetooth Dams was performed as mitigation for major seismicity that it defines as much
greater than what research reveals is a risk due to deep injection wells. Locally, a process called
waterflooding is used and, in general, operators are required to maintain pressures that are below
fracture gradient and even further lower, based on the last mechanical integrity test, according to
COGCC regulations. In other words, at the Fort Collins Field waterflooding (recycled water), the
Muddy formation maintains pressures near or slightly below original reservoir pressures.
Waterflooding started in the Fort Collins Field as a smaller pilot test in September 1979 after
obtaining COGCC approval. Upon success of the pilot, COGCC approved expansion and the
expanded project started in July 1985. According to the current operator, “We’ve been injecting
water for a long time at fairly steady rates without any recorded seismic events.”
Habitat Fragmentation Resulting From Oil and Gas Development
Several current studies pertinent to the Front Range or Rocky Mountain region were briefly
reviewed to support the following conclusions (For further information and citations see Attachment
4):
• Wildlife impacts and habitat fragmentation from oil and gas activities have been
documented, largely for the Greater Yellowstone and Western Wyoming regions. Species
studied include mule deer, pronghorn, and greater sage-grouse. The studies largely focused
on how migration patterns and winter habitat use could be or have been affected by oil and
gas development.
N Mule deer migration patterns changed in the initial year of oil and gas development.
Migration patterns did not appear to acclimate three years after well establishment.
Instead, mule deer migration patterns continued to drift further from the well pad
development areas. High value habitat areas prior to the study shifted to low habitat
values throughout the study.
N A further study found that mule deer abundance for the herds in the same area had
declined by 23% during 2001-2010, where the oil and gas development had
expanded.
N One recent study has also examined the impact of oil and gas development on
sagebrush-dependent songbirds (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2012). Some species, which
are generally more tolerant to disturbance, such as the Horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris) did not respond to increases in well densities. However other species, such
as the Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli)
which are dependent on sagebrush communities, had significant population
decreases as oil and gas well density increased, suggesting there may be significant
impacts to sagebrush-obligate species. A comprehensive synthesis of oil and gas
impacts was recently compiled by The Wildlife Society in 2012. In addition to the
issues addressed above, the report also identifies increased noxious weed invasions,
impacts to waterfowl from wetland impacts, and the potential for increased
competition between deer and elk as highly valued habitat is used for oil and gas
349
February 19, 2013
development. The report also highlights that the cumulative effects of habitat
fragmentation, overall loss, and degradation may prove to have the most impact on
wildlife.
• Horizontal drilling may reduce the overall impacts of habitat fragmentation, as multiple
areas of land can be accessed from a single well pad. However, it is difficult to know the
extent of this reduction without further study.
• Based on the studies available, habitat fragmentation effects from oil and gas development
appear to be better understood at the landscape level, e.g., how oil and gas development
affects pronghorn and mule deer migration patterns. Thus, the findings from these studies
may be best applied at the regional scale, e.g., Larimer County and the Rocky Mountain
Foothills.
• Staff did not find any research that compared the habitat fragmentation effects of oil and gas
development in rural or open undeveloped lands with those in more traditional urban
development.
FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
A true triple bottom line analysis includes an assessment of environmental, social, and economic
impacts. Staff analysis to date has focused on potential and possible environmental impacts if
hydraulic fracturing is allowed. Staff however, was unable to conclusively determine financial
impacts of any health and safety hazard related to hydraulic fracturing due to the significant number
of variables that relate to the hydraulic fracturing process, transportation of material and waste
produced, and removal of waste materials. A social impact analysis has not yet been undertaken for
this discussion. It is assumed that social impacts of hydraulic fracturing are discussed and
addressed in terms of concerns about health impacts, impacts to property and housing values, and
quality of life.
Should hydraulic fracturing be banned, the City would likely need to prepare for the costs
associated with a lawsuit since similar ballot measures have resulted in lawsuits being filed. The
City of Longmont is being sued by the State of Colorado for its regulation of drilling, and by the
industry (Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA)) for its citizen-approved ban on hydraulic
fracturing.
If the City bans hydraulic fracturing, this action would prohibit any use of this treatment in the Fort
Collins Field. Whether the local operator, Prospect Energy, would be able to present a claim for
damages is unknown. There are other fracturing technologies that have seen limited use and for
which there may be limited equipment available for field use (See Attachment 5).
There could be a loss of local revenues generated from oil and gas development within the city
limits. Revenues for the last two years average $215,460 annually. This revenue is based on state
formulas that include well sites, jobs, roads and other measures to determine the revenues sent to
individual communities. It is difficult to estimate what impact the loss of future wells or reduced
production would have on this amount received by the City.
STATUS OF OPERATOR AGREEMENT
Prospect Energy and City staff have discussed possible terms of an agreement but no formal option
is ready for Council review at this time.
350
February 19, 2013
OPTIONS FOR RESTRICTING HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ON CITY-OWNED LANDS
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS
1. Include restrictions on City-owned lands outside of the city limits in the ban on hydraulic
fracturing.
2. Include these restrictions in any Land Use Code requirements following the moratorium.
3. Extend the moratorium on City-owned lands and apply for Designated Outside Activity
Areas status through the COGCC.
4. Utilize the Energy by Design Process for mineral rights owned by the State Land Board
(SLB) and extend those requirements to other mineral owners through the adoption of
surface use agreements.
5. Utilize the Energy by Design Process for mineral rights owned by the SLB and develop
surface use agreements for other mineral interests that reflect best practice or meet the Land
Use Code during the time the mineral right is extracted rather than committing to the
Energy by Design process at this time.
Natural Areas staff was consulted about the potential for a hydraulic fracturing or drilling ban on
lands owned by the City that are outside the city limits, including Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
and other natural areas. Natural Areas staff recommends against a ban. The recommendation is
based on a variety of factors, but in particular relates to Soapstone and Meadow Springs Ranch (a
Utilities property) for the following reasons:
Staff learned that, in the absence of horizontal hydraulic fracturing, there is a some likelihood that
smaller companies will lease minerals and drill vertically. Vertical wellheads could be placed on
the ground at densities of one well per 20 to 35 acres. That density of activity would be very
destructive to the surface of Soapstone and Meadow Springs. Hydraulic fracturing densities
potentially could be kept to perhaps one five to ten acre well pad (with multiple wellheads) per
section (640 acres), or perhaps even less. This would be far better for the natural, cultural, and
scenic resources the City is trying to protect.
The City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Land Board (SLB)
regarding a cooperative effort to undertake an Energy by Design (EBD) process The attached
memo (Attachment 7) describes that effort. The final EBD report was presented to the public in
September, and is to be reviewed by the SLB commissioners this month. The SLB took an
unprecedented and major step forward by engaging in the EBD process, partly in response to the
strong urging of the City of Fort Collins. Implementation of Energy by Design would place strict
limits on mining activities, far stricter than any regulation or practice that staff is aware of in the
State of Colorado in a similar environment.
Staff is concerned about the implications of an effort by the City to ban drilling or hydraulic
fracturing on these lands and the negative impact that would have on the collaborative relationship
the City has built with the SLB, as well as on the Energy by Design approach that has been
developed and is being reviewed. It is difficult to predict how the SLB would approach leasing of
minerals on the City’s property in this event, but the collaborative approach developed through the
EBD process would be put in jeopardy. Under the terms outlined in the EBD, mineral owners and
/or lessees will be required to enter into an Operator Agreement or Surface Use Agreement with the
City prior to any surface disturbance associated with exploration or production. This agreement
will contain requirements much stricter than current State regulations and will implement the
351
February 19, 2013
avoidance and mitigation strategies outlined in Energy by Design. The State Land Board is a
partner in the planning process and will recognize and support the use of EBD. Further, Council
approval is required for the City to enter into the Operator Agreement or Surface Use Agreement.
In summary, Natural Areas negotiated with the SLB to create a potentially much better on-the-
ground situation. Further, Natural Areas believes that patient planning, negotiations, and the use
of multiple strategies will obtain the best possible long-term results. While there are substantial
risks associated with this approach, staff believes they are far less than those posed by a hydraulic
fracturing or drilling ban.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
There has not been any additional board or commission review since the moratorium was
authorized in December 2012.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
There has not been any additional public outreach specific to the Ordinance and Resolutions
proposed.”
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated the first
Ordinance amends the City Code to ban hydraulic fracturing. The second item for consideration is
a Resolution which would also ban hydraulic fracturing in the city and place the item on the April
ballot. Council also requested preparation of a Resolution expressing Council’s concern and opinion
regarding oil and gas regulation and supporting local authority over oil and gas regulation. This
Resolution would also allow for negotiation to occur with Larimer County for development of
regulations or conditions for development outside of city limits. Kadrich reviewed additional
options for Council consideration regarding City-owned lands outside of city limits. Kadrich
showed slides illustrating active wells in and around City limits.
Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, discussed modeling of potential oil and gas
development in the area.
Kadrich discussed some of the reasons citizens are concerned about fracking, including air and water
quality, water and wastewater concerns, storage and disposal issues with the hydraulic fracturing
flowback water, and habitat fragmentation. The new Colorado oil and gas regulations relating to
setbacks have been passed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission and will go into effect August
1, 2013. At that time, a little less than 11% of the geographic area for the Fort Collins City limits
would be subject to oil and gas development. Kadrich stated negotiations have been ongoing with
Prospect Energy.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Kevin Cross, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, opposed hydraulic fracturing and stated the
Ordinance banning fracking should apply to all City-owned lands.
Johnny Roos, Colorado State University Young Republicans, opposed fracking and supported a ban.
352
February 19, 2013
Julius Lisi, 3402 West Prospect, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Mary Duran, 1829 Manchester, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban or the opportunity
to vote on a ban.
Danny Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, thanked Council for its attention to citizens regarding this issue and
cautioned against providing an exception to the ban for Prospect Energy.
Steve Yurash, 4021 Yellowstone Circle, urged Council to make data-driven decisions regarding this
matter and cautioned against a complete ban at this time.
Mayah Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, stated pollution interferes with liberty, which should be protected
by our government. She opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported the
placement of the item on the April ballot.
Janice Lynne, 218 South Washington, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Estrelia Segura, 4327 Gemstone Lane, presented petitions signed in support of responsible
regulation and partnership with the oil and gas industry and the State of Colorado. She opposed a
ban.
Tom Hoehn, 218 South Washington, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Ed Haynes, 1302 Patterson Place, opposed a ban.
Stan Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Gloria Beldon, Windsor resident, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Rose Lew, 2014 Westview Road, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Claire Mechtly, 400 Smih Street, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Matthew Fredricey, Loveland resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Kristin Stephens, 1911 Enfield Court, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all
City-owned property.
Karen Snider, 1000 East Laurel, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Judith Friend, 1202 Niagara Drive, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Rudy Zitti, 1626 Fantail, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing and supported sensible energy
policies.
353
February 19, 2013
Beth Dickson, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Stan Dempsey, Colorado Petroleum Association, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing and opposed
the placement of a possible ban on the April ballot.
Melanie Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson Avenue, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Elizabeth Hudetz, 1407 Ticonderoga, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant Avenue, Clean Water Action, opposed hydraulic fracturing and
supported a ban. He listed several organizations with the same views. He requested that any
operator agreement between Prospect Energy and the City be subject to Council approval.
Sarah Brooks, 1522 Whedbee, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Erin Lamb, 1476 Edgewood Court, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing and supported responsible
energy development.
Ward Giltner, Prospect Energy, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Scott Hall, Prospect Energy, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Hunter Harms, Fort Collins resident, supported oil in Colorado but opposed the placement of wells
near homes.
Nancy Rumfelt, Loveland resident, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
David Bell, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all City-
owned land.
Bob Sutton, 4032 Bracadale Place, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Abigail Homeburg, Colorado State University student, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban including
all City-owned property.
Matt Martinez, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
James Sack, 2945 Bassick, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Johnnie Westrock, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Dawn Otsen, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
354
February 19, 2013
Chris Gibbar, 6321 Treestead, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Sam Schabacker, Food and Water Watch, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Ruthie Rogers, 5225 White Willow Drive, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Evelyn King, Larimer County resident, stated a ban on hydraulic fracturing is premature.
Rico Moore, 721 West Myrtle, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all City-owned
property.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, supported a ban on hydraulic fracturing and stated society is
hooked on growth.
Mark Easter, 2820 Cherry Lane, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all City-
owned property.
Dezie Shaw, Fort Collins resident, supported hydraulic fracturing.
Bob Osmundson, 1413 Cactus Court, supported hydraulic fracturing.
Chris Kelly, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Fred Kirsch, Community for Sustainable Energy, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
He also supported the exemption for Prospect Energy.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all City-owned
property.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Kurt Kastein, 3325 Silver Oak Place, urged Council to not take up arms against the State, which has
already accepted fracking as safe.
Gerry Gerber, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Bob Morain, 4206 Monmouth Court, stated a ban on hydraulic fracturing is not needed.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing and requested Council
give State regulations time to go into effect.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Horak asked about the inclusion of language terminating the moratorium should
the Ordinance go into effect. Kadrich replied staff would need to prepare a separate Ordinance in
355
February 19, 2013
order to terminate the moratorium, which was enacted by Ordinance. City Attorney Roy replied
Council could add a section terminating the moratorium to the Ordinance imposing the ban.
Councilmember Troxell asked how long the current moratorium could be extended. City Attorney
Roy replied it is currently set until the end of July and could be extended as long as reasonably
necessary to do what needs to be done to get regulations in place.
Councilmember Troxell stated it would be prudent to wait until the end of the State legislative
session before local rule-making takes place. City Attorney Roy replied local rule-making can be
worked on concurrently with the legislative session and regulations can be refined based on the
legislature regulations.
Councilmember Troxell requested a description of the local designee process with the Oil and Gas
Commission. Weinheimer replied the local designee program for cities is an information source
regarding permitting. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified the program is a line of
communication between cities and the Commission and is not meant to be a tool to grant cities
regulatory powers. The local control Fort Collins has now is embodied in one paragraph of the Land
Use Code, which states that, to the extent the City is not preempted, the entire Land Use Code
applies to oil and gas operations.
Councilmember Troxell asked what jurisdiction the City has over fracking operations. Deputy City
Attorney Eckman replied Council has received a confidential memorandum regarding that issue.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if fracking and/or drilling is only allowed in about 11% of the City
limits. Kadrich replied approximately 11% of the city limits could have oil and gas activity given
the new State setback regulations.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the setback criteria for schools. Kadrich replied the new
setback requirements will increase setbacks to 1,000 feet from schools.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about permit requests and the possibility of exploration in the
Soapstone Natural Area. Kadrich replied there have been no permit requests in the city limits.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked how either of these bans would affect the operators who are
currently fracking in the City limits. Kadrich replied they would still be able to use the process if
they negotiated an operator agreement to Council’s satisfaction.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if anyone within the City has spoken with the Board of Public
Health. Kadrich replied in the negative but stated staff has met with the Air and Water Quality
Boards. Councilmember Kottwitz requested that staff look into the matter prior to a Second
Reading.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about annexing area which may have drilling or fracking operations,
should a ban go into effect. Kadrich replied a ban would not affect areas outside the city limits, but
within the City’s Growth Management Area (GMA). Much of the GMA is exempt from oil and gas
development due to the setback criteria.
356
February 19, 2013
Councilmember Manvel asked about the possible exemption for an existing operator with an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and the operator. Kadrich replied staff
recommends that an agreement be considered by City Council. Councilmember Manvel requested
the development of language inserting Council as the decision maker on the operator agreement
rather than the City Manager.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about possible oil and gas operations in Soapstone Natural Area,
noting the City did not buy the gas and mineral rights when the property was purchased. John
Stokes, Natural Resources Director, replied the mineral rights were not for sale when the land
purchase was made. A geologist examined the property and stated there was negligible risk of the
land being appropriate for drilling at that time. That has since changed with horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing. The City had initial discussions with the mineral rights owner about
purchasing those rights several years ago and is hoping to renew that conversation. Stokes stated
there is a possibility of putting off any potential leasing by the State for ten or fifteen years.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson thanked the citizens who spoke regarding this issue and stated that staff’s
opinion regarding protection of the natural attributes of City-owned Natural Areas outside the City
limits is to not include them in the ban, but continue with the existing process. Stokes confirmed
that opinion.
Councilmember Horak requested additional details. Stokes replied the staff is fiercely protective
of the City’s Natural Areas and the opinion is that it will be very difficult to fend off potential
exploration and production activities on some portions of Meadow Springs Ranch and Soapstone.
Therefore, the City has engaged in a novel planning strategy with the State of Colorado, which owns
about 1/3 of the minerals on the property. The State Land Board decided to engage in the ‘Energy
by Design” process with the City, Larimer County, and several conservation organizations. The
plan requires stringent provisions for reclamation and minimized surface disturbance on the
properties. The hope is that once the State sets the precedent, the other mineral rights owners will
follow suit.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 032, 2013, on First Reading, replacing the reference to City Manager with a reference to City
Council in Section 12-136.
Councilmember Horak proposed an amendment to change all references to hydraulic fracturing with
“oil and gas exploration and production, including hydraulic fracturing.” Councilmembers Manvel
and Poppaw accepted the amendment.
Councilmember Horak proposed an amendment to insert language stating “when Ordinance No.
032, 2013 goes into effect, Ordinance No. 145, 2012, the moratorium Ordinance, is repealed.”
City Attorney Roy stated each Ordinance must contain only a single subject. He stated he would
either include it in this Ordinance or bring forth a separate Ordinance repealing the moratorium prior
to Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak asked if the existing operator would be able to operate with the moratorium
in effect if the City approves an agreement with the operator. City Attorney Roy replied staff will
357
February 19, 2013
review the moratorium Ordinance, and if the intent is to allow the operator to proceed with
operations that have been put on hold, clarification can occur in this Ordinance.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the moratorium includes open space. City Attorney Roy replied
in the affirmative. Councilmember Poppaw stated the moratorium should be continued if the ban
does not include open space.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked staff for work on the item and noted staff is not recommending
any of these actions for adoption. She expressed concern the City will face lawsuits from the State
should it adopt a ban.
Councilmember Troxell stated the moratorium could be extended if necessary. He noted Fort
Collins has had no permit requests for drilling inside city limits and stated the geology of Fort
Collins does not support drilling and fracking.
Councilmember Horak noted all other industrial activities can be located with the control of
municipalities. He disagreed with the idea that the City will immediately be provided with a lawsuit
by the State.
Mayor Weitkunat thanked the citizens who spoke on the issue for their courtesy. She stated Fort
Collins should have the ability to be a home-rule city, and some of its most important decisions deal
with the health and safety of residents. Additionally, the existing operator was annexed into the City
and should be respected.
The vote on the motion, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw
and Horak. Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2013-012.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the importance of requesting that home-rule cities be granted regulatory
powers over oil and gas exploration.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the expected costs to the City of supporting Longmont in its
litigation with the State. City Attorney Roy replied the Resolution was written solely to express
support, not to extend resources.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she supports the ability of home-rule cities to have control;
however, she does not support the other sections of the Resolution.
The vote on the motion, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw
and Horak. Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
358
February 19, 2013
Ordinance No. 033, 2013,
Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to
Implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
(Option A or Option B), Discussion Continued to February 26, 2013
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study represents an assessment of
neighborhood compatibility issues related to impacts of larger new construction projects. In
comparison to the previous 2010/2011 Study, which focused on building size impacts, this Study
takes a broader look at the character and context of the neighborhoods including building size and
design compatibility.
Staff has prepared two options for Council to consider for the proposed package of potential Land
Use Code (LUC) amendments to be included in the Ordinance at First Reading.
• Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementing five recommended
strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR standards using a new formula.
• Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementing five recommended
strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff initiated the Study in June 2011, after receiving direction from City Council to take a new and
broader look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the core area neighborhoods
near downtown. The Study is in response to continued concerns with potential impacts of larger
additions and new construction in the city’s oldest neighborhoods.
A similar study was conducted in 2010 for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods with a resulting
Ordinance approved by City Council that was later repealed in response to a citizen petition. While
the previous effort led to a primary focus on building size aspects, the current study emphasizes a
broader perspective to understand the character, larger context of compatibility, and threshold for
change in these neighborhoods.
The initial direction for the new study began with a goal developed by a Council Ad Hoc Committee
to:
Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as
they continue to change with renovations, additions, and new housing
construction, with a well-supported and effective public process resulting in
appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions.
The Study is summarized in a highly illustrated Strategy Report with information on the character
and context of the neighborhoods, community engagement, issues, and strategy options for City
Council consideration (www.fcgov.com/eastwestneighborhoods).
359
February 19, 2013
The Study identified and clarified a number of key issues with ongoing changes that affect existing
residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. These issues led to the
strategy options. Key issues include:
• New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context
• Building walls that appear to loom over neighbors
• Reduced solar access/shading issues
• Incompatible design features
• Loss of older/more affordable houses that make the neighborhoods unique
• Loss of green space and mature trees
The Study process included extensive public outreach that included identification of neighborhood
objectives and issues, and defining. The Study process and findings are summarized in a final
Strategy Report. This report also includes staff recommendations to implement five strategy options
that were presented to City Council at the Work Session on November 27, 2012. The staff
recommendations at that time did not include revising existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards,
because the team concluded the proposed design standard sufficiently addressed neighborhood
compatibility issues, and revising the FAR did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the
public. City Council subsequently directed staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy
options, including development of the formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
Some of these strategies involve Land Use Code changes that are the subject of the Ordinance, and
others are administrative or involve future actions as follows:
• Promote the City's existing Design Assistance Program. This involves ongoing
administrative actions, including such measures as a marketing brochure, newsletter,
neighborhood mailings, and posting program information online.
• Expand neighborhood notification of variance requests.
• Create voluntary design handbooks/guidelines to provide specialized information for
interested owners and builders on compatible development in unique character areas throughout
the neighborhoods. These products would be developed as part of future planning efforts that
will need to be budgeted and incorporated into the staff work program. Staff is
recommending implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan updates
for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014.
• Adjust existing height-at-setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods in the
Land Use Code for the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts
• Address building mass and solar access, including revisions to existing FAR standards, and
new design standards to address mass and solar impacts.
• Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction.
A series of public meetings were held in January 2013 to present a draft potential package of Land
Use Code amendments to implement the strategy options. Staff received a mix of opinions from the
public on the proposed standards, especially relating to revisions to the Far standards. An
additional Council work session was held on February 12, 2013 to discuss options for FAR
standards, which included direction for staff to describe these options for Council to consider on
First Reading.
360
February 19, 2013
I. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION A (WITH NEW FAR FORMULA)
This option reflects a package of Land Use Code (LUC) amendments that implements the five
recommended strategy options, as well as a revision to existing FAR standards using a new formula.
More specifically, it includes clarifying Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for
variance requests, revising the existing FAR standard using a new formula, adding new adjustments
to the FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new
design and solar access standards. Following is a brief summary of potential Land Use Code
changes contained in the proposed Ordinance (Option A).
1. Expand notification area for variance requests.
This LUC change would add a new standard regarding neighborhood notification for Zoning Board
of Appeals (ZBA) variance requests exceeding a certain project size threshold. Staff recommends
that the notice area for ZBA hearings be extended from 150 feet to 500 feet for variance requests
for certain size construction and other thresholds (Attachment 3).
2. Address building massing and scale (Revised FAR Standard).
The staff recommendation outlined in the strategy report did not include a revision to the existing
FAR standards because other recommended tools were seen to sufficiently address the identified
objectives and issues, and because many residents and other stakeholders feel that FAR is an overly
restrictive tool that limits flexibility for expansion. However, FAR reductions were presented as a
possible alternative tool for addressing identified issues with overly large new construction and loss
of green space.
