Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 04/17/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDA
The order of the Discussion items for the April 17 City Council Meeting has been changed: The new order is: New Item #23: First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical Assistance Program for Electric Customers (Option A, B, or C). New Item #24: First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for On-Bill Utility Financing. New Item #25: Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street. Item #26: No Change. Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Rita Harris, Interim City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING April 17, 2012 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring April 17, 2012 as Equal Pay Day. B. Proclamation Declaring April 20, 2012 as Arbor Day. C. Proclamation Declaring May 1, 2012 as Respite Care, Inc. Day. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. Page 2 3. AGENDA REVIEW: • City Manager Review of Agenda. • Consent Calendar Review. This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item No. 22) N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item. No. 27) 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for the Mayor or Councilmembers to follow-up on issues raised during Citizen Participation. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar consists of Items 6 through 18. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of: ! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine ! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine ! Those of no perceived controversy ! Routine administrative actions. Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual. ! State your name and address for the record. ! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed ! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk Page 3 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 6 and March 20, 2012, Regular Meetings. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior year’s reserves for expenditures authorized in 2011 by Council but which could not be completed by the end of 2011. This Ordinance was amended on First Reading to remove the request of $145,500 for a Transportation Utility Analysis. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2012 Adopted City Budget. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the purpose of land conservation, construction of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. Ordinance No. 027, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates Non- Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance at 2.15% interest rate. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444. Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%. 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. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate Outdated References. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, updates titles and terminology used in the City Code to correspond with current City organizational titles and department names. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition, certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no longer consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are updated in the Ordinance. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property. In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD) holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I (north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their parcel and serves as the only access Page 4 to Parcel II. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes an amendment to the easement to grant permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer. The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer is a road improvement project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on the north. In 2010, Ordinance No. 085, 2010, authorized the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right-of-way area containing approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) facility and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, this acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous acquisitions for the Project. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012. 14. Resolution 2012-023 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 812 North Shields for Up to Two Years. In 2000, the City purchased the property located at 812 North Shields as part of the Operations Services Master Plan. Leasing of the property has been continual from the time of purchase. Staff recommends that the City continue to lease this site. 15. Resolution 2012-024 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Maintenance of Traffic Signals Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. The City has a long-standing contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to maintain traffic control devices within the City’s Growth Management Area. This update increases the amount that CDOT pays the City for maintenance of signs and pavement markings to more accurately reflect actual costs incurred by the City. Under this new contract, the amount paid to the City by CDOT will increase from $193,440 to $217,568 annually. The contract is for 5 years. 16. Resolution 2012-025 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the February 16, 2012, Planning and Zoning Board Denials of Two Stand-alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305 to 1319 South Shields Street. On March 1, 2012, an appeal of the February 16, 2012 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standards was filed by Charles A. Bailey with Catamount Properties, Ltd. On April 3, 2012, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. Page 5 17. Resolution 2012-026 Making an Appointment to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Councilmember Lisa Poppaw’s term on the Fort Collins Housing Authority expires on May 1, 2012. Councilmember Poppaw has expressed a desire to be reappointed. This Resolution will reappoint Councilmember Poppaw to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of Commissioners until May 1, 2017. 18. Resolution 2012-027 Making an Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Board. A vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of Selena Paulsen. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson and Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz reviewed the applications on file. The interview team is recommending Todd Galbate to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2015. END CONSENT 19. Consent Calendar Follow-up. This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. 20. Staff Reports. 21. Councilmember Reports. 22. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items. DISCUSSION ITEMS The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ! Staff presentation (optional) ! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen) ! Council questions of staff on the item ! Council motion on the item ! Council discussion ! Final Council comments ! Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Page 6 23. Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street. (staff: Courtney Levingston, Karen McWilliams; 15 minute staff presentation, 2 hour discussion) In January 2012, the Appellants submitted five stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests to the Planning and Zoning Board; however, only two of these requests are the subject of this Notice of Appeal. One of the two modifications requests is relating to the Historic and Cultural Resources, General Standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) (Section 3.4.7(B)), regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and, regarding the preservation of structures that are officially designated on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the State Register of Historic Properties, and/or which are located within an officially designated historic district. The second modification request is for the relocation of a structure that is individually eligible for local landmark designation, and/or relocation of a structure that is designated on the National or State Registers, and/or relocation of a structure that is located within an officially designated historic district (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellants requested to redevelop the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three existing single family residences located within the Laurel School National and State Register Historic District, including one that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, and constructing one multi-family building with 42 units in their place. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered five stand-alone Modification of Standard requests, including requested modifications to LUC Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five modifications of standards requests (5-1). On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board for two of these Modifications of Standard requests. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests in question. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for On-Bill Utility Financing. (staff: John Phelan, Mike Beckstead; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) This Ordinance revises language in Chapter 26 of the City Code to enable Utilities to provide financing and on-bill servicing of loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy projects. Utilities is proposing to pilot a new program element for 2012, providing on-bill financing for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate Program and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line. The primary goal of the on-bill financing pilot is to facilitate more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector. These upgrades reduce our need for future energy resources, reduce our environmental footprint, promote local economic health by investing in our built environment and improve the health, comfort and safety of our homes. Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 for the 2012 budget to provide $300,000 for on-bill financing, subject to bringing the necessary changes in the City Code and additional details of the pilot program. Funding for subsequent years will be addressed through the Budgeting for Outcomes process. Page 7 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical Assistance Program for Electric Customers (Option A, B, or C). (staff: Lance Smith, Patty Bigner; 10 minute staff presentation; 1 hour discussion) The Medical Assistance Program is a pilot program which is aimed at providing financial assistance for customers who are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electric medical equipment in their home. Staff is presenting three options for consideration by Council. Fort Collins Utilities is seeking direction on the program details and approval from the City Council to implement this program. Specifically, staff is asking City Council to determine the scope of the program and to adopt the Ordinance allowing the establishment of the program. The program is focused on reducing the cost associated with the additional electrical needs of those with life support equipment in their household. Options for other medical equipment and air conditioning needed to improve the quality of life for those with immune compromising diagnoses are also being presented for consideration. • Option A limits coverage to electrical life support and mobility durable medical equipment. The maximum discount is $12.50 per month. • Option B extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment. The maximum discount is $12.50 per month. • Option C extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment and includes a discount for customers whose medical needs require air conditioning. The maximum discount during non-summer months is $12.50 per month. The maximum discount during summer months is $41.73 per month. The key differences between the three options are shown in the Ordinance in bold-face type. Fort Collins Utilities is recommending the implementation of Option C with an income limitation as a pilot program to be implemented by June 1, 2012 when the higher seasonal tiered rates become effective. Based on 2012 participation and costs of the program for the remainder of the year, the program can be adjusted prior to the 2013 cooling season for any necessary changes. 26. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029. (staff: Mike Beckstead, Josh Birks; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) This Ordinance, appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 by Resolution 2010-029. The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012 by a 6-0 vote (Poppaw withdrew) appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000. 27. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items. 28. Other Business. 29. Adjournment. Page 8 Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Equal Pay Day is today – Tuesday, April 17, 2012; and WHEREAS, this date symbolizes how far into 2012, in addition to their 2011 earnings, women must work to earn what men earned in 2011; and WHEREAS, Equal Pay Day falls on a Tuesday, which represents how far into the work week, in addition to their earnings from the previous week, women must work to earn what men earned the previous week; and. WHEREAS, Equal Pay Day was originated by the National Committee on Pay Equity in 1996 as a public awareness event to illustrate the gap between men's and women's wages. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, proclaim Tuesday April 17, 2012 as EQUAL PAY DAY as a way to draw attention to the current gaps in wages paid to women versus men. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Interim City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, in 1872 more than a million trees were planted in Nebraska to celebrate the first Arbor Day, which is now observed throughout the nation and the world; and WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community as well as help conserve energy use by shading and cooling buildings and pavement; and WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen, provide habitat for wildlife and can help offset the greenhouse effect by turning carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming, into life-giving oxygen; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation for 34 years; and WHEREAS, the city wishes to recognize Lopez Elementary School which has been selected as the Arbor Day School site for this year’s tree planting ceremony to be held on April 20; and WHEREAS, the city also wishes to recognize the Platte River Power Authority for maintaining a strong commitment to the environment when planning new sources of electricity whether through wind power, hydroelectricity, or planting trees; and WHEREAS, the Platte River Power Authority focuses on the future through green-tinted glasses and has given the City $1,500 to purchase the trees that will be planted for Arbor Day. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim April 20, 2012 as ARBOR DAY in Fort Collins and urge all citizens to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands and to support our city’s urban forestry program by planting trees for present and future generations. We thank the Platte River Power Authority for its generous donation and Fort Collins Wholesale Nursery for its donation and contribution to the celebration of Arbor Day. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Interim City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Fort Collins community supports children of all abilities; and WHEREAS, child care is a critical service in the continuum of care that allows children with disabilities to remain in their homes under their parents’ care; and WHEREAS, Respite Care provides care and support to children with developmental disabilities up to age 21 and provides respite to their families, enabling them to enhance their quality of life; and WHEREAS, Respite Care believes that a child with a disability is a child first and his or her challenges are secondary; and WHEREAS, Respite Care strives to create an interactive, stimulating and safe environment that addresses the physical, emotional, social and mental needs of each individual child. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012 as RESPITE CARE, INC. DAY and urge our community to come together to participate in giving faith, hope, love, and commitment to all our children. I encourage everyone to educate themselves about the services Respite Care provides by touring the Respite Care home. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Interim City Clerk DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the March 6 and March 20, 2012, Regular Meetings. March 6, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Troxell Staff Members Present: Jones, Harris, Roy. Agenda Review Deputy City Manager Jones stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, withdrew Item No. 8, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane from the Consent Calendar. Citizen Participation Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the City’s regulations prohibiting cultivation of medical marijuana in multi-family housing. He stated the regulations are discriminatory and noted Council’s ability to go into Executive Session is a privilege. Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, acknowledged City Clerk Krajicek’s retirement and wished her well. She supported the resignation of Marlys Sittner from Transfort and Dial-a-Ride and thanked Interim Police Chief Schiager for his service. Ms. Armendariz opposed comments made by Kathleen Bracke regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for roundabouts and asked if she had spoken to any disabled individuals regarding the issue. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, commended staff and the work on the passage of the Keep Fort Collins Great ballot issue in November 2010. He stated committee meetings regarding the on- campus stadium are open to the public, but opposed the sub-committee meetings which are closed to the public, and opposed the potential new on-campus stadium. 284 March 6, 2012 Citizen Participation Follow-up Councilmember Kottwitz requested follow-up regarding the communication and transparency in the stadium public process. Deputy City Manager Jones stated she would follow up with Dr. Frank and noted the sub-committees will be reporting out at the advisory committee meeting at the end of March. She noted she has also been invited to meet with the Save our Stadium group. Councilmember Manvel asked Deputy City Manager Jones if her sub-committee meeting is closed to the public. Deputy City Manager Jones replied in the affirmative but noted she would take comments back to the sub-committee co-chairs. Councilmember Horak requested additional information regarding the sub-committee meetings. Deputy City Manager Jones replied her understanding is those meetings are not open for public attendance or public comment. Councilmember Horak requested that correspondence be sent to CSU regarding these concerns. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 7, 2012, Regular Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the Acquisition of New Traffic Signal System Software. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2012, appropriates a $248,000 Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality grant awarded to the City’s Traffic Operations Department to procure and install new traffic signal system software to replace existing software in the City’s Traffic Operations Center and in traffic signal controllers at intersections throughout the City. The current software is aging and the vendor has discontinued support. Updating the system software provides the ability to utilize new technologies that were not available previously. The installation process will be done in phases and the old software will be retired, once full conversion is completed. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane. The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization has awarded the City of Fort Collins $2,039,000 in federal funds to design improvements, and begin rights-of-way acquisition along North College Avenue between Conifer Street and Willox Lane. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2012, appropriates fiscal 285 March 6, 2012 year 2012 federal funds into the Capital Project Fund for use on the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox. Keep Fort Collins Great funds are intended to be used as the local funds required for the project as per the intergovernmental agreement with CDOT. This project is one of the highest ranked roadway projects in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the City Bridge Program Project. The City has been awarded a grant in the amount of $552,000 in federal funds from the Colorado Off-System Bridge Program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2012, appropriates funds for the replacement of the structurally deficient Bryan Avenue Bridge over the Larimer County Canal No. 2, located just north of Poudre Fire Authority Fire (PFA) Station 2 by City Park. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City’s Raw Water for the 2012 Irrigation Season. This Ordinance approves 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 other City departments. The proposed rate for each type of water is based on several factors including market conditions and assessments charged by irrigation companies. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise the Manner in Which Carriage Houses May Obtain Water and Sewer Service. The City’s Land Use Code allows carriage houses to be constructed at the rear of lots in certain zoning districts. The City Code currently requires that such buildings have separate water and sewer services connecting to City water mains and sanitary sewers. This requirement frequently stops the carriage house projects due to construction constraints and cost considerations. The proposed change in the City Code would provide an option to connect the water and sewer services to the primary residence at the front of the lot with certain limitations. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property to PS Poudre River, LLC. In 2005, the City constructed the Oxbow Levee on the Cache La Poudre River to reduce flooding risk and damages to a section of the City of Fort Collins located north and east of the river known as the Buckingham neighborhood. The Oxbow Levee is located between Linden Street and Lincoln Avenue. The City of Fort Collins Stormwater Master Planning and Floodplain Administration Division completed (in conjunction with its engineering consultants) and submitted a levee certification analysis to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA determined that the levee certification 286 March 6, 2012 documentation was in order and accredited the levee and associated flood insurance rate maps that depict the floodplain areas as protected from the base regulatory (100-Year) flood. The City then pursued inclusion of the levee into the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) levee maintenance program. The benefits of inclusion in this program are: 1. the USACE can assist with flood fighting efforts during flood events; and, 2. qualifying damages will be repaired by the federal government at 80 percent federal / 20 percent local cost share. The levee has been reviewed by the USACE and it has been determined that additional land in the form of an access and maintenance easement is needed from the adjacent property owner PS Poudre River, LLC. During discussions regarding the needed easement, PS Poudre River, LLC voiced concerns regarding granting the maintenance and access easement since this reduces the developable portion of its property. In an effort to reach a mutually satisfactory solution, the property owner proposed the City grant a small remnant parcel located adjacent to and east of the Oxbow Levee in exchange for the needed access and maintenance easement. The Stormwater Master Planning and Floodplain Administration Division has identified that the proposed remnant parcel is no longer needed for flood control purposes. The property owner has agreed to a provision that the City remnant parcel property will be conveyed subject to a deed restriction limiting the property to natural landscape or trail uses only. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 1506B West Horsetooth Road for Up to Five Years. The City acquired the property located at 1506 West Horsetooth Road as part of the Affordable Housing Land Bank Program in 2003. Total acreage of this property is 8.3 acres of development land. Currently, this site has one single-family residence, one building with an efficiency apartment and garage, and horse facilities. The lease for 1506B West Horsetooth Road will be for the efficiency apartment. 14. Resolution 2012-014 Ratifying the Reappointment of Michael Liggett and the Appointments of John Frey and Kipp Lyons to the Poudre River Public Library District Board of Trustees. Resolution 2007-026 ratified the initial appointments to the Library Board of Trustees on March 6, 2007. Seven Trustees were appointed to the Board with initial terms ranging from 1 to 5 years. The initial term of Trustee Michael Liggett expires on March 6, 2012, and he has expressed a desire to serve another term. The initial term of Mary Robertson (Atchison) also expires March 6, 2012 and she has not expressed a desire to be reappointed. John Knezovich’s initial term expired on March 6, 2008 and Resolution 2008-027 reappointed Trustee Knezovich for a second term which expires on March 6, 2012. According to the Bylaws of the Library Board of Trustees Boardmembers are limited to two terms so Trustee Knezovich is not eligible to reapply. 287 March 6, 2012 The Library Trustee Selection Committee, comprised of Mayor Karen Weitkunat and Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Larimer County Commissioners Lew Gaiter and Steve Johnson, unanimously recommends the reappointment of Michael Liggett to the Library Board of Trustees for a four-year term and the appointments of John Frey and Kipp Lyons for four-year terms. 15. Resolution 2012-015 Approving the Appointment of Rita Harris as Interim City Clerk. This Resolution appoints Chief Deputy City Clerk Rita Harris as Interim City Clerk, following the resignation of City Clerk Wanda Krajicek. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund for the Acquisition of New Traffic Signal System Software. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the City Bridge Program Project. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris. 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City’s Raw Water for the 2012 Irrigation Season. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise the Manner in Which Carriage Houses May Obtain Water and Sewer Service. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property to PS Poudre River, LLC. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 1506B West Horsetooth Road for Up to Five Years. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical Discount Program for Electric Customers. 288 March 6, 2012 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, Poppaw, Ohlson and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports Deputy City Manager Jones noted Rita Harris has been appointed the Interim City Clerk. She thanked Ms. Harris and the Clerk’s Office for its work to make the transition seamless. She stated the City Clerk position has been posted and the national search will be open for most of March. Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer, provided an update on the North College Avenue improvements. Rick Richter, Engineering and Capital Projects Manager, discussed the road design and construction details. He stated the project is set to be completed at the end of 2012 and the total project budget is just under $11.2 million. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the construction cost for the section of roadway in the planning stage. Richter replied that section has an estimated budget of about $11.8 million. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the gap in funding. Migchelbrink replied the gap is about $9.5 million. Councilmember Horak asked if the Keep Fort Collins Great funds have been programmed for the next four years in the estimated transportation budget. Migchelbrink replied in the negative but stated staff is looking at options. Deputy City Manager Jones added that a series of priorities will be put together for transportation projects, which will then be discussed with Council to determine gap levels and where funding will be placed. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Horak stated Brian Moeck, General Manager of Platte River Power Authority, resigned and a request for proposal for a headhunter went out. He discussed a meeting held with the neighbors of the Pine Ridge Natural Area regarding the power line installation. A meeting was held in Loveland regarding the Highway 287 corridor to examine the formation of a coalition to attempt to better coordinate transportation needs. He has been appointed to the National League of Cities Energy and Environment Natural Resources Steering Committee and Policy Committee. Mayor Weitkunat stated the National League of Cities meeting will be held in Washington D. C. next week. 289 March 6, 2012 Ordinance No. 022, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical Discount Program for Electric Customers, Postponed Indefinitely The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The medical life support discount program is a new program which is targeted at customers who are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electric medical equipment in their homes. There are three eligibility requirements for participation in the program: (1) a household income ceiling, (2) an affidavit from a physician that affirms the listed equipment is approved by Medicare and medically necessary, and (3) a lawful presence affidavit. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On December 6, 2011, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011, increasing the residential class electric rates, effective February 1, 2012. The new rates incorporated two significant changes to the rate structure. First, the rate structure was changed to reflect the new seasonal purchase power charges from Platte River Power Authority. Second, in order to better align the rate structure with the conservation values of the City, the rate structure was changed to a 3-tiered inclining block rate structure. In the discussion before the vote to adopt the ordinance, City Council directed Fort Collins Utilities to develop a medical life support discount program so as not to impose any additional economic hardship on those customers who may have sufficient monthly energy usage to have some of that energy fall into the second or third tiers. The medical life support discount program is the result. Initial research indicated there are a number of discount programs related to alleviating potential hardship on customers faced with medical issues around the country. Comparisons of the programs in the western United States served as a basis for the development of this program. While the energy usage equivalent of the discount varied by program and was generally higher than the 150 kWh in the proposed program, staff believes this is an adequate level for the medical devices that are approved by Medicare. The comparison showed monthly discounts between $5 and $17 across the programs, with this proposed program providing a $12 discount to a qualifying customer per month. In determining a reasonable household income ceiling, the Area Median Income (AMI) used by the Federal Housing Authority provided an independent source of income information based on the number of people in a household. The AMI is specifically formulated for Larimer County and factors in local cost of living. Without more detailed information than the median income, it was necessary to take some portion of this AMI as the program is designed to help those customers who will see the rate increase as a substantial economic hardship. The income table included in the application shows the income ceiling as 60% of the Larimer County AMI. The affidavit from a physician verifies the need for a Medicare-approved medical device. The lawful presence affidavit 290 March 6, 2012 is required by Colorado state law because participation in the program is considered a local public benefit. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS It is estimated that there will be fewer than 150 residential accounts enrolled in this program annually. Assuming 150 households are enrolled, the total annual revenue being lost as a result of this program is not expected to exceed $25,000. This revenue shortfall will be accommodated within the Light and Power reserves until the next cost of service study. While it is hard to estimate the economic impacts of a new program, this program is not increasing electric rates for customers and is providing a reduction for the eligible customers. Thus, it is not expected that this program will have any substantial economic impact on the community as a whole but it will provide some relief for customers participating in the program. It is expected that the savings seen by these customers will be spent elsewhere within the local community. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This program does not have any foreseeable negative environmental impacts. This program in conjunction with the new tiered rate structure has the potential to help customers be more aware of their personal energy usage and may be an opportunity in the future to expand on energy efficiency education programs.” Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager, stated this item is a direct result of concerns expressed by citizens and Council following the discussion of tiered rate implementation. This program is designed to eliminate undue medical burdens on citizens who use some type of durable medical equipment in their household. The program provides a 30% discount on electric usage charges for the first 500 kilowatt hours and has three eligibility requirements: a household income ceiling, a physician affidavit, and a citizen residency affidavit. Councilmember Kottwitz noted there is a difference between medical life support and quality of life issues. She also expressed concern with the income ceiling and asked why the only approved equipment is the equipment approved my Medicare. Smith replied the intent of the program does not put a limitation on the durable medical equipment as being necessary for life support, but it does ask the physician to provide a Medicare code for the equipment; however, it does not require the individual or another household member to be on Medicare or Medicaid. It is anticipated that about 100 residents will be eligible, at an annual cost of less than $150 each. Citizens are being asked to look at their household income to determine if it meets or is less than a certain threshold. Examining debt to income ratios or requiring tax returns will increase the administrative costs, which was not the original intent. Medicare must consider equipment to be durable medical equipment; for example, air conditioners would not be included. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if any medical experts were consulted regarding this program. Smith replied in the negative, but stated other programs involving this type of discount in the state were examined. 291 March 6, 2012 Angela Condit, 1709 Welch Street, Senior Advisory Boardmember, supported the program but requested devices not be limited. Dolores Kueffler, 1525 Riverside Avenue, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, stated a broader definition of medical exceptions needs to be put in place. She suggested certain medical conditions require climate control devices. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the issue needs a larger, more in-depth conversation. Councilmember Poppaw stated, though this program is generally a good idea, it may not be quite ready. She asked about the basis for the program structure. Smith replied the program was developed based on citizen and Council concerns and noted other municipalities’ programs were examined. Councilmember Poppaw suggested involving medical professionals in developing elements of the program. Councilmember Manvel commended the simplicity and objectivity of the proposal. Mayor Weitkunat questioned the goal of the program. Councilmember Horak noted the major rate increase is due to the seasonality rate imposed by Platte River Power Authority and stated the tiered rates do not provide as large an impact as does the pass- through of the Platte River increase. Mayor Weitkunat clarified the program should balance the need for medical support with the need to have assistance based on income, and the need should be legally validated. Councilmember Kottwitz proposed delaying the item for two weeks or more for additional research regarding community medical needs. Councilmember Horak noted the Ordinance is broadly worded and suggested moving forward with the Ordinance and providing options for the program. Councilmember Poppaw agreed with Councilmember Horak but stated she would not support the Ordinance on Second Reading without involvement from the medical community. Smith replied staff is open to exploring options. Councilmember Horak suggested the development of options for the public and Council consideration. Councilmember Poppaw questioned whether or not the item should move forward on First Reading. Councilmember Kottwitz asked Councilmember Horak about his concerns regarding delaying the item. Councilmember Horak stated the item could be delayed either now or prior to Second Reading, given the Ordinance language is not likely to change substantially. 292 March 6, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson supported delaying the item for additional support and research. He opposed making the regulations of the program so broad it could possibly be undermined. He suggested random audits of self-reported income levels and supported the possibility of including more specifics in the Ordinance. Smith replied the Ordinance should not be written so as to possibly exclude the most recent medical equipment and diagnoses. Councilmember Poppaw asked if there would be any issues with delaying First Reading of the Ordinance and if Ordinance language should be expanded. City Attorney Roy replied some additional notice expense will be incurred if the Ordinance is not finalized within thirty days. He stated the Ordinance is intentionally broad and stated the details can be included in administrative regulations. He stated changes can be made between First and Second Reading. Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern regarding making major changes between First and Second Reading. Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to postpone Ordinance No. 022, 2012, to a later date at the discretion of the City Manager. Councilmember Manvel stated the finances should be an important consideration and commended staff on its work. Councilmember Horak commended staff and noted an audit system has already been proposed. He stated the item needs to come back before Council in April in order to allow it to go into effect in May. Mayor Weitkunat stated there are organizations and groups in the community which will be able to aid staff in developing options. Councilmember Kottwitz agreed with Councilmember Manvel regarding the fiscal aspects of the program and stated she would like the program to be refined for the people who need it the most. She stated she hoped Fort Collins could be an innovative leader in this type of program. She recommended staff speak with neurologists and pulmonologists as well as Respite Care, medical social workers, and United Way. Councilmember Poppaw suggested staff consult Disabled Resource Services and an allergist or ear, nose, and throat doctor. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson suggested the Energy Board provide comments regarding the program. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Ohlson and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. 293 March 6, 2012 Ordinance No. 016, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund for the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization has awarded the City of Fort Collins $2,039,000 in federal funds to design improvements, and begin rights-of-way acquisition along North College Avenue between Conifer Street and Willox Lane. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 21, 2012, appropriates fiscal year 2012 federal funds into the Capital Project Fund for use on the North College Improvements Project – Conifer to Willox. Keep Fort Collins Great funds are intended to be used as the local funds required for the project as per the intergovernmental agreement with CDOT. This project is one of the highest ranked roadway projects in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan.” Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the RMI2 building loan. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 016, 2012, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Ohlson and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk 294 March 20, 2012 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Troxell Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Gonzales, Roy. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry withdrew the Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Temporarily Suspending the Deadline for Hearing Two Pending Appeals to the City Council Under Chapter 2 of the City Code to Allow for a Review and Possible Amendment of the Process For Determinations of Eligibility Under Chapter 14 of the City Code that had been added under Other Business after the Council Agenda had been published. Citizen Participation James Lesco, Human Relations Commission, announced the Human Relations Commission annual awards breakfast to be held May 1, 2012, at the Northside Atzlan Center. Deb James, SOSHughes.org, discussed the idea of making CSU a community-supported university and opposed the construction of an on-campus stadium. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, stated the citizens of Fort Collins need to be heard with regard to the proposed on-campus stadium. Anne Colwell, Fort Collins resident, supported an more open and honest process at CSU regarding the proposed on-campus stadium. Bryce Hach, 1202 Bennett Road, Homeward 2020 Director, announced Project Homeless Connect, a one-day event to provide support to the community’s homeless, to be held on April 20, 2012. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Fort Collins Community Action Network, provided an update on the displaced Bender Mobile Home Park residents. She requested an update regarding the Advance Planning Relocation Plan and suggested naming it a Low Income Housing Plan. 295 March 20, 2012 Citizen Participation Follow-up Deputy City Manager Jones stated she had passed along Council’s concerns regarding a lack of public input at subcommittee meetings, and received a response that the Stadium Advisory Committee meeting, though not required to be open to the public, does allow public attendance, and does have a public comment section. There have been ten Center for Public Deliberation meetings during which input has been gathered and posted on the website. A great deal of on-line input has been received as well. Councilmember Horak asked if the subcommittees communicate with each other between general meetings. Deputy City Manager Jones replied she has not seen any communication between subcommittees. Councilmember Horak asked if information from the subcommittee meeting could be shared. Deputy City Manager Jones replied the information will be reported out at the general Advisory Committee meeting, based on the outlined process. City Manager Atteberry suggested Deputy City Manager Jones let her subcommittee know Council will be requesting the information, unless it is confidential. Councilmember Poppaw asked who set up the process for the subcommittees. City Manager Atteberry replied Tony Frank, CSU President, Amy Parsons, CSU Vice-President of Operations, and Jack Graham, CSU Athletic Director, have all had a role in leading the process. Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, stated the relocation plan is on the Advance Planning work plan for this year, and will be expanded to address issues raised at a forum held by Representative Kefalas. Work on the plan has not officially begun. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the timetable for any Council actions regarding the relocation plan. Cumbo replied it will be within the next year and she will provide an exact copy of the timeline to Council. Councilmember Poppaw noted Ms. Distaso’s point regarding the plan being not only related to relocation, but to the retention of affordable housing in the community. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the February 21, 2012, Regular Meeting and the February 27, 2012, Special Meeting. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City’s Raw Water for the 2012 Irrigation Season. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012, approves rates for the rental and delivery of the City’s raw water supplies. The Water Utility uses these 296 March 20, 2012 rates to assess charges for agricultural use, for various contractual raw water obligations and for raw water deliveries to other City departments. The proposed rate for each type of water is based on several factors including market conditions and assessments charged by irrigation companies. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise the Manner in Which Carriage Houses May Obtain Water and Sewer Service. The City’s Land Use Code allows carriage houses to be constructed at the rear of lots in certain zoning districts. The City Code currently requires that such buildings have separate water and sewer services connecting to City water mains and sanitary sewers. This requirement frequently stops the carriage house projects due to construction constraints and cost considerations. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012, provides an option to connect the water and sewer services to the primary residence at the front of the lot with certain limitations. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property to PS Poudre River, LLC. In 2005, the City constructed the Oxbow Levee on the Cache la Poudre River to reduce flooding risk and damage to a section of the City north and east of the River. The City has been pursuing inclusion of the Levee into the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) levee maintenance program. As part of its review of the Levee, the USACE has determined that the City should acquire an access and maintenance easement for the benefit of the Levee from the adjacent property owner, PS Poudre River, LLC. During discussions regarding the needed easement, PS Poudre River, LLC voiced concerns regarding granting the maintenance and access easement since this reduces the developable portion of its property. In an effort to reach a mutually satisfactory solution, the property owner proposed the City grant a small remnant parcel located adjacent to and east of the Oxbow Levee in exchange for the needed access and maintenance easement. The Stormwater Master Planning and Floodplain Administration Division has identified that the proposed remnant parcel is no longer needed for flood control purposes. The property owner has agreed to a provision that the City remnant parcel property will be conveyed subject to a deed restriction limiting the property to natural landscape or trail uses only. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012, authorizes the conveyance of a .224 acre parcel of City-owned land that is adjacent to PS Poudre River, LLC’s land, and in exchange it will grant the access and maintenance easement to the City and pay the City $2,500. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 1506B West Horsetooth Road for Up to Five Years. The City acquired the property located at 1506 West Horsetooth Road as part of the Affordable Housing Land Bank Program in 2003. Total acreage of this property is 8.3 acres of development land. Currently, this site has one single-family residence, one building with an efficiency apartment and garage, and horse facilities. This Ordinance, unanimously 297 March 20, 2012 adopted on First Reading on March 6, 2012, authorizes a lease for the efficiency apartment at 1506B Horsetooth. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be based upon the number of people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City Clerk to recommend any district boundary changes necessary to ensure there is no more than a ten percent deviation between the most populous and least populous District no less than one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of Fort Collins. The timing of the City Clerk’s recommendation has proved problematic as City staff has recently received information evidencing significant revisions to county voting precincts so that some City Council districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City Charter. The City Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time frame, due to these revisions to county precincts. This Ordinance will amend the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk to begin the process to determine if District boundary adjustments may be needed, rather than to make a recommendation to Council, within eighteen months following publication of the census data. 12. Items Relating to the Archery Range Natural Area. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non- Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District. B. Resolution 2012-016 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to Boxelder Sanitation District on the Archery Range Natural Area to Repair Flood Damage to the Riverbank. Boxelder Sanitation District is seeking a non-exclusive permanent easement and a revocable permit to access and install rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within the Archery Range Natural Area. The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood damage. 13. Resolution 2012-017 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 1. The applicant, Shane L. Beckers, the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 0.64 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west and south; and, UE – Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east. 298 March 20, 2012 14. Resolution 2012-018 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Wild Plum Farm Annexation No. 2. The applicant, Shane L. Beckers, the property owner, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 3.82 acres located on the east side of North Taft Hill Road, approximately 1,750 feet north of West Vine Drive. The property is developed and is in the FA - Farming District in Larimer County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE – Urban Estate. The surrounding properties are currently zoned FA – Farming in the Larimer County to the north, west and south; and UE – Urban Estate in the City (Lincoln Junior High School) to the east. 15. Resolution 2012-019 Further Extending the Deadline for the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor to Take Certain Actions Required by the Parties’ Intergovernmental Agreement Pertaining to the Development of the Interstate 25/State Highway 392 Interchange. On December 21, 2010, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with the Town of Windsor pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392. Staff for the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor are exploring options to implement actions required by the intergovernmental agreement but require an extension to continue public outreach, incorporate any input from the outreach, and to draft necessary documents for consideration by Council. The staff of both municipalities have recommended that the April 3, 2012 deadline be extended to August 21, 2012, in order to complete the public outreach, draft necessary documents, and make their recommendations. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Acting Clerk Gonzales. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Establishing Rental Rates and Delivery Charges for the City’s Raw Water for the 2012 Irrigation Season. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise the Manner in Which Carriage Houses May Obtain Water and Sewer Service. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of City Property to PS Poudre River, LLC. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 1506B West Horsetooth Road for Up to Five Years. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. 299 March 20, 2012 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Temporarily Suspending the Deadline or Hearing Two Pending Appeals to the City Council Under Chapter 2 of the Ctiy Code to Allow for a Review and Possible Amendment of the Process for Determinations of Eligibility Under Chapter 14 of the City Code. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Poppaw, Ohlson and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports Kraig Bader, Utilities Standards Engineering Manager, stated the deployment of the Advance Meter Fort Collins project has begun within a test area. City Manager Atteberry noted regular updates will be provided to Council. Brian Janonis, Utility Services Executive Director, stated a letter has gone out to customers regarding the initial deployment area. Councilmember Kottwitz requested information regarding meter replacement for Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD) customers. Bader replied FCLWD customers have already received new meters from their provider and those customers will only be receiving new electric meters as part of this process. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Horak reported on the National League of Cities meeting in Washington, D.C. He stated the Colorado delegation at the meeting was able to visit with several individuals, including Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Councilmember Horak and Mayor Weitkunat asked Mr. Sunstein to examine the issue of trains loudly blowing whistles as they cross intersections in towns. Councilmember Horak stated the Sustainability Institute now falls under the National League of Cities, and will provide an outlet for cities’ best practices. Mayor Weitkunat stated she spoke with HUD representatives at the National League of Cities meeting. HUD is beginning a sustainability initiative and is working with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation to encourage sustainability practices. 300 March 20, 2012 Resolution 2012-020 Accepting the Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 2012-1 of the Ethics Review Board, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “ÉXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 13, 2012, Mr. David Bell filed a written complaint with the City questioning the propriety of Gino Campana’s participation as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board in discussions pertaining to a proposed Land Use Code change regarding buffer zones along rivers (the “LUC Amendment”). Mr. Bell alleges that Mr. Campana should have recused himself since he is a land developer, and was negotiating the purchase of land for a development along the Poudre River. Section 2-569(d)(1) provides that: (d) Complaints and inquiries shall be submitted to the Review Board only according to the following procedures: (1) Complaints. a. any person who believes that a Councilmember or board and commission member has violated any provision of state law or the Charter or Code pertaining to ethical conduct may file a complaint with the Mayor, who shall immediately notify the chairperson of the Review Board. The complaint shall be placed on the agenda for the next special or regular City Council meeting for review and possible action by the City Council. b. Upon receipt of any such complaint, the City Council shall decide by majority vote whether to submit the complaint to the Review Board for an advisory opinion as to whether the violation alleged in the complaint has occurred and, if so, the action, if any, that should be taken with regard to such violation. In the event that such complaint is not submitted to the Review Board, the City Council may decide what, if any, other action pertaining to the same is appropriate. . . . Pursuant to this provision, the Council referred the complaint to the Ethics Review Board for an advisory opinion. The Board met on February 23 and February 27, 2012 and received information pertaining to this matter from several persons including the complainant, City staff, Mr. Campana and his attorney, several local engineers, and current and former members of the Planning and Zoning Board. After receiving that information and conferring with the City Attorney, the Board discussed the application of the City Charter conflict of interest rules to the information presented at the meetings and rendered an opinion that Mr. Campana did not violate the conflict of interest 301 March 20, 2012 rules by participating in discussions about the proposed Land Use Code amendment. However, the Board has recommended that additional training be provided to members of the Planning and Zoning Board and other City boards that handle both quasi-judicial matters and policy recommendations to the Council to clarify the way in which the ethical and legal requirements related to both kinds of matters should be interpreted and applied. Code Section 2-569(e) provides that all opinions and recommendations of the Board be submitted to the full Council for review and approval. By adoption of Resolution 2012-020, the Council would adopt the opinion and recommendation of the Board.” City Attorney Roy stated this Resolution will adopt an opinion and recommendation of the City Council Ethics Review Board. The Ethics Review Board consists of Councilmembers Kottwitz, Manvel, and Poppaw, with Councilmember Troxell as an alternate member. In this case, Councilmember Troxell took the place of Councilmember Kottwitz. The Ethics Review Board received information from a number of individuals relating to the complaint and ultimately rendered an opinion that Mr. Campana did not violate the conflict of interest rules by participating in discussions about the proposed Land Use Code amendment. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated many other ethics breaches have occurred relating to the City’s land use development review process. Additionally, the Board has recommended that additional training be provided to members of the Planning and Zoning Board and other City boards that handle both quasi-judicial matters and policy recommendations to the Council to clarify the way in which the ethical and legal requirements related to both kinds of matters should be interpreted and applied. Councilmember Poppaw commended the review process as being thorough. Councilmember Manvel stated the Ethics Review Board spent much time examining the details of property ownership and timing, buffer rules, and input from affected parties, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the issue did not rise to the level of direct and substantial benefit for Mr. Campana. Mayor Weitkunat noted the Planning and Zoning Board, as well as other City boards, will receive additional training relating to ethical and legal requirements related to quasi-judicial matters and policy recommendations. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2012-020. Councilmember Horak suggested the training sessions be available online. City Attorney Roy noted all board and commission members are currently required to review a DVD and written manual. 302 March 20, 2012 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked when Council would be receiving information regarding oil and gas drilling and fracking. City Manager Atteberry replied Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, is leading a multi-pronged approach within the City organization and recently prepared a draft white paper. The item will soon be scheduled for a work session. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk 303 DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior year’s reserves for expenditures authorized in 2011 by Council but which could not be completed by the end of 2011. This Ordinance was amended on First Reading to remove the request of $145,500 for a Transportation Utility Analysis. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because: • there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies • the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of the project in 2012 • to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent dollars previously appropriated in 2011 In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies. Monies reappropriated for each City fund by this Ordinance are as follows: General Fund $1,083,767 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund $ 349,719 Cultural Services & Facilities Fund $ 106,102 Recreation Fund $ 51,000 Cemetery Fund $ 50,000 Transportation Services Fund $ 44,000 Light and Power Fund $ 49,366 Water Fund $ 143,340 Storm Water Fund $ 21,228 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION GENERAL FUND Community Development & Neighborhood Services 1. Historic Preservation Grant Support - $50,500 General Fund, $25,000 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund This request is for reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $75,500 for Historic Preservation grant matching funds, and for hourly staff support for grant management and development project review. City matching funds provide a significant source of preservation monies; for every $1 of City funds, the City typically receives $4 in grant funding. In addition to assisting with development project review, in 2011 one part-time hourly staff assisted the 0.8 Historic Preservation Planner in managing seven different grant projects totaling $1,123,100 in direct funding. Due to the grant funding cycle for State Historic Fund and Certified Local Government grants, these grant monies were not fully expended in 2011. Monies requested for reappropriation comprise the matching funds for these 2012 grants and are needed to continue these projects. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 8 Economic Development 2 Transportation Utility Analysis - $145,500 During the development of the 2011-2012 budget and through the discussions regarding Keep Fort Collins Great, the community requested that the City consider developing a Transportation Utility to fund basic transportation related programs and services. This funding will be used to bring in outside resources to help in the development of the Transportation Utility concept, the financial model, identification of programs to be funded, and more. Funds were not expended in 2011 because other operational priorities delayed the start of this project and the issuance of an RFP for outside consulting services to complete the project. Given the 2010 voter approval of the new sales tax, the urgency of this project was somewhat diminished from its original schedule. Environmental Services 3. Air Quality Monitoring Equipment - $4,500 This funding was approved in 2011 for continuing operation of the City’s fine-particle air pollution monitor. The monitor provides hourly fine-particle readings (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or PM2.5). Operation, maintenance, and data quality assurance and reporting are efficiently provided through a partnership with Colorado Air Pollution Control Division and Larimer County Health Department. Full funding for services was not billed in 2011. The final invoice was received in January 2012. These funds are needed to fund that final invoice for 2011 services. 4. Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study - $9,874 This project was approved in the 2011-2012 budget to reduce lung-cancer risks by increasing the rate of radon mitigation among homeowners with high radon test results. CSU researchers in social marketing and epidemiology will carry out the Study, to determine the mitigation rate and barriers, and to scientifically test interventions to increase the mitigation rate. City Council approved $10,000 for the Study, or 23%, with the balance to be secured from outside grants. The State Indoor Radon Grant program has since contributed $21,525, or 50%, leaving an unfunded balance of $11,525. This reappropriation request is for $9,874 to substantially complete the project budget, making the overall project funded nearly half-and-half by Colorado and Fort Collins. 5. Zero Interest Loan for Air Quality - $8,197 Each year, $30,000 is appropriated for zero interest loans for citizens to remove or upgrade old wood stoves or install radon mitigation systems. For most of 2011, loan applications were halted while the City developed a way to address new federal restrictions on loan processing. This prevented usage of the majority of the funds in 2011. This request is to carry over $8,197 of 2011 funding to support zero interest loans for air quality. 6. Environmental Services Copier Maintenance - $4,700 In 2011, the copier maintenance costs for Natural Resources work group located at 215 North Mason were shared between General Fund and the Natural Areas Fund in order to serve staff from both divisions. With the separation of Natural Areas into a new department and new location, the Environmental Services Department will need to fund all of the copier maintenance costs in 2012. This request is to allocate a portion of the unspent 2011 funding to cover the gap in copier maintenance costs for Environmental Services. 7. Sustainability Strategic Plan - $6,600 General Fund, $3,300 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund A multi-day sustainability strategic planning charrette was conducted in February 2012 with approximately 40 City staff participating. The goal was to develop a preliminary Sustainable Strategic Plan that would identify priority project areas, potential collaborations, and integrated BFO offer ideas. These preliminary goals were accomplished but additional resources are needed to flesh out a more comprehensive Strategic Plan. Unspent resources from several program areas are being requested to support continued work on a Sustainability Strategic Plan for the remainder of 2012. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 8 8. Waste Reduction and Recycling - $18,709 This funding was approved to help the community make progress in meeting the adopted goal of diverting 50% of the waste stream from landfill disposal. Communitywide education and outreach projects are implemented through this program to encourage involvement in recycling and composting, re-use, and source reduction and contribute to less trash being generated. In 2011, $55,000 was dedicated to a Waste Stream Study that was awarded to a consulting firm in September, 2011 and $39,468 was ear-marked for conducting two Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Events for the public. These funds will be used to conduct advertising and public involvement activities that raise awareness of recycling and reduction opportunities in Fort Collins, complete the Waste Stream Study in 2012, and help pay for the HHW event scheduled for June 2, 2012. 9. Waste Innovations Program - $100,987 The money comes from landfill tipping fees paid by City departments, and is intended to pay for innovative waste diversion projects. These projects are solicited from the Utilities, Streets, Parks Maintenance, and Forestry Departments to be applied to the City’s street sweeping, debris clearing, and excavation work that generate specific types of “industrial” waste. During 2011, only limited expenditures were made, including large-diameter tree trunk and limb grinding by the Forestry Department, and to investigate establishing a compost site for departments’ use. Departments that initiated waste diversion investigations in 2011, such as drying/screening soil that gets excavated during water main break occurrences, and small-scale composting approaches, are still working to finalize proposals to the Waste Innovation Program for money to purchase more permanent, larger-scale equipment in 2012 that will enable the City to divert more of its own waste stream from landfill disposal. Human Resources 10. Performance Based Pay - $18,000 The City implemented a uniform employee performance assessment process in 2007 and tied 2008 employee pay increases to overall job performance. Each year, staff has evaluated the process and made changes based on the previous year’s experience and the availability of budget dollars to fund employee pay increases. Financial limitations have created challenges in implementing performance based pay as it was originally designed. These funds will be used to hire a consultant to evaluate the current performance based pay process. The desire to utilize external experts to assist with this project was expressed late in 2011. This request is to use the unspent 2011 budget, originally allocated for performance management, to be reappropriated for 2012. 11. Learning/Organizational Development - $40,000 During the 2011-2012 BFO cycle, funding was approved for design and implementation of several employee programs, such as on-boarding, supervisory summit and supervisory development. When the Leadership Development Programs (Lead 1.0 and Lead 4.0) were subsequently funded with Keep Fort Collins Great dollars, deployment of those leadership programs became the higher priority. Both of these programs were newly designed and a collaborative effort with Poudre School District and Larimer County, which presented a variety of challenges to overcome. As the priorities for the Learning Division shifted, design and implementation of the other employee programs stopped due to resource constraints regarding staff and time. This request is for the reappropriation of $40,000 for consultative services and resources to redesign and implement supervisory summit and on-boarding processes for the organization. Parks 12. Fourth of July - $5,000 In 2011, $30,000 was donated by Poudre Valley Health Systems for the 4th of July celebration. Only $25,000 was spent. Therefore, $5,000 is requested for reappropriation in 2012 for this year’s celebration. 13. Storm Clean Up - $4,000 In 2011, the Parks Division received $19,000 for storm clean up. Only $7,051 was spent in 2011. In 2012, $4,000 is requested for reappropriation to cover chipper rental costs to complete the clean up. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -4- ITEM 8 14. Lifecycle Funding - $9,206 General Fund, $18,584 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund In 2011, lifecycle funding of $27,790 was anticipated to be spent on replacement of the Rolland Moore playground restroom. Due to the need for additional funding, this project will now be completed in 2012. Planning, Development, and Transportation Administration 15. PDT Administration - $10,000 PDT Administration identified funds in the 2011 budget for service area reorganization facilitation. A scope of work could not be finalized prior to year end to select a vendor and encumber these funds. The need for facilitation is crucial to address the service unit’s key vacancies and reorganization issues, and there are not funds available in the 2012 budget. PDT Administration is requesting $10,000 be reappropriated from the unspent 2011 budget for organizational facilitation and training in 2012. Advance Planning 16. Homebuyer Assistance Program - $119,948 Affordable Housing funds for the Homebuyer Assistance Program could not be encumbered without a contract and the funds cannot be contracted until all monies are available to issue an Homebuyer Assistance loan. These funds are requested for reappropriation for the Homebuyer Assistance Program. The following three requests (17, 18, & 19) were approved in 2011; Affordable Housing funds lapsed as no contracts were signed. Contracts are now ready and the funds are requested for reappropriation to complete the programs. 17. Habitat for Humanity - $82,500 Funds for Habitat for Humanity were approved in November 2011 by City Council. These funds need to be reappropriated for the purchase of land. 18. Fort Collins Housing Authority - $97,524 The Fort Collins Housing Authority - Legacy Senior Apartments were approved by City Council in November 2011. The amount could not be encumbered without a contract. This project is in Development Review and in order to proceed with the project these funds need to be reappropriated. 19. Fort Collins Housing Authority of Loveland - $120,000 Funding for Housing Authority of Loveland was approved by City Council in November 2011. Staff is waiting for contracts to be signed so they can proceed with this program. This is a countywide program administered by the City of Loveland. All monies from Fort Collins are used for Fort Collins projects. Police Services 20. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) - $21,878 The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) collects a monthly fee from all county telephone users. This fee is used to purchase and maintain equipment and train users to process E911 phone calls and dispatch appropriate emergency services providers for the Poudre Emergency Communications Center/Fort Collins Police Services. LETA uses a formula to determine the annual budget for each emergency services dispatch center based on its number of dispatchers and the number of E911 phone calls received in the center. The formula takes into consideration any unspent balance from the prior year allotment and these funds were unspent due to staffing shortages, training needs and equipment replacement schedules, etc. Any funds remaining from the 2011 allocation must be used for LETA specified purchases during 2012. The amount from the 2011 LETA funding to be reappropriated for use in 2012 is $21,878. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -5- ITEM 8 21. Computer Automated Dispatch System - $99,712 In October 2011, approximately $1.7million was appropriated for hardware upgrade and replacement of the countywide computer aided dispatch/records and jail management system (CAD/RMS). The process was delayed due to the need for Police Services to hire a project manager. There was also some delay on the vendor’s part in producing the specifications and hardware requirements for the upgrade. The 18 month CAD/RMS upgrade project will kick off in April 2012. The funds will be spent in 2012 as the equipment is ordered and installed. City Manager 22. Performance Excellence Program - $81,432 These funds will be used to pay for contractual services for the Performance Excellence program. Staff’s work on the organizational strategic plan has been completed and the ongoing work toward developing systems for performance improvement and measurement will continue throughout 2012. Funds were originally appropriated for this program in 2011, but were not spent until later in the year due to other priorities. These reappropriated funds will provide organizationwide continued contractual support for the program. 23. Internal Focus Groups - $5,000 The internal service focus groups are intended to provide a data collection tool to evaluate the service provided to internal customers by City departments. The initial concept for this tool was to develop an online survey to collect internal services data. However, after meeting with the City’s Strategic Issues Team (SIT), the decision was made to conduct focus groups to obtain initial qualitative information on internal services. An outside consultant was used to conduct the focus groups and provide an analysis of the results. Normally, this is funded bi-annually; however, staff is seeking remaining funding for additional work in 2012. Finance 24. Budgeting for Outcomes Improvements - $20,000 At the completion of each Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process feedback is gathered from the various constituents involved in it as part of a continuous improvement process. There are two areas of improvement planned that require consulting services and were not completed in 2011. The first of those is assisting Results Teams and Sellers with the performance measures in the Request for Results and Offers, respectively. This aligns with Citywide efforts around operational excellence and performance measurement. The second area for improvement is with relative offer prioritization. Staff has done a good job prioritizing offers within each Outcome, but this enhancement will enable staff to take a systematic, data driven approach to looking at all Offers across all Outcomes. This item reappropriates $20,000 for these BFO improvements. KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT (KFCG) FUND Requests in the amount of $46,884 are included in the General Fund descriptions (Items 1, 7, and 14 listed above). Community Development & Neighborhood Services 25. Design Assistance Program - $20,848 This item requests the reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $20,848 for the Design Assistance Program. Program policies and procedures were developed for this program during 2011 and monies offered to potential recipients starting in late June. Because the program was in effect for only a portion of 2011, all available funds were not expended. $19,152 of the $40,000 available was paid in 2011. Staff is requesting that the balance of $20,848 be made available for 2012 Design Assistance Program efforts, in addition to the $40,000 that has been budgeted in 2012 for this purpose. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -6- ITEM 8 Environmental Services 26. Unified Carbon Accounting System - $4,296 Two KFCG offers were approved to increase the City’s transparency and rigor of environmental data reporting. One provided funds for a new Environmental Data Analyst staff position and another provided funding for a unified carbon accounting database. This reappropriation request is to use remaining non-personnel dollars to increase the support for further needed enhancements for the City’s unified carbon accounting system, GEMS (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management System). 27. Healthy Sustainable Homes (HSH) - $6,000 The HSH Program (formerly called “Volunteers for Sustainable Homes”) provides direct personal assistance to help residents improve indoor air quality to ease asthma and/or COPD, a health concern shared by 26% of area residents. Volunteers train to become Sustainability Masters and then provide in-home assessment and recommendations. Homeowners voluntarily request the service and then make voluntary in-home changes. 2011 funds were used to compile materials, train volunteers and begin in-home assessments. Remaining funds will be used to continue program marketing and outreach. 28. Innovation Fund for Senior Center Lighting - $19,947 This funding was approved to develop efficient, innovative improvements to the City’s physical plant and operational procedures. These improvements focus on reducing costs, reducing energy and water use, and reducing the City’s environmental and carbon footprint. Projects are evaluated by an interdepartmental team using a triple bottom line approach, however, projects with the best return on investment are given priority. The Innovation Fund is not a new idea; many communities and organizations have implemented similar funds over the last decade. In fact, Poudre School District (PSD) has its own version, which has helped the District save millions of dollars in operational costs while significantly reducing environmental impacts. The remaining funds are intended for Senior Center lighting improvements approved, but not implemented in 2011. 29. Sustainability Outreach and Education - $8,923 This funding was approved to increase outreach and education on internal and external sustainability. Sustainability outreach efforts focus on empowering individuals to improve their environmental and carbon footprint. The areas of particular focus are educational displays and training and the remaining funds will be used for these purposes. 30. Commercial Recycling Outreach and Incentive Programs - $3,168 This funding provides services and programs that augment the City’s overall waste reduction and recycling program, as part of achieving the goal of diverting 50% of the community’s waste from the landfill. Specifically, this new effort focuses on getting more commercial and multi-family generators to start recycling or composting programs. For these customers, specialized educational material, site analyses, and financial incentives help encourage them to sign up for recycling or composting services. Unspent funds from 2011 are being requested to support the newly initiated recycling rebate program. 31. Eco Industrial Center - $16,517 A contract for $69,000 was signed with a consulting firm to conduct a real estate analysis for locations to establish a new recycling center, and to design it as an operational facility that expands the City’s recycling drop-off site capacity. The final report was completed in February 2012. Remaining funds will be used to pay for final invoices on this consulting project, and to pay for any additional reporting/investigations needed to answer questions about the feasibility of constructing a new, expanded recycling drop-off site in Fort Collins. 32. Earth Tub Composting Vessels - $3,540 This funding contributes to the operations of a demonstration site for composting food waste using a contained, “in- vessel” system. As a pilot project, the Earth Tubs provide an opportunity for the City to evaluate a waste diversion strategy applicable for small local districts such as the Old Town area; several local restaurants and City buildings participate in this pilot food waste composting project. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -7- ITEM 8 Human Resources 33. Learning/Organizational Development - $12,200 Following the approval of the Keep Fort Collins Great ballot measure, City Council allocated a portion of the 11% of the ”other community priorities” for Executive Leadership Development (Lead 4.0) in the amount of $109,950. Implementation of the program was delayed due to: (1) Executive leader schedules; (2) the Police Chief recruitment process;and (3) the effort to collaborate with Larimer County and Poudre School District for their participation. The program is now well underway; the reappropriation of $12,200 is requested to complete the Lead 4.0 pilot program. Funds will be used to continue professional business coaching and specific competency-based training. Natural Areas 34. Stream and River Rehabilitation and Restoration - $10,528 The remaining balance of this $250,000 Keep Fort Collins Great line item will be used to further the City’s stream restoration and rehabilitation efforts. Funds were expended in 2011 on several projects, including improvements at Fossil Creek, and McMurry Natural Area; planning for additional implantation in 2012; and, development of an ecological model of the Poudre River. Stream rehabilitation and restoration projects are often complex and require several years of planning and permitting; thus, it is expected that this particular fund will carryover monies on a regular basis. Engineering 35. Skyway Transit Stop and Adjoining Sidewalk Improvements - $4,157 This project will provide accessibility from Foothills Gateway to the existing Transfort bus stop at Skyway Drive and South College Avenue. Specifically, this project will construct a concrete sidewalk along the south side of Skyway Drive from Gateway Center Drive to South College Avenue. The preliminary design has been completed. Final design and construction will be in 2012. The total project cost is $157,000. 36. Drake – Redwing Pedestrian Signal Improvements - $14,000 The Drake/Redwing project is a pedestrian safety project intended to better serve users of the Mason Trail. Right-of- way issues involving CSU and the BNSF railroad delayed the project in 2011. Completion is anticipated within the month. 37. Miscellaneous Pedestrian Sidewalk and Ramp Repairs - $23,868 This request will allow for improvements to sidewalk and ramps in various locations within the City. Street Oversizing 38. Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program - $141,909 These funds are designated to cover the City’s portion of the arterial and collector roadways built as part of developments. Approximately $152,691 was spent in 2011 on replacing traffic signals on arterial streets. The balance will be used in 2012 for construction of Turnberry Road, done in conjunction with the developer’s contribution. Parking Services 39. Parking Services - $12,934 Parking Services received KFCG funding for long-needed maintenance projects for the Old Town Parking Structure. The majority of the projects identified for 2011 were completed, but work on the entry/exit area redesign could not be completed until 2012. The remaining balance of $12,934 is needed to complete the architectural work on the entry/exit area redesign. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -8- ITEM 8 CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND 40. Art-in-Public-Places - $106,102 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $106,102 in the Cultural Services Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011 and will continue into 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects, including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, North College Improvements and other miscellaneous projects. RECREATION FUND 41. Security Camera Installation - $51,000 In 2011, $200,000 from Recreation reserves was appropriated for various improvements and life-cycle replacements at the different Recreation facilities. A project that did not get completed in 2011 was installation of security cameras at the Fort Collins Senior Center, Northside Aztlan Community Center, and EPIC, leaving $51,000 in unused, appropriated funds. Recreation has been coordinating with Transfort to “piggy-back” with a similar project in order to receive cost savings; however Transfort was not ready to sign a contract by year end 2011. Installation of security cameras is a high priority for safety and security of both employees and citizens using the facilities; therefore, Recreation is requesting reappropriation of $51,000 for this project in 2012. CEMETERY FUND 42. New Cemetery Management Computer System - $50,000 The process was initiated in 2011 to purchase a new cemetery management system. The bid process was not completed before the end of 2011. Therefore, funding will need to be reappropriated in 2012 to cover the cost of the new system. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 43. Parking Services - $44,000 Parking Services has a comprehensive service agreement for the access and revenue control systems for the two parking structures. Funds were budgeted in 2011 for this expense and the renewal was due in November. However, the vendor was still determining final costs for upgrades required for credit card systems so a Purchase Order could not be issued and paid prior to the end of the year. The vendor has continued to cover maintenance during the interim and will be sending an invoice for the renewal in February. The cost of the service agreement is $44,000. LIGHT AND POWER FUND 44. Residential Solar Rebates - $26,000 This item reappropriates $26,000 in the Light and Power Fund for residential customer solar rebates. Due to construction delays for seven residential solar electric rebate applicants, projects which were approved in 2011 will not be completed until 2012. The rebates range from $3,500 to $3,750 per customer. The Utilities is requesting reappropriation of 2011 funds in order for these solar rebate incentives to be paid in 2012. 45. Art-in-Public-Places - $23,366 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $23,366 in the Light and Power Utility Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -9- ITEM 8 the Transformer Cabinet Mural project. WATER FUND 46. Art-in-Public-Places - $143,340 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $143,340 in the Water Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and the Linden Street Pocket Park. STORM WATER FUND 47. Art-in-Public-Places - $21,228 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $21,228 in the Stormwater Utility Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including the Flood Markers, Manhole Covers and the Storm Drain Markers. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance increases 2012 appropriations by $1,898,522. A total of $1,083,767 is requested for reappropriation in the General Fund and $814,755 is requested from various other City funds. Reappropriation requests represent amounts budgeted in 2011 that could not be encumbered at year-end. The appropriations are from 2011 prior year reserves. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 025, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter requires that all appropriations unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year lapse to the applicable general or special fund, except that appropriations for capital projects and federal or state grants do not lapse until the completion of the capital project or until the expiration of the federal or state grant; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of NINE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($938,267) for the following purposes: Historic Preservation Grant Support $ 50,500 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment 4,500 Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study 9,874 Zero Interest Loan for air Quality 8,197 Environmental Services Copier Maintenance 4,700 Sustainability Strategic Plan 6,600 Waste Reduction & Recycling 18,709 Waste Innovations Program 100,987 Performance Based Pay 18,000 Learning/Organizational Development 40,000 Fourth of July 5,000 Storm Clean Up 4,000 Lifecycle Funding 9,206 PDT Administration 10,000 Homebuyer Assistance Program 119,948 Habitat for Humanity 82,500 Fort Collins Housing Authority 97,524 Fort Collins Housing Authority of Loveland 120,000 Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) 21,878 Computer Aided Dispatch System 99,712 Performance Excellence Program 81,432 Internal Focus Groups 5,000 Budgeting for Outcomes Improvements 20,000 Total General Fund $938,267 Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund the sum of THREE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETEEN DOLLARS ($349,719) for the following purposes: Historic Preservation Grant Support $ 25,000 Sustainability Strategic Plan 3,300 Lifecycle Funding 18,584 Design Assistance Program 20,848 Unified Carbon Accounting System 4,296 Healthy Sustainable Homes 6,000 Innovation Fund for Senior Center Lighting 19,947 Sustainability Outreach and Education 8,923 Commercial Recycling Outreach & Incentive Programs 3,168 Eco Industrial Center 16,517 Earth Tub Composting Vessels 3,540 Learning/Organizational Development 12,200 Stream & River Rehabilitation & Restoration 10,528 Skyway Transit Stop & Adjoining Sidewalk Improvements 4,157 Drake-Redwing Pedestrian Signal Improvements 14,000 Miscellaneous Pedestrian Sidewalk and Ramp Repairs 23,868 Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program 141,909 Parking Services 12,934 Total Keep Fort Collins Great Fund $349,719 Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWO DOLLARS ($106,102) to be used for the purpose specified in the City’s Art in Public Places program. Section 4. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Recreation Fund the sum of FIFTY-ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($51,000) to be used for Security Camera Installations at the Fort Collins Senior Center, Northside Aztlan Community Center, and EPIC. Section 5. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Cemetery Fund the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) to be used for the purchase of a New Cemetery Management Computer System. Section 6. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Transportation Services Fund the sum of FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($44,000) to be used for the Parking Services service agreement for the access and revenue control systems. -2- Section 7. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Light and Power Fund the sum of FORTY-NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX DOLLARS ($49,366) for the following purposes: Residential Solar Rebates $ 26,000 Art-in-Public- Places 23,366 Total Light & Power Fund $ 49,366 Section 8. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Water Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS ($143,340) to be used for the purpose specified in the City’s Art in Public Places program. Section 9. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Storm Water Fund the sum of TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($21,228) to be used for the purpose specified in the City’s Art in Public Places program. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -3- DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: John Stokes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2012 Adopted City Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the purpose of land conservation, construction of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural areas program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: John Stokes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2012 Adopted City Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Program was housed within the Capital Projects Fund; therefore, funds did not lapse from year to year. During 2004, in order to comply with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Natural Areas appropriations and the dedicated funding sources were moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Any unspent funds and excess revenue lapses into fund reserves at year-end. These reserves then need to be appropriated into the following year’s budget to use the funds for their intended purpose. The purpose of these appropriations is land conservation, construction of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural area program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The funds for the Natural Areas Program come from the following designated sources of revenue, including: the City Open Space Yes! sales tax; the Larimer County - Help Preserve Open Space sales tax; and, miscellaneous unanticipated revenues. All of these funds are restricted to the purposes of the Natural Areas Program, including unanticipated revenues which consist generally of income from leases or grants. The anticipated use of these funds is as follows: • Land Conservation - $2,100,000. For ongoing land conservation efforts per the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan. • Rangers - $30,000. To purchase software and hardware to improve efficiency and effectiveness of encroachment enforcement. • Education - $148,400. Included are education activities at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area funded by a grant from the Pulliam Family Charitable Trust; the development of a comprehensive online registration and volunteer coordination database to greatly improve our customer service and volunteer coordination; provide additional interpretive features; and preparation of a written history of Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. • Program Management - $62,500. For contingency for all aspects of the Natural Areas Program and partial funding for the Regional Land Conservation, Stewardship and Recreation Study, a cooperative effort with Larimer County and all other communities receiving a portion of the County’s open space sales tax. • Resource Management - $203,000. Unspent Resource Management funds that will be appropriated to finance several major habitat restoration projects along the Poudre River in 2012. • Public Improvements - $725,729. A portion of these funds are being appropriated for paved trail construction. Each year, Natural Areas contributes $350,000 to Parks to help fund the regional paved trail system. Parks spent a significant portion of its 2011 allocation, but there is $128,000 remaining to appropriate. Other items included in this appropriation include major maintenance on Rawhide Flats Road (access to Soapstone); a new trail to an outdoor classroom at Red Fox Meadows; Pelican Marsh trails; Reservoir Ridge parking lot and trail construction; match for a possible GOCO grant for Arapaho Bend trailhead parking; and a natural play area along the Poudre River near the Museum. • Facility Operations - $146,999. For capital improvements including: maintenance for the caretaker house at Reservoir Ridge; an equipment storage building at Soapstone; Gateway caretaker house and office COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 9 improvements; the Nix office addition/remodel design; a storage shed and a trash compactor at the Nix Farm - Natural Areas maintenance facility. • Land Management - $40,000. For the development of water rights and construction of new fencing at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance increases 2012 appropriations in the City’s Natural Areas Fund by $3,456,628. The requested appropriation is from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund. These funds are restricted to the purposes of the Natural Areas Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 026, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE NATURAL AREAS FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING NATURAL AREAS PROGRAMMING NOT INCLUDED IN THE 2012 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET WHEREAS, the City is committed to preserving natural areas and providing educational, interpretive and appropriate recreational opportunities to the public; and WHEREAS, Natural Areas programming implements open land conservation priorities identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan by purchasing conservation easement interests in key natural areas, community separators, or other open lands; providing stewardship for lands purchased; and developing trails and interpretive features for public use; and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas program is funded primarily through the collection of Open Space - Yes sales and use tax revenue, as well as revenues from the Larimer County Help Preserve Open Space sales and use tax, investment earnings, and other miscellaneous revenues; and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas Fund has unspent and unencumbered appropriations from 2011 in the amount of $3,456,628; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter requires that all appropriations unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year lapse to the applicable general or special revenue fund, except that appropriations for capital projects and federal or state grants do not lapse until the completion of the capital project or until the expiration of the federal or state grant; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends appropriating from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund $3,456,628 to be used for acquisition, construction, enhancement and maintenance of trail systems, wildlife habitat and other natural areas to benefit the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund the sum of THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($3,456,628) to be used for acquisition, construction, enhancement and maintenance of trail systems, wildlife habitat and other natural areas to benefit the citizens of the City. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Cheryl Donaldson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 027, 2012, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, appropriates Non-Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Cheryl Donaldson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates Non-Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center (the Non-Profit Partner) entered into a partnership in 2008 to design and construct a new museum facility. The exhibit design company, Gyroscope, Inc. was contracted through the City’s competitive purchasing process with the total contract of $1.285 million shared equally between the City and the Non-Profit Partner. The exhibit fabrication company, Art Guild, was contracted through the City’s competitive purchasing process for the exhibit fabrication, which is underway. Staff is working with Art Guild to complete the first two phases of museum exhibits with an opening date of November 10, 2012. The Non-Profit Partner is providing the $225,000 raised through fundraising efforts and the partnership would like to appropriate the $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. This money will be used to build exhibit enclosures by the building contractor, Hensel Phelps. The appropriation is needed because the Partnership Agreement calls for the project to follow the City’s purchasing requirements and the City holds the contract with Hensel Phelps. Museum staff is looking at funding alternatives to pay for specialized lighting for the exhibits and may come back to City Council in the near future with a request to use Museum reserves for this lighting. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance appropriates $225,000 from the Non-Profit Partner for the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 027, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR THE FORT COLLINS MUSEUM/DISCOVERY SCIENCE CENTER EXHIBITS PROJECT WHEREAS, in March 2008, the City and the Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit corporation, d/b/a Discovery Science Center (the “NPC”), now officially known as FCDM, Inc., entered into an operating agreement for the construction and operation of the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the operating agreement, the cost of the exhibit design contract in the amount of $1,285,000 is to be shared equally by the City and the NPC; and WHEREAS, staff is working with the contractor to complete the first two phases of the exhibits by the opening date of November 10, 2012; and WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $225,000 have been provided by the NPC for exhibit fabrication costs; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($225,000) for expenditure on the Building on Basics - Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility Exhibits Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Jim O’Neill Ken Mannon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance at 2.15% interest rate. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444. Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Jim O’Neill Ken Mannon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444. Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%. 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. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance at 2.15 percent interest rate. The agreement is for an original term from the execution date of the agreement to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease-purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins. All equipment shall be purchased following the City's purchasing ordinances and procedures to ensure that the City realizes all cost savings. The vehicles and equipment financed under the agreement will comply with applicable City policies, and will be in accordance with the goal of optimizing City resources without impacting service to the community. An "Equipment Request" justifying the replacement of each vehicle or piece of fleet equipment is on file with Fleet Services. The fleet manager has researched each request, and approved them based on current and projected maintenance costs, fuel economy, downtime, and relevant safety factors. Other equipment purchases have been approved in accordance with departmental procedures. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City's lease-purchase policy provides that: “The City of Fort Collins uses lease-purchase for the provision of new and replacement equipment, vehicles and rolling stock in order to ensure the timely replacement of equipment and vehicles. This method may also be used to acquire real property. Members of the management staff have developed an equipment needs schedule for rolling stock which encompasses the demands of operating departments. This schedule is used to project equipment needs for each budget year.” The type of lease that the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease. With each rental payment the City builds equity and assumes risk in the asset over the term of the lease. The annual installments are subject to appropriation by the Council each year. Advantages of a lease-purchase over a cash purchase are: • Decreasing the impact of inflation on the purchase of new and replacement equipment. • Resolving the problem of capital replacement needs backlog. • Conserving operating reserves. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 12 • Reducing the initial impact of the cost to user departments by enabling costs to be spread over the useful life of the equipment. • Safeguarding the opportunity to use cash assets to earn higher interest than the interest cost of lease-purchasing. It should be noted that the City is able to discontinue the equipment leases so that future City Councils will have the option to continue or discontinue the policy of lease-purchasing City equipment. A 2012 Finance Department analysis of current and historical equipment lease financing arrangements showed that lease-purchase is in the best interest of the City given the normal spread between lease rate and reinvestment rate. According to Section 29-1-103 C.R.S., local governments are required to identify as part of their budgets: (1) the total expenditures during the ensuing fiscal year for all lease purchase agreements involving real and personal property; and (2) the total maximum payment liability under all lease purchase agreements over the entire terms of the agreements, including all optional renewal terms. Staff recognizes that the State does not include lease-purchase in the legal definition of debt; however, rating agencies include lease-purchases in calculating the City's debt burden. The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease-purchase financing of the following: Golf Yamaha Electric carts for Collindale 27 77,382.00 Golf Fund Total: 77,382.00 Traffic Highway paint truck - chassis 1 132,000.00 Highway paint truck - body 1 220,600.00 1-ton truck chassis 1 24,000.00 1-ton truck flatbed body 1 24,000.00 Bucket truck chassis 1 33,000.00 Bucket truck body 1 62,000.00 Sign truck chassis - Isuzu NPR 1 32,000.00 Sign truck body 1 19,000.00 Transportation Fund Total: 546,600.00 Parks - Vehicles 5900 Toro - replacement 1 85,000.00 Harper Turf Sweeper Vac - replacement 1 48,000.00 Toro Electric Workman utility vehicles - replacements 2 26,000.00 3/4-ton pickup with utility box - replacement 1 28,000.00 Sander - replacement 1 9,000.00 Dump body - replacement 1 5,000.00 Sidewalk sweeper - new 1 106,000.00 Parks Replacement Vehicles Total: 307,000.00 Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Caprice patrol cars 9 265,500.00 Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 81,000.00 Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 346,500.00 Investigations - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Equinox 1 25,500.00 Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 5,000.00 Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 30,500.00 Equipment Fund Total: 684,000.00 COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 12 Investigations - New Officer Vehicles Dodge Journey 1 23,000.00 Chevy Equinox 1 25,500.00 Ford Fusion hybrid 1 27,500.00 Ford Fusion 1 24,000.00 Chevy Traverse 1 25,500.00 Investigations Vehicle equipment 1 lot 25,000.00 Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 150,500.00 General Fund Total: 150,500.00 Information Technology Dell OptiPlex 790 Desktops 56 39,608.00 Dell Latitude e6420 Laptops 57 69,782.00 Panasonic Toughbook CF-52 7 11,572.00 Data & Communications Fund Total: 120,962.00 Lease Total: 1,579,444.00 Departments have appropriately justified the purchase of all new and replacement vehicles and equipment. Information on replacement units is given below. The Operations Services Director has determined that the following units meet requirements for replacement. These units are included in the financing list, above. Department Old unit: Age: Miles / hours: New unit: Disposal of old unit: Notes: Golf Various 8-10 Yamaha electric carts Trade-in Replacing gasoline carts at the end of their normal service life with electric carts Traffic 2202 23 161,374 1-ton flatbed Auction Overdue for replacement Traffic 22400 10 6810 hrs Ford F550 with bucket truck body Auction Due for replacement Traffic 22501 11 111,570 Isuzu NPR chassis & flatbed Auction Overdue for replacement Parks 3462 13 3840 hrs 5900-D Toro Trade-in Due for replacement Parks 3459 14 930 Harper sweep/vac Auction Parts not available Parks 2518 14 ~10,000 Workman electric Auction Overdue for replacement Parks 2519 14 6000 Workman electric Auction Due for replacement Parks 2445 16 97,800 ¾-ton & utility box Auction Due for replacement Parks 2454A ~20 n/a New sander Auction Due for replacement Parks Dump body on 2454 22 n/a New body Salvage Rusted out Police Various 6-10 All over 90,000 Caprice patrol cars Auction Due for replacement Police - Investigations 11601 10 90,000+ Chevy Equinox Auction Due for replacement Note on usage: Units will accumulate additional miles/hours between now and when replacement vehicles arrive. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -4- ITEM 12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Due to improvements in emissions and engine technology, new vehicles and equipment will use less fuel and produce fewer emissions than the units being replaced. Police vehicles are replacements except for those needed for newly authorized positions. This represents an increase in fleet size, with a corresponding increase in fuel usage and emissions. The new officers to be added by Police were approved by Council and vehicles must be added to accommodate the increase in staffing levels. Those vehicles are as fuel efficient as can be provided pursuant to the needs of patrol and investigation officers. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 029, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE FINANCING BY LEASE-PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR SUCH PURPOSE WHEREAS, the City has a need for and desires to acquire certain personal property for City purposes; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Colorado Constitution, Article XX, §6, its home charter and Part 8 of Article 15 of Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the “Act”), to enter into rental or leasehold agreements in order to provide necessary land, buildings, equipment and other property for governmental or proprietary purposes, and such agreements may include options to purchase and acquire title to such leased or rented property; and WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Pinnacle Public Finance to lease equipment to the City, consisting of the following: Golf Yamaha Electric carts for Collindale 27 77,382.00 Golf Fund Total: 77,382.00 Traffic Highway paint truck - chassis 1 132,000.00 Highway paint truck - body 1 220,600.00 1-ton truck chassis 1 24,000.00 1-ton truck flatbed body 1 24,000.00 Bucket truck chassis 1 33,000.00 Bucket truck body 1 62,000.00 Sign truck chassis - Isuzu NPR 1 32,000.00 Sign truck body 1 19,000.00 Transportation Fund Total: 546,600.00 Parks - Vehicles 5900 Toro - replacement 1 85,000.00 Harper Turf Sweeper Vac - replacement 1 48,000.00 Toro Electric Workman utility vehicles - replacements 2 26,000.00 3/4-ton pickup with utility box - replacement 1 28,000.00 Sander - replacement 1 9,000.00 Dump body - replacement 1 5,000.00 Sidewalk sweeper - new 1 106,000.00 Parks Replacement Vehicles Total: 307,000.00 Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Caprice patrol cars 9 265,500.00 Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 81,000.00 Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 346,500.00 Investigations - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Equinox 1 25,500.00 Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 5,000.00 Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 30,500.00 Equipment Fund Total: 684,000.00 Investigations - New Officer Vehicles Dodge Journey 1 23,000.00 Chevy Equinox 1 25,500.00 Ford Fusion hybrid 1 27,500.00 Ford Fusion 1 24,000.00 Chevy Traverse 1 25,500.00 Investigations Vehicle equipment 1 lot 25,000.00 Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 150,500.00 General Fund Total: 150,500.00 Information Technology Dell OptiPlex 790 Desktops 56 39,608.00 Dell Latitude e6420 Laptops 57 69,782.00 Panasonic Toughbook CF-52 7 11,572.00 Data & Communications Fund Total: 120,962.00 Lease Total: 1,579,444.00 and; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to lease the above-described equipment from Pinnacle Public Finance, which is also providing financing for the Equipment acquisition; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with respect to the leasing and financing of the Equipment; and WHEREAS, the useful life of the Equipment is longer than the maximum lease-purchase term of five years; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the lease payments that will result from the proposed arrangement, in the amount of $ 83,505 per quarter, are reasonable and proper and represent the fair rental value of the Equipment; and WHEREAS, funds for the 2012 lease payments are included in the 2012 budget; and WHEREAS, the lease of the Equipment will not constitute a “multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation” of the City within the meaning of Article X §20(4)(b) and may therefore be entered into without voter approval; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: -2- Section 1. That the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to enter into a lease-purchase agreement for the above-described Equipment with Pinnacle Public Finance in accordance with the following terms and provisions: a. The agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the agreement through December 31, 2012. The agreement shall provide for renewable one-year terms thereafter up to a total term of five (5) years, subject to the annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, shall not exceed the useful life of the property. b. The City shall make equal quarterly payments throughout the term of such agreement but subject to the annual appropriation of funds needed for such payments. c. If the City leases the Equipment for the original term and all renewal terms, the payment to Pinnacle Public Finance will total the sum of the principal, $ 1,579,444, plus interest at a fixed rate equal to 2.15% per year, which is a reasonable amount. d. The City shall have the option to purchase part or all of the Equipment on any quarterly payment date of any term. The option to purchase shall be exercised by paying the quarterly payment due on said date and the unpaid principal due after said date. e. If the City renews the agreement for all the renewal terms and makes all payments during said terms, the City shall be deemed to have exercised the option to purchase said Equipment. f. The agreement shall constitute only a current expense of the City and shall not be construed to be a debt or pledge of the City's credit or revenues. Section 2. That the amount of SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO DOLLARS ($77,382) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Golf Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 3. That the amount of FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($546,600) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Transportation Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 4. That the amount of SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($684,000) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated -3- for expenditure in the Equipment Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles for Parks and Police, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 5. That the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($150,500) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the General Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 6. That the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS ($120,962) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Data & Communications Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 7. Any inconsistency between the provisions of this Ordinance and those of the Act is intended by the Council. To the extent of any such inconsistency the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed made pursuant to the home rule charter of the City and shall supersede, to the extent permitted by law, the conflicting provisions of the Act. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -4- DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Ann Turnquist Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate Outdated References. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, updates titles and terminology used in the City Code to correspond with current City organizational titles and department names. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition, certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no longer consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are updated in the Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Ann Turnquist Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate Outdated References. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the years, portions of the City Code have not kept pace with the changing City organizational titles and department names that are included in the Code. Changes in the titles of individuals who have responsibilities outlined in the Code, as well as various department names have changed, but not been reflected in relevant Code sections. This Ordinance makes these housekeeping changes. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition, certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no longer consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are updated in the Ordinance. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Staff has conducted a complete review of the City Code to identify Code language which is inconsistent with the City’s current organizational structure or position titles. Throughout the 1,002 printed pages of Code in 29 Chapters, staff has identified over 150 items that should be corrected. These changes represent “housekeeping” items, rather than substantive changes to the Code. Changes included in this Ordinance can be separated into several categories: Type Example Occurrences Staff Title Change “Director of Building and Zoning” should be “Building Official” or “General Manager” should be “Utilities Executive Director” 75 Department Name Change “Department of Building and Zoning” should be “Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services” 61 Name Changes in Other Organizations “Division of Wildlife” should be “Division of Parks and Wildlife” or “Poudre R-1 School District” should be “Poudre School District” 12 Miscellaneous and Grammar Changes “Boarding house” should be “Extra Occupancy Rental House” 15 Total 163 The proposed Code changes do not alter the intent or operations of the ordinances, but are “housekeeping” items which keep the Code current. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 030, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTERS 2 THROUGH 27 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO UPDATE TERMINOLOGY AND TITLES USED IN VARIOUS CODE PROVISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OUTDATED REFERENCES WHEREAS, over the years, portions of the City Code have not kept pace with the changing City organizational titles and department names; and WHEREAS, changes in the titles of individuals who have responsibilities outlined in the City Code, as well as various department names have changed, but those changes have not been reflected in the City Code; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Code be amended to reflect the appropriate updated titles and departments; and WHEREAS, staff further recommends that outdated and obsolete references in Chapters 2 through 27 of the City Code be amended so as to correct and update the terminology used where appropriate; and WHEREAS, City Council agrees that all such amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2-31(a)(1)a. of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-31. Executive sessions. . . . a. Matters involving the hiring, appointment, dismissal, demotion, promotion, assignment and discipline of City personnel, and the review and discussion of the performance and proposed compensation and benefits of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge. Section 2. That Section 2-103(3) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-103. Functions. . . . (3) To advise and make recommendations to the Director of Community Services and the City Council as to rules, regulations, guidelines, policy, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the art in public places program. Section 3. That Section 2-138(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-138. Membership; terms; training; subcommittees. . . . (c) Those persons appointed to the Board shall attend and complete such training as may be developed by the City Manager, upon consultation with the Chief of Police. Section 4. That Section 2-140(g) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-140. Review procedure. . . . (g) A complainant may file a written complaint at Police Services, the City Manager's Office, or at a Board meeting. Upon receipt of a written complaint at a location other than Police Services, the Board or receiving office shall forward the complaint to Police Services as soon as reasonably practical. In the event that a complainant is unable to complete any written complaint or request form, the Board, a citizen liaison, the City Manager's Office or Police Services shall, upon the complainant's verbal request, assist the complainant in reducing the complaint or request to writing. However, all complaint or request forms must be signed by the complainant. Section 5. That Section 2-238(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-238. Functions. . . . (1) To advise and make recommendations to the Director of Community Services (the "Director") and the City Council as to rules, regulations, policies, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the operation and maintenance of all City-owned golf courses; Section 6. That Section 2-308(4) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -2- Sec. 2-308. Functions. . . . (4) To be aware of and coordinate with the various Office of Sustainability Services technical advisory committees; Section 7. That Section 2-338 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-338. Functions. The Board shall act as an advisory board and shall have the following functions: (1) To advise and make recommendations to the Director of Community Services and the City Council for their approval as to rules, regulations, policies, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the Department, excluding matters relating to the operation and maintenance of City-owned golf courses and cemeteries; (2) To assist the City in cooperating with the Poudre School District and other organizations and individuals interested in the City's parks and recreation programs. . . . Section 8. That Section 2-428 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-428. Functions; Bicycle Advisory Committee. (a) The duties and functions of the Board shall be to advise the City Council on matters pertaining to the City's transportation policies and system, including but not limited to transportation planning, alternative modes planning (including bikeways, pedestrian facilities, transit, air transportation and van- and car-pooling), capital improvement projects, downtown parking management and other transportation issues as identified in the Board work plan. Additionally, the Board shall review the City's interaction with federal, state and county government, as well as North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council, Colorado State University and Poudre School District on transportation-related issues. (b) The Board shall also establish and keep in place a committee to be known as the "Bicycle Advisory Committee," the purpose of which shall be to advise the Board with regard to bicycling-related issues. Said Committee shall consist of sixteen (16) members, one (1) of whom shall be a member of the Board, and fifteen (15) of whom shall be appointed by the City Manager. The City Manager appointees -3- shall consist of three (3) "at large" members of the community plus one (1) member of each of the following City boards and commissions and other civic organizations: Air Quality Advisory Board Parks and Recreation Board Natural Resources Advisory Board Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Senior Advisory Board Economic Advisory Commission Downtown Development Authority Bike Fort Collins Fort Collins Bike Co-op Poudre School District Colorado State University University Connections In addition to the foregoing sixteen (16) voting members, the Committee shall also include four (4) nonvoting members, with one (1) such member each representing the City's Traffic Operations Department, Engineering Department, Transportation Planning Division, and Police Services. The Bicycle Advisory Committee may establish bylaws, rules and regulations for its own organization and procedures in accordance with the City's policies for boards and commissions, and all voting members of the Committee shall be governed by said policies. Each member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee shall serve for a term of two (2) years. Section 9. That Section 3-81(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 3-81. Report of disturbances. . . . (b) Each licensee and permit holder shall post and keep at all times visible to the public in a conspicuous place on the premises, a sign with a minimum height of fourteen (14) inches and a minimum width of eleven (11) inches with each letter to be a minimum of one-half (½) inch in height, which shall read as follows: "WARNING: Fort Collins Police Services must be notified of all disorderly acts, conduct or disturbances and all unlawful activities which occur on or within the premises of this licensed establishment." . . . Section 10. That Section 4-73(a) and (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -4- Sec. 4-73. Limitation on possession and feeding of wild or exotic animals. (a) No person shall own, feed or possess any animal for which a state license is required unless such person possesses the appropriate license from the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. . . . (e) No person shall be subject to prosecution under Paragraph 4-73(b)(9) above unless, within one (1) year immediately preceding the date of the alleged violation, such person has been issued a written warning stating that the feeding of wild geese or ducks at the same approximate location of the alleged offense has been determined by the Natural Areas Department to constitute a public health and safety concern and that such feeding is prohibited by the provisions of said Paragraph. Section 11. That Section 4-117(b)(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-117. Sale of chickens and ducklings; quantity restricted; keeping of chickens. . . . (2) Any person keeping chicken hens pursuant to this provision must first have been issued a permit by the Humane Society and have received such information or training pertaining to the keeping of chicken hens as said agency deems appropriate; Section 12. That Section 4-120 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-120. Trapping restricted. (a) No person shall use, set, place, maintain or tend any trap in the City, except that live traps may be set for the purpose of: (1) trapping animals which are at large in violation of this Chapter, so long as any animals trapped are turned over to the Humane Society as soon as possible upon discovery, or (2) trapping wild animals including but not limited to skunks, squirrels, raccoons and prairie dogs, provided that any animals trapped are released or disposed of in the manner required by the Humane Society and the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. Any traps found in violation of this Subsection shall be confiscated and destroyed by an animal control officer or peace officer. . . . (c) In the event that the presence of a wild or domestic animal within the City creates an imminent threat of injury to persons or serious damage to property, the -5- Chief of Police, after consultation with the Humane Society and, in the case of a wild animal, the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, may authorize the capture and disposition of said animal by such means as he or she may consider reasonably necessary; provided, however, that no firearm may be utilized in the capture or disposition of such animal except by a peace officer trained in the use of the same under such circumstances as will not, in the judgment of said peace officer, unreasonably endanger the safety of others. Section 13. That Section 4-157 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-157. Killing or capturing wild birds restricted. It shall be unlawful for any person at any time in the City to shoot at, wound, kill, capture, ensnare, net, trap or in any other manner molest or injure any wild bird or in any manner molest or injure the nest, eggs or young of any such bird. The Chief of Police shall have authority to grant or deny a permit for the killing, capturing or molestation of nuisance birds with the consent or approval of the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife when it is shown that the birds are, or may become, a nuisance or health hazard in any particular location in the City. The permit shall be granted or denied within five (5) working days of the date the request is made. Section 14. That Section 5-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-1. Solar notification service. (a) Upon issuance of a building permit for a solar energy system, the solar owner may register for a solar notification service with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Solar owners who have been issued building permits for solar energy systems prior to the enactment of this service may also register for the service. (b) If the issuance of a building permit allows construction which would extend into the solar protection area described for a registered solar energy system, the Building Official may place a hold of not more than ten (10) working days on the issuance of the permit. If any such hold is imposed, the Director may immediately notify the builder and the affected solar owner of the reasons. (c) The builder and the solar owner shall have ten (10) working days to voluntarily negotiate a solar access agreement. (d) Failure of the Building Official to perform any of the services herein provided shall not affect the validity of issuing a building permit by the Building Official. -6- (e) Following the ten-day negotiating period or upon sooner resolution by the parties, the Building Official shall issue the building permit if all other requirements of this Code have been met. Section 15. That Section 5-28 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-28. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in Article II of this Chapter and in any code adopted by reference therein, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Whenever the word municipality, jurisdiction or city is used, it shall mean the City of Fort Collins. Whenever the term Building Official, Building-Code Official or Code Official is used, the term shall be synonymous with Director ofCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services or authorized representative. Section 16. That Section 5-47(4), 104.1 General, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: (4) Sections 104.1, 104.2, 104.3 and 104.4 are hereby amended to read as follows: "104.1 General. The Building Official or such other official as may be appointed by the City Manager shall serve as the executive code official responsible for supervising the administration, compliance and enforcement of this Article. In the performance of said duties, such official may delegate authority to the appropriate technical, administrative and compliance staff under the supervision of said official as he or she deems necessary. The code official is hereby authorized to, and shall, enforce the provisions of this code. Section 17. That Section 5-47(17), Rental Dwelling Unit, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: (17) Section 202 is amended by the addition of thirty-three (33) new definitions to the list of terms therein in alphabetical sequence of such list to read as follows: "RENTAL DWELLING UNIT. One (1) or more rooms occupied or intended to be occupied as a unit exclusively for residential purposes that is leased, rented or sublet for compensation (including money or services -7- or the sharing of expenses) and that is located in an extra occupancy rental house or a single-family, two-family or multi-family dwelling. Section 18. That Section 5-83 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-83. Use of approved materials; electrical signs. Where the use of approved materials, equipment or devices is required by the National Electrical Code, adopted in § 5-80, the label of or listing by the Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., will be accepted as an approval. Alternate materials may be approved by the Building Official. All electrical signs shall be approved before any permit for the installation or erection of such sign is granted. Section 19. That Section 5-108 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-108. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article and the code adopted in § 5-106, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Whenever the word municipality, jurisdiction or City is used it shall mean the City of Fort Collins. Whenever the term Building Official is used it shall be synonymous with Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services or authorized representative. Section 20. That Section 5-141 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-141. Duties of Building Official. The Building Official shall maintain public office hours necessary to efficiently administer the provisions of this Article and the code adopted hereby and shall perform the following duties: . . . Section 21. That Section 5-264(a) and (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-264. Certificate required for occupancy of dwelling units contained in single-family or two-family dwellings in excess of limit; conditions; revocation or suspension. -8- (a) No dwelling unit contained in a single-family or two-family dwelling shall be occupied by more persons than the number of persons permitted under Section 3.8.16 of the Land Use Code unless a certificate of occupancy for an extra- occupancy rental house has been issued for such dwelling by the Building Official. (b) Terms and conditions imposed upon a certificate of occupancy as an extra occupancy rental house may include, but are not limited to, compliance with all state laws, City ordinances, rules and regulations, and court or administrative orders. Section 22. That Section 7.5-19 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-19. Imposition, computation and collection of fees. Payment of the fees imposed under the provisions of this Article shall be required as a condition of approval of all development in the City for which a building permit is required. The amount of such fees has been calculated using current levels of service and the data and methodologies described in Capital Improvement Expansion Cost Study, dated May 21, 1996, as amended; the City's Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study, dated July 15, 1997, and Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study Update, dated November 28, 2000, as amended; and The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997, published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, as amended. The fees due for such development shall be payable by the feepayer to the Building Official prior to or at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the property to be developed, except to the extent that an agreement deferring all or any portion of such payment has been executed by the City providing for a different time of payment approved by the City Council by resolution. If, during the period of any such deferral, the amount of the deferred fee is increased by ordinance of the City Council, the fee rate in effect at the time of payment shall apply. If the building permit for which a fee has been paid has expired, and an application for a new building permit is thereafter filed, any amount previously paid for a capital improvement expansion fee and not refunded by the City shall be credited against any additional amount due under the provisions of this Article at the time of application for the new building permit. Section 23. That Section 7.5-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-48. Land dedication or in-lieu fees imposed. (a) The owner or developer of every land development project in the City ("applicant") must file with the Building Official of the City, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential structure in such project, proof that the appropriate land reservation for future dedication has been made to the school district, or that the applicant has paid an in-lieu fee, in accordance with the provisions of this Article. -9- (b) Prior to or at the time that any proposed land development project is submitted to the City for review, the superintendent of the school district, or his or her designee, shall meet with the applicant for the purpose of determining whether the school district desires the reservation of any land for future dedication as a school site within the land development project. Any such dedication or in-lieu fee requirement shall be consistent with school district planning standards established by the school district. Said standards shall reflect, without limitation: . . . Any reservation of sites or land areas required under the provisions of this Article shall occur in the following fashion. At or before the time of final approval of any land development project by the City, the sites or land areas to be dedicated to the school district shall be reserved by designation on the plat submitted to the City for approval in connection with the land development project. On or before the date that the first building permit for the project is issued by the City, such reserved site or land area shall be dedicated to the school district. In the event that the school district determines, in its sole discretion, that the dedication of a reserved site is necessary prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project within which such site is located, the school district shall so notify the person(s) shown by the records of the County Assessor as being the then current owner(s) of such site. Said notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and a copy of said notice shall be provided to the City's Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Within sixty (60) days of the mailing of said notice, the reserved property that is the subject of the mailing shall be dedicated to the school district by the owner(s) thereof. . . . (d) In the event that the dedication of sites or land areas for school site purposes within a particular land development project is not deemed feasible or in the best interests of the school district as determined by the superintendent, or his or her designee, the school district shall so notify the City's Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services in writing, and the City shall require the applicant to pay the in-lieu fees as provided in this Article. The amount of the in-lieu fees to be paid under the provisions of this Article shall be established by agreement with the school district and shall be equal to the full market value of the sites or land areas within a land development project that could be required to be reserved for future dedication for school site purposes under Subsection (b) above. Said fair market value shall be determined on the basis of the average value of developed sites for residential uses in the City as approved for development by the City, with curb, gutter, streets and utilities to the site, according to City engineering standards. Section 24. That Section 7.5-71(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-71. Collection of neighborhood parkland fee. -10- (a) Hereafter, payment of a neighborhood parkland fee in accordance with this Section shall be required as a condition of approval of all residential development for which a building permit is required, as those terms are defined in § 7.5-17 of this Code. The fees due for such development shall be payable by the feepayer to the Building Official prior to or at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the property to be developed, unless an agreement has been executed by the City which provides for a different time of payment. All such payments shall be deposited by the Financial Officer in the fund created in § 8-80. Only one (1) fee shall be charged for any dwelling unit. No additional fee for acquisition and development of neighborhood parks shall be charged for the same dwelling unit. If the building permit for which a fee has been paid has expired, and an application for a new building permit is thereafter filed, any amount previously paid for a capital expansion fee and not refunded by the City shall be credited against any additional amount due under the provisions of this Article at the time of application for the new building permit. Section 25. That the definition of “Building permit” contained in Section 7.5-81 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Building permit shall mean any development permit issued by theDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services before any building or construction activity is initiated on a parcel of land. Building permit does not include any permits for demolition, grading or the construction of a foundation. Section 26. That Section 9-3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 9-3. Appeals. Whenever the Fire Marshal shall disapprove any application made pursuant to the International Fire Code, as amended, or refuse to grant a permit applied for thereunder or when it is claimed that the provisions of the fire code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the fire code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted or when any person requests a variance from the literal terms of the fire code, the applicant or person affected may appeal the decision of the Fire Marshal to the Fire Board of Appeals established pursuant to the International Fire Code. Such Board shall have the power to vary or modify any requirement made by the Fire Marshal thereunder, provided that an appeal to the Board is made within thirty (30) days of the date of the action complained of. Final decisions of the Board are subject to the right of appeal to the City Council as contained in § 2-47, et seq., of this Code, except that the Fire Marshal shall be included as a party-in-interest with standing to appeal a decision which, in his or her judgment, adversely affects public safety. Section 27. That Section 9-4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -11- Sec. 9-4. Violations and penalties. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of the International Fire Code, as amended, or who shall fail to comply with any of the provisions or who shall violate or fail to comply with any orders made thereunder or who shall act in any way in violation of any permits issued thereunder shall, severally and for each and every violation in noncompliance respectively, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by the penalty set forth in § 1-15 of this Code. The imposition of one (1) penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue, and all persons shall be required to correct or remedy the violations or defects within a reasonable time, and when not otherwise specified, each ten (10) days that prohibited conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. The application of any penalty pursuant hereto shall not be held to prevent the forced removal of prohibited conditions nor the suspension or removal of a permit or license issued thereunder. Section 28. That Chapter 10 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by changing all references from “General Manager” to “Utilities Executive Director”. Section 29. That Section 10-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 10-30. Takings determinations. Any person who claims that his or her property has been taken by reason of the application of any provision of this Article may apply to the Utilities Executive Director for a Takings Determination using the procedural and substantive requirements and criteria set forth in Division 2.13 of the City's Land Use Code, provided that, for the purpose of this Section, any reference therein to the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall be deemed to constitute a reference to the Utilities Executive Director and any reference to the Land Use Code therein shall be deemed to constitute a reference to this Article. Said Takings Determination Procedures shall be exhausted before the institution of any judicial proceeding against the City claiming a taking of affected property. Section 30. That Section 12-65 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 12-65. Inspection of books and records. The owner of each establishment operating as an enclosed public place shall keep a complete set of books of account, invoices, copies of orders, shipping instructions, bills of lading, correspondence and all other records necessary to show fully the business transactions of such establishment, all of which records shall be available at all times during business hours for inspection and examination by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services or his or her authorized representatives for use in determining the applicability of the provisions of this -12- Article to such establishment. The Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services may require the owner of any such establishment to furnish such information as he or she considers necessary for such a determination, and may require that the owner of such establishment cause an audit to be made of such books of account and records on such occasions as he or she may consider necessary. Section 31. That Section 12-68 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 12-68. Public education. The Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall engage in a continuing program to explain and clarify the purposes and requirements of this Article to citizens affected by it, and to guide owners, operators and managers in their compliance with it. Such program may include publication of a brochure for affected businesses and individuals explaining the provisions of this Article. Section 32. That the definition of “Radon information” contained in Section 12-110 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Radon information shall mean that information produced and disseminated by the Office of Sustainability Services for provision by sellers to buyers prior to execution of a contract. Section 33. That Section 14-24 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-24. Interim control. No building permit shall be issued by the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services for alteration, construction, relocation or demolition of a site, structure or object under consideration for landmark designation or any site, structure or object within a district under consideration for landmark district designation from the date of the hearing of the Commission at which the Commission approves a motion directing staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark designation until final disposition of the designation by the City Council unless such alteration, construction, relocation or demolition is authorized by resolution of the City Council as necessary for public health, welfare or safety. In no event shall the delay in issuance of a building permit due to the provisions of this Section be for more than one hundred eighty (180) days. Section 34. That Section 15-18 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-18. Alarm committee. -13- The City administration is authorized to form an alarm committee composed of representatives of Fire Services, Police Services, the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and licensed alarm businesses, answering services and telephone company representatives which shall act as an advisory body to the City Council to assist in determining policy concerning alarms. All such alarm systems shall be subject to all rules, regulations, fees and requirements set forth in this Article, except the provisions of this Article are not applicable to audible alarms affixed to motor vehicles or trailers, other than mobile homes, or to devices designed or used to register audible or visible alarms on the interior only of protected buildings, structures or areas. Section 35. That Section 15-31(d)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-31. Required. . . . (d) Certificate of compliance for alarm systems: (1) No person shall use an alarm or alarm system, as defined in this Article, unless the alarm or alarm system has been inspected by the Building Official and a certificate of compliance for the alarm system has been issued. Section 36. That Section 15-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-32. Issuance of permits and licenses. The issuing and approving authority for any license or permit issued hereunder shall be the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Section 37. That Section 15-33 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-33. Permit and license application. Applications for all permits and licenses required in this Article shall be filed with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and shall be accompanied by the requisite fees. The fees are established and shall cover the following costs: . . . -14- Section 38. That Section 15-35 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-35. Certificate of compliance for alarm systems. A certificate of compliance for alarm systems shall be issued upon approval of the Building Official. Such approval shall signify compliance with the standards and regulations adopted and requirements set forth in §§ 15-56—15-71. Said certificate shall be issued to the person using or possessing the alarm system. Alarm businesses shall procure and process applications for their subscribers. The subscribers shall forward the completed application to the alarm business servicing the system. The permit fee shall be collected from the subscriber by the alarm business and transmitted forthwith to the Finance Department together with the application. Section 39. That Section 15-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-56. Promulgation of standards and regulations. Any alarm system installed within the City and all devices and agencies acting under this Article shall conform to the requirements of the standards adopted in this Division. The Building Official shall inspect and approve all alarm systems installed within the City and shall issue a permit authorizing such systems under this Article. Any system which does not meet the requirements of this Article shall not be approved and shall not be put in service until any deficiencies have been corrected and such correction approved by the Building Official. Section 40. That Section 15-60(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-60. Performance standards. . . . (c) If any alarm system is deemed unreliable pursuant to this Article, Fire Services or Police Services may declare the system unreliable and restrict or curtail the response of the office to the alarm system until such time as the subscriber or alarm business can show a material change in employee training, can show written proof that the system has been repaired, can show written proof that the system has been reinspected by the Building Official and can show proof of issuance of a new certificate of compliance for the alarm system. Section 41. That Section 15-71(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-71. Certain standards adopted. -15- . . . (2) At least one (1) copy of each standard herein adopted shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection. One (1) copy of each such standard shall be kept in the office of the Building Official. One (1) copy shall be kept in the office of the Fire Marshal. One (1) copy shall be kept in the office of the Police Chief. Section 42. That Section 15-172(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-172. License and registration required; suspension; revocation. (a) No person shall engage in the business of contracting for the installation of electrical work in the City without registering as an electrical contractor with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. In order to register as required herein, the person must perform the following: . . . Section 43. That Section 15-294(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-294. Conditions of license for certain shows. (a) The license for any circus, menagerie or carnival shall be issued subject to the following additional requirements: (1) A representative of Fire Services and/or the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall make an inspection of the area and the equipment in order to determine that adequate fire lanes are provided, that adequate fire hydrants or other means of extinguishing fires are available, that electrical connections are made in a safe manner and that electrical equipment appears to be in good working order. Section 44. That Section 15-306(a) and (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-306. General provisions, licensing and registration. (a) No person shall engage in the trade, business or calling of a plumber or plumbing in the City until he or she shall register with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services as a plumber. For the purpose of this Section, plumbing contractor means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or combination thereof who undertakes or offers to undertake for another the planning, laying out, supervising and installing or the making of additions, -16- alterations and repairs to potable water supply and distribution pipes and piping, plumbing fixtures, drainage and vent pipes and building drains, including their respective joints and connections, devices, receptacles and appurtenances. A registered professional engineer who plans or designs plumbing installations shall not be classified as a plumbing contractor. (b) No person shall engage in the business of a plumbing contractor in the City without registering as a plumbing contractor with the Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. In order to register as a plumbing contractor, the person desiring to engage in such business must do the following: . . . Section 45. That Section 15-385(a)(4) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-385. Review and approval. . . . (4) The recommendations of the Planning Development and Transportation Director and the Director of Community Services, insofar as the proposed location may affect the operation of those service areas, based upon the factors recited herein. Section 46. That Section 17-182(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-182. Camping on private property restricted; exceptions. (a) It is unlawful for any person to camp or to knowingly permit any person to camp, as defined in § 17-181, on private property within the City, except on the premises of a residential dwelling with the permission of the property owner. Any such camping must be temporary in nature and must not exceed a period of seven (7) consecutive days or a total of fourteen (14) days in a calendar year; provided, however, that an extension of these time limits may be granted by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services or his or her designee upon written application of a person claiming extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship. The Director's decision whether to grant an extension shall be based upon all attendant circumstances, including, without limitation, any objections posed by occupants of premises located on the same block face of the applicant. In no event shall an extension exceed seven (7) additional consecutive days or fourteen (14) additional days in a calendar year. Section 47. That Section 18-3(b)(4) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -17- Sec. 18-3. Construction permit required; application; fees; issuance; appeals. . . . (4) Complete plans and specifications of the proposed park (conforming with the requirements of this Chapter, the Land Use Code o, utility design standards and street design standards as established by the City), including the following specific information: . . . Section 48. That Section 18-11(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 18-11. Miscellaneous park requirements. . . . (c) Park Areas for Nonresidential Uses. No part of any park shall be used for nonresidential purposes, except as otherwise permitted in the Land Use Code and such uses that are required for the direct servicing and well-being of mobile home park residents and for the management and maintenance of the mobile home park. Section 49. That Section 18-12(b)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 18-12. Mobile office units. . . . (1) The proposed office use and location conforms to the City Land Use Code. Section 50. That Section 19-36(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-36. Creation; jurisdiction; qualifications. . . . (c) A Referee appointed by the Municipal Judge to hear civil infractions shall be appointed from a list of candidates chosen by a staff committee representing each of the following: Neighborhood Services, the City Attorney's Office and the Human Resources Department. -18- Section 51. That Section 19-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-48. Commencement of action. An action under these rules is commenced by the tender or service of a charging document upon a defendant, by mail or by conspicuously attaching a parking assessment to the subject vehicle and by the filing of a charging document with the Municipal Court or Parking Services. Section 52. That Section 19-50(c)(3) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-50. First hearing. . . . (3) The consequences of the failure to appear at any subsequent hearing, including entry of judgment against the defendant and reporting the judgment to the State Department of Revenue, which may assess points against the driving privilege and may cancel a driver's license or deny an application for a driver's license; Section 53. That Section 19-52(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-52. Subpoena. . . . (b) A subpoena shall be issued within the City either by the Municipal Court Clerk at the request of the defendant, prosecuting attorney or officer, or by counsel who has entered an appearance in the case. Section 54. That Section 19-55(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-55. Judgment after final hearing. . . . (d) The judgment shall be satisfied upon payment to the Municipal Court Clerk of the total amount assessed as set forth above. -19- Section 55. That Section 19-58(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-58. Default. . . . (d) The defendant may satisfy a judgment entered under this rule by paying the Municipal Court Clerk. Section 56. That Section 19-65(a)(5) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-65. Commencement of action; citation procedure. . . . (5) The officer shall attempt to obtain the signature of the person to whom he or she served the citation; however, if the citation is mailed or posted or if the person fails or refuses to sign the citation, such failure or refusal shall not affect the validity of the citation or any subsequent proceedings. Section 57. That Section 19-66(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-66. Payment without appearance. (a) The Neighborhood Services Manager or, in the case of a forestry code violation, the City Forester, shall accept payment of the amount due for a civil infraction from a defendant if such payment is made within ten (10) days following service of the citation for the violation. Such payment shall be separately accounted for and deposited into the City's general fund in accordance with rules and procedures of the Finance Department. Section 58. That Section 19-67(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-67. Hearing procedures. (a) If a defendant wishes to contest a citation, he or she, within ten (10) days following service of the citation, shall file a written request with the Neighborhood Services Manager for a hearing before the Referee. Section 59. That Section 19-69(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -20- Sec. 19-69. Judgment and procedures after hearing. . . . (c) The judgment shall be satisfied upon payment to Neighborhood Services or City Forester, with respect to forestry code violations, in the total amount of penalty, costs and fees assessed. Section 60. That Section 20-2(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-2. Abatement of unsanitary or dangerous premises. (a) If either the City Manager, the City Engineer, the Building Official or the Fire Marshal determines that any premises within the City are unsanitary, as determined by the County Department of Health and Environment, or dangerous to the life or property of persons or constitute a fire hazard, a written notice of such condition shall be given by the City to the owner, agent or occupant of the property ordering the premises to be put in proper condition within such period as is set out in the notice and order. Such period shall not be less than twenty-four (24) hours. Section 61. That Section 20-3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-3. Abatement by City in cases of emergency. Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the power of the City Manager, City Engineer, Building Official or Fire Marshal, in case of an emergency for the preservation of the public health or safety, to summarily remedy, change, repair, abate or order the evacuation of any dangerous or unhealthy condition found to exist without any notice to any person. Section 62. That Section 20-5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-5. Abatement of nuisances by persons other than City. Any person ordered to clean, repair, change or make safe any property or abate any nuisance may do so at such person's own expense, if suitable arrangements are made with the City Engineer, Building Official or Fire Marshal, prior to the time when the City shall start carrying out any order made under this Article. Section 63. That the definitions of “Backyard wildlife habitat certification” and “Natural area certification” contained in Section 20-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: -21- Backyard wildlife habitat certification shall mean certification by the Natural Areas Department under its backyard wildlife habitat program recognizing a yard as having the necessary components to sustain the desired wildlife species. Natural area certification shall mean certification by the Natural Areas Department under its natural areas program recognizing a one-quarter-acre or larger site as having the necessary components to be classified as a natural area. Section 64. That Section 20-44 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-44. Notice of violation; removal authority and procedure; assessment lien on property. (a) The Neighborhood Services Manager and any officer, as such is defined in § 19-66, are authorized and directed to give notice to any owner and occupant whose property, open area, ditch or right-of-way is being kept or maintained in violation of the provisions of this Article. Such notice may be personally served upon such person or, if not personally served, shall be deposited in the United States mail, addressed to the occupant and owner of record at the address on the assessment roll of the County Assessor or at such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, or with respect to notice to occupants, at the address of the property so occupied. The notice shall state that, if the property, open area, ditch or right-or-way has not been brought into compliance with this Article on or before five (5) days from the date of such notice, a civil citation will issue and the abatement of the nuisance will be done by the City and any costs of abatement, including the cost of inspection, the cost of any grading or sloping necessary to protect the public safety and other incidental costs in connection therewith and the costs for carrying charges and costs of administration will be charged against the property, open area, ditch or right-of-way, in addition to any other penalty and costs or orders that may be imposed. With respect to rubbish only, the notice shall also state that, if said owner desires a hearing before the Referee to contest the declaration of nuisance and/or the removal, such owner shall request such hearing in writing to the Neighborhood Services Manager within five (5) days of mailing of the notice and shall further state that, if a request for such hearing is made, the City will remove the rubbish in accordance with Subsection (b) below and will store the material pending the holding of the hearing and the determination therefrom. The notice shall further state that if no request for such hearing is timely filed, the City will remove the rubbish in accordance with Subsection (b) below and shall destroy or otherwise dispose of the rubbish. (b) If the property, open area, ditch or right-of-way has not been brought into compliance with this Article within five (5) days from the date of the notice and if the owner has not requested a hearing before the Referee to contest the declaration of nuisance and/or the removal as provided in Subsection (a) above, the removal may be done by the City, either by City personnel or by private contractors, as the -22- Neighborhood Services Manager shall determine. In the event of such removal by the City, the cost, including inspection, removal of obstructions, if any, the cost of any grading or sloping necessary to protect the public safety, other incidental costs in connection therewith, and the costs for carrying charges and administration shall be assessed against the offending property, open area, ditch or right-of-way and the owner thereof. With respect to rubbish only, if the owner has requested a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (a), removal of the rubbish may be accomplished as provided in this Subsection; provided, however, that such material removed shall be stored by the City until such time as the Referee holds the hearing and determines, based upon the evidence presented by the owner and the staff of the City, whether the nuisance should have been declared and the rubbish removed. If the Referee determines that the declaration of nuisance and removal are proper, then the rubbish shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the City, and the additional costs of storage shall be assessed, together with all other costs, as provided above. If the Referee determines that the declaration of nuisance and removal were improper, then the material shall be returned to the owner and no costs shall be assessed. (c) Any cost assessment shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against each property, open area, ditch or right-of-way from the date the assessment became due until paid and shall have priority over all other liens, except general taxes and prior special assessment liens. Any such assessment shall be billed by the Neighborhood Services Manager, or his or her designee, to the owner by deposit in the United States mail addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls or such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and to any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known. If any such assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been billed, the Financial Officer, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to thereafter certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments so billed, giving the name of the owner as it appears of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of the assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and form as required for the certification of other taxes. The County Treasurer, upon receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place it upon the tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as general property taxes are collected, together with any charges as may by law be made by the County Treasurer and all laws of the State for the assessment and collection of general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes and the redemption thereof, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property, open area, ditch or right-of- way is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 65. That Section 20-101(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -23- Sec. 20-101. Removal by City; lien. . . . (b) If the property owner contests the declaration of nuisance and/or the assessment of costs, he or she shall file a written request with the Neighborhood Services Manager, within ten (10) days from the service of a notice of assessment, a written request for a hearing before the Referee. (c) Any cost assessment shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against each property from the date the assessment became due until paid and shall have priority over all other liens, except general taxes and prior special assessment liens. Any such assessment shall be billed by the Neighborhood Services Manager, or his or her designee, to the owner by deposit in the United States mail addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls or such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and to any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known. If any such assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been billed, the Financial Officer, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to thereafter certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments so billed, giving the name of the owner as it appears of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of the assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and form as required for the certification of other taxes. The County Treasurer, upon receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place it upon the tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as general property taxes are collected together with any charges as may by law be made by the County Treasurer and all laws of the State for the assessment and collection of general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes and the redemption thereof, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 66. That Section 20-102(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-102. Removal of snow and ice from sidewalks required; lien. . . . (b) If the property owner contests the declaration of nuisance and/or the assessment of costs, he or she shall file a written request for review with the Neighborhood Services Manager, or a written request for a hearing before the Referee, within ten (10) days from the service of a notice of assessment. -24- (c) Such assessment shall constitute an automatic, perpetual lien in the several amounts assessed against each property from the date the assessment became due until paid. Such liens shall have priority over all other liens except general taxes and prior special assessments. In case any such assessment that has not been set for hearing pursuant to Subsection (b) above is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been certified by the Neighborhood Services Manager and billed by the Financial Officer or his or her designee to the owner by deposit in the United States mail, addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls of the County Assessor, or such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known, the Financial Officer or his or her designee shall be authorized to certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments, giving the name of the owner of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and in the same form as required for the certification of taxes. The County Treasurer, upon the receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place the same upon the delinquent tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as taxes are collected with such charges as may by law be made by the Treasurer, and all the laws of the State for the assessment and collection of the general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 67. That Section 20-107(d) and (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-107. Parking space obstructions. . . . (d) If the property owner contests the declaration of nuisance and/or the assessment of costs of the City's abatement, he or she shall file a written request for review with the Neighborhood Services Manager, or a written request for a hearing before the Referee, within ten (1) days from the service of a notice of assessment. (e) Any cost assessment imposed under this Section shall constitute an automatic, perpetual lien in the several amounts assessed against each property from the date the assessment became due until paid. Such liens shall have priority over all other liens except general taxes and prior special assessments. In case any such assessment that has not been set for hearing pursuant to Subsection (d) above is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been certified by the Neighborhood Services Manager and billed by the Financial Officer or his or her designee to the owner by deposit in the United States mail, addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls of the County Assessor, or such other, more recent address as -25- may be available to the City, and any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known, the Financial Officer or his or her designee shall be authorized to certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments, giving the name of the owner of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and in the same form as required for the certification of taxes. The County Treasurer, upon the receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place the same upon the delinquent tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as taxes are collected with such charges as may by law be made by the treasurer, and all the laws of the State for the assessment and collection of the general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 68. That Section 20-114(e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-114. Procedures in general. . . . (e) Actions under this Article shall be filed by the City Attorney’s Office. Section 69. That Section 20-115(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-115. Posting of notice of commencement of public nuisance actions. . . . (b) An action under this Article shall be commenced by the filing of a verified complaint or a complaint verified by an affidavit, which may be accompanied by a motion for a temporary abatement order, through the City Attorney’s Office. No such action shall be commenced unless each of the separate violations asserted in support of such action has resulted in the issuance of a summons and complaint charging at least one (1) person responsible for such separate violation with the commission of the same. Section 70. That Section 21-87(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 21-87. Membership; term. -26- (a) The Committee shall consist of six (6) members. The Financial Officer shall serve as a standing member of the Committee, and the remaining five (5) members shall be appointed by the City Council. Of the appointed members, three (3) shall be employees who are covered by the Retirement Plan. The fourth appointee shall either be an employee who is covered by the Retirement Plan or an individual who is a taxpaying elector of the City. The fifth appointee shall be a retired member of the Plan who is receiving a monthly retirement benefit from the Plan. Section 71. That Section 21-89 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 21-89. Minutes; annual report; work plan. The Financial Officer shall take and file minutes in accordance with the requirements of § 2-73 of the Code. On or before January 31 of each year, the Committee shall file a report with the City Clerk setting forth the activities of the Committee for the previous year. On or before November 30 of each year, the Committee shall file a work plan with the City Clerk for the following year. Section 72. That Section 22-33 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-33. Designation of officers to supervise improvements. All local improvements shall be constructed under the general direction and control of the City Manager and in the immediate charge, direction and supervision of the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation and, if applicable, the Utilities Executive Director or other officer designated for such purpose in accordance with maps, plans and specifications adopted by the City Council. The work of construction may be by independent contract or by the City as determined by the City Council. Section 73. That Section 22-35(a), (b), and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-35. Method of initiating improvements. (a) A public work or improvement, the cost of which in whole or in part is to be assessed by the City against the property specially benefitted, may be initiated by the City Council on recommendation of the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation or on petition of the property owners affected. (b) In improvements to be initiated by the City Council, the City Council after receiving a recommendation from the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation shall adopt a resolution which shall state the need and the nature and -27- location of the improvements without mentioning minor details and shall describe the area to be assessed for the improvements by boundaries or other brief description. The resolution shall direct the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation to prepare and present to the City Council the following: . . . (c) In improvements to be initiated by petition of property owners, the petition shall be on a form to be supplied by the City. The petition shall be subscribed by the owners of at least one-third (a) of the frontage to be assessed for improvements to streets including streetlighting and by the owners of at least one (1) percent of the area of the property to be assessed for any other improvements. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt policies to be used in the review of such petitions. Upon receiving a petition, and after review of the same, the City Council may adopt a resolution which shall state the nature and location of the improvements and describe the area to be assessed for the improvements by boundaries or other brief description, and direct the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation to prepare and present to the City Council a report as in the case of City Council initiated improvements. Thereafter, the procedures shall be the same as in the case of improvement districts initiated by the City Council provided that the City Council may at any time determine by resolution that the acquisition of the proposed improvements is not feasible or desirable for reasons stated in the resolution. Any such resolution shall terminate the proceedings. Section 74. That Section 22-36 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-36. Maximum cost of improvements. The total cost of the improvements shall not exceed by more than ten (10) percent the amount of the estimate of the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation for the cost of the improvement, unless the City Council shall find that the public interest requires the making or acquisition of the improvement or any part at such higher cost. The foregoing limitation on maximum cost for improvements shall not apply when all the owners of property to be assessed in a district expressly waive the limitation in writing. Section 75. That Section 22-39 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-39. Advertising for bids; letting of contracts. All contracts for local improvements shall be let by the Purchasing Agent upon the determination of the City Council after the passage of the original ordinance forming the district. All contracts shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder as determined in the sole discretion of the City Council. Contracts shall be let after -28- public advertisement for bids has been published twice in an official newspaper published in the City. The advertisements for bids shall be published at least a week apart. The date for opening of bids shall be not less than ten (10) days after the first publication. In all advertisements, the City Council shall reserve the right to reject all bids. Upon rejecting all bids or receiving no bids, the City Council may again advertise without further ordinance or may order the work done by hiring labor and arranging for purchasing necessary material under the supervision of the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements may be installed by the City utilizing City employees if the City Council so orders. Section 76. That Section 22-42 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-42. Council may require utility connections. Before constructing any permanent paving under the provisions of this Article, the City Council may order the owners of abutting property to connect their several premises with sewer, gas or water mains or with any other commodity in the street in front of the several premises. Upon the default of the owners to make such connections thirty (30) days after such order, the City Council may contract and make said connections at such distance under such regulations and in accordance with specifications as may be prescribed by the City Council, and the whole cost of said connections shall be assessed against the premises with which the connection is made. Any number of said connections may be ordered in pursuance of the regulations adopted as recommended by the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation. The cost shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as provided in this Article for assessment and collection of the cost of other special improvements and shall be included in the assessments made against the particular property in the district proceedings. Section 77. That Section 22-83(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-83. Payments from surplus and deficiency fund. . . . (b) Any portion of the costs of a district payable by the City at large because of the limitation based on value of property as provided in § 22-90, costs of improvements in excess of the estimate of the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation as provided in § 22-36 or reductions in assessments made by the City Council, if directed by the City Council, may be paid from the surplus and deficiency fund. If any such portion is later recovered from the owners of property -29- in the district, the amount of such recovery shall be repaid into such surplus and deficiency fund. Section 78. That Section 22-111(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-111. Special assessment bonds and multi-year financial obligations authorized. . . . (b) All such bonds shall be issued upon estimates of the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation or, if applicable, the Utilities Executive Director, approved by the City Council. The Financial Officer shall preserve a record of the same in a suitable book kept for that purpose. All such bonds shall be subscribed by the Mayor and countersigned by the Financial Officer, with the corporate seal affixed and attested by the City Clerk. Facsimile signatures may be used. Section 79. That Section 23-61(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -30- Sec. 23-61. Permit required; application. (a) Any person desiring to occupy any parking space on a public street in the City in connection with the maintenance, erection, construction, remodeling or demolition of any building or improvement on property abutting thereto shall make written application to the Parking Services Manager for an obstruction permit on a form prepared and provided by the City. Section 80. That Section 23-62(7), (8) and (9) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-62. Contents of application. . . . (7) a description of the proposed obstruction sufficient to fully inform the City Manager of the character and physical attributes of the obstruction and the Parking Services Manager to perform a complete and competent examination of the application under the criteria contained in Subsection 23-83(a); (8) evidence of the applicant's ability and willingness to provide liability insurance insuring the City in a sum not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000), proof of which insurance shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of the permit, unless the requirement to provide such insurance is waived by the Parking Services Manager; (9) a statement that the applicant agrees to be responsible for barricading the parking spaces in a manner acceptable to the Parking Services Manager; Section 81. That Section 23-63 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-63. Fees and conditions. (a) At the time of issuance of a permit hereunder, and at the time of any renewal or modification of such permit, the applicant shall pay an application fee and an additional fee per parking space per day to help defray the costs incurred by the City in processing and administering the permit program, including, without limitation, the cost of enforcement and the cost of inspection of the spaces that are the subject of the application; provided, however, that the Parking Services Manager may waive part or all of the fees for governmental agencies. The amount of said fees shall be determined and established by the City Manager, pursuant to the provisions of Article I of Chapter 7.5. -31- (b) The Parking Services Manager may condition the issuance and use of an obstruction permit on such requirements as are reasonably necessary to protect the safety of persons and property and the use and control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, including limitations on time, place and allowed activities; payment of fees; obtaining any additional permits from other departments or agencies as necessary; and providing any fencing or barriers that the Parking Services Manager requires in order to protect pedestrian and vehicular traffic from the obstruction and associated dangers. If required, the permit holder shall build and maintain a good and substantial, protected walkway around the obstruction. The permit holder shall adequately light and mark the obstruction to protect pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Section 82. That Section 23-64 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-64. Term of permit; renewal and revocation. (a) A permit may be issued only for the period of time necessary to complete the purpose for which the permit was issued. No permit issued under Subsection 23- 61(a) shall be issued for more than ninety (90) days; provided, however, that the Parking Services Manager may renew any such permit for one (1) or more additional ninety-day periods upon written application and payment of the applicable renewal fee. The term of a permit issued under Subsection 23-61(b) shall be limited in accordance with Paragraphs (2) and (3) thereof. (b) Any permit issued under this Article may be denied or revoked by the Parking Services Manager if the holder fails to obtain any other necessary permits, fails to conduct the activity in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, violates any of the provisions of this Article, state law, local ordinances or the applicable rules and regulations of the City, or if the work allowed by the permit unduly interferes with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or otherwise poses a threat to the health and safety of the public. Section 83. That Section 23-94(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-94. Investigation of application; permit fee; revocation. (a) The application for a permit for a neighborhood entry shall be made to the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall make or cause to be made an investigation of the information contained in the application and prior to the issuance of a permit shall determine that the applicant is a qualified neighborhood organization and that the proposed neighborhood sign does not constitute a nuisance or destroy or impair the use of the right-of-way or any City property by the public or constitute a traffic hazard and complies with all standards and criteria of this Division. In investigating whether the application for a neighborhood entry sign conforms to the standards and -32- criteria of this Division, the City Engineer shall consult with the Traffic Engineer and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Section 84. That the definitions of “Director” and “Service Area” contained in Section 23-192 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Director shall mean the Director of Community Services of the City. Service Unit shall mean Community Services of the City. Section 85. That Section 23-193(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-193. Prohibited acts; permits. . . . (b) Unless a sign has been posted by the Service Unit that the particular natural area or a portion thereof is open for such use, it shall be unlawful to: . . . (c) It shall be unlawful to engage in any activity within or upon a natural area when a sign has been posted by the Service Unit that the particular area or a portion of the area is closed for such use, based upon a determination by the Service Unit that such prohibition is appropriate to protect the safety or well-being of persons or animals; the natural area, related facilities or any other City property or facility; the use and enjoyment of said areas or facilities by the general public; the needs and objectives of the City in maintaining and operating the same; and/or the natural environment in general. (d) Except as authorized by a permit obtained for such use from the Service Unit, it shall be unlawful to: (1) Enter a natural area during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., except: a. As otherwise permitted by a sign posted by the Service Unit opening or closing the particular area or a portion of the area for public use for a specified time or during specified hours; or . . . (e) Research or public safety related training activities involving any of the activities prohibited in this Article, including without limitation the training of search and rescue dogs off-leash, may be authorized by the Service Unit by permit in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in § 23-194. -33- Section 86. That Section 23-194(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-194. Natural areas permit process. (a) Any person or organization seeking a permit for the purposes set forth in this Article shall apply for a natural area permit by filing a verified application with the Service Unit on a form supplied by the Service Unit, except that permit applications for which a routine permit process has been established by the Director under § 23-195 below shall be governed by and processed in accordance with the routine permit process. A fully completed application must be filed with the Director not less than seven (7) business days nor more than ninety (90) business days before the date on which a permitted activity is to commence; provided, however, that the Service Unit may accept and process an application that is filed after the filing deadline if, in the judgment of the Director, there are sufficient time and sufficient resources for the Service Unit to process and investigate the application and make any preparations necessary for the activity. Section 87. That the definitions of “Director” and “Service Area” contained in Section 23-202 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Director shall mean the Director of Community Services. Service Unit shall mean Community Services. Section 88. That Section 23-203(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-203. Prohibited acts; permits. . . . (b) Unless a sign has been posted by the Service Unit that the particular recreation area or a portion thereof is open for such use, it shall be unlawful to: . . . (c) No person shall engage in any conduct or activity within or upon a recreation area when a sign has been posted by the Service Unit that such conduct or activity is not allowed in the recreation area or a portion of the area, based on a determination by the Service Unit that such prohibition is appropriate to protect the safety or well-being of persons, or animals, or to protect or preserve the recreation area and related facilities, or any other City property or facility, the use and enjoyment of the same by the general public, or the needs and objectives of the City in maintaining and operating the same. -34- (d) Except as authorized by a permit obtained for such use from the Service Unit, it shall be unlawful to: . . . (e) Research or public safety related training activities involving any of the activities prohibited in this Article, including without limitation the training of search and rescue dogs off-leash, may be authorized by the Service Unit by permit in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in § 23-204. Section 89. That Section 23-204(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-204. Recreation area permit process. (a) Any person or organization seeking a permit for the purposes set forth in this Article shall apply for a recreation area permit by filing a verified application with the Service Unit on a form supplied by the Service Unit. An application must be submitted and completed not less than ten (10) business days before the date on which a permitted activity is to commence; provided, however, that the Service Area may accept and process an application that is filed after the filing deadline if, in the judgment of the Director, there are sufficient time and sufficient resources to process and investigate the application and make any preparations necessary for the activity. Section 90. That the definition of “Art in Public Places Coordinator (or APP Coordinator) contained in Section 23-302 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Art in Public Places Coordinator (or APP Coordinator) shall mean a City staff member designated by the Director of Community Services as the Art in Public Places Coordinator. The Coordinator will serve the APP Board as City staff liaison. Section 91. That Section 23-307 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-307. Administration. The Director of Community Services shall administer the provisions of this Article in a manner consistent with the APP Guidelines. The guidelines shall provide for the selection of works of art; the placement and presentation of works of art; the maintenance, repair and care of works of art; the payment for works of art; the acceptance of donations of works of art; and such other matters as the Director deems necessary and appropriate. The Director shall designate an APP Coordinator who will serve as staff liaison to the APP Board. -35- Section 92. That Section 24-1(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-1. Signs on streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way prohibited; removal; exceptions; permit. . . . (2) Traffic control signs erected by the City and directional or informational signs erected by the City or other governmental entities which relate to facilities and areas owned, maintained or operated by the City or such other governmental entities. Before any directional or informational sign of a governmental entity other than the City is erected, the governmental entity must obtain a permit authorizing the sign from the City Traffic Engineer. . . . Section 93. That Section 24-91 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-91. List of street names. All new arterial and collector streets, as defined in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, are to be named from the list of street names approved by the City Council. The list of street names shall be composed of names of natural areas, natural features, historic and/or well-known places, citizens of the City or Growth Management Area whom the City Council would like to honor posthumously, and such other names of places, things or deceased persons as the City Council may approve. With respect to citizens of the City whom the City Council desires to honor posthumously, such citizens must have devoted much time and effort to the City either as a former City officer or employee, a former Colorado State University officer or employee, a person important in the founding of the City or a former citizen of exemplary character deserving of special recognition. The list of street names shall be adopted and amended by the City Council by resolution. All new arterial and collector streets which are not extensions of existing arterial and collector streets must be named from the foregoing list of street names, and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall strike names from the list as they are used in the naming of such new arterial and collector streets and shall promptly file an updated list in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 94. That Section 24-131 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -36- Sec. 24-131. Statement of legislative finding. Public necessity and convenience require that a portion of State Highway No. 1, which lies in and on a street of the City, be widened and reconstructed in accordance with the plans and specifications of Project No. C 06-0001-17 of the State Department of Transportation. Section 95. That Section 24-133 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-133. Right of State Department of Highways recognized. The City recognizes the right of the State Department of Transportation and its contractor or contractors to proceed at once or at any time in the future to construct the connecting links of State Highway No. 1 in the City on the portions of the street involved. Section 96. That Section 24-136(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-136. Parking and speed limits. . . . (c) Upon the basis of engineering and traffic investigations by the State Department of Transportation and the City, it has been determined that a reasonable and true prima facie speed limit on portions of the street shall be a minimum of thirty-five (35) miles per hour in the business district and a minimum of thirty-five (35) miles per hour on the remaining portions, provided that standard signs are erected giving notice of the authorized speed as provided by C.R.S. Section 97. That Section 24-137 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-137. Right of State Department of Transportation to purchase property recognized. In order to establish the streets and connecting links, it will be necessary to take and purchase certain property included within the above described right-of-way. By adoption of this Article, the City recognizes the right of the State Department of Transportation to purchase or condemn any such private property. Section 98. That Section 25-166(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 25-166. Preservation of returns and other records; confidentiality. -37- . . . (b) Except in accordance with a court order or as otherwise provided by law, the Financial Officer shall not divulge or make known in any way any financial information obtained from any investigation conducted by the Finance Department or disclosed in any document, report or return filed in connection with the taxes covered by this Article. The persons charged with custody of such documents, reports, investigations and returns shall not be required to produce any of them or evidence of anything contained therein in any action or proceeding in any court, except on behalf of the Financial Officer in any action or proceeding under the provisions of this Article to which the Financial Officer or the City is a party or on behalf of any party to an action or proceeding under the provisions of this Article when the report of facts shown thereby is directly involved in such action or proceeding, in either of which events the court may require the production of and may admit in evidence so much of the reports or of the facts shown thereby as are pertinent to the action or proceeding and no more. Section 99. That Section 25-190(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 25-190. Lien on construction improvements. . . . (b) The Building Official shall not make a final inspection on or issue a