Based on Council direction, the staff and consultant team evaluated potential revisions to the
maximum permitted FAR, including modeling of a variety of reduced FARs on projects that have
been identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context. The proposed FAR formula
was selected because it:
• Addresses projects identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context while
allowing flexibility for new construction and home expansion;
• Promotes the scale of new construction that was most often identified as compatible in
community workshops and the online visual survey;
• Works in concert with other recommended tools such as reduced wall heights for solar
access and additional building design standards to address front and side façade character;
and
• More directly targets identified issues than the FAR revisions included in the repealed 2011
ordinance.
Overall, the new formula provides greater flexibility through less substantial FAR reductions
because it works in combination with other tools that also address identified issues with new
construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context, building walls that appear to
loom over neighbors and reduced solar access.
361
February 19, 2013
New FAR Formula
The first proposed FAR change revises the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area
to the total floor area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This would
apply new or adjusted design standards to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new
construction and additions. The potential revised standard would reduce the maximum FAR from
the currently permitted 0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.50 in the N-C-M district according to a
sliding scale as summarized in the table below.
For example, the formula above would limit floor area on a 7,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M
district to 2,750 square feet ((7,000x0.25)+1,000=2,750) with an additional allowance for 250
square feet in a detached rear accessory (acc.) structure on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more, for
a total of 3,000 square feet. The sliding scale would generally result in reductions of allowed floor
area for larger lots in both districts.
New FAR Measurement Method
This change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area, as
recommended in the Strategy Report. These proposed measurement method adjustments address
the issues of high volume spaces not being counted as floor area (which created the potential for
single-story homes being twice as large as a two-story home). This includes basement floor area in
calculation where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a certain threshold,
and provides some allowance for accessory structures to promote separate building masses.
Option A further addresses building mass and scale impacts by combining a reduction in overall
building size (reduced FAR), with new design standards to shape building facade features.
3. Adjust measurement method for building wall height and reduced height for solar access.
The first part of this Code change adjusts the method for measuring building height at the minimum
side yard setback to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade. Staff recommends
implementation of a revised measurement method for maximum height (18 feet) at the minimum side
yard to better account for potential looming impacts related to grade changes on a property. The
building side wall height is proposed to be measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot
line adjacent to the wall, rather than at the improved grade.
A second new standard is proposed to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses
or additions on neighboring property to the north. The staff and consultant team decided not to
develop a complicated “solar ordinance” limiting shading on neighboring lots. Instead a simple
solar standard is proposed for building wall height to promote solar access. The side wall height
362
February 19, 2013
would be reduced to 14 feet from the currently allowed 18 feet and the side wall height could
increase by one foot for each foot of additional setback.
4. Add new standards for building facades over certain size thresholds.
Facade design standards are proposed to provide a menu of options to shape the character of front
and side building facades for compatibility. At least one facade feature from a design menu would
be required to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures
on the block face.
The front facade options would promote pedestrian orientation and the appearance of compatible
mass and scale as viewed from the street by using one-story elements, front porches, etc. The
proposed options for side building facades are intended to reduce potential looming and privacy
impacts on adjacent lots.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION B (RETAIN EXISTING FAR FORMULA)
Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five recommended
strategy options but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards. It includes clarifying
Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, retaining the existing FAR
standard formula, adding new adjustments to FAR measurement method for calculating building
square footage, and incorporating new design and solar access standards. Ordinance Option B
contains the same standards as Option A, except for the FAR formula.
Option B reflects the staff recommendation described in the Strategy Report, and presented to
Council at the November 27, 2012 Work Session. The staff and consultant team concluded in the
report that the proposed package of new design standards, without a reduction in FAR, would
address most identified mass and scale issues with larger new construction while allowing flexibility
for home expansion.
New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context was often cited by
residents as a key issue in the neighborhoods. Many residents also felt that FAR reductions would
be the most effective tool for addressing this issue. However, when presented with alternative
design scenarios in community workshops and surveys, many participants selected alternatives that
incorporate design elements other than floor area reductions. This indicates that design elements
apart from overall size contribute significantly to neighborhood compatibility. The recommended
design standards within Ordinance Option B address these key design elements while allowing
flexibility for home expansion.
• Comparison of 2011 Ordinance and proposed 2013 Ordinance
At the November 27, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to develop the proposed 2013
Ordinance. Staff provided a comparison of the previous 2011 Ordinance that was repealed, with
the proposed 2013 Ordinance (Attachment 4). Staff believes the proposed 2013 Ordinance, as a
package of proposed changes, is noticeably different from the previous 2011 Ordinance. The key
changes include:
363
February 19, 2013
• No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance
requests
• New expanded notification area for some variance requests
• New thresholds for applying all new standards in both districts
• Different formula for calculating maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs)
• FARs applied separately to the N-C-L and N-C-M districts
• FARs applied on a sliding scale, based on lot size
• More generous FAR allowance in the N-C-M district; and
• New standards for solar access and building front and side façade design.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Urban Advisors was contracted as a sub-consultant to analyze the economic impacts of revising the
existing FAR standards as described in Option A. The analysis and findings are included in a report
(Attachment 6). The summarized conclusions from the report include:
• While overall values increase with house size, the value per square foot tends to decline,
especially for houses with more than 2,000 square feet of floor area or FARs above 0.30.
• Based on existing property values, and the potential sales prices of new or expanded homes,
most redevelopment is likely to occur on small to average sized lots (4,000 to 10,000 square
feet) in the N-C-M zone district (115 to 125 such properties present prime redevelopment
opportunities under current market conditions).
• The proposed reduction in maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) would not
significantly affect redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhoods because the most
profitable opportunities tend to be at FARs lower than the proposed limits.
• The proposed reduction in the maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) is not likely
to have a significantly positive or negative impact on the affordability of housing in the
neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these
implementation items.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on February 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend
adoption of Ordinance No. 33, 2013, Option B.
The Landmark Preservation Commission is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 13, 2013.
Minutes from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 14, 2013. Minutes
from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Building Review Board is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 28, 2013. Minutes from
this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
364
February 19, 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The following activities were included in the public process used for this study:
Phase 1 – Understand the character and context of the neighborhoods (May – July 2012)
• Email notice for meetings, post card mailing for work shops
• Posted project information on web page
• Initial working group meetings (June)
• 2 public work shop meetings (July 10/12)
• Online questionnaire
• Updates to boards and commissions
• City Council work session (July 24)
Phase 2 – Develop a Strategy (August – November 2012)
• Series of working group meetings (August/September)
• On-line survey
• Public work shop meeting (November 5)
• Updates to boards and commissions
• City Council work session (November 27)
Phase 3 – Implementation of Strategy Options (December 2012 – February 2013)
• Series of working group meetings (January 16, 2013)
• Public Open House meeting (January 30)
• Updates to boards and commissions
• Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 7)
• City Council Work Session (February 12)
• Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing – Recommendation (February 13)
• Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing - Recommendation (February 14)
• City Council First Reading of Ordinance (February 19)
• Building Review Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 28)
• City Council Second Reading of Ordinance (March 5)”
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner, discussed the Ordinance, which would adopt strategy options to
implement the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. Wray reviewed the public
outreach process which included presentations to boards and commissions. Option A of the
Ordinance includes an adjustment to the existing floor area ratio standard formula and Option B
would leave the existing floor area ratio formula as it currently exists in the LUC.
Wray reviewed minor changes made since the February 12th work session, including a clarification
regarding how basements are measured and a staff recommendation for extending the enactment of
the Ordinance for two months. Wray detailed the strategies found in both Options: the expansion
of the notice area for Zoning Board of Appeals variance requests from 150 feet to 500 feet, a
revision to the existing floor area ratio standards based on a sliding scale according to lot size and
an adjustment to the measurement method for calculating large-volume spaces and elevated
basements, an adjustment to the measurement method for building side wall height, an adjustment
365
February 19, 2013
of side wall height for projects that have a side wall on a neighboring property to the north based
on a threshold for project size, to provide additional solar access, and a menu of options for front
and side facades to address building mass and scale.
Wray discussed case studies illustrating the application of the existing standards versus the
application of the proposed standards.
Councilmember Horak noted a question was raised as to whether he should participate in this
discussion, given the location of his home in the Westside neighborhood. He stated he is part of the
general public in the area.
Councilmember Manvel noted he lives is in the Eastside neighborhood and has the same opinion.
Councilmember Troxell noted the Council Ethics Review Board found the Mayor needed to recuse
herself from the discussions relating to the mall redevelopment.
City Attorney Roy stated any Councilmember could refer the issue to the Ethics Review Board for
an advisory opinion; however, the ultimate decision would be up to the Councilmembers in question.
He stated he would review the issue during citizen participation.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, stated different zoning regulations do make sense for this part of
town. He expressed concern regarding solar access.
Meg Dunn, 720 West Oak, supported Option A.
Kate Forgadge, South Whitcomb Street, supported Option A.
Bill Jenkins, 710 Mathews, supported Option A.
Lynne Hull, 510 Whedbee Street, supported Option A.
Gina Curler, 217 South Sherwood, supported the ability of property owners to build on their
property. She expressed concern regarding the premise of the character study and noted citizens
repealed similar regulations in 2011.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards, supported Option A.
Tami Agne, 518 North Whitcomb, supported Option A.
Bob Sutton, 4032 Bracadale Place, supported Option B.
Kevin Murray, Westside neighborhood resident, supported Option A.
Greg Ritner, Fort Collins resident, supported Option B.
John White, 1220 West Mountain, supported the ability of property owners to build on their property
and opposed the adoption of any Ordinance which would limit that ability.
366
February 19, 2013
Judy Lovass, Fort Collins resident, supported Option A.
Angie Spangler, Westside resident, supported Option B.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker, supported Option A.
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards, supported Option A.
Sean Dougherty, 1344 Catalpa, supported Option B.
Susan Kruel-Froseth, 524 Spring Canyon Court, expressed concern that this issue has returned
despite the repeal in 2011.
Francie Martinez, 2220 Dolan, opposed the revision of the floor area ratio given the repeal of the
prior regulations. She expressed concern Council rushes decisions.
Bob Bailey, 1306 West Mountain, supported Option A.
Baron Woxman, 628 Laporte, supported Option B, though he felt neither option was necessary.
Ian Shuff, 715 West Mountain, supported Option B.
Gina Jannet, 730 West Oak, supported Option A.
Robert Kirkpatrick, 1510 Whedbee, supported Option B.
Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, expressed concern Council is not dealing with the issues at hand
and suggested the item be tabled.
Jill Kuch, 709 Stover, opposed both Options.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported Option A.
Jim Wurz, 425 North Sherwood, supported Option A.
Jeffrey Martin, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chairman, supported Option B.
Cathy Conan, Old Town resident, supported the diversity of Old Town and opposed regulations.
Myrne Watrous, 723 West Olive, supported Option A.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, supported Option B.
Margit Hentachel, 216 Wood Street, supported Option A.
Anita Rehner, 520 Sycamore, supported Option A.
367
February 19, 2013
Executive Session Authorized
City Attorney Roy suggested Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing legal
matters, as permitted under the City Code. He noted Council would need to decide, by vote, that
it would be detrimental to the public good to delay the Executive Session. Council could also opt
to waive its attorney-client privilege and be given counsel’s advice publically.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to go into Executive
Session as permitted by Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of conferring for
attorneys for the City regarding legal matters.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would vote to go into Executive Session but viewed the subject
as bogus as the two Councilmembers in question are not affected in any greater fashion than one-
third of the city.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if any Councilmember would claim abuse of the conflict of interest
policies. If not, there is no need for the Executive Session.
Councilmember Troxell stated the discussion is warranted, given the recent issues regarding the mall
redevelopment and the necessity of the Mayor to recuse herself from those discussions.
Councilmember Manvel asked how the item would be brought before the Ethics Review Board.
City Attorney Roy replied an inquiry brought by a single Councilmember or a complaint filed by
any person could bring the item before the Ethics Review Board. Councilmember Manvel noted
neither of those instances has occurred.
The vote on the motion to go into Executive Session was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Manvel.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, that delaying the
Executive Session would be detrimental to the public interest. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s Note: The Council went into Executive Session at this point in the meeting.)
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the Executive Session, Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by
Councilmember Poppaw, that Council adjourn to 6:00 p.m. on February 26, 2013, to consider all
pending items, including Ordinance No. 033, 2013.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted citizen participation regarding Ordinance No. 033, 2013 has already
been completed and will not occur again.
368
February 19, 2013
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
369
March 5, 2013
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, March 5, 2013,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weitkunat.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 8:48 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Item No. 20, First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2013, Authorizing
the Conveyance to Woodward, Inc. of Two Non-Exclusive Permanent Drainage Easements and a
Temporary Construction Easement on City-Owned Property, has been postponed to the adjourned
meeting on March 18, 2013. He recommended reversing the order of Item Nos. 32, First Reading
of Ordinance No. 046, 2013, Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to Establish a Disposable Bag
Fee, and 33, First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2013, Enacting Water Rates Adjustments for the
Water Supply Shortage Response Levels Established in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
and Amending the Plan.
City Manager Atteberry noted a Resolution has been added under Other Business which temporarily
appoints Councilmember Horak to the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Citizen Participation
Ed Faillache, 1508 West Elizabeth, supported mayoral term limits being the same as those of
Councilmembers.
Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, supported Item No. 21, expanding the
boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority.
Virginia Farver, 1214 Belleview Drive, expressed concern regarding possible health effects of
emissions from wireless devices, including AMI meters.
John Anderson, Fort Collins resident, discussed environmental protection and encouraged living
with the earth rather than on it.
Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, opposed the means by which citizens are allowed to
participate in Planning and Zoning Board processes.
403
March 5, 2013
Stan Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive, discussed allegations relating to a petition submitted to Council
from the oil and gas industry.
Mel Hilgenberg, 172 North College, reported on local theater, commended Kelly Ohlson on 30 years
of public service, requested Council revisit the petition signatures opposed to CSU’s on-campus
stadium, and requested an investigation into Urban Renewal, TIF, and the Innosphere project.
Jack Daniels, 172 North College, commended the City on its credit rating and expressed gratitude
that he lives in Fort Collins.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the Charter of the City and a potential conflict
between its wording and the placement of the URA’s debt.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw requested a staff response to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association
(COGA) petition issue. City Clerk Nelson replied there is no investigation at this time; COGA has
asked to withdraw the petition, which the City has viewed solely as a document of support. She
stated staff would look into the issue further at Council’s request.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would like to determine whether or not there would be any
potential wrongdoing as the petition contained falsified information. City Clerk Nelson stated staff
would look into the issue.
Councilmember Horak noted the mayoral term limit was set by citizens and the Charter and any
future change to the Charter would go to a vote of the citizens. Regarding the Planning and Zoning
Board process, he recognized that applicants do get the opportunity to speak longer and offer
rebuttal, where as citizens do not receive that opportunity. He noted appeal hearings have time
allotted more equitably and noted staff is looking into making the process more equitable at the
Planning and Zoning Board level.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 5, 2013 Regular Meeting.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds for the Art in Public Places Program.
In 2012, Article XII of Chapter 23 of the City Code relating to Art in Public Places (APP)
was amended by Ordinance No. 078, 2012. Part of those changes included an administrative
policy change to move APP art projects from lapsing to non-lapsing capital project accounts
to improve the accountability and transparency of APP projects. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 19, 2013, will complete that process by
404
March 5, 2013
moving all reserved APP funds as of December 31, 2012 to new non-lapsing capital project
accounts or to a lapsing administration and maintenance account.
8. Items Relating to the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by
Eminent Domain of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of Parcels
of Real Property on North College Avenue to the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
The North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox is a multimodal improvement
project that extends from Conifer Street to Willox Lane. This project will construct
improvements in accordance with the City of Fort Collins North College Corridor Plan and
the US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report. The project is planned to begin construction
in 2014, addressing the remaining section of the North College Corridor. The project budget
consists of both federal and local funds. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on February 19, 2013, will enable the City to acquire certain lands adjacent to the
project area. The acquisitions include both rights-of-way and permanent and temporary
easements. Timely acquisition of the property is necessary to meet the anticipated
construction schedule. This project is one of the highest ranked roadway projects in the
City’s Capital Improvements Plan.
9. Items Relating to the Removal of Signs.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 17, Article III, Section 17-42 of the City Code Regarding Signs in the Right-
of-Way.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code
Regarding the Removal of Election Signs.
Ordinance No. 030, 2013, amends City Code Section 17-42 to eliminate the 24-hour
notification requirement that the City must provide before removing signs that are illegally
placed in the right-of-way. It also recommends providing notice to the business or entity
identified on the sign after its removal, and holding the sign for ten (10) days to allow the
owner the opportunity to retrieve the sign before disposal, unless the sign is insignificant in
value or it advertises or promotes an event or activity that has already occurred. Also
recommended is the ability for staff to immediately dispose of the sign if it is a repeat
violation within a 12-month period. This section applies to all signs placed in the right-of-
way.
405
March 5, 2013
Ordinance No. 031, 2013, amends Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the City’s Land Use Code to extend
the length of time allowed to remove election signs from private property from four (4) days
after an election to five (5) days after an election. This section applies only to election signs
on private property. These Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on
February 19, 2013.
10. Items Relating to the State Highway 14-Mulberry Pedestrian Bridge Relocation Project for
the Poudre Trail.
A. Resolution 2013-016 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation to Receive Funding for
the State Highway 14 - Mulberry Pedestrian Bridge Relocation Project for the
Poudre Trail.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
from the Colorado Department of Transportation into the Mulberry to Lemay
Pedestrian Bridge-Poudre Trail project in the Capital Projects Fund.
The City’s Engineering and Park Planning Departments were awarded a grant from the
federally funded North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization totaling $368,000
for the relocation of two existing steel pedestrian bridges and the construction of a new
concrete section of the Poudre trail. The general vicinity of the project is between Mulberry
Street and Lemay Avenue, along the north side of the Poudre River. This project will build
the trail, bridge abutments and piers to receive one of the relocated pedestrian bridges.
Adoption of the Ordinance appropriates the grant money for the project and adoption of the
Resolution authorizes the Mayor to sign the grant agreement.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2013, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges
for the City’s Raw Water for the 2013 Irrigation Season.
This Ordinance approves procedures and rates for the rental and delivery of the City’s raw
water supplies. The Water Utility uses these rates to assess charges for agricultural use, for
various contractual raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries to City departments
and other entities. The proposed rate for each type of water is based on several factors,
including market conditions and assessments charged by irrigation companies. Rentals in
2013 will be substantially limited and different than past years due to fire and drought
related water supply issues.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing of Vehicles and Equipment for Various City Departments.
The City of Fort Collins is lease-purchasing vehicles and equipment for various city
departments. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $2,543,005. Payments at the
2.23% interest rate will not exceed $269,450 in 2013. Money for 2013 lease-purchase
payments is included in the 2013 budget requests. The effect of the debt position for the
406
March 5, 2013
purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 2.0%. A
competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes
acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest.
13. First Reading for Ordinance No. 037, 2013 Repealing Ordinance No. 65, 1999, Resolution
96-73 and Resolution 88-81; Making Certain Amendments to the City Code and Land Use
Code to Allow for the Discretionary Waiver of City Fees for Certain Kinds of Housing
Authority Projects to Be Constructed in the City; and Authorizing an Agreement Between
the City and the Housing Authority with Regard to Such Waivers.
Colorado statutes and a City ordinance exempt projects of the Fort Collins Housing
Authority (FCHA) from City taxes and fees and, for many years, the City has waived fees
for such projects. For the most part, the projects have been relatively small.
In 2011, the Housing Authority partnered with CARE Housing, a non-profit agency, on an
affordable housing project in the Provincetown subdivision. Although the interest of the
Housing Authority in the project was small (technically a .001% partner), a waiver of City
fees for the CARE Housing Provincetown Project was requested and granted by the City
Council. The fee waiver totaled $557,378. The magnitude of the waiver, as well as the fact
that the Housing Authority held only a minor ownership interest in the project, prompted
staff to examine the fee waiver policy for future Housing Authority projects. At a
subsequent work session of the Council, staff was directed to provide some options for
future projects, especially those in which the Housing Authority has only a minor interest.
Staff presented options and a recommendation to City Council on July 10, 2012. City
Council generally supported the direction to make Fort Collins Housing Authority fee
waivers optional and to limit waivers to certain kinds of project. Council also asked for
some additional information and to discuss the options and recommended approach with the
Economic Advisory Commission.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2013, Extending the Contract of the City’s Employee
Wellness Program Software Provider.
In 2008, the City of Fort Collins utilized a competitive bid process and contracted with the
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (Mayo) to provide services
associated with the assessment and management of existing and potential health risks of City
employees. These services allow the City of Fort Collins Human Resources Department to
collect and analyze data and support efforts to manage rising healthcare costs. Services
provided by Mayo include employee health risk assessments, health information and
education, support for behavior modification, and disease management. These services are
an integral part of the City’s wellness and employee health benefit programs. Additionally,
some organizations are integrating these services with an Onsite Employee Medical Clinic.
There may be possible cost savings, efficiency and effectiveness benefits associated with this
model. As the first step toward evaluating costs, benefits and options associated with a
possible Onsite Employee Medical Clinic, the City will release a Request for Proposal (RFP)
407
March 5, 2013
in the spring of 2013. Vendors will be asked to respond to the City’s interest in evaluating
proposals that incorporate these services into the Clinic model. This extension will allow
the City to evaluate options associated with a Clinic while continuing usage of services
provided by Mayo.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2013 Amending the City Code and Creating a Parking
Advisory Board.
At the City Council meeting on January 15, 2013, several City Councilmembers indicated
an interest in a possible parking commission or board as a way to continue implementation
of the recently-adopted Parking Plan. This agenda item summary provides detailed
information about the creation of a parking advisory board.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2013, Amending Section 2.2.11(C) of the Land Use
Code Regarding the Period of Time that Project Development Plans and Plats for Large Base
Industries Remain in Effect.
This Ordinance amends Land Use Code (LUC) Section 2.2.11(c), regarding a Project
Development Plan and Plat to allow for the approval of a final plan within a twenty-five (25)
year period of time for a Large Base Industry to be constructed in phases and as defined in
Article 5 of the LUC.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Certain
Recommendations Contained in the Student Housing Action Plan.
The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP), adopted by City Council on February 26, 2013,
has identified both near-term and long-term action items to address concerns with
compatibility between multi-family development and existing neighborhoods. This
Ordinance will (1) improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include
good examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in certain zones; (2) amend MMN
district development standards and LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify that
no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback from single- and two-family
dwellings. Also, consider landscape requirements for this setback; and (3) better define and
amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that 4+ bedroom developments need to
provide additional open space, recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are
necessary to adequately serve the development and retain the parking exemption in the TOD
Overlay Zone.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 042, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Drainage Outfall Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on Archery Range
Natural Area to Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC.
Cottonwood Land and Farms is requesting a twenty-foot wide permanent non-exclusive
drainage easement and a twenty-foot wide temporary construction easement, both
approximately sixty feet in length across a small portion of Archery Range Natural Area.
408
March 5, 2013
The purpose of the easement is to install a 12-inch buried pipe to convey water from
Cottonwood’s East Rigden Pit to the Cache la Poudre River. The buried outfall pipe crossing
Archery Range is part of a larger 2,700 linear foot drainage outfall pipe constructed on
adjacent properties. The project site is located generally on the “Rigden Pit” property and
the “Port of Entry Pit” property northeast of Horsetooth Road and Ziegler Road.
Alternatives to this preferred alignment proved prohibitive both from an economic and
engineering standpoint.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Drainage Easement on Salyer Natural Area to Charles Meserlian.
The Hickory Commons project is a proposed live/work residential development located
immediately north of Salyer Natural Area along Hemlock Street. The site is currently
undeveloped, and the proposed project will include impermeable surfaces that will increase
stormwater runoff from the site. Stormwater will be collected in a retention pond, and then
released at a controlled rate through a buried pipeline within the existing Hemlock Street
right-of-way. There will be no impacts to Salyer Natural Area; the easement only allows
stormwater to cross the property to the Cache la Poudre River and does not involve
construction of any improvements on NAD property.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance to Woodward, Inc.
of Two Non-Exclusive Permanent Drainage Easements and a Temporary Construction
Easement on City-Owned Property.
The proposed Woodward Link-N-Greens Campus (“Woodward”) will be a master-planned
campus providing the ability to retain and grow primary jobs for the community. The
campus will accommodate Woodward’s continued growth of its current operations in Fort
Collins. It also includes adjacent commercial services that can be used by Woodward
employees and the public with close access to downtown and the Mulberry corridor. The
planned campus will help to improve the river corridor through the site including restoration
of the natural river corridor landscape, habitat, and appropriate recreation opportunities.
The proposed use is compatible with existing and anticipated development, and supports the
city’s vision for this area. Fort Collins’ City Plan (Plan Fort Collins) identifies this site in its
Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas Map and denotes the Lincoln Avenue Area as one
of its “Catalyst Project Areas”. These Areas are identified as locations in the city having
potential to showcase opportunities to embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of
Innovate, Sustain, and Connect. They are viewed as potential places for public/private
initiatives using a triple bottom line approach addressing economic, environmental, and
social factors in a balanced manner.
For this development, Woodward has requested that the City grant Woodward two
permanent drainage easements for stormwater flows, one which would include construction
of a buried drainage pipe and the other for a graded swale. In addition, a temporary
409
March 5, 2013
construction easement is needed for grading, landscaping, and associated restoration work
on City-owned property adjacent to the Poudre River.
21. Items Relating to Expanding the Boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 045, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development
of the Authority to Include Property Presently Known as the Max Flats Properties.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development
of the Authority to Include Property Presently Known as the Link-N-Greens
Property.
This item is a request to expand the boundaries of the Fort Collins Downtown Development
Authority (DDA) and amend the Plan of Development of the Authority to include a property
in the 200 block of West Mulberry Street and a property in the 700 block of East Lincoln
Avenue. The properties include the former locations of Mason Automotive and King’s Auto
(southwest corner of Mulberry and Mason Streets) and the Link-N-Greens golf course.
22. Resolution 2013-017 Accepting the Proposed Donation of the Downtown Development
Authority and Lisa Cameron Art in Action Sculpture.
This Resolution accepts the donation of a five paneled painted steel sculpture that was
created during the DDA Art in Action Project. This sculpture will become part of the City’s
Art in Public Places collection.
23. Resolution 2013-018 Supporting the Grant Application for a School Play Yard Grant from
the State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund for the Completion of Linton
Elementary Playground.
The City, in cooperation with Poudre School District, is applying for a Great Outdoors
Colorado School Play Yard Grant for the completion of the playground at Linton Elementary
School. The City is eligible to sponsor Poudre School District for this grant application and
Great Outdoors Colorado requires this resolution expressing City Council support to be
submitted as part of the grant package. No City finances are needed for this grant.
24. Resolution 2013-019 Ratifying the Appointment of Jennifer Birks to the Poudre River Public
Library District Board of Trustees.
On December 19, 2012, Trustee President Michael Liggett wrote a letter informing the
Selection Committee of the term expiration of Michelle Kalkowski. On February 20, 2013,
the Library Trustee Selection Committee, comprised of Mayor Karen Weitkunat and
Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Larimer County Commissioners Lew Gaiter and Steve
410
March 5, 2013
Johnson, met and unanimously recommend the appointment of Jennifer Birks for a four-year
term.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds for the Art in Public Places Program.
8. Items Relating to the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by
Eminent Domain of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of Parcels
of Real Property on North College Avenue to the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
9. Items Relating to the Removal of Signs.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 17, Article III, Section 17-42 of the City Code Regarding Signs in the Right-
of-Way.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code
Regarding the Removal of Election Signs.
29. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2013, Amending the City Code to Impose a Ban on
Oil and Gas Operations and Hydraulic Fracturing and Certain Storage of Waste Within the
City (Option 1 or 2).
30. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2013, Making Amendments to the City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to Implementation of the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhoods Character Study
31. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2013, Amending the City Code to Prohibit the
Disposal of Cardboard in the Community's Waste Stream and to Amend Requirements for
Recycling Applicable Solid Waste Collection.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
10. Items Relating to the State Highway 14-Mulberry Pedestrian Bridge Relocation Project for
the Poudre Trail.
411
March 5, 2013
A. Resolution 2013-016 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental
Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation to Receive Funding for
the State Highway 14 - Mulberry Pedestrian Bridge Relocation Project for the
Poudre Trail.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
from the Colorado Department of Transportation into the Mulberry to Lemay
Pedestrian Bridge-Poudre Trail project in the Capital Projects Fund.
11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2013, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges
for the City’s Raw Water for the 2013 Irrigation Season.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into
an Agreement for the Financing of Vehicles and Equipment for Various City Departments.
13. First Reading for Ordinance No. 037, 2013 Repealing Ordinance No. 65, 1999, Resolution
96-73 and Resolution 88-81; Making Certain Amendments to the City Code and Land Use
Code to Allow for the Discretionary Waiver of City Fees for Certain Kinds of Housing
Authority Projects to Be Constructed in the City; and Authorizing an Agreement Between
the City and the Housing Authority with Regard to Such Waivers.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2013, Extending the Contract of the City’s Employee
Wellness Program Software Provider.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2013 Amending the City Code and Creating a Parking
Advisory Board.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 040, 2013, Amending Section 2.2.11(C) of the Land Use
Code Regarding the Period of Time that Project Development Plans and Plats for Large Base
Industries Remain in Effect.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 041, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Certain
Recommendations Contained in the Student Housing Action Plan.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 042, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Drainage Outfall Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on Archery Range
Natural Area to Cottonwood Land and Farms, LLC.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 043, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Drainage Easement on Salyer Natural Area to Charles Meserlian.
21. Items Relating to Expanding the Boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority.
412
March 5, 2013
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 045, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development
of the Authority to Include Property Presently Known as the Max Flats Properties.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2013, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort
Collins Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development
of the Authority to Include Property Presently Known as the Link-N-Greens
Property.
32. First Reading of Ordinance No. 046, 2013, Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to
Establish a Disposable Bag Fee.
33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 047, 2013, Enacting Water Rates Adjustments for the Water
Supply Shortage Response Levels Established in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan
and Amending the Plan.
34. First Reading of Ordinance No. 048, 2013, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Relating
to Development in the Poudre River Floodplain.
Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item Nos. 6, Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the
February 5, 2013 Regular Meeting, 15, First Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2013 Amending the
City Code and Creating a Parking Advisory Board and 17, First Reading of Ordinance No. 041,
2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Address Certain Recommendations Contained in the Student
Housing Action Plan 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. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Horak noted the positive future impact of Item No. 10, Items Relating to the State
Highway 14-Mulberry Pedestrian Bridge Relocation Project for the Poudre Trail. He asked how
actively the City is pursuing a complete switch to electric fleet vehicles. City Manager Atteberry
replied he would respond at a later date. He mentioned the pedestrian bridge is tied to a CDOT
improvement project which will also involve replacing and enhancing that section of roadway.
Councilmember Horak stated the City of Fort Collins has been working with North Poudre and other
irrigation companies to ensure there is water available for as much irrigation as possible, relating
to Item No. 11, First Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2013, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery
Charges for the City’s Raw Water for the 2013 Irrigation Season.
413
March 5, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like to meet with staff regarding developments requesting
easements on natural areas and Poudre River water quality. City Manager Atteberry replied he
would arrange that meeting.
Staff Reports
Lawrence Pollack, Budget and Performance Management Manager, discussed the new Community
Dashboard website, which is a result of work of the Futures Committee. He stated the data will be
updated quarterly and will be used not only as a report, but a management tool. He reviewed the
on-line metric itself.
City Manager Atteberry stated this scorecard has about thirty-five community metrics tied to it. He
commended Pollack’s work on the tool.
Councilmember Horak commented that the metric is a means to determine whether or not funds are
well-spent and whether or not increases or decreases in spending affect change.
Councilmember Troxell stated the metrics will attach to outcomes and should play a role in Council
decisions.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Horak discussed Platte River Power Authority’s six-month review of its new
manager and stated there will be a strategic planning process looking at the next source of
electricity. Councilmember Horak stated he met with Warren Lake residents regarding tree removal.
The City, as majority owner of Warren Lake Reservoir did a poor job of notifying citizens of the
need for this procedure. Jon Haukaas and Bruce Hendee met with citizens, as well.
Councilmember Troxell reported on the CSU-City Liaison Committee meeting and stated the SLICE
program at CSU is adopting a street in the Avery Park neighborhood. He commended the
collaboration between CSU and the City.
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes
of the February 5, 2013 Regular Meeting, Approved
Councilmember Troxell stated two items on this agenda dealt with conveyance of easements to Xcel
within the City’s Utility properties, as well as construction easements across four natural areas, to
construct a high-pressure line for communities further south of Fort Collins. He noted Xcel
executed eminent domain proceedings on a property at Harmony and Shields, as was discussed at
last week’s meeting, and asked if the City Manager could address why Xcel’s use of eminent
domain was not part of these items.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and
approve the minutes of February 5, 2013.
414
March 5, 2013
City Manager Atteberry replied he would respond under separate cover, but noted he and
Councilmember Troxell have met with Ms. Carrie Gillis regarding the issue. He has sent a letter
to Xcel regarding its use of eminent domain and will share the response with Council when it is
received.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 039, 2013
Amending the City Code and Creating a Parking
Advisory Board, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the City Council meeting on January 15, 2013, several City Councilmembers indicated an interest
in a possible parking commission or board as a way to continue implementation of the recently-
adopted Parking Plan. This agenda item summary provides detailed information about the creation
of a parking advisory board.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
During the public process for the recently-completed Parking Plan, several ideas were discussed
about how to include more citizen input into the public parking decision-making process, including
topics such as a new governance model (authority or district), an advisory group, an ad hoc
committee, or continued informal engagement between city staff and stakeholders. Most of the
discussion and consensus has coalesced around the idea of an advisory group, which is the
recommendation of staff.
Purpose
The primary reason a parking advisory board is needed is to make recommendations to City Council
and staff about implementation of the adopted Parking Plan. A board is also needed to provide an
avenue for on-going stakeholder input and involvement in parking decisions that affect the public,
while retaining decision-making authority at the City Council level. A board is also needed to
support and advocate for parking initiatives and programs, to help educate the public about parking
issues, and to work with other boards or organizations that have an interest in parking issues.
The Parking Plan includes both short- and long-term action items. A parking advisory board may
be called upon to make recommendations about many of these items, including (but not limited to)
topics such as:
415
March 5, 2013
• New parking infrastructure
• New parking funding alternatives
• The role of parking in economic development
• Optimization of parking resources, both on- and off-street
• Fines and fees
• Enforcement methods and programs
• Integration of parking policies with alternative modes and sustainability initiatives
• Operational innovations, new parking technology, and best practices
• Public/private partnership opportunities
• Parking offers in the “Budgeting for Outcomes” process
Benefits
A new parking advisory board can provide multiple benefits to citizens, City staff members,
businesses, and other entities that have an interest in parking. Examples:
a. A board can provide city staff with a formal organization to work with to evaluate the
impacts of new parking initiatives on the Downtown business community, and to receive
public input as decisions are considered.
b. A board could provide more opportunity for on-going, direct stakeholder involvement.
c. By involving the business community, the City could benefit from the information, experience
and wisdom of those whose livelihoods are impacted by the parking system, thus improving
the program.
d. A board would create a group that has enough time and frequency of meetings to become
educated and informed about parking issues, technology, best practices, and so on.
e. A board can work with City staff to identify the pros and cons of various parking decisions.
f. A board could be an advocacy group to support and promote acceptance of parking
decisions among the broader stakeholder community.
g. A board can help increase the credibility of the parking program with the Downtown
business community.
A possible concern about this option is that it may not satisfy Downtown stakeholders who have
gone on record in support of a new governance entity with decision-making authority.
Membership
The membership of a parking advisory board should include broad-based community representation
to insure credibility and objectivity. Parking entities exist in many other communities, and typically
have participation ranging from 5 to 15 members. A larger membership will provide broader
representation. Fewer members can be more efficient. A workable compromise is 9 members,
which is staff’s recommendation. A City Council member can act as a liaison between the board
and City Council.
The following is a list of potential members that may have an interest in parking issues. This list
is provided for consideration when members of the parking advisory board are selected.
416
March 5, 2013
• Downtown Business Association board member
• Downtown Business Association member at large
• Downtown Development Authority member
• A downtown property owner
• A downtown employee
• A downtown resident
• Colorado State University representative (student, faculty or both)
• Business owner who is not part of DBA or DDA
• City resident who does not live in Downtown
• An “alternative modes” advocate
• Developer, realtor or real estate broker
• A representative of the disabled community
Additional steps
After a new parking advisory board is created, some other steps must be completed, such as:
• Solicitation of parties interested in membership in a new parking entity, including screening
of applicants and ultimate selection by City Council.
• Development of by-laws that define how the board will function.
• Election of officers of the board.
• Adoption of a work plan, and eventually, an annual report of the board’s progress.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The new parking advisory board will need staff support, some of which may have a cost. Costs
could include meals for meetings, supplies and materials, and possible transcription costs depending
on how meeting minutes are recorded. These costs will be incorporated into the existing budget for
Parking Services.
A bigger issue is that a new parking advisory board will influence or inform the discussion of
financing new parking infrastructure and other parking resources. Currently, the City does not have
a revenue source that can be used to build new parking. The Parking Plan discusses options such
as a parking impact fee, existing General Improvement District Revenues, user fees, and others, with
the conclusion that none of these is adequate in the near-term to meet future needs.
The only viable funding sources identified in the Parking Plan that are capable of generating
sufficient revenues for new infrastructure are a new tax measure (such as Building On Basics or
Keep Fort Collins Great funds), or on-street pay parking (a new user fee). A new parking advisory
board could be instrumental in defining community direction for either or both of these funding
sources.
417
March 5, 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The recently-completed Parking Plan discussed a concept that linked parking management to
environmental initiatives. First, there is general direction in the plan to use sustainable
management practices in the way parking operations are conducted. But more specifically, the plan
pointed out that a parking advisory board or similar entity could help focus this objective by adding
sustainability as a key guiding principle or lens through which all operational and strategic
decisions are considered.
While City staff is attempting to ingrain this approach into every planning and operational program
under the City’s umbrella of influence, the same thing has not always been true in the broader
parking stakeholder community. A new parking advisory board can incorporate environmentally
sound principles into its work plan. That approach could provide a broad shift in attitude
throughout the Downtown business community that cannot be accomplished by City staff alone. The
result could be a new approach to parking engagement by businesses and users of parking resources
that would view parking as an effective way to achieve the “triple bottom line” through parking
management practices.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Due to the short interval between the adoption of the Parking Plan and this item, there was no time
to present this item at meetings of various boards and commissions. However, this topic of a
possible “new parking organization” was discussed extensively throughout the Parking Plan public
participation process. The following organizations took positions on this topic as noted below:
Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
On August 9, 2012, the Downtown Development Authority voted 4-1 to draft a letter to City Council
thanking City staff for the work performed in drafting the parking plan; asking them to consider the
recommendations of the Parking Plan Expert Advisory Panel; and recommending the creation of
a hybrid organization such as an authority, commission, or district, of downtown stakeholders to
set parking policy with strong City oversight. The dissenting vote was based on a concern with the
creation of a new parking organization with governance powers.
Downtown Business Association (DBA)
On February 23, 2012, the Downtown Business Association sent a letter to City Council expressing
support for the recommendations of the Parking Plan Expert Advisory Panel, including “the
development of an appropriate governance model (i.e. an Authority, District, Zone) comprised of
downtown stakeholders (local businesses, city representatives, real multi-family residential real
estate owners, et al) to be brought back to Council and ultimately adopted.”
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern that this item was placed on the Consent Calendar and
expressed concern regarding the way this Board is being formed.
418
March 5, 2013
Michael Short, Downtown Fort Collins Business Association Executive Director, stated this item
has the support of the Downtown Business Association, as well as the Downtown Development
Authority.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern there was no time to present this item to various boards
and commissions for feedback. The public process is being shortchanged and he questioned the lack
of citizen involvement.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance
No. 039, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak requested a friendly amendment to replace the use of “chairperson” with
“chair.” Councilmember Manvel and Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson accepted the amendment.
Councilmember Horak stated the item should include a definition of “downtown area” prior to
Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell requested some type of public outreach prior to Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated this is a good news item and is long overdue. He noted there are
existing neighborhoods in and around downtown that are being negatively affected and encouraged
an expansive look at those areas. Two of the most important stakeholder groups were not included:
affected neighborhood individuals in and around downtown, and an environmental or sustainability
representative. He requested those additions be made prior to Second Reading. Laurie Kadrich,
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, replied there are neighborhood
representatives identified on the list, but there is not an environmental representative. The intent of
the Ordinance was to have a broad-based representation.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the economic impacts of staff support for
this Board. City Manager Atteberry replied there will be direct costs; however, there may also be
efficiencies gained which may result in savings.
Councilmember Horak appreciated Councilmember Troxell’s concerns but stated this item needed
to occur.
Mayor Weitkunat noted Council will have the ability to ensure the placement of a balanced Board.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
419
March 5, 2013
Ordinance No. 041, 2013,
Amending the Land Use Code to Address Certain Recommendations
Contained in the Student Housing Action Plan, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP), adopted by City Council on February 26, 2013, has
identified both near-term and long-term action items to address concerns with compatibility between
multi-family development and existing neighborhoods. This Ordinance will (1) improve
understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to include good examples (photos, drawings)
of what is allowed in certain zones; (2) amend MMN district development standards and LUC Sec.
3.8.30 multi-family standards to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback
from single- and two-family dwellings. Also, consider landscape requirements for this setback; and
(3) better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that 4+ bedroom developments
need to provide additional open space, recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are
necessary to adequately serve the development and retain the parking exemption in the TOD
Overlay Zone.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Several LUC amendments have been adopted by Council during the last several months as a
response to concerns expressed by Council, citizens, and concerns identified during the Student
Housing Action Plan process regarding adverse impacts of multi-family developments adjacent to
existing single-family neighborhoods. Thus far the following LUC amendments have been adopted:
• Adding land use standards from the MMN Zone District to Article 3 (General Development
Standards) to enhance compatibility between multi-family developments with existing single-
family neighborhoods.
• Eliminating a loophole in the NC zone district (which is intended to be a mixed-use
commercial area) that allowed for developments smaller than 10 acres to be entirely
multifamily housing.
• Create a threshold of 50 dwelling units or 75 bedrooms for multi-family developments that
will require a Planning and Zoning Board Hearing (Type II) rather than an administrative
hearing (Type 1).
Some of the more complex proposed LUC changes were reviewed during the October 9, 2012
Council Work Session and moved into the SHAP process for further evaluation and public
discussion. The near-term SHAP Action Items have been divided into two phases. Phase 1 is being
proposed with this report and Phase 2 consists of the following:
SHAP Action Items Phase 2:
420
March 5, 2013
4. Confirm that the uses, development standards and density allowances in the NCB district are
consistent with the intent and purpose of the district appropriate sub-area plans in that it
provides a transition between residential neighborhoods and commercial-use areas. This
change will require incorporating the results of the Eastside/Westside Neighborhood
Character Study which is not yet complete.
Staff believes that this item (#4) warrants public processing and staff work beyond the scope of the
current package of Land Use Code changes.
For example, additional work may include the following tasks, all of which require effective public
engagement with stakeholders:
• Review the adopted vision, goals, and policies for the neighborhood
• Understand the context and existing character in the affected areas (including both physical
data and stakeholder issues, attitudes, and concerns)
• Analyze and understand the effects of current zoning, including variance requests
• Analyze and understand the effects of any ideas for changes to zoning allowances or
geographic boundaries, which likely will require some degree of graphic modeling
• Develop recommendations
The NCB Zone’s Purpose statement refers to adopted subarea plans as its basis. Three such plans
provide the specific policy basis for the zoning allowances and boundaries that have raised
questions and issues. Ideally, this item would be addressed in the context of larger neighborhood
plan evaluations.
The three plans are also included in the 2013-2014 planning work program. The West Central
Neighborhood Plan is scheduled to be updated in 2013, and the East Side and West Side
Neighborhood Plans are scheduled for updates in 2014. NCB issues have always been anticipated
to be addressed in these plan updates.
The NCB zone was created along with the NCL and NCM zones in 1991. In 2004, the three zones
were updated with “carriage house” standards. In the NCL and NCM zones, recent planning
projects (the 2010 and 2012 Eastside and Westside neighborhood Character studies) have
highlighted the sensitivity of zoning changes.
5. Define different multi-family housing types (rather than just the broad multi-family
definition). The requirement for multiple housing types could be used as a gradient of
development between proposed multi-family and existing single-family.
In order to propose these revisions, a variety of housing types such as tri-plex, four-plex, and
possibly 5-6-plexes will need to be developed, defined, and applied to zone districts with
corresponding review and approval procedures. These proposed revisions should be presented to
stakeholders such as neighborhood groups and developers. These LUC revisions are anticipated
to be proposed with the annual LUC package presented to the Planning and Zoning Board in May.
421
March 5, 2013
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its February 21, 2013 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6–0 to recommend adoption
of the Ordinance. After considerable deliberation, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended
removal of the TOD parking exception for 4+ bedroom units as recommended by staff and outlined
in the staff report on page 11. The Planning and Zoning Board thought that there was not enough
data regarding development in the TOD to warrant changes to the City’s vision.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) has done extensive outreach to stakeholders since summer
2011 and was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board on January 17, 2013.
These proposed LUC revisions were presented to stakeholders on February 4, 2013. Some of the
attendees thought that the proposed revisions were too restrictive while others thought they were
not restrictive enough.”
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern regarding the placement of this item on the Consent
Calendar and encouraged additional discussion regarding student housing versus multi-family
housing. He stated affordable housing is directly impacted with some of these definitions and the
four-bedroom issue.
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way, noted student housing is not defined in the Land Use Code and
student housing cannot be separated from multi-family housing; therefore, the Student Housing
Action Plan may not be able to withstand challenges.
Patrick Edwards, 1731 Valley Forge, stated it would be wise to obtain additional student input and
noted students live in neighborhoods, they do not just impact them.
Joel Rovnak, 1308 Bennett Road, stated these changes would give hope to neighbors as they will
have the opportunity to present their case. The communities around CSU are important for all
citizens, not just students. The proposed changes relating to four-bedroom units are not designed
to hinder affordable housing development.
Jeffrey Martin, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chair, commended staff for work on the item. He
stated the Board supports the SHAP with minor changes. He recommended taking additional time
before adoption and opposed increasing the parking requirements in the Transit Overlay District.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, expressed concern regarding the speed of the Land
Use Code changes. He requested additional data regarding four-bedroom units prior to enacting
these regulations.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the Student Housing Action Plan has already been brought before Council
and this Ordinance would begin to enact Phase One. She requested staff input regarding the Transit
Overlay District and the four-bedroom units. Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Director, replied the discussion relating to these changes began last May as
422
March 5, 2013
a result of citizen concerns relating to the compatibility of multi-family and large-scale
developments with existing single-family neighborhoods. A series of Land Use Code changes
designed to help mitigate these impacts were developed, separate from the SHAP process. The
items among those which needed further discussion were rolled into the SHAP last fall. The
merging of these two processes has led to confusion.
Seth Larson, City Planner, stated staff has recommended an increase in parking for four plus
bedroom units from two and half spaces to three spaces per unit. Staff has also recommended four-
bedroom units have required parking in the TOD overlay zone. That item was not recommended
for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Mayor Weitkunat noted this Ordinance reflects the Planning and Zoning Board direction.
Councilmember Manvel noted the decision maker will have the ability to assess the impacts of four-
bedroom units on a development and enact various regulations. Larson replied it is a non-
prescriptive standard.
Councilmember Troxell noted this applies to all multi-family developments and asked about the
requirement for open space. Larson replied open space or green area amenities would be required
as part of developments.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern this item has not been properly vetted.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 041, 2013, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated Council opted to delay these items in order to roll them over into the
SHAP process and stated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion as the item has been hurried.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the motion; however, there may be some issues related
to the four-bedroom units. She stated she trusts appropriate changes will be made if necessary.
Councilmember Troxell disagreed that potential changes should be pushed into the future.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak.
Nays: Troxell.
Ordinance No. 032, 2013,
Amending the City Code to Impose a Ban on Oil and Gas Operations
and Hydraulic Fracturing and Certain Storage of Waste Within
the City (Option 1 or 2), Adopted Option 2 on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
423
March 5, 2013
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 5, 2013 City Council directed staff to prepare City Code changes prohibiting the use
of hydraulic fracturing and certain storage of waste within the city limits. Those changes are
reflected in Ordinance No. 032, 2013. On February 19, 2013, Council amended Ordinance No. 032,
2013 to include a ban on oil and gas operations as well as hydraulic fracturing. The amended
Ordinance was adopted on First Reading by a vote of 5-2 (nays: Kottwitz, Troxell). Council also
directed staff to prepare methods to repeal Ordinance No. 145, 2012 which would remove the
moratorium on the submission, acceptance, consideration and approval of all applications for City
licenses, permits and other approvals in any way to oil and gas uses within the City, or at a
minimum permit oil and gas operations if Council authorizes an “operator agreement” for such.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Ordinance No. 032, 2013 – Ban
On February 26, 2013 Council directed staff to prepare two options for consideration at the March
5, 2013 meeting. Option 1 is the amended version from the February 19, 2013 meeting and
subsequently bans all oil and gas operations in the city limits – see definition below. Option 2 is
the original option requested by Council on February 5, 2013 and limits a ban to hydraulic
fracturing. Both options permit oil and gas operations and hydraulic fracturing to occur when a
Council authorized operator agreement is in place, prohibit storage of waste within the city.
Option 1
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2013 amending the City Code to impose a ban on oil and
gas operations and hydraulic fracturing and certain storage of wastes within the City (except with
a Council-approved operator agreement).
Or
Option 2
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2013 amending the City Code to impose a ban on hydraulic
fracturing and certain storage of wastes with in the City (except with a Council-approved operator
agreement).
“OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS” as defined by the Colorado Oil and Gas
Commission: means exploration for oil and gas, including the conduct of seismic
operations and the drilling of test bores; the siting, drilling, deepening,
recompletion, reworking, or abandonment of an oil and gas well, underground
injection well, or gas storage well; production operations related to any such well
including the installation of flowlines and gathering systems; the generation,
transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of exploration and production wastes;
424
March 5, 2013
and any construction, site preparation, or reclamation activities associated with such
operations.
During the Council discussion, questions arose regarding whether the existing moratorium was
needed if either of the above mentioned options were adopted. The following is the information
provided previously regarding the purpose of the moratorium and the work directed by Council to
be completed during the time of the Moratorium.
Ordinance No. 145, 2012 - Moratorium
On December 4, 2012, Council considered regulation of oil and gas exploration and production and
unanimously voted to impose a six-month moratorium on the submission, acceptance, consideration
and approval of any all applications for City licenses, permits and other approvals related in any
way to oil and gas uses within the City and on City-owned lands. The moratorium was intended to
allow staff and Council time to further investigate the extent of the City’s authority to regulate such
uses and is set to expire July 31, 2013.
City Council direction for additional work during moratorium:
• Monitor and present City Council recommendations to the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (COGCC) during the rulemaking process as described above.
Incorporate, as needed any changes into proposed Land Use Code (LUC) amendments.
• Monitor and present City Council recommendations to any relevant bills considered during
the 2013 State of Colorado Legislative Session especially as any further legislation is
considered related to air or water quality.
• Develop materials including additional location maps that identify the geological formations
present within the City and the Growth Management Area. Identify the locations of oil and
shale gas deposits including the various formations. Map the locations of all wells within
those areas and locations currently seeking permits to drill. Include mineral ownership
information.
• Extend the set-back criteria into the Growth Management Area and create new mapping that
identifies areas currently exempt from drilling and those that would be if additional set-back
criteria were adopted by the COGCC.
• Evaluate the impact of regulations proposed on existing and future oil and gas operations
and consider code amendments as needed for addressing the differences in oil extraction
compared to gas or methane production. Specifically consider whether soils testing is
needed for both.
• Update the Best Practice Matrix dated August 27, 2012, to include LUC Option A and B as
well as more specific information on street maintenance, financial consequences, local
impact fee, cultural resource rule m reclamation areas and water sourcing.
• Propose an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County that ensures that any oil and
gas activity within the GMA would be considered new development and as such annexed into
the city and permitted under the city’s development process.
• Negotiate and present a proposal for adopting an operator agreement with Prospect Energy,
the owner and operator of the Fort Collins Field.
425
March 5, 2013
• Re-engage the boards and stakeholder groups and seek their recommendations regarding
Option A or Option B.
• Provide additional information regarding surface use agreements especially as the
agreement relates to habitat fragmentation and restoration; include photos and examples.
• Identify areas that may be considered for a Designated Outside Activity area and as such
further exempt from oil and gas activities.
Staff has begun work on many of these items, however, there is still work to be completed for the
drafting of LUC amendments and it is uncertain what actions the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission will be enacting as part of proposed revisions to regulations affecting oil and gas
owners and operators. As part of this process, the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) is holding stakeholder meetings through May 2013. CDPHE is the agency
that governs air quality once an oil or gas well is in production. Revisions made by the COGCC
will be in effect beginning in May for water quality and in August for set-backs. There may also be
changes during the 2013 General Assembly that affect local regulations for oil and gas operations.
Staff was also directed to provide information on whether the City is working with the Larimer
County Board of Health regarding air quality impacts from oil and gas development. Lucinda
Smith, Director of Environmental Services provided the following:
“City staff has been in touch with Doug Ryan, Larimer County Department of Health and
Environment, about oil and gas issues. Both City and County staff are supportive of the
upcoming Front Range emissions study. This study is awaiting funding and will enable CSU to
conduct a three (3) year study of oil and gas emissions very similar to the current ongoing study
in Garfield County. The project is expected to begin in July 2013 and continue through June
2016. While no contact between City staff and the Larimer County Board of Health has
occurred, staff members are sharing information that is of concern to the boards.”
Longmont Resolution Options
Staff was also asked to provide options for Council consideration regarding Resolution 2013-012
(City of Longmont).
Staff suggests the following options:
• Provide Longmont a copy of the Resolution
• Extend an offer to work jointly on legislative changes related to providing clarity on home
rule authority
• File an amicus brief.”
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Manager, reviewed Council’s
prior action and discussed the difference between hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas operations.
She stated Council’s original moratorium Ordinance included City-owned property and is in effect
until July 31, 2013. Kadrich reviewed new state regulations.
426
March 5, 2013
The following citizens supported a ban on hydraulic fracturing:
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale
Lynda Blake, 5551 Cornerstone Drive
Johnny Ruse, CSU student
Becky Boutz, Laporte resident
Patrick Edwards, 1731 Valley Forge
Devin Hirning, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway
Rafael Millan, 400 Smith Street
Linda Vrooman, 912 Cheyenne
Dolores Williams, 415 Mason Court
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker Street
Kelly Giddens, Wellington resident
David Bell, Fort Collins resident
James Sack, 2945 Bassick Street, Food and Water Watch volunteer
Julius Lisi, 3804 West Prospect
Richard Bender, Bellvue resident
Lea Pace, 2409 West Mulberry
Maya Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane
Stan Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive
Jan Nimlo, Bellvue resident
Rose Lew, 2014 Westview Road
Kendra Griffin, 616 Cowan
Janice Lynne, 218 South Washington
Jeena Bassett, Lafayette resident
Tom Hoehn, 218 South Washington
Jim Jeffries, Fort Collins resident
Cleo Deoletis, former Fort Collins resident
Danny Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane
Karen Snider, 135 South Sunset
Rico Moore, 721 West Myrtle
Elizabeth Huddetz, 1407 Ticonderoga
Wes Wilson, Denver resident
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain
Eric Verlo, Colorado Springs resident
Bernadette Kissel, 6126 Crane
Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson
Chris MacWaters, 211 North Sherwood
Hunter Buffington, Fort Collins Sustainability Group
Jack Dawkins, Denver resident
Joe Kissell, 913 West Oak
Scott Longmore, 3431 Sundisk Court
Cindy Roberts, Larimer County resident
Matthew Niemerg, 2806 Chaparral Drive
AJ Feldmann, 220 1st Street
427
March 5, 2013
Shoshana Leis, 1205 Columbine Court
Susan Hall, Broomfield resident
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards
Phil Doe, Littleton resident
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant, Clean Water Action
Cara Blake, 718 Justice Drive
Matthew Martinez, Frack Free Fort Collins
Kristi Douglas, Commerce City resident
Monte Barry, 415 South Howes
Jodee Brekke, Commerce City resident
Randy Webb, What the Frack Arapahoe
Chris Maldonado, Fort Collins resident
Melanie Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive
John Drigot, 3321 Snowbrush Court
Jennifer Renan, Boulder County resident
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb
Ward Luthe, Fort Collins resident
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported Option 1 of the Ordinance
with the amendment that the moratorium would remain in effect until July to allow for time to
regulate oil and gas on City-owned natural areas.
The following citizens opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing:
Matt Lepore, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Director, stated his agency is
listening to citizen concerns, but noted oil and gas development has been part of the state’s history
for over 100 years and argued misinformation exists about the risks of oil and gas development. He
stated this ban would be contrary to existing state law and encouraged cooperation with Prospect
Energy and the state to establish regulations.
Stan Dempsey, Colorado Petroleum Association President, opposed a ban on drilling and fracking
and supported the local government designee process.
Issac Bass, Noble Energy Environmental Health and Safety Specialist, opposed any type of ban.
Ed Haynes, 1300 Patterson Place, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Rudy Zitti, 1626 Fantail, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Scott Hall, Prospect Energy, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
428
March 5, 2013
Councilmember Manvel noted Council has received hundreds of emails regarding the topic and
asked about the possibility of drilling being allowed on the approximately eleven percent of City
area wherein the State’s new buffer setback regulations would not apply. Kadrich replied some
exceptions can be made under the current and proposed rules. Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project
Manager, replied there may be variances which could be sought through the State and noted the
State has stated it has never gone against the will of local communities.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated the map showing 89% of the City area is drill free is inaccurate and
stated the impacts of drilling operations do not stop at the buffer zone. He stated a major loophole
allows drillers to apply for and receive exemptions allowing them to drill within the 500 foot buffer
within high density population areas with the landowner’s permission. He stated a second loophole
allows drillers to reopen old completed wells and redrill them regardless of location.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 032, 2013, Option 2, on Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if this motion would eliminate the moratorium. City Attorney Roy
replied this Ordinance would enact the ban on hydraulic fracturing in ten days. The moratorium
would continue to exist until July 31, or such earlier date as the Council may terminate it by
Ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what good could come from continuing the moratorium. City
Attorney Roy replied the moratorium applied to all City-owned property with the exception of
existing wells.
Councilmember Horak stated the moratorium would allow Council time to be able to develop
regulations, should the ban not stay in effect.
Councilmember Troxell noted there have been no permits requested in Fort Collins for oil and gas
drilling. He stated the existing wells, which were annexed in, have been operated respectfully and
responsibly. He stated he would prefer to engage with the State’s process involving the local
designee and will oppose the ban.
Councilmember Manvel stated this process should not be continued until it is proven safe, rather
than continued until it is proven unsafe.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and stated
he would support the motion.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated wells will not be drilled near homes or schools and expressed
frustration with the State regarding the City not being able to use home rule on this issue; however,
she stated she would not support the ban.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she was elected to protect the quality of life in Fort Collins and
health and safety of its citizens and would therefore support the ban.
429
March 5, 2013
Councilmember Horak asked if staff would still be working to develop regulations. Kadrich replied
the project team would continue to work on regulations, unless directed otherwise. She stated work
is still being done on the Operator Agreement with Prospect Energy, who has proven to work safely.
Mayor Weitkunat stated this issue is about local control and Council must protect the health and
safety of Fort Collins residents. She stated she would support the ban, despite fundamentally
disagreeing with it.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 032, 2013, Option 2, on Second Reading was as
follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Kadrich noted Council had asked staff to provide options regarding support of Longmont’s ban on
hydraulic fracturing. She detailed three options for Council to consider: sending a copy of the
Resolution to Longmont, extending an offer to work jointly on legislative policy issues with the City
of Longmont and other cities, and filing a brief on any lawsuits going forward.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt the first two
options.
Councilmember Kottwitz clarified option 2 involves working on the home rule issue.
Councilmember Troxell asked how this relates to the LGD process. Weinheimer replied Loveland
does have an LGD and stated it might be possible to work together on legislation.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked why we need a Resolution to accomplish these tasks. Kadrich
replied Council was asked to bring back some specific options for the delivery of the information
contained in the Resolution adopted at the previous Council meeting. City Manager Atteberry noted
staff has not received direction to work with Loveland’s LGD.
Councilmember Troxell asked how this issue fits with the Colorado Municipal League. City
Manager Atteberry replied the City of Fort Collins has regular conversations with CML regarding
local control issues.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and
Horak. Nays: Troxell.
Extension of the Meeting
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m.
City Manager Atteberry noted the appointment of Councilmember Horak to serve as alternate
representative to the North Front Range Transportation/Air Quality Planning Council - Metropolitan
Planning Council is time sensitive.
430
March 5, 2013
Councilmember Troxell requested a review of upcoming Council meetings. City Manager Atteberry
reviewed the most recent schedule.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2013-020
Amending Resolution 2011-044 to Appoint Councilmember Gerry Horak
to Serve as Alternate Representative to the North Front Range
Transportation/Air Quality Planning Council - Metropolitan Planning
Council for the March 7, 2013 Meeting to be Held in Evans, Colorado, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) is an association of 15
local governments working together to improve regional transportation and air quality.
Councilmember Ben Manvel is the City’s appointed representative to this organization, with
Councilmember Wade Troxell as alternate. Neither Councilmember Manvel nor Councilmember
Troxell is able to attend the March 7 NFRMPO meeting, and Councilmember Gerry Horak is
available to attend as an alternate. The NFRMPO Articles of Association require the appointment
of primary and alternate members be made in writing. This Resolution will appoint Councilmember
Horak as an alternate to the NFRMPO for the March 7 meeting.”
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmembers Poppaw and Troxell, to
adopt Resolution 2013-020.
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad, questioned whether or not Council should have voted to move the item
on the agenda. He also questioned the extensive number of items on Council’s agenda prior to the
election.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the agenda for the remainder of the meeting. City Manager
Atteberry replied the ultimate decision will be left to Council and discussed the items remaining.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
431
March 5, 2013
Ordinance No. 033, 2013,
Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code
Pertaining to Implementation of the Eastside and Westside
Neighborhoods Character Study, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study represents an assessment of
neighborhood compatibility issues related to impacts of larger new construction projects. In
comparison to the previous 2010/2011 Study, which focused on building size impacts, this Study
takes a broader look at the character and context of the neighborhoods including building size and
design compatibility.
The discussion by Council on First Reading on February 26, 2013, focused on two options identified
by staff for consideration in the Ordinance. Option A included a package of Land Use Code
amendments with a revised Floor Area Ratio (FAR) formula; Option B included the same standards
as A, except no change to the existing FAR. This Ordinance was adopted (with Option A) on First
Reading on February 26, 2013, by a vote of 4-3 (Nays: Kottwitz, Troxell, Weitkunat).”
Pete Wray, City Planner, detailed the read-before information received by Council.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, suggested a phased approach for these items,
particularly the floor area ratio standard.
Patrick Edwards, 1731 Valley Forge, urged Council to consider potential future citizen petitions.
Meg Dunn, 720 West Oak, noted tall neighboring houses block winter sun and do not provide shade
in the summer, as opposed to trees. She supported Option A.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards, supported Option A.
Louise Ann Levy, 1006 Akin Avenue, supported Option A.
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards, supported Option A.
Chris Maldonado, Fort Collins resident, supported Option A.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker, supported Option A.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, supported Option A.
Lynn Stutheit, 508 East Plum, supported Option A.
Jill Kuch, 709 Stover, opposed new regulations as taking away diversity.
432
March 5, 2013
Ann Magennis, 708 Peterson, supported Option A.
Michelle Hafley, Fort Collins resident, supported Option A.
Dave Lingle, 517 East Laurel Street, expressed frustration that Council has not taken into account
the public process, including the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board, Zoning Board
of Appeals, and Landmark Preservation Commission, which recommended Option B.
Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson, supported Option A and the public process.
Tammy (last name indecipherable), Fort Collins resident, supported Option A.
Bob Bailey, 1306 West Mountain, suggested Fort Collins should lead the way in the small house
movement and supported Option A.
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad, stated these regulations are essentially imposing an HOA and suggested
the residents of the neighborhoods should be able to vote for any new regulations.
Dave Radlof, 1120 West Mountain Avenue, supported Option A.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported Option A and the public process.
Jim Wurz, 425 North Sherwood, supported Option A.
Councilmember Troxell asked if there was any differentiation in the public process in terms of the
definition of solar access. Abe Barge, Winter & Company, replied the solar access discussion
focused on the issue of large new construction or additions that caused a great deal of shading on
neighboring properties, especially one-story properties.
Councilmember Troxell noted east-west solar access is not addressed. He questioned the potential
cumulative effects of the regulations, particularly when including the FAR. He noted there are a
number of land use requirements already in place and nothing prohibits downsizing. Mr. Barge
agreed there are no restrictions on downsizing.
Councilmember Troxell requested a summary of the Building Review Board discussion and
outcomes. Wray replied the Board had a number of good questions; however, the Board expressed
frustration it was not involved in the process earlier and did not proceed with a recommendation.
Councilmember Troxell asked why the Board was not involved in the process earlier and expressed
frustration with the rushed process. Wray replied staff did not anticipate going before the Building
Review Board as part of this process because the issue is Land Use Code changes and the Board was
not included in the 2010-2011 discussions either.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a phasing proposal, such as that suggested by Mr. Skutchan, has
been discussed. Wray replied staff has recommended, and included in the Ordinance, a provision
433
March 5, 2013
to allow a two-month window for existing projects that are in various stages of design to complete
the project and submit for development approval or building permit under existing regulations.
Councilmember Troxell suggested there should be no rush with this item; it should be able to
transcend Councils.
Mr. Barge stated all of these design variables are organized to work as a set and incrementally
implementing them could lead to disappointing results.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the controversial issue has always been the revised floor area ratio. She
stated she understood the phasing plan to add that component at a later time. Nore Winter, Winter
& Company, replied his understanding of the phasing plan was that it began with a phasing
implementation of the items in Option B, then perhaps later looking at the FAR.
Wray stated the phasing plan would delay implementation for two to four months, then phase in the
items in Option B. He stated one of the results of further delaying the FAR is, conceivably, projects
could come forward with four or five thousand square feet with the existing FAR.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 033, 2013, Option A, including the corrections from the read-before packet, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel stated the majority of citizens in these neighborhoods want these changes
and the new FAR would not limit sizes that dramatically.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern regarding how long this item has been in the works and
questioned Council’s ability to develop regulations to protect diversity. She questioned adopting
regulations for one area of town that would also apply to other areas. She stated she wanted to
protect Old Town, but disagreed this is the way to do it. She noted staff and the boards and
commissions do not support these regulations.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the motion as citizens have already petitioned
against FAR changes. He argued the proposal has not been properly vetted and stated the diversity
of Old Town makes it unique.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated realtors and developers add a great deal to this community and
expressed appreciation for their attention to community issues.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the FAR piece has no known result and it remains the controversial issue.
She stated it is inappropriate to pit developers and realtors against citizens. She noted there are three
boards and commissions which have recommended Option B.
Councilmember Horak noted listening can result in different conclusions. He stated the phasing
option presented by Mr. Skutchan had some good ideas but had not been vetted through the entire
process. He noted Council voted to repeal the last ordinance based on a citizen petition which was
based on the process of the major changes made at second reading, more than the substance of the
regulations. He stated he would support the motion.
434
March 5, 2013
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 023, 2013,
Amending the City Code to Prohibit the Disposal of Cardboard in
the Community's Waste Stream and to Amend Requirements for
Recycling Applicable Solid Waste Collection, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on February 12, 2013 by a vote of 5-2 (nays: Kottwitz,
Troxell), will prohibit placing corrugated cardboard boxes/packaging in trash containers for
disposal in landfills by any type of waste generator in Fort Collins, including commercial,
industrial, and residential customers.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff has prepared an Implementation Plan (Attachment 2), which lays out details and a schedule
for applying new restrictions to the disposal of cardboard in the waste stream. Elements include:
education/outreach activities; a notification system to warn residents and businesses when
cardboard-in-the-trash incidents occur; and, description of situations likely to result in enforcement
activities, who will be held accountable, and how enforcement will be administered by the City.
Staff followed up with local trash/recycling companies to evaluate how much money an ordinance
restricting disposal of cardboard in the waste stream will cost them. Companies that offer services
in Fort Collins vary in size and corporate structure and responses varied widely. Up to $10,000
could potentially be spent by each company over the next couple years to educate customers about
cardboard restrictions and recycling options. To provide more dumpsters and carts to customers
for cardboard recycling, as much as $250,000 and as little as $20,000 may be spent on new
equipment. Each company cited a 3-year return on investment period. A concern to some
companies is the roll-out period for providing new containers to customers, since it may take 2-3
months for manufacturers to fill orders (addressed in the Implementation Plan as a timing
consideration).
Council requested a broader definition for ways that cardboard can be diverted from landfill
disposal, in addition to conventional recycling processes. Information is included in the
Implementation Plan about alternative ways to manage waste cardboard, and staff is working on
getting a “cardboard box exchange” established on the City’s website that will be publicized as part
of the education and outreach program.
A suggestion was to modify the ordinance for when groups of customers need to come into
compliance, granting more time for multi-family complexes. However, it will be easier to bring all
435
March 5, 2013
customers into the program from the outset, in terms of informing the public about the new
restrictions. As described in the Implementation Plan, entities will be given individualized attention
and options for coming up to speed on a collection program that works best and addresses their
unique concerns. For instance, if employees hide cardboard under the trash instead of recycling
it, a business owner may elect to invite City staff to provide training for workers. For multi-family
complexes or businesses, if non-authorized dumping results in cardboard in the trash, City staff can
help managers identify perpetrators (leaving address labels on delivery boxes is a surprisingly
common oversight made by illegal dumpers) and will help by sending a warning letter explaining
that City Code treats “theft of service” as a punishable offence in Fort Collins. Finally, for all
situations, good signage is an extremely important tool for eliciting the best recycling practices;
staff will work closely in providing customized signage for a variety of business and multifamily
locations that clearly communicates the “do’s and don’ts” of the Ordinance, and why cardboard
in the waste stream is prohibited throughout the community.”
Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner, reviewed the objectives of this Ordinance. She
discussed staff’s new implementation and enforcement plan which has been devised in response to
questions on First Reading.
Patrick Edwards, 1731 Valley Forge, compared this regulation to littering regulations and opposed
the Ordinance.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked if there were any reports or statistics regarding the ban
on electronic waste. He opposed the Ordinance and stated prohibitions do not work.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker, supported the Ordinance.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, supported the Ordinance and requested consideration of recycle
pick-up every week.
Hunter Buffington, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported the Ordinance.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the Ordinance and encouraged a strong educational
component.
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad, opposed the Ordinance and questioned who would be responsible for
cardboard being placed in business dumpsters by unauthorized individuals.
Councilmember Troxell commended the additional work done on the implementation and
enforcement response plan.
Suspension of Rules
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to suspend the rules
to extend the meeting past 12:00 a.m. to finish only this item. Yeas: Weitkunat, Poppaw, Horak,
Manvel and Ohlson. Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
436
March 5, 2013
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell requested a definition of Kraft paper. Gordon replied it is an industrial term
for the outer layers of corrugated cardboard.
Councilmember Troxell asked if paper board is exempted from these regulations. Gordon replied
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Troxell noted paint on cardboard allows it to be thrown in the trash. Gordon replied
liquid saturation causes the cardboard to be rejected.
Councilmember Troxell asked why the Building Services Department will be in charge of
construction sites instead of the Environmental Services Department. Gordon replied the Building
Services staff regularly inspects construction sites for recycling compliance.
Councilmember Troxell asked how reuse is being encouraged. Gordon replied an exchange site is
being considered for things like shipping and packaging boxes.
Councilmember Troxell asked if financial incentives are budgeted. Gordon replied there is a plan
to use some of the money from the Road to Zero Waste project from the BFO process. There is
$10,000 available, which is planned to aid the commercial sector in getting recycling systems
established.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the budget impact of staffing for the implementation and
education phase, given that the Ordinance will go into effect in ten days. Gordon replied the budget
will be reprioritized. Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director, noted Council provided
an additional enhancement offer during the budgeting process, part of which was to specifically
support business and multi-family recycling. A portion of that will go specifically for the cardboard
recycling issue.
Councilmember Troxell asked about a potential conflict between the wording which prohibits
burying cardboard and composting. Gordon replied the Code chapter regarding trash prohibits
burying solid waste.
Councilmember Troxell asked about trash haulers’ subjectivity regarding the 25% regulation.
Gordon replied trash haulers are able to make a visual observation as they empty bins. She noted
it is in the best interest of the trash haulers to communicate with customers regarding these issues.
Councilmember Troxell stated this Ordinance would make the hauler the enforcer. Gordon replied
haulers are already the enforcer for paint, electronic waste, and other materials that are not allowed
in the landfill.
Councilmember Troxell stated this is different, because there is a judgment call regarding the 25%.
He asked how complaints will be handled.
437
March 5, 2013
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Director, noted waste diversion is not all that precise. The
enforcement will be very gradual; only after repeated violations will a notice be issued. The goal
is to establish a normative standard.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the responsibility of trash haulers in the implementation plan.
Gordon replied the licensing provision for trash haulers is a different chapter of the Code. If there
is a problem that has occurred on the part of the hauler, there is direct contact from City staff. She
outlined the Code requirements of trash haulers. City Attorney Roy reviewed the penalties for
violations.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how much time the haulers will have to get up to speed on the issue.
Gordon replied the haulers have been in the loop since September and are prepared to begin
implementation.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 023, 2013, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00
p.m. on Monday, March 18, 2013, so that the Council may consider any additional business that may
come before it. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 12:33 a.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
438
February 12, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 12,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Manvel, Ohlson, Troxell, and Weitkunat.
(Secretary’s Note: Councilmembers Horak, Kottwitz, and Poppaw arrived at 6:04 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Ordinance No. 023, 2013,
Amending the City Code to Prohibit the Disposal of Cardboard in the
Community's Waste Stream and to Amend Requirements for
Recycling Applicable Solid Waste Collection, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance will prohibit placing corrugated cardboard boxes/packaging in trash containers for
disposal in landfills by any type of waste generator in Fort Collins, including commercial,
industrial, and residential customers.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The proposal to restrict cardboard from being placed in the waste stream originated as a strategy
in 2005 to increase the Fort Collins community’s ability to meet our goal of diverting 50% of trash
from landfill disposal, as well as to help meet goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Over
time, as waste diversion rates in Fort Collins have risen, so has public interest in recovering even
more materials of value that continue to be discarded, and the idea of taking a regulatory approach
continued to be discussed.
The City’s 2008 Climate Action Plan included the regulation of cardboard disposal as an
implementation strategy that will reduce trash by an estimated 12,000 tons/year, which represents
9% of the waste stream that Fort Collins sends for landfill disposal. These 12,000 new tons of
recycling per year will also eliminate the emission of 42,000 short tons/year of carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO2e), a greenhouse gas, based on the emissions factor for cardboard recycling used
in US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM). This ordinance
is estimated to quadruple the amount of cardboard (currently 4,200 tons/year) captured through the
community’s recycling efforts.
316
February 12, 2013
Two main issues drive the discussion towards cardboard restrictions. First is the long and active
history of education, outreach, and incentive programs already conducted by the City to increase
recycling. For twenty years, local efforts have been abundant and varied, from publicity campaigns
and advertising, requirements for trash hauling companies to offer curbside recycling, to a City-
sponsored drop-off facility and community recognition for businesses that integrate recycling as
part of their Climate Wise membership. With only about 25% of the cardboard in the community
currently being recycled, arriving at a decision to place a ban on cardboard in the waste stream is
a logical “next step” for local government to realize community goals and values.
The second issue is the relative magnitude of cardboard in the waste stream. Despite being a highly
recyclable commodity, many trash dumpsters around town are routinely full of cardboard boxes and
packaging. Landfill managers concur, stating they observe that cardboard seems to continue to
stream into local landfills. Waste characterizations conducted by Larimer County every 5-10 years
measure cardboard and other discarded paper at 35% of the Larimer County landfill’s contents.
Among all the recyclables that are collected in the City’s programs, cardboard is perhaps the most
easily recognized. It doesn’t require lengthy explanations about “chasing arrow” code numbers
to identify cardboard, and it is also one of the most ubiquitous discards that are generated by nearly
every type of business, or residence.
Local Building Code Green Amendments that became effective in 2012 now require cardboard
recycling at building sites; awareness and successful implementation by the Fort Collins
construction industry has grown steadily. Disposal of cardboard is banned by nine states, a
number of communities and counties in the U.S., as well as Washington D.C. Fort Collins has had
the experience of enacting a local disposal restriction, with a ban on electronic waste that was
adopted in 2006.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
From an economic standpoint, restrictions on cardboard disposal will add more state and local
revenue from the sales of cardboard for recycling and by creating more jobs in the
collection/processing industry. Burying discarded cardboard in landfills, on the other hand,
permanently squanders a resource that is valued at $50/ton or more in today’s commodity markets.
Diverting more discarded material into the recycling system avoids filling up local landfills
unnecessarily, including the Larimer County Landfill, which is partly owned by the City.
Lengthening the life of Larimer County Landfill is a prudent financial approach that will save
taxpayers, at minimum, an estimated $35 million in construction costs for a new landfill in the
future.
Costs to implement a cardboard disposal ban are not anticipated to be excessively burdensome. No-
cost recycling opportunities exist that allow both residents and businesses to recycle. Due to Fort
Collins’ Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) Ordinance, residential customers do not pay extra for curbside
recycling – which includes cardboard – because the cost for recycling services is required to be
bundled into the costs for trash service. Residents and businesses alike utilize free public drop-off
317
February 12, 2013
recycling centers operated by the County (co-located at the Larimer County Landfill), and the City
of Fort Collins (1702 Riverside; open seven days a week during daylight hours).
Additionally, many entities already subscribe to recycling services. Any customer, residential or
commercial, who already receives recycling services that is described as “single stream” collection
will be unaffected by new trash restrictions because the single-stream recycling program in Fort
Collins includes cardboard. For commercial types of customers that generate large amounts of
cardboard, such as grocery stores and “big box” retailers, it has been standard practice for the past
15-20 years to subscribe to cardboard recycling services. Often these generators use compacting
units to save on costs, or even bale their cardboard themselves for delivery to buyers in Denver.
The PAYT Ordinance, however, does not apply to commercial or multi-family (MFU) accounts.
While haulers are obliged to provide recycling to these customers whenever it is requested, they are
allowed to charge a fee for the service. Prices vary among haulers and among types of clients; often
the price is considered proprietary information. City staff estimates it costs $15-30 per month to
pay a hauler for cardboard recycling at a small or mid-sized business. By separating cardboard
from the trash dumpster or bin, however, customers may be able to reduce the size and/or collection
frequency of their trash dumpsters and therefore can offset recycling costs through lower trash bills.
Compliance with a new ordinance is the responsibility of the generator of the materials. However,
hauling companies will also be required to take initiative in meeting the intent of the Code by
declining to remove trash from customers when a trash container/bin is found to be more than 25%
full of cardboard by volume. The City will rely on service providers to inform customers about the
ordinance and urge them to sign up for recycling services offered by the hauler. Haulers’
employees are not expected to remove cardboard materials from trash containers, as a matter of
safety; this is a specific concern expressed to the City, in light of ever-rising insurance costs for the
trash industry.
Enforcement will be carried out on a complaint basis or when City employees observe cardboard
in a generator’s waste stream. With an emphasis placed on warnings and education about the
importance of recycling cardboard during the first 12 months, enforcement will occur gradually,
and only in the face of egregious or repeat offenses. Costs that will accrue to the City as a result
of establishing cardboard disposal restrictions largely fall into the enforcement category; Code
Enforcement staff will be trained to take appropriate enforcement actions by writing either a
warning ticket or citation for violation of the Code. However, no additional Code Enforcement staff
hiring will be necessary.
Environmental Services staff will expand outreach to businesses and MFUs through the City’s
Waste Reduction and Recycling Program (WRAP). Assistance will be available for new-to-
recycling companies and MFUs in developing their recycling capabilities. Analyses of MFU
recycling programs were recently completed by staff showing that among Fort Collins’ mid-to-large
sized apartment complexes, 72% already provide recycling services to their tenants. This leaves
about 20 of the larger multi-family complexes that do not yet have recycling, which will be a priority
group for staff in conducting outreach activities. Staff will also actively work with those customers
318
February 12, 2013
for whom physical barriers - space constraints, too-small trash enclosures, and tight alley access
– make it especially challenging to initiate cardboard recycling.
Costs for expanded outreach services will be absorbed in WRAP’s existing program budget for
2013-14. After conducting assessments for specific customers, staff will help prepare tailored on-
site plans, offer training for business’ employees, and potentially locating funds to expedite the
transition to recycling. For instance, if tenants at a cluster of businesses are willing to collaborate,
a good choice might be to lease compacting equipment that makes it easier to store cardboard for
collection/recycling.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
An ordinance that prohibits disposal of cardboard in the community’s waste stream will reduce the
amount of trash that is sent to landfills from Fort Collins. An initial result, therefore, will be an
extension to the life spans of several landfills in the area. Of particular interest is the stewardship
of the Larimer County Landfill, jointly owned by the City of Fort Collins (50% of the original site
of the Larimer County Landfill, located on the north half of Section 9, T6N, R69W on South Taft Hill
Road), Larimer County (25%), and the City of Loveland (25%). Postponing the need to replace the
aging landfill is an important consideration for regional taxpayers, who, in the future may be faced
with a decision whether to allocate money (minimum $35 million in today’s dollars) to construct
new facilities for waste disposal.
As the cardboard ordinance becomes fully realized, an estimated 12,000 tons/year of cardboard will
be diverted from the trash and into the recycling stream. This diverted material will reduce the
amount of trash generated in Fort Collins by 9% (from 130,000 tons, down to 118,000 tons per
year). Fort Collins’ waste diversion will therefore rise by an estimated 6%, accelerating our
progress toward meeting the adopted goal of 50% diversion.
Additionally, using formulae provided by the US EPA for modeling greenhouse gases that are
avoided through recycling activities, the cardboard ordinance will have the ultimate effect of
preventing 42,000 short tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) from being emitted to the
atmosphere. By taking this action, Fort Collins will also accelerate progress at meeting the
community’s goals for greenhouse gas reductions.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Support for cardboard restrictions was voted on by the Natural Resources Advisory Board, and by
the Air Quality Advisory Board at their respective meetings in November, 2012.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
During fall of 2012, meetings were held with members of the trash/recycling hauling industry,
Chamber of Commerce members and staff, and a variety of City staff to discuss the implications of
new restrictions on cardboard disposal. Newspaper articles and columns, television bulletins, and
spotlights on City webpages and utility bill inserts were published, and a public Open House was
319
February 12, 2013
conducted on November 8, 2012, to introduce the proposal to the community. Comments from
citizens and from specially affected interests were reported during a work session with the City
Council on November 27.
A roundtable meeting was recently held in January that was attended by a cross-section of 15
members of Fort Collins’ business community, including small-to-medium-sized businesses,
property management companies, the Downtown Development Authority, and managers of multi-
family housing. A summary of comments and questions raised by this “focus group” is provided
in Attachment 3.”
Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner, discussed the Ordinance,which is designed to prohibit
the disposal of cardboard in the waste stream. Meetings with key stakeholders and the public have
been ongoing since the fall of 2012. In 2008, the Climate Action Plan Committee listed a cardboard
ban in its recommendations as a significant way to slow climate change. Gordon stated this ban
would increase the City’s diversion rate by 6%, based on 2011 data, and could increase the lifespan
of the landfill by up to one year over a fifteen-year period. Gordon discussed concerns voiced by
businesses and multi-family unit owners.
Gordon stated the Ordinance would apply to all trash accounts and compliance is the responsibility
of the owner or occupant of the property that generates the cardboard. Waste haulers would be
allowed to refuse to dump a trash load deemed to be more than 25% cardboard, and the customer
would still be billed for that service. Gordon stated enforcement of this Ordinance would be gradual
over the next year, with education and outreach being the first step.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned what legal authorization the City has to put forth
this regulation. He stated private enterprise should effectuate change and stated there should be
some idea of the outcome due to a legislative prohibition.
John Anderson, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported cardboard recycling and adoption of
the Ordinance.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, opposed adoption of the Ordinance and requested additional
information regarding the holistic benefit to the community.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the City’s current recycling program is adopted by Ordinance. Gordon
replied the list of materials is renewed every year, by the City Manager, per Ordinance. She noted
beverage cartons were recently added and staff will be asking that those be designated.
Mayor Weitkunat asked why prohibitions were not part of the previous recycling Ordinance.
Gordon replied Section 15 of the City Code includes the “pay as you throw” Ordinance. When
Council elected to ban the disposal of electronic waste in 2007, it was embedded in that Section and
became a requirement for haulers, as a condition of their license, to not accept electronic waste.
320
February 12, 2013
Mayor Weitkunat asked if the current recycling Ordinance bans glass, paper, and other items from
the waste stream. Gordon replied in the negative. At this point, only electronic waste is banned and
this proposal would be the second such ban.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked why a ban on cardboard disposal is proposed, if other recyclables
are not proposed for a ban. Gordon replied a ban on other materials is always an option. Cardboard
is a significant amount of material in the waste stream, is very recognizable, and has a well-
established collection system.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett stated Chapter 15 is only about licensing trash haulers; therefore,
requirements that apply to the general public, such as this proposal, are placed in Chapter 12 with
other general provisions relating to public behavior regarding waste and recycling.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the electronic waste section of this proposed Ordinance.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied that reference was in an earlier section of that part of the Code
and seemed to fit better with this new language.
Councilmember Troxell asked how alley projects have been designed to incorporate this type of
requirement. Gordon replied the Land Use Code was modified in 2003 to require that any new
commercial or multi-family complex must have enough room in its trash enclosure to accommodate
recycling. The Downtown Development Association has put new enlarged trash enclosures in
redesigned alleys in Old Town; however, there are areas not yet retrofitted with enough space to
collect recyclables.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a more holistic approach would be better, and if this is the highest
and best approach. Gordon replied the other materials flowing in high rates to the landfill are
organic.
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director, noted there will be reuse factors in these
education efforts as well.
Councilmember Troxell asked if any analysis was done regarding the economic impact to
businesses, residents, or trash haulers. Gordon replied the cost of service was examined and adding
a cardboard recycling service was estimated to be an additional $15 to $35 per month. However,
trash bills are often decreased as containers can often be downsized if cardboard is not included in
the trash container.
Councilmember Troxell asked when this Ordinance would take effect. Gordon replied it would take
effect ten days following Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell asked when citations would begin. City Attorney Roy replied the
Ordinance would take effect ten days after Second Reading; however, there is discretion on the part
of enforcement officials as to whether or not to issue citations. He stated Council could write in a
grace period on Second Reading.
321
February 12, 2013
Councilmember Troxell asked about the cost to the City of this program. Gordon replied the City’s
enforcement cost will be borne by the Code Enforcement staff that are in the field making
observations about all types of violations. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, has
stated this will not increase staffing costs in her department. Environmental Services staff will
respond to complaints.
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, clarified existing staff can accommodate the need for
enforcement without adding additional cost.
Councilmember Troxell asked for a definition of cardboard and stated this proposal does not appear
ready for implementation. Hendee replied staff will return with additional implementation detail
prior to Second Reading. An education program, as indicated, will be implemented.
Councilmember Troxell asked if owners or occupants are responsible for compliance. Gordon
replied letters regarding infractions will go to both the property owner and occupant, as per current
Code enforcement regulations. City Attorney Roy noted Code Enforcement staff members have the
discretion to issue the citation to the appropriate party; citations can be written to the owner,
occupant, or both.
Councilmember Manvel discussed the enforcement schedule and stated the proposed twelve months
of education prior to the issuance of warnings seems excessive. Gordon replied staff’s intent is to
work closely with affected interests and provide support, education, training, and signage for quite
some time. There is the ability to provide additional details regarding the number of warnings or
reminders issued prior to a citation.
Councilmember Kottwitz commended the education aspects of the proposal and asked for additional
information regarding the trash haulers’ potential additional costs regarding education campaigns.
Gordon replied the City shares its educational materials with the trash haulers. These components
will likely fold into the messaging from trash haulers and trash haulers should not incur much
additional cost.
Councilmember Kottwitz requested additional information on those costs prior to Second Reading
and suggested a possible reimbursement for trash haulers regarding the education aspects.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern with enforcement at multi-family units and suggested
the possibility of not including multi-family units for some period of time. Gordon replied Council
may wish to advise staff on this issue but noted about sixty of the city’s roughly eighty mid- to
large-size apartment complexes have recycling programs.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern about the multi-family unit enforcement. She asked
about box breakdown and asked if the difference in effectiveness of prohibition versus a volunteer
cardboard recycling program was examined. Gordon replied the current situation is a volunteer
program and cardboard has been accepted in the curbside program since 2007.
322
February 12, 2013
Councilmember Kottwitz requested regular updates to Council regarding the effectiveness of the
program and asked about reuse aspects of the program. Gordon replied programs such as box
exchanges for people who have just moved or are moving are included in the proposal.
Mayor Weitkunat asked how this program will impact cardboard recycling at the City’s new
integrated recycling facility. Gordon replied the new facility will have two sections: the free drop-
off recycling area at Rivendell School, and the new section for the hard-to-recycle items which will
be staffed by a contractor. This section will have a fee associated with its use; however the Larimer
County facility pays for large volumes of cardboard and individuals will be directed there if this is
their situation.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 023, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell asked who will be the responsible party for cardboard recycling at
construction sites. Gordon replied the Building Inspection department has oversight over that
program. Violations found by their inspectors typically go to the construction company. Since
January of 2012, construction sites have been required to recycle cardboard, among other materials.
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern that a number of departments in the City seem to be
enforcing the same types of regulations. He stated the City needs to take a more holistic view of its
waste streams.
Councilmember Manvel commended staff for its work on the item.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the motion and requested assurance that there will
be citations issued.
Councilmember Troxell stated he would like Fort Collins to be a leader in terms of holistic benefit
to the city.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the motion, but stated more work needs to be done
regarding the implementation plan.
Councilmember Kottwitz encouraged staff to examine programs already in place in the private
sector. She stated she would not support the motion as there may be some additional fine-tuning
necessary.
City Attorney Roy read into the record the additional Whereas clause added per the direction of the
Leadership Planning Team.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Ohlson, Weitkunat, Poppaw and Manvel.
Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
323
February 12, 2013
Items Relating to the Planned Development Overlay
District Pilot, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff’s memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A.First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition of a
Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add or Clarify
Certain “General Standards” and “Purpose” Statements Related to the Planned Overlay
Development District.
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to provide
contextual land use and design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment projects. Since
it is new and unique, a pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to considering
permanent adoption. The pilot would establish a six-month application period allowing up to five
application submittals; only projects within the PDOD pilot boundary would have the option to
apply. Based on public outreach, the PDOD pilot boundary has been modified since originally
proposed to include commercial areas along College Avenue, east Mulberry, and west Elizabeth.
Properties within 1,000 feet of the Poudre River or that are within a designated historic district have
been removed from the pilot.
Ordinance No. 025, 2013 makes several amendments to Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC).
These amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments to the
LUC and thus require a separate Ordinance.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Development of a flexible zoning tool for infill development and redevelopment is listed as a “near-
term action” in the 2011 City Plan update and was a priority project in the Planning and Zoning
Board’s 2011 work program. Staff has worked closely with stakeholders and the Planning and
Zoning Board throughout 2011-2012 to assess the challenges associated with infill/redevelopment
in terms of the existing Land Use Code (LUC) and review process. Based on these discussions, staff
has crafted the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD), a new regulatory approach that
offers performance-based development flexibility.
What is the PDOD?
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is intended to provide an alternative to
conventional land development regulations and permit a creative, holistic approach that takes the
context of surrounding development into consideration. It blends the planning concept of Planned
Unit Developments (also known as “PUDs”) with performance-based zoning to provide flexibility
to infill development or redevelopment projects challenged by existing site constraints. A unique
324
February 12, 2013
aspect of the PDOD is how it infuses the principles of City Plan into private sector development
using a performance matrix. The matrix is a menu of site and building considerations that
encourage an applicant to think beyond minimum LUC regulations and incorporate the community’s
broad sustainability goals into the project. Additional detail about the purpose of the PDOD and
how it is designed can be found in Attachment 1.
Pilot Details
Until spring 2012, the intention was to consider adopting the PDOD permanently as a new, optional
zoning overlay. However, because the PDOD is a new and unique tool for Fort Collins in terms of
regulating infill/redevelopment projects, staff is proposing that it first be tested on a temporary basis
as a pilot. The benefits of pursuing the pilot include the following:
• Allows for real-life project test-cases that will provide staff and stakeholders the opportunity
to make a valuable evaluation of the review process.
• Provides time to consider any necessary changes to the PDOD that would improve it.
• Determines whether the PDOD is a viable tool for infill/redevelopment.
Adopting the pilot Ordinance allows for temporary implementation of the PDOD. Projects that are
within the defined boundary area would have six months to submit a Detailed Development Plan
(DDP - the PDOD equivalent to a Project Development Plan). The ability to submit a DDP would
end after the six month period and, at that point, the focus would be on completing the review
process for those projects and evaluating whether the PDOD process worked as intended. Six
months was chosen because it is a reasonable timeframe for eligible projects to submit but, at the
same time, is restrictive enough that the City would not be overwhelmed with PDOD projects.
Furthermore, the pilot limits the number of applications accepted within the six month pilot. Only
five DDP applications will be accepted, and the Community Development and Neighborhood
Services Director has the ability to no longer accept applications if staff’s capacity to adequately
review the projects is reached.
Additional highlights of the Ordinance include:
• Establishes the option for City Council to extend the pilot should there be an insufficient
number of projects submitted to properly evaluate the PDOD.
• Commits staff to report to City Council after the pilot projects are evaluated on the
effectiveness of the PDOD.
Pilot Evaluation
The primary purpose of pursuing the pilot would be to evaluate whether the PDOD is functioning
as intended, and staff is proposing to create a task force of stakeholders to meet and evaluate all
PDOD pilot projects. While a specific time period of six months is proposed for up to five DDP
applications, the evaluation period will not have a specific end date primarily because it is unknown
how long it will take projects to complete the review process. However, staff will commit to
providing a preliminary report to City Council by first quarter 2014. The task force will work with
325
February 12, 2013
staff to collect as much information as necessary to draw reasonable conclusions about the viability
of the PDOD. If necessary, the task force will make recommendations for ways to improve PDOD
and would report to City Council.
Evaluation of the PDOD pilot would be inclusive of those applicants who choose the PDOD and
those who do not. It will be valuable to understand what reasons, if any, eligible PDOD projects
choose the standard review process. For those projects that do choose the PDOD, evaluation would
include quantitative and qualitative data from the perspective of staff, P&Z, the applicant, and
residents/affected property owners. A list of potential evaluation questions is provided in
Attachment 2. These questions will be further refined with the task force.
In summary, key features of the proposed PDOD pilot include:
• Only projects within the boundary can apply.
• Up to five Detailed Development Plan (Project Development Plan equivalent) submittals
will be accepted during the six-month pilot period.
• The term of vested rights upon approval of a Detailed Development Plan (Final Plan
equivalent) would be 3 years, which is the same term as any standard development.
• While some flexibility is afforded for certain Sections of Article 3 (General Development
Standards), three specific Sections must be complied with in their entirety:
N 3.4.1 Natural Habitat and Features
N 3.4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources
N 3.6.2 Streets, Streetscapes, Alleys, and Easements
• PDOD projects do not have to comply with Article 4 (Districts).
• In addition to compliance with Article 3 standards, PDOD projects must achieve a total of
45 points within 4 out of 7 categories on the performance matrix.
• The modification of standards process will not apply to PDOD projects.
• City Council could extend the pilot if an insufficient number of projects submit during the
six-month application period.
Pilot Boundary
Prior to the proposed pilot, the PDOD was originally intended to apply to any project within a
specified boundary area (the original boundary was drawn to be consistent with the City’s targeted
infill and redevelopment areas and the Transit Oriented Development Overlay); additionally, it
allowed for properties outside the boundary to “opt-in” provided certain site criteria was met.
During public outreach meetings, concerns were raised by some over certain areas that were
included in the originally proposed PDOD boundary. Specific concerns include the potential
negative impacts on historic resources, established residential neighborhoods, and the Poudre
River. Although PDOD projects are required to meet the majority of existing standards, it is
unknown how the flexibility provided in terms of land use and dimensional regulations, e.g., height,
setbacks, would affect the project itself and surrounding properties. The primary intent of the pilot
is to allow for real projects to use the PDOD to examine whether these concerns are justified. Thus,
326
February 12, 2013
certain areas specifically raised as concerns are proposed to be removed from the pilot, and the
“opt-in” feature would not be offered.
The following areas would be excluded from the Pilot:
• The Laurel School Historic District
• The Old Town Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Zone District
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone District
• 1,000 feet on both sides of the Poudre River; and
• Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado State Research Foundation located
south of Prospect Road and west of South College Avenue.
While this limited boundary is proposed for the pilot, the evaluation will explore whether this tool
should be expanded to other areas of Fort Collins. See Attachment 3 for a map of the proposed
PDOD pilot boundary.
Ordinance Amending Article 3 “General Standards”
Ordinance No. 025, 2013, amends several Sections of Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC). These
amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments and thus
require a separate Ordinance. The PDOD provides some flexibility from existing Article 3
standards by requiring that only the “General Standards” of certain Sections apply. Upon close
examination of Article 3, staff found that not all Sections have a “General Standard”. Therefore,
to provide consistency and also to create the proper development standards for potential PDOD
projects, the amendments in this Ordinance create “General Standards” where they were missing,
and make some revisions to existing “General Standards” for clarification purposes.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The purpose of the PDOD is to reduce barriers for infill and redevelopment projects, which directly
implements Economic Health Policy 4.2 from City Plan. Additionally, the performance matrix
provides the opportunity for the economic benefits of a project to be considered; this is unique and
not something that existing development review can take into consideration.
Concern was raised during public outreach that complying with the PDOD (specifically, the
performance matrix) may add cost to a development project. While it is true that the performance
matrix rewards projects for going beyond minimum LUC standards, it is very difficult to provide an
accurate analysis of costs for a PDOD project because of the trade-offs and variety of options an
applicant has to comply with the performance matrix. Financial impact is something the pilot will
evaluate to determine whether the concerns raised are justified.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Implementing the PDOD pilot would facilitate infill development and redevelopment projects
throughout the boundary area, which may or may not have environmental issues to address. Article
327
February 12, 2013
3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, Natural Habitats and Features, must be complied with in its entirety,
which maintains existing environmental protections from development activity. Additionally, the
performance matrix provides the opportunity to reward projects that go beyond code minimums in
terms of environmental protections and green/sustainable building/site design; this is a unique
feature of PDOD that the existing development review process does not consider.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On June 21, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend that Council
adopt both Ordinances (Attachment 4). In terms of the boundary for the PDOD pilot, the Board
recommends removing the following from the boundary area:
• Laurel School Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoned land
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoned land
• Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado Research Foundation at Prospect
and College.
At its June 13, 2012, meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) voted unanimously
to recommend that Council adopt the PDOD Pilot (Attachment 5). With regard to the boundary,
the LPC recommends removing the following from the boundary area:
• Laurel School Historic District
• Old Town Historic District
• Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) zoned land
• Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoned land
• Properties owned by the State of Colorado and Colorado Research Foundation at Prospect
and College
• Properties within a 1,000 foot buffer of the Poudre River
On June 20, 2012, the Economic Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend that
Council adopt the PDOD Pilot (Attachment 6). With regard to the boundary, the Commission
recommends maintaining the boundary as originally proposed by staff.
At its meeting on May 16, 2012, the Transportation Board voted unanimously to recommend the
PDOD Pilot. At the time of this meeting, boundary revisions were not being considered; therefore,
the Transportation Board did not have the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding
changes to the boundary (Attachment 7).
On May 21, 2012, the Air Quality Advisory Board voted 5-1 (one member abstained) to recommend
the PDOD Pilot. Like the Transportation Board, boundary revisions were not being considered at
the time of this meeting; therefore, the Board did not have the opportunity to make a
recommendation regarding changes to the boundary (Attachment 8).
328
February 12, 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Over the past year, input has been solicited on the PDOD from a variety of stakeholder groups.
General sentiments of support and concerns are summarized below. Note that whether an item
reflects support or concern may vary depending on the perspective of the stakeholder.
Support
• Does not restrict land use to the underlying zoning.
• Provides flexibility from prescriptive, metric standards.
• Allows the context of sites to be taken into consideration during design.
• Considers and rewards projects that incorporate public benefits or go beyond code
minimums.
• Removes the need to apply for separate modifications of standards or an addition of a
permitted use.
• Encourages infill development and redevelopment in targeted areas.
• Provides developers the option to meet with P&Z prior to submitting an application.
Concerns
• Reduces predictability in terms of land use.
• Relies on subjective verses metric interpretations of development standards.
• Requires all projects to be processed as a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) review.
• Mandates that projects go beyond minimum standards and include public benefits which
may add cost.
• Diminishes the effectiveness of existing regulations, e.g., historic preservation or river
buffers, by providing a flexible application of other development standards.
• Developers can “game” the point system on the performance matrix.
A public open house was held on May 7, 2012 in order to solicit input on the PDOD and introduce
the pilot concept. A summary of comments received is included in Attachment 9.
Additionally, the following stakeholders were consulted in the development of the PDOD:
• City Council
• Planning and Zoning Board
• Developers/Brokers via the Urban Renewal Authority luncheon
• South Fort Collins Business Association
• Landmark Preservation Commission
• Air Quality Advisory Board
• Local Planning Consultants
• Climate Wise Business Partners
• Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee
• Fort Collins Board of Realtors
329
February 12, 2013
• Transportation Board
• Save the Poudre, see letter to City leaders (Attachment 10)
• North Fort Collins Business Association
• Economic Advisory Commission
• City staff”
Megan Bolin, Economic Health Analyst, stated one of the Ordinances for consideration adopts the
Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) pilot, and the other Ordinance makes permanent
changes to Article 3 of the Land Use Code, amending and creating some general standards. Bolin
stated these items are needed because the City has policies for encouraging infill and redevelopment,
particularly in certain areas of the city. These types of projects tend to have additional costs
associated with them and the current Land Use Code regulations do not allow much flexibility for
considering different types of situations.
Bolin introduced the proposed performance matrix and stated its purpose is to reward projects that
go beyond the minimum Code standards or provide significant public benefits. PDOD projects
would need to comply with both Article 3 of the Land Use Code and performance matrix in order
to be considered for approval. All PDOD projects would go before the Planning and Zoning Board
for consideration. Bolin noted the PDOD process would be optional and is not a fast track for
approval. The pilot would be a 6-month period, beginning in March 2013, during which up to five
PDOD projects could be submitted. Council will receive a report regarding the pilot during the first
quarter of 2014.
Bolin reviewed the PDOD boundary, which has been updated per public outreach comments.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, supported the PDOD pilot proposal.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Land Use Code should provide protections for
residents and businesses. He expressed concern that the PDOD process does not provide those
protections.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, supported the PDOD pilot program.
Per Hogestad, 1601 Sheeley Drive, stated there should have been more neighborhood input
regarding the proposal.
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, supported the PDOD process, but stated there is a disconnect
between zoning and the intention of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He stated he would like his
property to be included in the PDOD.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the PDOD boundary and the confusion over whether or not the
Colorado State University campus is included. Bolin replied the campus is included in the
boundary.
330
February 12, 2013
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development Neighborhood Services Director, stated it would not be
likely that the University would apply to the project because they are not required to follow the
City’s processes to develop. The boundary has to include campus because of the City’s targeted
infill and redevelopment areas. Should the University use a foundation to do development, it would
be eligible for this process.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the possibility that the boundary is too narrow. Kadrich replied
the boundary has narrowed over time due to community input and feedback from boards and
commissions. The Planning and Zoning Board originally suggested applying the process to the
community as a whole, but opted to narrow the scope of the pilot, should Council agree.
Councilmember Horak asked about the possibility of Colorado Sstate University Research
Foundation (CSURF) properties using this process. City Attorney Roy replied the City has an
agreement with CSURF regarding its situation with the City’s regulatory powers. Kadrich replied
a project team is working on this issue and noted there are different processes that can be followed
depending on who owns the land.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern that the PDOD process could somehow be involved in
the proposed new stadium issue.
Mayor Weitkunat asked if staff would be encouraging the use of this process during the pilot period.
Kadrich replied the six-month period is just for applications, the process itself may go on much
longer.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the exclusion of Mr. Willis’ property. Bolin replied his property had
never been included. Kadrich replied it may make sense to include it at some point.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adopt Ordinance
No. 024, 2013, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the motion; however, he commended recent
changes made by staff. He stated economic benefits do not belong in land use planning and
expressed concern the point system sets too low a goal.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the economic aspect is related to economic health, not economic benefit.
Councilmember Manvel asked how the point total of 45 points was devised. Bolin replied seven
completed projects were analyzed and 45 points appeared to be a reasonable number without being
overly burdensome. That aspect will be evaluated as part of the pilot system.
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern the point total is too low and requested additional
information regarding the seven analyzed projects prior to Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern regarding the University stadium issue. Kadrich noted
the neighborhood outreach process for the PDOD is the same as the existing process.
331
February 12, 2013
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 025, 2013, on First Reading.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
332
February 26, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 26,
2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and
Weitkunat.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 6:02 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Resolution 2013-015
Accepting Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2013-01
of the Ethics Review Board, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under City Code Section 2-569, City Councilmembers may present to the Council Ethics Review
Board inquiries regarding the application of state or local ethical rules to actual or hypothetical
situations involving potential conflicts of interest. On February 25, 2013, the Ethics Review Board
met for the purpose of responding to an inquiry submitted to the Board by Councilmember Wade
Troxell. The question submitted is whether, in the Board’s opinion, Councilmembers Ben Manvel
and Gerry Horak have a conflict of interest in participating in an upcoming decision of the City
Council pertaining to the ordinances implementing the Eastside and Westside Neighborhood
Character Study, as both Councilmembers live within the area of affected by the Study. As required
by the Code, the Board has met, reached an opinion, and forwarded its opinion to the full Council
for its consideration. Adoption of the Resolution would indicate that the majority of the Council
agrees with the Board’s opinion.”
City Attorney Roy stated the Ethics Review Board was convened to consider a question raised by
Councilmember Troxell as to whether Councilmembers Horak and Manvelhave a conflict of interest
regarding the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. The Board rendered the opinion,
after receiving input from staff, that they do not have a conflict. Council must now consider the
opinion and decide whether or not to adopt the opinion.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the Ethics Review Board found there would be no direct or
substantial detriment or benefit to either Councilmember.
370
February 26, 2013
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2013-015.
Councilmembers Horak and Manvel recused themselves from voting on the matter.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 033, 2013,
Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to
Implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
(Option A or Option B), Adopted Option A on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study represents an assessment of
neighborhood compatibility issues related to impacts of larger new construction projects. In
comparison to the previous 2010/2011 Study, which focused on building size impacts, this Study
takes a broader look at the character and context of the neighborhoods including building size and
design compatibility.
Staff has prepared two options for Council to consider for the proposed package of potential Land
Use Code (LUC) amendments to be included in the Ordinance at First Reading.
• Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementing five recommended
strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR standards using a new formula.
• Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementing five recommended
strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Staff initiated the Study in June 2011, after receiving direction from City Council to take a new and
broader look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the core area neighborhoods
near downtown. The Study is in response to continued concerns with potential impacts of larger
additions and new construction in the city’s oldest neighborhoods.
A similar study was conducted in 2010 for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods with a resulting
Ordinance approved by City Council that was later repealed in response to a citizen petition. While
the previous effort led to a primary focus on building size aspects, the current study emphasizes a
broader perspective to understand the character, larger context of compatibility, and threshold for
change in these neighborhoods.
371
February 26, 2013
The initial direction for the new study began with a goal developed by a Council Ad Hoc Committee
to:
Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as
they continue to change with renovations, additions, and new housing
construction, with a well-supported and effective public process resulting in
appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions.
The Study is summarized in a highly illustrated Strategy Report with information on the character
and context of the neighborhoods, community engagement, issues, and strategy options for City
Council consideration (www.fcgov.com/eastwestneighborhoods).
The Study identified and clarified a number of key issues with ongoing changes that affect existing
residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. These issues led to the
strategy options. Key issues include:
• New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context
• Building walls that appear to loom over neighbors
• Reduced solar access/shading issues
• Incompatible design features
• Loss of older/more affordable houses that make the neighborhoods unique
• Loss of green space and mature trees
The Study process included extensive public outreach that included identification of neighborhood
objectives and issues, and defining. The Study process and findings are summarized in a final
Strategy Report. This report also includes staff recommendations to implement five strategy options
that were presented to City Council at the Work Session on November 27, 2012. The staff
recommendations at that time did not include revising existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards,
because the team concluded the proposed design standard sufficiently addressed neighborhood
compatibility issues, and revising the FAR did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the
public. City Council subsequently directed staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy
options, including development of the formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
Some of these strategies involve Land Use Code changes that are the subject of the Ordinance, and
others are administrative or involve future actions as follows:
• Promote the City's existing Design Assistance Program. This involves ongoing
administrative actions, including such measures as a marketing brochure, newsletter,
neighborhood mailings, and posting program information online.
• Expand neighborhood notification of variance requests.
• Create voluntary design handbooks/guidelines to provide specialized information for
interested owners and builders on compatible development in unique character areas throughout
the neighborhoods. These products would be developed as part of future planning efforts that
will need to be budgeted and incorporated into the staff work program. Staff is
recommending implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan updates
for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014.
• Adjust existing height-at-setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods in the
Land Use Code for the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts
372
February 26, 2013
• Address building mass and solar access, including revisions to existing FAR standards, and
new design standards to address mass and solar impacts.
• Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction.
A series of public meetings were held in January 2013 to present a draft potential package of Land
Use Code amendments to implement the strategy options. Staff received a mix of opinions from the
public on the proposed standards, especially relating to revisions to the Far standards. An
additional Council work session was held on February 12, 2013 to discuss options for FAR
standards, which included direction for staff to describe these options for Council to consider on
First Reading.
I. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION A (WITH NEW FAR FORMULA)
This option reflects a package of Land Use Code (LUC) amendments that implements the five
recommended strategy options, as well as a revision to existing FAR standards using a new formula.
More specifically, it includes clarifying Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for
variance requests, revising the existing FAR standard using a new formula, adding new adjustments
to the FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new
design and solar access standards. Following is a brief summary of potential Land Use Code
changes contained in the proposed Ordinance (Option A).
1. Expand notification area for variance requests.
This LUC change would add a new standard regarding neighborhood notification for Zoning Board
of Appeals (ZBA) variance requests exceeding a certain project size threshold. Staff recommends
that the notice area for ZBA hearings be extended from 150 feet to 500 feet for variance requests
for certain size construction and other thresholds (Attachment 3).
2. Address building massing and scale (Revised FAR Standard).
The staff recommendation outlined in the strategy report did not include a revision to the existing
FAR standards because other recommended tools were seen to sufficiently address the identified
objectives and issues, and because many residents and other stakeholders feel that FAR is an overly
restrictive tool that limits flexibility for expansion. However, FAR reductions were presented as a
possible alternative tool for addressing identified issues with overly large new construction and loss
of green space.
Based on Council direction, the staff and consultant team evaluated potential revisions to the
maximum permitted FAR, including modeling of a variety of reduced FARs on projects that have
been identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context. The proposed FAR formula
was selected because it:
• Addresses projects identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context while
allowing flexibility for new construction and home expansion;
• Promotes the scale of new construction that was most often identified as compatible in
community workshops and the online visual survey;
373
February 26, 2013
• Works in concert with other recommended tools such as reduced wall heights for solar
access and additional building design standards to address front and side façade character;
and
• More directly targets identified issues than the FAR revisions included in the repealed 2011
ordinance.
Overall, the new formula provides greater flexibility through less substantial FAR reductions
because it works in combination with other tools that also address identified issues with new
construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context, building walls that appear to
loom over neighbors and reduced solar access.
New FAR Formula
The first proposed FAR change revises the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area
to the total floor area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This would
apply new or adjusted design standards to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new
construction and additions. The potential revised standard would reduce the maximum FAR from
the currently permitted 0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.50 in the N-C-M district according to a
sliding scale as summarized in the table below.
For example, the formula above would limit floor area on a 7,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M
district to 2,750 square feet ((7,000x0.25)+1,000=2,750) with an additional allowance for 250
square feet in a detached rear accessory (acc.) structure on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more, for
a total of 3,000 square feet. The sliding scale would generally result in reductions of allowed floor
area for larger lots in both districts.
New FAR Measurement Method
This change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area, as
recommended in the Strategy Report. These proposed measurement method adjustments address
the issues of high volume spaces not being counted as floor area (which created the potential for
single-story homes being twice as large as a two-story home). This includes basement floor area in
calculation where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a certain threshold,
and provides some allowance for accessory structures to promote separate building masses.
Option A further addresses building mass and scale impacts by combining a reduction in overall
building size (reduced FAR), with new design standards to shape building facade features.
374
February 26, 2013
3. Adjust measurement method for building wall height and reduced height for solar access.
The first part of this Code change adjusts the method for measuring building height at the minimum
side yard setback to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade. Staff recommends
implementation of a revised measurement method for maximum height (18 feet) at the minimum side
yard to better account for potential looming impacts related to grade changes on a property. The
building side wall height is proposed to be measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot
line adjacent to the wall, rather than at the improved grade.
A second new standard is proposed to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses
or additions on neighboring property to the north. The staff and consultant team decided not to
develop a complicated “solar ordinance” limiting shading on neighboring lots. Instead a simple
solar standard is proposed for building wall height to promote solar access. The side wall height
would be reduced to 14 feet from the currently allowed 18 feet and the side wall height could
increase by one foot for each foot of additional setback.
4. Add new standards for building facades over certain size thresholds.
Facade design standards are proposed to provide a menu of options to shape the character of front
and side building facades for compatibility. At least one facade feature from a design menu would
be required to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures
on the block face.
The front facade options would promote pedestrian orientation and the appearance of compatible
mass and scale as viewed from the street by using one-story elements, front porches, etc. The
proposed options for side building facades are intended to reduce potential looming and privacy
impacts on adjacent lots.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION B (RETAIN EXISTING FAR FORMULA)
Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five recommended
strategy options but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards. It includes clarifying
Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, retaining the existing FAR
standard formula, adding new adjustments to FAR measurement method for calculating building
square footage, and incorporating new design and solar access standards. Ordinance Option B
contains the same standards as Option A, except for the FAR formula.
Option B reflects the staff recommendation described in the Strategy Report, and presented to
Council at the November 27, 2012 Work Session. The staff and consultant team concluded in the
report that the proposed package of new design standards, without a reduction in FAR, would
address most identified mass and scale issues with larger new construction while allowing flexibility
for home expansion.
New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context was often cited by
residents as a key issue in the neighborhoods. Many residents also felt that FAR reductions would
be the most effective tool for addressing this issue. However, when presented with alternative
design scenarios in community workshops and surveys, many participants selected alternatives that
incorporate design elements other than floor area reductions. This indicates that design elements
375
February 26, 2013
apart from overall size contribute significantly to neighborhood compatibility. The recommended
design standards within Ordinance Option B address these key design elements while allowing
flexibility for home expansion.
• Comparison of 2011 Ordinance and proposed 2013 Ordinance
At the November 27, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to develop the proposed 2013
Ordinance. Staff provided a comparison of the previous 2011 Ordinance that was repealed, with
the proposed 2013 Ordinance (Attachment 4). Staff believes the proposed 2013 Ordinance, as a
package of proposed changes, is noticeably different from the previous 2011 Ordinance. The key
changes include:
• No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance
requests
• New expanded notification area for some variance requests
• New thresholds for applying all new standards in both districts
• Different formula for calculating maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs)
• FARs applied separately to the N-C-L and N-C-M districts
• FARs applied on a sliding scale, based on lot size
• More generous FAR allowance in the N-C-M district; and
• New standards for solar access and building front and side façade design.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Urban Advisors was contracted as a sub-consultant to analyze the economic impacts of revising the
existing FAR standards as described in Option A. The analysis and findings are included in a report
(Attachment 6). The summarized conclusions from the report include:
• While overall values increase with house size, the value per square foot tends to decline,
especially for houses with more than 2,000 square feet of floor area or FARs above 0.30.
• Based on existing property values, and the potential sales prices of new or expanded homes,
most redevelopment is likely to occur on small to average sized lots (4,000 to 10,000 square
feet) in the N-C-M zone district (115 to 125 such properties present prime redevelopment
opportunities under current market conditions).
• The proposed reduction in maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) would not
significantly affect redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhoods because the most
profitable opportunities tend to be at FARs lower than the proposed limits.
• The proposed reduction in the maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) is not likely
to have a significantly positive or negative impact on the affordability of housing in the
neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these
implementation items.
376
February 26, 2013
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its regular meeting on February 7, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend
adoption of Ordinance No. 33, 2013, Option B.
The Landmark Preservation Commission is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 13, 2013.
Minutes from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 14, 2013. Minutes
from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Building Review Board is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 28, 2013. Minutes from
this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The following activities were included in the public process used for this study:
Phase 1 – Understand the character and context of the neighborhoods (May – July 2012)
• Email notice for meetings, post card mailing for work shops
• Posted project information on web page
• Initial working group meetings (June)
• 2 public work shop meetings (July 10/12)
• Online questionnaire
• Updates to boards and commissions
• City Council work session (July 24)
Phase 2 – Develop a Strategy (August – November 2012)
• Series of working group meetings (August/September)
• On-line survey
• Public work shop meeting (November 5)
• Updates to boards and commissions
• City Council work session (November 27)
Phase 3 – Implementation of Strategy Options (December 2012 – February 2013)
• Series of working group meetings (January 16, 2013)
• Public Open House meeting (January 30)
• Updates to boards and commissions
• Planning and Zoning Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 7)
• City Council Work Session (February 12)
• Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing – Recommendation (February 13)
• Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing - Recommendation (February 14)
• City Council First Reading of Ordinance (February 19)
• Building Review Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 28)
• City Council Second Reading of Ordinance (March 5)”
377
February 26, 2013
Pete Wray, City Planner, reviewed the Ordinance which would adopt five recommended strategy
options for implementing the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. Option A would
include a revision to the existing floor area ratio formula, option B would leave the current formula
in place.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the complexity of the floor area ratio changes. Wray replied the
intent of reducing the floor area ratio formula was to address the recognized largest building projects
in the neighborhoods and to limit the total size of additions and new construction slightly, while still
providing enough flexibility for most other projects.
Mayor Weitkunat asked why staff has proposed a possible change in the floor area ratio formula.
Abe Barge, Winter & Company, stated Council has the option to leave the floor area ratio as is. It
was determined there are certain interior designs that result in more extensive exterior massing; the
new floor area ratio formula would aid in accounting for those types of designs.
Councilmember Troxell asked how many properties would be affected by the change. Barge replied
the vast majority of properties are below the maximum floor area ratio limit.
Nore Winter, Winter & Company, replied there was never a clear line where FAR always resulted
in good projects below a certain number, because other aspects of mass, scale, wall height, and
articulation also affect the perception of buildings. These tools were designed to work in concert
with one another.
Councilmember Troxell noted the citizen petition which repealed the previous Eastside/Westside
regulations was primarily due to the FAR ratio. He questioned its inclusion in this package.
Barge stated staff would not make a recommendation between the two options as they both address
the issues and objectives which resulted from the public process. Option A does go further in
addressing the issues, but it does include the FAR tool that has some controversial history.
Councilmember Troxell asked about lot sizes and shapes. Winter replied most of the lots in these
areas are basically rectangular; however, there are areas with odd-shaped lots.
Councilmember Troxell asked how the FAR would take into account, for example, a long, slender
aspect ratio of a lot. Barge replied the FAR does not specifically address the lot configuration; it
is about overall mass and scale.
Councilmember Troxell noted these neighborhoods are diverse rather than uniform and asked how
the FAR addresses block faces. Barge replied the FAR is only differentiated based on lot size and
zone district and noted none of these tools will impact diversity.
Councilmember Troxell asked how trees are addressed in solar access. Winter replied they are not
addressed and noted this is typical of solar access standards nationwide.
Councilmember Troxell asked about east-west solar access. Winter replied the proposed standard
would only address north-south solar issues.
378
February 26, 2013
Mayor Weitkunat noted the sliding FAR deals with the outlying, overly large construction projects.
She asked if another tool would accomplish this goal. Winter replied the tools that are part of
Option B also address those objectives; however, some participants have felt that option is not direct
enough, particularly when looking at the overly large projects.
Councilmember Manvel noted the majority of citizen input showed size was a more major concern
than design when looking at these neighborhoods.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about capital impact fees being higher for smaller homes. Mayor
Pro Tem Ohlson stated the impact fee process has been examined and the increases, not the fees
themselves, would be higher for smaller houses as it was discovered there are more individuals, on
average, in smaller homes than once thought. Winter noted the issues are not related.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked when the Planning and Zoning Board had received this information.
Wray replied they received their initial packets as usual and then received the amendment with the
two options prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the staff recommendation. Winter replied staff is
recommending adoption of the Ordinance, but is not making a recommendation related to the
Options.
Councilmember Horak asked how balconies or decks are included. Winter replied the Ordinance
is written so as to not count balconies or decks as floor area, unless they are roofed and enclosed on
more than two sides. The goal with this is to mitigate mass and scale issues.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 033, 2013, Option A, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel cited the examples shown by staff and discussed a spreadsheet he created
which illustrated that some of the homes which are looked at negatively would still be allowed under
the existing FAR. He stated the proposed new FAR is quite different and less strict than the FAR
which was put in place two years ago. He supported Option A as a reasonable change.
Councilmember Troxell noted there are other issues related to properties, such as floodplain, which
are neglected as part of Option A. He stated he would not support the option.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern Council would not have had input from boards and
commissions had the First Reading occurred as scheduled. She expressed appreciation for the
diversity of the Old Town neighborhoods and disagreed that these standards are appropriate.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support Option A as it is a miniscule tweaking of the FAR.
Councilmember Kottwitz requested information related to shading in other neighborhoods prior to
Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel asked if staff and the consultant team is of the opinion that the rules without
the FAR are sufficient to prevent the extra-large houses. Winter replied the team had been
379
February 26, 2013
instructed to look at mutually-agreeable solutions. The initial recommendations were softer as the
team knew it would receive some direction from Council.
Councilmember Horak stated the FAR change makes sense and the overall process did result in
addressing citizen concerns.
Mayor Weitkunat stated all parties agree on the majority of the regulations; however, the FAR has
been a point of controversy, and therefore may not be the correct solution.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays:
Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2013-013
Adopting the Student Housing Action Plan, Adopted
The following is the staff recommendation for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the direction of City Council and with the adoption of City Plan, staff initiated a Student Housing
Action Plan (SHAP or the Plan) project to address the increasing need for multi-family student
housing and the potential negative impacts to and compatibility concerns of existing single-family
neighborhoods. The project has involved working with Colorado State University (CSU), Front
Range Community College (FRCC), neighbors, students, developers, and other stakeholders to
identify strategies and recommend action items.
The feedback received throughout the public engagement process drove the development of the
proposed action items within the Plan. The Plan provides a mechanism to achieve the mission of
SHAP by identifying needs and concerns, evaluating existing conditions and future projections, and
proposing action items on a variety of housing and behavioral issues related to student housing.
The Plan will serve as a guide for addressing student housing issues by City staff, City Council, and
the community.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The SHAP project began in March 2011 and was most recently discussed at the City Council Work
Session on December 11, 2012. City Council directed staff to bring the Plan to City Council for
formal consideration on February 19, 2013, and to move forward with the identified action items.
Updates were provided to the Affordable Housing Board, the Landmark Preservation Commission,
the Air Quality Advisory Board, the Building Review Board, and the Planning & Zoning Board. The
Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend adoption of the Plan.
The Plan provides a vision to achieve the overall SHAP mission of developing community driven
strategies that encourage quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and
compatibility.
380
February 26, 2013
The City, through the City Plan process, identified a need to address student housing now and into
the future. Fort Collins is experiencing an increase in population and student enrollment, very low
vacancy rates, a limited supply of multi-family housing, and challenges in addressing neighborhood
concerns with new multi-family development projects. These factors drove the need for the
development of strategies and action items to help facilitate housing supplies while addressing
negative impacts upon existing single-family neighborhoods.
The Plan provides background information and data including:
• Applicable City Plan policies
• Land Supply and Growth policies for Fort Collins
• Student Enrollment Data and Projections
• Multi-family Vacancy Rates in Fort Collins
• Multi-family Average Rents in Fort Collins
• CSU On-Campus Housing Supplies (now and into the future)
• Off-Campus Housing Supplies and Developments
• Student Housing Preferences
SHAP implemented a diverse and in-depth process that included a heavy emphasis on stakeholder
engagement, background research, data collection, and action item development and
implementation time frames.
The primary working group included CSU and City staff, stakeholders from CSU, Front Range
Community College (FRCC), student government, students/tenants, neighbors, property owners,
Fort Collins Board of Realtors, developers/designers, and others. The Center for Public
Deliberation assisted with much of the public engagement process including several focus groups
(both individual stakeholder groups and combined), surveys, and a large deliberative dialogue.
Additional engagement methods included a webpage with current information, presentations and
important dates, an on-line survey, use of social media, an open house, and meetings with Boards
& Commissions and professional groups. Feedback received through the engagement process
shaped the development of the action items in the Plan.
Action Items
In the spring and summer of 2012, while the SHAP process was underway, City Council directed
staff to bring specific action items forward for immediate consideration in an effort to more quickly
address concerns raised by residents about the adverse impacts of larger multi-family developments
occurring near existing single-family neighborhoods. As a result, some Land Use Code (LUC)
amendments that address compatibility concerns were adopted in the fall of 2012.
During these discussions, Council referred three items back into the SHAP process for further
discussion: Operations, Security and Management Plans; Limit 4+ bedroom units in multi-family
developments; and University District or Overlay. SHAP stakeholders discussed these items, and
some of their recommendations are included in the identified action items.
The action items included in the Plan are split into four categories:
• Near-term Action Items (2013)
381
February 26, 2013
• Longer-term Action Items (2014 and beyond)
• Action Items that do not need Formal Council Consideration
• Action Items Proceeding in other Processes
Near-Term Action Items (2013)
The following action items will be brought to City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board for
formal consideration in 2013. The first three items can be prepared relatively quickly and will be
brought to City Council on March 5, 2013. The last two items need more time fully develop, so
formal consideration will happen during the annual Land Use Code (LUC) update in June.
Near Term Action Item Concern Addressed
1. Improve understanding of compatibility by modifying the LUC to
include clear examples (photos, drawings) of what is allowed in
certain zones.
Compatibility
2. Amend Medium-density Mixed Use Neighborhood (MMN) district
development standards and LUC Sec. 3.8.30 multi-family standards
to specify that no vehicular use area can be placed in the said setback
from single- and two-family dwellings. Also, consider landscape
requirements for this setback.
Compatibility
3. Better define and amend the LUC Sec. 3.8.16 (E) (2) requirement that
4+ bedroom developments need to provide additional open space,
recreation areas, parking areas and public facilities as are necessary
to adequately serve the development and excepting the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
Intensity of 4+
b e d r o o m u n i t s ,
compatibility
4. Define different multi-family housing types (rather than just the broad
multi-family definition). The requirement for multiple housing types
could be used as a gradient of development between proposed multi-
family and existing single-family.
Compatibility
5. Confirm that the uses, development standards and density allowances
in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district are
consistent with the intent and purpose of the district appropriate sub-
area plans in that it provides a transition between residential
neighborhoods and commercial-use areas.
Compatibility
Longer-Term Action Items (2014 and beyond)
The following action items need further development and public outreach before bringing them to
Council for formal consideration.
Longer Term Action Item Concern Addressed
1. Build an above- or below- grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing at or near
Shields and Elizabeth Streets.
• This item would need two to three years to develop and fund –
Requires further involvement and development from Transportation
Planning and Engineering and coordination with CSU.
Traffic and Safety
2. Consider requiring property managers/owners to provide City Accountability
382
February 26, 2013
ordinance information to their tenants at lease signing.
• This could be accomplished relatively quickly (one year) – it would
require additional public outreach.
3. Form an on-going advisory committee made up of City, CSU, FRCC,
neighbors, students, property managers, Police, and Associated
Students of CSU (ASCSU) to guide City Council on student housing
issues.
• This could be accomplished relatively quickly (one year) – it would
require staff support.
Accountability and
Education
4. Consider a Rental Licensing Program to ensure health/safety of units,
data regarding rentals, increased accountability of the rental business.
Require all landlords to take the Landlord Training provided by the
City.
• Council has considered Rental Licensing and Registration
Programs in the past and could be revisited.
• Would require one to two years for further research and significant
public outreach.
Accountability and
Education
The Plan also includes a number of action items that do not require formal Council consideration
that staff will begin implementing. These include increased education about the enforcement
process and data related to enforcement, increased enforcement of nuisance and noise ordinances
in areas with a high concentration of complaints, increased education to parents of students, and
incentives for students to attend educational programs.
Lastly, the Plan has several action items that are either moving forward in a separate process or
are the responsibility of CSU. CSU has been involved in the SHAP process and is committed to
implementing these items. The City’s Parking Plan, West Central Neighborhoods Plan update, and
Phase 3 of the Transit Plan are all supported by the Plan and include SHAP recommendations. The
items that are the responsibility of CSU include on-campus parking and fees, on-campus housing,
options for public/private partnerships, and increased communications about on-campus housing
updates.
Plan Implementation, Monitoring and Review
Implementation of the Plan will occur as indicated below:
• Near-Term Action ItemsSpring 2013
• Longer-Term Actin Items2014 and beyond
• Action Items – No Council Action 2013
• Action Items In Other Processes2013 and beyond
The Land Use Code items will impact new development as it occurs. Other items are new initiatives
that will need to be accommodated in future work plans and, if necessary, accommodated into future
capital and/or operating budgets. Most items are recommended to be implemented as soon as
possible, and some will be implemented immediately.
The action items will be monitored regularly to ensure they are meeting the desired outcomes and
to recommend any needed changes.
383
February 26, 2013
Full implementation of the action items in the Plan will have a cost. The action items fall into the
following three categories with respect to the need for resources:
1. Existing Resources – Items that can be accomplished with existing resources and will not
add costs to the City. These items include all of the Near-term Action Items. Additionally,
all of the educational program improvements will be implemented using existing resources.
2. Additional Resources Needed – Some of the action items will need additional resources to
be implemented. All of the Longer-term Action Items require some level of additional
resources. The details for the costs of these items will be included in the materials provided
to City Council when these items are individually brought forward for formal consideration.
3. Resources Identified in other Processes – The action items that are proceeding in other
processes will identify funding needs within the process they are moving forward in. For
example, the City Parking Plan will identify the funding needs for implementation of that
plan. Additionally, the items that are the responsibility of CSU will use CSU resources for
implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The Plan will not have any direct environmental impacts; however, the individual action items will
address environmental impacts during the review process for those specific items.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the Student Housing Action
Plan. General support was given by the Landmark Preservation Commission, Building Review
Board, and the Air Quality Advisory Board. Although the Affordable Housing Board was primarily
supportive, the Board expressed concern on some of the specific action items.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach included the following:
• Throughout the process stakeholders, which included Associated Students of CSU (ASCSU),
FRCC Student Council and administration, CSU and FRCC students at large, neighbors,
Fort Collins Board of Realtors, developers and designers, Northern Colorado Rental
Housing Association, property managers/landlords, and property owners were utilized for
focus groups, dialogues, and general feedback.
• Presentations and updates were provided to several boards and commissions, as well as
professional organizations throughout the process.
• A website was developed specifically for SHAP to provide detailed information, updates, and
to seek input. Additionally, a survey was put onto the website as a more convenient way for
the general public to provide feedback about the draft action items.
• Social media tools were used to generate interest and direct people to the website.
• After the action items were drafted, a public Open House was held to gather more general
public feedback on the draft action items.
384
February 26, 2013
• A student survey of rental housing preferences was conducted in 2011 and 2012 with
updates planned to occur annually.”
Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager, stated this process was initiated at the direction of
Council to address the increasing need for multi-family student housing, and the potential negative
impacts to, and compatibility concerns of, existing single-family neighborhoods. The Plan will
serve as a guide for addressing student housing issues by staff, Council, and the community.
Sowder reviewed the process of development of the Plan and stated the action items included in the
Plan are split into four categories: near-term action items, longer-term action items, administrative
action items, and action items that are also proceeding in other processes. Sowder reviewed the
timeline for the action items. Staff recommends adoption of the Plan and the Planning and Zoning
Board also voted to recommend approval. General support was provided by other boards; however,
the Affordable Housing Board did express concern regarding specific action items.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale Drive, stated this Plan is a decent start but stated more work needs
to be done. He requested energy use also be considered as part of the Plan.
Lea Hanson, Women’s Commission Member, supported the creation of multi-family units and
questioned how some of the components of the Plan may affect future development.
Joel Rovnak, 1308 Bennett, stated the Plan provides some hope to neighborhoods and stated the Plan
would not eliminate multi-family developments. He supported adoption of the Plan.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, suggested support for this Plan could be indicative of City
support for the proposed on-campus stadium. He encouraged a thorough discussion prior to a vote.
Astrid, 507 Mathews, expressed concern regarding unintended consequences of this Plan and noted
there are many non-student, older residents who also desire smaller, high-density housing.
Jeffrey Martin, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chairman, expressed appreciation for the efforts of
staff and stakeholders in this process. He noted multi-family housing is not all student housing and
expressed concern this Plan could have a negative impact on multi-family housing. He opposed the
reintroduction of rental licensure as part of the long-term approach.
Francie Martinez, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chair-Elect, stated regulations for student housing
should be different from regulations for traditional multi-family housing. She opposed rental
licensure and supported adoption of a Plan that strikes the requirement for four-bedroom units and
strikes the requirement for additional parking in the Transit Overlay District.
John Dietrich, ASCSU, stated college students need to be more engaged in this process.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors CEO, opposed the length of the process and
encouraged Council to discuss its rationale regarding decisions relating to housing. He stated some
of the items in the Plan are very intrusive on multi-family housing for the city’s future.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the action items which are set to come before Council on March 5.
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, replied those action
items came about as staff worked on the first phase of Land Use Code amendments to address
385
February 26, 2013
compatibility issues. These items have been through the Planning and Zoning Board and are ready
to be heard by Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the parking requirements of the Transit Overlay District.
Kadrich replied the proposal that will come before Council on March 5 will not include parking
requirements for four-bedroom or greater units within the TOD.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the Planning and Zoning Board expressed concern about the impact
of parking on neighborhoods. Sowder clarified the Board recommended adoption of the Plan and
voted to exempt the parking requirement from the TOD when it considered the specific action items.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2013-013.
Councilmember Horak made an amendment, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to remove
consideration of a rental licensing program from the Plan.
Councilmember Horak stated the extension of the committee will allow the ability to look at the
possibility of a rental licensing program in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would not support the amendment as an appropriate rental
licensing program makes sense for the future.
Councilmember Troxell supported the amendment as the advisory committee could provide a
recommendation in the future.
Councilmember Poppaw noted the Plan does not require a rental licensing program, but suggests
consideration of such a program in the future. Kadrich replied citizen input has varied on the issue.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Horak, Troxell, and Kottwitz.
Nays: Poppaw, Manvel, and Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the impact of this Plan on multi-family housing in general.
Kadrich replied this has been part of the melding of what happened with the community discussion
related to compatibility impacts of multi-family housing with the Student Housing Action Plan that
was already in place.
Mayor Weitkunat asked whether or not staff is trying to define multi-family versus student housing.
Kadrich replied the staff chose not to define the issue and stated after the broader community
discussion, as well as a discussion at a Council work session and a Planning and Zoning Board
meeting, the consensus was that people felt the compatibility issues related to multi-family
development were similar whether it was student housing or other types of housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted Council gave the direction to drop defining students as a separate
group.
386
February 26, 2013
Councilmember Manvel asked whether or not most four-bedroom units would be used primarily by
students. Kadrich replied Affordable Housing representatives have stated families do desire four-
bedroom units.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern regarding possible unintended consequences of
adoption of the Plan as endorsing the Plan could endorse specific action items.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would support the Plan and requested additional information
regarding the timing of specific issues prior to First Reading on the action items.
Councilmember Horak stated he would support the Plan and the formation of an advisory committee
as soon as possible.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the Plan as it is necessary to move forward in addressing
the city’s housing issues.
The vote on the motion to adopt the Plan was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater
Site Development Initiatives, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, Adopting an Update to Appendix C of the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Pertaining to “Streetscape Standards” for the
City of Fort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code and
the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate Provisions Implementing Low
Impact Development Principles.
Ordinance No. 151, 2012 replaces the City of Fort Collins Streetscape Design Standards &
Guidelines document with a new version entitled “City of Fort Collins Streetscape Standards”.
Ordinance No. 152, 2012 updates the City’s Low Impact Development Criteria and Policy regarding
the control and treatment of stormwater runoff from streets and site development. Both Ordinances
were unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 18, 2012.
The Streetscape Standards guide the treatment of parkway strips (between the curb and sidewalk),
medians, intersections, roundabouts, and key gateway intersections. For the new Streetscape
standards document, staff is proposing minor text revisions for Second Reading. One of the
387
February 26, 2013
revisions requires Council consideration of three options regarding parkway landscaping by
homeowners in certain circumstances. Other revisions are clarifying edits.
The Low Impact Development (LID) Criteria and Policy addresses the City’s requirements and
incentives for more distributed stormwater runoff management and control which relies mainly on
filtration and infiltration to treat and manage the stormwater runoff. This approach will apply to
private site development projects as well as to public street projects. Ordinance No. 152, 2012, has
been revised on Second Reading to improve the clarity of the description of LID Criteria
requirements.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Two Parts of a Larger Coordinated Program
These Ordinances are parts of a larger coordinated program called the 2012 Streets and
Stormwater Site Development Initiatives. While the two Ordinances were approved on First
Reading, questions remained, needing additional information for Second Reading.
1. Potential Revisions to New Streetscape Standards Document
Questions raised at First Reading prompted a potential text revision regarding parkway landscaping
maintained by homeowners. For this potential revision, three options are proposed for Council
consideration. Attachments 2-4 show the three options in redline/strikeout format. Attachment 5
is a staff summary of pros and cons of the options.
Staff is seeking a Council decision on which text option to adopt on Second Reading.
The options involve parkway landscaping in single family housing developments where approved
development plans specify turfgrass in the parkways.
While these parkways are publicly owned, it is the responsibility of private property owners to
maintain the landscaping except for street trees. Questions involve situations where an individual
property owner wishes to change the landscaping from that which is shown on the development
plan.
Specifically, should Homeowners Association (HOA) approval be required for such changes, and
what process is reasonable for a homeowner to follow, if they want to change the approved
landscaping in the parkway adjacent to their lot?
Current Process
Currently, such a change requires a Minor Amendment request to amend the plan on file. There is
currently a $350 filing fee for Minor Amendments. If the development has an HOA, then staff
requires authorization by the HOA to amend the development plan. The rationale is that HOA
interests typically include the look and feel of the public space in the neighborhood, and in some
cases, HOAs maintain certain parkway areas.
The First Reading version of the Streetscape Standards reflects this current process.
388
February 26, 2013
Second Reading Revision Options
Second Reading options for potential text revisions involve combinations of two components. One
component is a requirement, or lack thereof, for an administrative process to amend development
plans (e.g., the current Minor Amendment process). Staff has identified a potential new process
called “Parkway Landscaping Amendment”, with a lower fee and better-fitting requirements than
the current Minor Amendment process. Staff could create this administratively.
The second component is a requirement, or lack thereof, for HOAs to authorize changes to approved
plans for the developments they govern.
Following is a summary of the options, along with the First Reading version for comparison:
First Reading version: Requires a Minor Amendment, which has a $350 fee; and requires HOA
consent.
Option 1: Replace the Minor Amendment requirement with a new “Parkway Landscaping
Amendment” and a lower fee; and keep the HOA consent requirement (Attachment 2).
Option 2: Replace the Minor Amendment requirement with a new “Parkway Landscaping
Amendment” and a lower fee; and drop the HOA consent requirement (Attachment 3).
Option 3: Drop all City requirements (allow a homeowner to choose landscaping different than
approved plan for the development with no amendment to the plan.) (Attachment 4)
Note that where there is no approved development plan, there is no issue. The owner can landscape
with or without turfgrass. Standards include a few basic requirements for live plantings that are
low-growing, but there is no formal process.
In addition to text revisions for parkway landscaping described above, staff is proposing a clarifying
statement that “Appropriate irrigation shall be provided to maintain health of plantings with
efficient use of water.” That statement is shown on pages 36 and 43 of the document.
No other text edits are proposed except those shown on pages 36 and 43.
2. Low Impact Development Criteria and Policy Update - Ordinance No. 152, 2012
At First Reading, staff was asked for additional information about the financial impact of the
proposed criteria. More specifically, staff was asked to address the initial installation costs of
pervious pavements and their potential impacts on costs of development in Fort Collins.
Attachment 6 is a memo with explanation of the costs, and a cost comparison spreadsheet of an
actual parking lot example built in 2010 with side-by-side pervious and impervious pavement
surfaces.”
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, noted questions
have arisen since First Reading regarding the process for a homeowner to make a change to parkway
389
February 26, 2013
landscaping. Kadrich noted parkways are part of approved landscape plans and are inspected at least
every five years to ensure compliance with the plan. Under the previous practice, a homeowner
would need to submit for a minor amendment and obtain HOA consent if appropriate, in order to
make a change to parkway landscaping. That practice was recommended to continue as part of First
Reading. Staff has developed additional options for Council consideration on Second Reading.
Option 1 is to have a new plan amendment process which would reduce the minor amendment fee
from $350 and possibly remove the requirement of HOA consent. Option 2 would not require the
HOA to be notified at all and Option 3 would drop the City requirement entirely to do a plan
amendment.
City Manager Atteberry noted Options 2 or 3 would create some level of consistency with the City’s
previously-adopted policy allowing front yard xeriscaping.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked if this standard addresses stormwater irrigation.
Joe Siple, 2938 Ruff Way, supported the ability of homeowners to xeriscape parkways in order to
conserve water.
Basil Hamdan, Stormwater Quality Engineer, stated regulations specifically allow the use of
stormwater for parkway irrigation. There is no mechanism in these standards which would require
existing turfed areas to be retrofitted to utilize stormwater irrigation. As opportunities arise to
retrofit these areas, that will occur.
Councilmember Troxell asked about certain areas of parkway and whether they are maintained by
homeowner’s associations or adjacent property owners. Clark Mapes, City Planner, replied this
topic deals only with local and collector streets within residential areas, not arterial streets. Arterial
streets are mostly maintained by the Parks Department; however, there are some different
arrangements in some areas throughout the city.
Councilmember Troxell asked if some parkways on collector streets are HOA maintained. Mapes
replied they are almost all maintained by adjacent owners, though there are a few cases where the
HOA maintains the parkways.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted Option 1 just requires HOA consultation, rather than consent. He
stated he prefers Option 3 and questioned what action would come from HOA consultation. He also
questioned why homeowners need to pay such a high fee to the City. Kadrich replied this issue has
not been presented to all of the HOAs for review; therefore, requiring HOA consultation is deemed
as a positive option. Mapes replied the HOA consultation allows for a unified appearance and could
provide for a neighborhood discussion. The fee is in place to cover some of the administrative costs
in amending the plan on file, though staff has considered a fee of less than $100.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if staff would be open to recommending Option 3 at a future time
should Option 1 prove to be ineffective for residents. Kadrich replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the history of landscape plans. Kadrich replied all
subdivisions, since 1997, have an approved landscape plan which includes any parkways.
390
February 26, 2013
Councilmember Manvel asked if HOA consultation is required for a front yard xeriscape. Staff
replied in the negative.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if the City is violating a state law by not allowing xeriscaping in the
parkways. City Attorney Roy replied it is not; the state law limits the ability of HOAs to enforce
certain covenants.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the City re-examine the way it landscapes its parkways. City
Manager Atteberry stated the issue has been examined regarding lowing maintenance costs and
water usage for medians and added he will get back to Council on the issue regarding parkways.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to adopt Ordinance
No. 151, 2012, Option 1, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Troxell stated the consent of HOAs could be important because it would allow
better communication among neighbors.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted Option 1 involves a consultation with the HOA rather than consent.
He requested staff’s assurance that they would return to Council should this not work the way it is
intended. Kadrich replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the fee issue. Kadrich replied Option 1 proposes a landscape
amendment fee of somewhere between $25 and $150.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated he would like the fee to be under $50.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance
No. 152, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 020, 2013,
Amending Section 2-35 of the City Code with Regard to the
Removal of Persons from City Council Meetings, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, amends City Code to
allow the presiding officer of a City Council meeting or City Council committee meeting to order
391
February 26, 2013
the removal of any person who significantly and intentionally disrupts such meeting by failing to
comply with the requirements of the presiding officer in maintaining order during the meeting.”
Mike Pruznick, Fort Collins resident, opposed the Ordinance and asked how people would be
removed from a meeting and about any appeal process. He asked why the item is needed.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the wire fencing separating Council from the
audience and suggested the Ordinance should apply equally to citizens and City staff.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the language specifically uses the phrase “significantly and intentionally.”
She also noted warnings would occur prior to the removal of an individual.
Councilmember Troxell noted the term “Mayor” was replaced with “presiding officer.”
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted it was never Council’s intent to limit paper materials that can be
passed out in the lobby and those regulations were actually loosened.
Councilmember Manvel asked if this would apply to other functions of Council, such as the URA
Board. City Attorney Roy replied the URA Board has its own set of procedural rules; this
Ordinance would apply specifically to Council meetings and Council committee meetings.
City Attorney Roy noted this rule is consistent with state statute. The original regulation required
a vote of Council to remove an individual which was cumbersome and unrealistic. Additionally,
the original regulation did not utilize the “significant and intentional” phrase.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 020, 2013, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry reiterated there was never an intent to limit free speech or material
distribution, as mentioned by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson.
Items Relating to the Planned Development
Overlay District Pilot, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the Addition
of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add or
Clarify Certain “General Standards” and “Purpose” Statements Related to the Planned
Overlay Development District.
392
February 26, 2013
The Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) is a new zoning tool designed to provide
contextual land use and design flexibility for infill development and redevelopment projects. Since
it is new and unique, a pilot is being proposed as a way to test the PDOD prior to considering
permanent adoption. The pilot would establish a six-month application period allowing up to five
application submittals; only projects within the PDOD pilot boundary would have the option to
apply. Based on public outreach, the PDOD pilot boundary has been modified since originally
proposed to include commercial areas along College Avenue, east Mulberry, and west Elizabeth.
Properties within 1,000 feet of the Poudre River or that are within a designated historic district have
been removed from the pilot. This Ordinance has been amended since First Reading based on input
from City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board, as follows:
• Properties owned by Colorado State University and Colorado State Research Foundation
have been removed from the pilot boundary.
• Several properties north of Vine Drive and west of North Lemay Avenue have been added
from the pilot boundary.
• The minimum number of points required on the performance matrix has been raised to 60.
Ordinance No. 025, 2013 makes several amendments to Article 3 of the Land Use Code (LUC).
These amendments are directly related to the PDOD, but would be permanent amendments to the
LUC and thus require a separate Ordinance. These Ordinances were adopted on First Reading on
February 12, 2013 by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Ohlson).
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Although both Ordinances were adopted on First Reading, City Council asked staff to address two
issues before bringing Ordinance No. 024 back for Second Reading: the Planned Development
Overlay District (PDOD) pilot boundary and justification for the 45-point minimum on the
performance matrix.
PDOD Boundary
When the PDOD was originally proposed, any projects within a defined boundary (original
boundary) would have the option to use the PDOD, and there was a provision that allowed
properties outside the boundary to “opt-in” provided certain site criteria were met. During public
outreach when the pilot was proposed, concerns were raised over some areas that were included
in the boundary including historic districts, residential properties, and properties near the Poudre
River. Consequently, when the PDOD pilot was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board for
recommendation in 2012, the Board recommended certain areas be removed from the boundary.
Then, based on additional conversations with Councilmembers, the pilot boundary was reduced
further.
At the Council meeting on February 12, 2013, a citizen requested that property be added into the
pilot boundary; this includes land where the current Raptor Center is located (zoned Industrial and
Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood) as well as the adjacent Schlagel property (also zoned Low
Density Mixed Use Neighborhood). Additionally, Council questioned why Colorado State
University (CSU) property was included in the boundary, particularly if CSU is not required to
adhere to the City’s development review process. This also brought into question land owned by
Colorado State Research Foundation (CSRF) that was in the pilot boundary. While Council was
393
February 26, 2013
receptive to adding the property mentioned above and removing CSU and CSRF property, staff was
requested to bring it to the Planning and Zoning Board for a formal recommendation prior to
Second Reading. The Board will provide a recommendation regarding the boundary at its February
21 meeting, and the outcome and draft minutes will be provided to Council prior to Second Reading
on February 26, 2013.
Attachment 2 is a map showing the original PDOD boundary and the proposed amended boundary
for comparison.
Performance Matrix
The most unique aspect of the PDOD is the performance matrix, which was designed as a menu of
site and building options that rewards applicants via a point system for exceeding minimum Code
standards or providing public benefits. The matrix is divided into seven categories that mirror the
seven categories of City Plan, and, in addition to meeting the General Standards in Article III of the
Land Use Code, an applicant must achieve at least 45 points in at least four different categories to
be considered for approval. At the Council meeting on February 12, 2013, the justification for
establishing 45 points as the minimum was questioned, and staff was asked to provide more
information explaining why that number was chosen.
When the matrix was first developed, staff retrospectively tested several projects to understand how
they would score. Attachment 3 provides a spreadsheet showing the projects that have been
evaluated and their respective matrix scores. Note that the project evaluations were based on staff’s
best knowledge of each project, and the scores were not confirmed with the developer/owner. Based
on those outcomes, 45 points was viewed at the time to be sufficient to ensure quality while not being
overly-burdensome to applicants.
It is important to keep in mind that all the items in the matrix are above existing minimum
standards; one of the concerns raised during public outreach was that the PDOD would add costs
as a result. This is a specific concern that the pilot is intended to address, and could be an aspect
of the PDOD that is recommended to change based on the pilot outcomes.
The Planning and Zoning Board discussed the matrix at its February 15, 2013 work session and,
based on the outcomes of the test projects, recommends increasing the minimum point requirement
to 60. The Board’s formal recommendation will be provided to Council prior to Second Reading
on February 26, 2013.”
Megan Bolin, Economic Health Analyst, stated the PDOD is a new performance-based zoning tool
designed to provide flexibility for infill development and redevelopment. The first Ordinance would
implement the pilot program and the second Ordinance would make several amendments to Article
3 of the Land Use Code as related to the implementation of the PDOD. Bolin discussed boundary
changes made since First Reading which removed CSU and CSURF property from the pilot and
added the Raptor Center and Schlagel properties. Additionally, the Ordinance was amended to raise
the number of points required on the performance matrix to 60 from 45. Bolin stated the Planning
and Zoning Board approved both changes.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the need for this process.
394
February 26, 2013
Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, thanked staff and Council for expanding the boundary.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 024, 2013, on Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated there is likely no need to incentivize growth and development;
however, he stated he would support the program on Second Reading.
Councilmember Manvel agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson but stated he would support the motion
as testing the process with a few pilot projects seems a good place to start.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would support the Ordinances as they infuse the basic premise of City
Plan.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 025, 2013, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Horak and other Councilmembers requested that staff present both the original and
amended versions of the fracking ban at the next Council meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested moving the URA work session to February 28.
Executive Session Authorized
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to go into Executive
Session for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney, City Manager, and other affected
members of City staff to discuss potential litigation and related legal issues as permitted under
Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
395
February 26, 2013
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the executive session, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
396
February 28, 2013
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting – 7:30 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 28,
2013, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and
Weitkunat.
(Secretary’s note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 8:27 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Continuation of Public Hearing on the Subject of Amending the Midtown Urban
Renewal Plan to Authorize the Use of Tax Increment Financing
in the Foothills Mall Area of the Plan, continued to March 27, 2013
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has proposed that the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan be amended to authorize the use of tax
increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the Plan. As required in connection with such an
amendment, notice was provided to all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns
in the Urban Renewal Area, and to Larimer County, and was published in the Fort Collins
Coloradoan. In addition, an economic impact analysis of the proposed action was provided to
Larimer County. All of the matters for consideration identified in the notices, other than the issue
of amending the Plan to authorize the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of
the Plan, are being considered on this date, and are the subject of Resolution 2013-014. Staff is
requesting that this portion of the public hearing described in the notices and consideration of this
item be continued to a date certain, March 27, 2013, in order to allow further time for discussion
with Larimer County regarding the potential impacts of the TIF District and the proposed
redevelopment on County revenues.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (Plan) was adopted by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA)
Board in September 2011, and ratified and reaffirmed February 2013. The purpose of the Plan is
to provide the URA the opportunity to use tax increment financing (TIF) to remediate blighted
conditions through development and redevelopment. In July 2012, Walton Foothills Holdings IV,
LLC (Owner), purchased Foothills Mall and adjacent property with the intent to complete a
significant redevelopment.
397
February 28, 2013
An Agreement to Negotiate was executed between the Owner and URA in November 2012, and
discussions with regard to the public financing package have been occurring since; one component
of the package being TIF via the URA. In order to utilize TIF, City Council must first amend the
existing Plan and create a TIF District. When a TIF District is created, the URA would collect
incremental tax revenue for a period of 25 years.
Notice was mailed to all property owners, residents, and owners of business concerns in the Urban
Renewal Area on January 25, 2013, and published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on January 26,
2013, that a public hearing would be held by the City Council on February 28, 2013, for the purpose
of (1) ratifying and reaffirming that the area included in the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan is a
blighted area as described in Section 31-25-103, C.R.S., (2) ratifying and reaffirming the adoption
of the Plan, including the adoption of the Prospect South Tax Increment Financing District, as
described in Section 31-25-107, C.R.S., (3) ratifying and reaffirming that the Fort Collins Urban
Renewal Authority is authorized to acquire real property by all legal means, including eminent
domain, and to convey real property so acquired to private parties, all as described in the Plan, (4)
amending the Plan to authorize the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the
Plan; and (5) other undertakings and activities in accordance with the Colorado Urban Renewal
Law, Sections 31-25-101, et seq., C.R.S.
All of the matters identified in the notices, other than the issue of amending the Plan to authorize
the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the Plan, are being considered on
this date, and are the subject of Resolution No. 2013-003. Staff is requesting that this portion of the
public hearing and consideration of this item be continued to a date certain, March 27, 2013, in
order to allow further time for discussion with Larimer County regarding the potential impacts of
the TIF District and the proposed redevelopment on County revenues.
When the URA is considering amending an urban renewal plan or creating a new TIF District,
Colorado Revised Statutes § 31-25-101 et seq. (Urban Renewal Law) requires the URA to notify
Larimer County (County) and provide an estimation of any fiscal impacts. The URA provided an
impact report to the County on January 25, 2013, 30 days prior to the February 28 public hearing.
However, consideration of the Resolution to amend the Plan and create the TIF District is being
continued until March 27, 2013 to allow dialogue regarding the estimated impacts to continue
between the URA and County.”
Mayor Weitkunat recused herself from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, stated the item is recommended to be continued due to an
ongoing dialogue with Larimer County regarding the impacts of creating a TIF District.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to continue the
public hearing on, and consideration of, the amendment of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan to
authorize the use of Tax Increment Financing in the Foothills Mall Area of the Plan to Council’s
Adjourned meeting on March 27, 2013. Yeas: Ohlson, Manvel, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
398
February 28, 2013
Resolution 2013-014
Making Legislative Findings Ratifying and Confirming the Approval
of the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan, Including the Use of Tax Increment
Financing in a Portion of the Urban Renewal Area, and Ratifying and
Confirming the Authorization to Acquire Real Property for the
Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment in the Urban Renewal Area, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item provides additional opportunity for public comment on the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan
(Plan) adopted by City Council in September 2011, and particularly about the provision in the Plan
that authorizes the use of eminent domain by the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA). The
Resolution does not modify the Plan or any related provision, but instead ratifies and confirms the
prior approval of the Plan, as well as the specific provision in the Plan that authorizes the URA to
use eminent domain subject to statutory and Plan requirements. The subject of amending the Plan
to authorize the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the Plan, which the
notices also included as part of the City Council’s hearing on this date, will be presented and
considered separately from the other matters described in the notices.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In February 2011, City Council adopted Resolution 2011-008, directing staff to prepare an Urban
Renewal Plan and Existing Conditions Survey for the Midtown Area. The Survey was completed
later that year and on September 6, 2011, the Survey was accepted and the Midtown Urban Renewal
Plan (Plan) was established with Resolutions 2011-080 and 081.
Colorado Revised Statutes § 31-25-101 et seq. (Urban Renewal Law) requires that City Council
provide specified notices and hold a public hearing in connection with various actions authorized
in the statute. Although notice and a public hearing were previously held in connection with the
conditions survey and adoption of the Plan in 2011, in order to ensure that interested persons have
an opportunity to address the provisions of the Plan, and in particular the general authorization in
the Plan that allows Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to use eminent domain to acquire real or other
property interests for a redevelopment project, if statutory requirements and the specific conditions
in the Plan have been met. The Resolution does not modify the Plan or any related provision, but
ratifies and confirms Council’s prior approval of it.
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on January 26, 2013,
and notice was sent by mail to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in
the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan area on January 25, 2013. The subject of amending the Plan to
authorize the use of tax increment financing in the Foothills Mall area of the Plan, which the notices
also included as part of the City Council’s hearing on this date, will be presented and considered
separately from the other matters described in the notices.
It is important to note that this action does not authorize or commence eminent domain proceedings
on any specific property; rather, Council is ratifying the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan with the
399
February 28, 2013
inclusion of the authorization for the URA Board to use eminent domain as a potential
redevelopment tool.”
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director, noted this action would only enable the tool of eminent
domain to be considered in this particular urban renewal plan area, it does not authorize the use of
eminent domain for any specific property. If the Urban Renewal Authority were to consider the use
of eminent domain, a public hearing and findings, as well as a vote, would be required.
Megan Bolin, Economic Health Analyst, reviewed the factors of blight found in midtown which
resulted in the creation of the Urban Renewal Plan for the area. This Plan officially created the
Prospect South tax increment financing district.
Dwight Hall, 3021 Lucinda Court, stated the language announcing this meeting was hostile. He
asked why eminent domain was mentioned if it is not being considered.
Ann Hutchison, Chamber of Commerce, supported the Plan and adoption of the Resolution.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the URA has financial obligations that exceed its
revenue estimates. He supported the use of tax sharebacks.
John Gaffney, 1038 West Vine, supported the Plan and adoption of the Resolution.
Bruce Stahlman, Lakewood resident and ARC Thrift Store CFO, stated an agreement has been
reached between ARC and Alberta to relocate the existing store elsewhere in the community.
However, the agreement has yet to be fully completed and he urged Alberta to work diligently on
its end to resolve the issue in a timely manner.
Jim Clark, 1509 Hearthfire, Fort Collins Convention and Visitors Bureau President, supported the
Plan and adoption of the Resolution.
Julia Senesac, 1520 Hearthfire, supported the Plan and adoption of the Resolution.
Tom Balchak, 2925 Clay Basket Court, supported the Plan and adoption of the Resolution.
Ashley Styles, 6549 Spanish Bay Drive, Roche Construction, supported the Plan and adoption of
the Resolution. She encouraged further education and outreach regarding the eminent domain
process.
Kirk Kniegge, 2040 South College, Spa World owner, expressed concern that his building is
considered blighted and opposed the use of eminent domain.
Carrie Gillis, 8020 Park Hill Drive, supported the Plan but opposed the use of eminent domain.
Mayor Weitkunat requested staff input regarding the notice referenced by Mr. Hall. Deputy City
Attorney Daggett replied several notices and mailings have been distributed; however, with respect
to this particular hearing, there is a statutory requirement for a particular notice.
Mr. Hall read language from the letter which he found as being hostile.
400
February 28, 2013
City Attorney Roy stated the purpose of the letter is not to suggest the use of eminent domain is
imminent or directed at a particular property; the purpose is to indicate that the plan being present
to Council does include the authority to use that power to acquire property. However, should the
URA opt to exercise that power, an entirely separate hearing and proceeding would occur.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the date and voting record for this item originally and asked
why it is coming before Council again. Birks replied the date of the original adoption of the Plan
was September 6, 2011. At that time, two separate Resolutions were adopted: one accepted the
blight conditions survey and one approved the Plan, which has not changed since that time. The
vote was 6-0 on both Resolutions. The item is coming before Council again because notice was
provided to a broader set of individuals and in order to provide another opportunity for public
comment.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the use of eminent domain in the past. City Manager Atteberry
replied it has not been used for economic development purposes.
Councilmember Horak stated the wording of the letter previously mentioned should be revisited.
City Manager Atteberry concurred.
Councilmember Troxell noted eminent domain is occurring in the community for an Xcel pipeline
and cited this as an egregious example of the use of the power.
Councilmember Manvel asked about the plan for relocation of individuals or families, should that
be necessary. Birks replied that statement is included due to Council’s previously adopted
relocation assistance and property acquisition policy. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied the
underlying basis for that finding is going to vary based on the specifics of the Plan itself. Staff does
believe relocation is feasible if necessary.
Councilmember Manvel stated the wording appears as if there is a definite plan for these relocations.
Mayor Weitkunat suggested this level of specificity should be part of the URA policies and
procedures fitting under the Plan.
Councilmember Manvel stated he disagrees with ratifying the statement because a method for such
relocation has not been specifically described.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett stated the language is required by statute.
Councilmember Manvel stated a specific relocation plan needs to be in place and would accept the
language.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2013-014.
Councilmember Troxell stated eminent domain should not be used unless all other options are
exhausted and there truly is a demonstrated benefit to the citizens of Fort Collins.
401
February 28, 2013
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted the Xcel eminent domain issue is slightly different as it involves two
private entities.
Deputy City Attorney Daggett clarified that the statute requires a feasible method for relocation of
persons displaced by adoption of the Plan; factually, there are no persons being displaced by the
adoption of the Plan itself.
Councilmember Kottwitz supported the Plan overall; however, she stated she would not support the
Resolution as the eminent domain language is included. She stated it should be addressed on an
individual basis and not included in this item.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
402