certificate of occupancy for any construction project unless a person has paid or arranged with the Financial Officer to pay all taxes due under this Article on all fixtures, minerals and other construction materials and supplies or tangible personal property used in or connected with the construction, reconstruction, alteration, expansion, modification or improvement of any building, dwelling or other structure or improvement to real property in the City. Section 100. That Section 26-719 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-719. Discontinuance of service at user's request. All orders for termination of water, wastewater or electric service shall be made to the Utilities Customer Service Office at least three (3) days prior to the desired discontinuance date. The user will be liable in any event for utility ser-vices consumed until the final meter reading is obtained. The termination notice given by the user does not relieve the user in any way from any minimum charges or payments guaranteed under a service contract. Section 101. That Section 27-59(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -38- Sec. 27-59. Notice of violation; removal authority and procedure; lien on property. . . . (c) Any cost assessment shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against each property from the date the assessment became due until paid and shall have priority over all other liens, except general taxes and prior special assessment liens. Any such assessment shall be billed by the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services, or the City Forester, or his or her designees, to the owner by deposit in the United States mail addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls or such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and to any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known. If any such assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been billed, the Financial Officer, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to thereafter certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments so billed, giving the name of the owner as it appears of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of the assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and form as required for the certification of other taxes. The County Treasurer, upon receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place it upon the tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as general property taxes are collected together with any charges as may by law be made by the County Treasurer, and all laws of the State for the assessment and collection of general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes and the redemption thereof, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 102. That Section 27-60 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 27-60. Time limit for compliance; appeals; hearings. Upon receipt of a notice given by the City Forester pursuant to § 27-18, 27-57 or 27-58, the property owner shall have the right to contest the order of the City Forester to the Referee by filing with the Referee a petition for review at the office of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. A written request for a hearing before the Referee must be submitted within five (5) days from the date of service of the order. Pending a final determination by the Municipal Court Referee, the property owner need not complete the work required to be done by the City Forester, unless such work involves a violation of Paragraph 27-57(a)(5). If the Referee sustains all or any part of the order of the City Forester, the Referee shall set the time within which the required work shall be completed, and the property owner must complete the required work within such time. -39- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -40- DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Daylan Figgs Justin Scharton AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD) holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I (north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012, authorizes an amendment to the easement to grant permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Daylan Figgs Justin Scharton AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD) holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I (north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This amendment to the easement grants permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins placed a CE on the Hansen Ranch property, owned by Myrna Hansen, in 2004 as part of efforts to conserve land in the Timnath Community Separator area. The Hansen CE, along with the contiguous North and South Cribari CEs, also conserved by the City, are within the Town of Timnath’s Growth Management Area. In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on the south parcel (referred to as Parcel II) of the Hansen property. Following the foreclosure, the Hansens denied the Bank access to Parcel II via the driveway from County Road 42 through Parcel I. A temporary agreement was reached between the Hansens and the Bank that allows the Bank to access Parcel II until May 31, 2012. However, the Hansens are not interested in a long-term agreement and plan to restore the driveway to a two-track farm road in 2012. The Bank contacted the City to determine what steps were necessary to construct a new driveway to Parcel II. Upon review of the CE deed, NAD staff determined that the CE permitted construction of a new driveway for access to Parcel II, but only as part of the construction of a second residence on Parcel II, which the Bank was not planning to do. Therefore, an amendment to the CE would be necessary to allow a new driveway to be constructed. As such, NAD staff has worked collaboratively with the Bank and Hansens to create a package of amendments that would restore access to Parcel II, protect the Conservation Values of the Property, create a net conservation gain to the City, reflect separate ownership of the Parcels, and comply with the NAD Conservation Easement Amendment Policy and Procedure document. The main components of the amendment include: • The maintenance of one conservation easement that reflects separate ownership of the two parcels, allowing for independent management and enforcement of Parcel I and Parcel II • Removal of the development right for a secondary residence with a 1,000 square foot footprint on Parcel II • Granting permission to construct a new driveway approximately 2,200 feet in length on Parcel II with strict requirements as to the location, design, and construction materials to be used • Requiring Hansen’s to restore approximately 1,000 linear feet of existing driveway across Parcel I to a two- track “farm road” by 2013 • Addition of language that allows City to enter either Parcel without notice should staff have reason to believe a violation has taken place or is occurring • Addition of City oversight and approval authority with regard to oil and gas development on the Parcels • Strengthening Weed Control language COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 14 • Addition of City oversight and approval authority for granting Utility Easements and Roads on the Parcels • Addition of language to clarify easement deed position on Public Roads and Improvements on Parcels • Other minor clarifications and clean-up items, including legal description correction • Update Management Plan for both Parcels While the Hansen CE contains contemporary language for the time period it was written, standard conservation easement language has evolved and is more comprehensive in CEs written today. In addition, every CE contains language that has been negotiated between the City and the individual landowner, inherently making each CE unique. The Hansen CE is representative of other older CEs in the City’s portfolio that may have older language that may not be in line with contemporary standards. With any opportunity to amend a CE, NAD staff will make every effort to negotiate with a willing landowner to update easement language to current form and standards. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There will be no economic impact to the City with approval of the amended conservation easement. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS While there will be approximately 0.4 mile of new gravel driveway built on Parcel II, the impact to the environment is minimal as the route is within an agricultural pasture and the existing vegetation is primarily non-native smooth brome grass. This minor impact is mitigated by extinguishing the development right on Parcel II and by requiring the Hansen’s to restore the existing driveway on Parcel I to a two-track “farm road”. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its March 14, 2012 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amended conservation easement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2, Property Map 3. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, March 14, 2012 ORDINANCE NO. 031, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT HELD BY THE CITY ON THE HANSEN PROPERTY WHEREAS, on July 21, 2004, Myrna Hansen granted the City a conservation easement (the “Conservation Easement”) on two parcels of farm land that she owned in the Timnath Community Separator area, as described on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference (“Parcel I” and “Parcel II”); and WHEREAS, the Conservation Easement is managed by the City’s Natural Areas Department; and WHEREAS, at the time Mrs. Hansen granted the Conservation Easement, Parcel II was encumbered by a Deed of Trust held by First National Bank of Omaha (the “Bank”), and the Bank subordinated its Deed of Trust to the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Bank foreclosed on Parcel II and took title to it on July 13, 2011, through a Public Trustee’s foreclosure sale; and WHEREAS, after the Bank foreclosed on Parcel II, the Hansens did not want to permit the Bank to access Parcel II via an existing driveway on Parcel I; and WHEREAS, under the terms of the Conservation Easement, the owner of Parcel II is allowed to construct another driveway on Parcel II to serve Parcel II, but only as part of the construction of a second residence on Parcel II, which the Bank was not planning to do; and WHEREAS, the Bank asked the City’s Natural Areas staff to amend the Conservation Easement to allow construction of the second driveway, and in exchange the Bank agreed to give up the right to build a second residence on Parcel II; and WHEREAS, through a series of negotiations with the Bank and the Hansens, staff has developed an Amended and Restated Deed of Conservation Easement (the “Amended Conservation Easement”), a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for review; and WHEREAS, the Amended Conservation Easement would address not only the second driveway and second residence on Parcel II, but would also update the terms of the original Conservation Easement to allow the two Parcels to be managed separately, and to strengthen the City’s oversight and enforcement capability of matters including oil and gas development, weed control, and easements and road on the Parcels; and WHEREAS, the City Council is being asked to approve the Amended Conservation Easement by ordinance because by changing the terms of the Conservation Easement, even though City staff expects a net benefit to the City from the proposed changes, the City is giving up some rights in real property that were previously granted to it; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on March 14, 2012, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend approval of the Amended Conservation Easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the amendments to the Conservation Easement as provided herein are in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an Amended Conservation Easement in substantially the form as is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or to effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Parcels conserved by the Amended Conservation Easement, as long as such changes do not materially reduce the size or change the character of the property. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk EXHIBIT A (Property Description) Parcel I: A parcel of land situate in the Southwest ¼ of Section 23 and in the Northeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 26, all in Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the South line of said Southwest ¼ as bearing S 88º56’31” E, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N 00º53’19” E 35.00 feet, and again S 88º56’31” E 1347.69 feet from the Southwest corner of said Section 23, and run thence S 88º 56’31” E 1287.77 feet; thence S 00º 46’03” W 35.00 feet to the North ¼ corner of said Section 26; thence along the East line of the Northwest ¼ of said Section 26, S 00º42'34" W 999.64 feet; thence S 78º00’18” W 1321.03 feet; thence N 00º45’05” E 1333.00 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel II: A parcel of land situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 23, and the Northwest quarter of Section 26. Township 7 North, Range 68 West, of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows: Considering the North line of said Northwest quarter of Section 26 as bearing North 88º56’31” West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 26, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; thence along the West line of said Southwest quarter of Section 23, North 00º53’19” East 35.00 feet; thence South 88º56’31” East 1347.69 feet; thence South 00º45’05” West 1333.00 feet; thence North 78º00’18” East 1321.03 feet to the East line of said Northwest quarter of Section 26; thence along said East line, South 00º42’34” West 1643.99 feet to the Center quarter corner of said Section 26; thence along the South line of said Northwest quarter of Section 26, North 89º04’50” West 1319.69 feet to the Center – West sixteenth corner; thence along the West line of the East half of said Northwest quarter of Section 26, North 00º45’05” East 2646.91 feet to the North line of said Northwest quarter of Section 26; thence along said North line, North 88º56’31” West 1317.77 feet to the true point of beginning. The above parcel contains 47.19 acres more or less, and is subject to all right- of-way, easements and restrictions now in use or on record. DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Rick Richter, Randy Maizland Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer is a road improvement project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on the north. In 2010, Ordinance No. 085, 2010, authorized the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right-of-way area containing approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) facility and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, this acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous acquisitions for the Project. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Rick Richter, Randy Maizland, Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer (the “Project”) is a road improvement project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on the north. In 2010, City Council passed Ordinance No. 085, 2010, authorizing the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right of way area containing approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) facility (State Highway 287) and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, this acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous acquisitions for the Project. It is required that City staff obtain authorization to use eminent domain proceedings for this additional acquisition since it was not included in Ordinance No. 085, 2010. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The purpose of the Project is to improve the safety, operations and aesthetics between Vine Drive and the Hickory/Conifer intersection. The project includes storm drainage utilities, curb, gutter and roadway paving, redefinition and consolidation of driveways, bike lanes and sidewalks, new streetscape and other necessary improvements. The area of the additional acquisition needed for the Project is located on a property at 742 North College Avenue. The City has already acquired a small area of fee simple property and a temporary construction easement from the owner of this property. The fee simple acquisition was located on the southern portion of this property to accommodate a pedestrian bridge to be built over the Lake Canal ditch. There is an existing City-owned 8” water line running parallel to College along the frontage of this parcel which also crosses the ditch. It was discovered through potholing that the planned pedestrian bridge foundation would be in conflict with the water line. City Engineering staff obtained a quote from the Project contractor to relocate the water line. The quoted price was a minimum of $106,000. A cost estimate was also prepared for shifting the bridge to the east ten feet rather than relocating the water line. This would require the acquisition of additional fee simple area from the property owner. The estimate for this option came out to be approximately $35,000 which included the cost of acquisition and additional construction costs. The decision was made to pursue acquiring the additional property and realign the pedestrian bridge. The owner of the property was contacted with the new proposal and has not raised any objections to the additional acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) facility (State Highway 287) and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, all aspects of the Project, including property acquisitions, must comply with procedures for federally funded projects. The acquisitions for this Project conform to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 as Amended (Public Law 91- 646). In accordance with these regulations, the City must inform property owners about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado Statute in the official Notice of Intent Letter. The authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official step in the acquisition phase and happens prior to the appraisals. City staff notified the affected property owner by certified mail of this request to Council for authorization of the use of eminent domain proceedings prior to first reading of this Ordinance. During recent conversations, the owner has indicated a willingness to work with the City on this new acquisition. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 15 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Overall Project In 2005, Fort Collins voters approved a 1/4 cent sales tax to fund capital projects – Building on Basics (BOB). One of the transportation projects funded through this package is “North College Avenue Improvements Phase 2 – Vine Drive to Conifer.” This project is the next phase of the improvements that were initially funded through the Building Community Choices (BCC) capital plan, which expired in 2005. The BCC program funded improvements from Jefferson to Vine Drive. Anticipated Funding Sources: • City Funds/BOB: $4,780,000 • Residual funds from Northern Colorado Truck Route Relocation Project: $1,800,000 • State/Federal funds: $1,549,000 • Urban Renewal Authority (URA) funds: $2,700,000 (The timing and exact amount of URA funds is contingent upon URA Board approval and revenue generated within the plan area. ) Complete cost estimate: $10.8 million (estimate does not include medians or edge improvements north of Conifer Street) Additional Acquisition City Engineering staff obtained a quote from the Project contractor to relocate the water line. The quoted price was a minimum of $106,000. A cost estimate was also prepared for shifting the bridge to the east ten feet rather than relocating the water line. This would require the acquisition of additional fee simple area from the property owner. The estimate for this option came out to be approximately $35,000 which included the cost of acquisition and additional construction costs. After evaluating the two options, City staff’s decision was to pursue acquiring additional property to shift the pedestrian bridge further to the east and avoid the water line. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS With the project adjacent to a state facility and having federal dollars as part of the overall project budget, several environmental assessments were conducted along this section of North College as required by CDOT. Assessments evaluating the project’s impacts to air quality, noise pollution, hazardous waste, lead based paint, threatened or endangered species, wetlands, archaeology, paleontology, historic bridges, and history were conducted. A majority of the assessments resulted in no mitigation necessary. The hazardous waste and lead based paint investigations did prompt additional examination to determine appropriate mitigation for the existing contaminants within the project limits. Due to the existence of contaminated soils at one property, a permanent easement, as opposed to ROW, will be purchased at the request of CDOT. Additional mitigation to address remaining contaminants will be performed during the construction phase of the project. No environmental concerns were identified within the area of the property affected by this additional acquisition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 15 PUBLIC OUTREACH City staff has held numerous public meetings in 2010, 2011 and early 2012. These meetings began in the conceptual phase of the project to include public input as to what improvements were most desirable in the area. City staff has also met with individual property and business owners in the area to discuss the Project and any concerns related to the upcoming improvements. City staff has also been present at a number of North Fort Collins Business Association Meetings to present the Project and discuss the planned changes in the area. City staff has also specifically discussed the realignment of the pedestrian bridge with the owner of the property affected by this new acquisition. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Map 2. Pedestrian Bridge Detail ORDINANCE NO. 032, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS OF CERTAIN LANDS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - VINE TO CONIFER WHEREAS, the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project (the “Project”) is currently under construction; and WHEREAS, the Project involves the construction of curbs, gutters, driveway, bike lanes, sidewalks, streetscape, and other necessary improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project will improve the safety, operations, and aesthetics of North College between Vine Drive and the Hickory/Conifer intersection; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to acquire certain property rights hereinafter described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the purpose of constructing the Project; and WHEREAS, the City will negotiate in good faith for the acquisition of said property rights from the owner thereof; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of the property rights is desirable and necessary for the construction of the Project, is in the City’s best interest and enhances public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of such property rights may, by law, be accomplished through eminent domain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is necessary in the public interest to acquire the property rights described on Exhibit “A” for the purpose of the Project. Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney and other appropriate officials of the City to acquire said property rights for the City by eminent domain proceedings. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds, in the event that acquisition by eminent domain of the property rights described in this Ordinance is commenced, that immediate possession is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT NUMBER: AQC M455-079 PARCEL NUMBER: 106A Project Code: 16489 Date: March 20, 2012 A tract or parcel of land No. 106A of the City of Fort Collins, State of Colorado, Project No. AQC M455-079 containing 0.011 acres, more or less, being a portion of the property described in the records of the Larimer County Clerk & Recorder as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Will Subdivision, located in the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point, whence the SW corner of said Section 1 (a 3 1/4" Brass Cap in a Range Box - PLS 25372), bears S07°41'19"W, a distance of 468.78 feet, said point being on the easterly right-of-way line of N. College Avenue (US 287), also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 1. Thence S41°53'54"E, a distance of 18.54 feet; 2. Thence S00°38'34"W, a distance of 71.58 feet to the south line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of the Will Subdivision; 3. Thence along said south line, S89°21'26"E, a distance of 6.50 feet; 4. Thence N00°38'34"E, a distance of 68.52feet; 5. Thence N48°03'44"W, a distance of 25.33 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described tract or parcel of land contains 481 sq. ft. (0.011 acres), more or less. Basis of Bearings: Bearings are based on the west line of the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, bearing N00°38'34"E. The SW corner of said Section 1 is a 3 1/4" Brass Cap in a Range Box - PLS 25372, and the W1/4 corner of said Section 1 is 3" Aluminum Cap in a Range Box - PLS 20123. Prepared for and on behalf of the City of Fort Collins Micheal L. Bouchard, PLS #24941 Farnsworth Group, Inc. 3538 JFK Parkway, Suite 3 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Project No: Drawn by: Approved: Date: Revised: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WILL SUBDIVISION SW 1/4 SECTION 1, T-7-N, R-69-W OF THE 6TH PM CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL 106A EXHIBIT A THIS IS NOT A MONUMENTED SURVEY. IT IS INTENDED ONLY TO BE A GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF THE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION. TITLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. NOTE: POINT OF BEGINNING CHANGE IN COURSE ONLY LEGEND DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Helen Matson Kayla Ballard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-023 Authorizing the Lease of City-Owned Property at 812 North Shields for Up to Two Years. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2000, the City purchased the property located at 812 North Shields as part of the Operations Services Master Plan. Leasing of the property has been continual from the time of purchase. Staff recommends that the City continue to lease this site. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The purchase of this property in 2000 was part of the original Operations Services Master Plan. The property is comprised of a 1,568 square foot, 2 bedroom/1.5 baths, ranch-style single-family dwelling, in fair condition, on 3 acres of residential land with no horse facilities. The tenant maintains the open field, which reduces City ground maintenance costs. The City has leased this property since its purchase in 2000 and desires to continue leasing the property. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Rent collected from this lease will result in at least $10,500 per year as revenue to Real Estate Services. The tenant pays all utilities. Having the property occupied will eliminate costly ground maintenance and will discourage vandalism in vacant structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map RESOLUTION 2012-023 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 812 NORTH SHIELDS STREET FOR UP TO TWO YEARS WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the property at 812 North Shields Street, Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City purchased the Property in 2000 for City facilities to be constructed at a later date pursuant to the Operations Services Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has leased the Property for the last twelve years, and City staff recommends continuing to lease the Property for a period of up to two additional years at an annual rate of at least $10,500; and WHEREAS, the lease of the Property is beneficial to the City in that it will discourage vandalism and reduce the City’s costs to maintain the Property; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-114 of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to lease, for a definite term of two years of less, any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by resolution, that the lease is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that leasing the Property as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a negotiated Lease Agreement for the Property consistent with the terms of this Resolution, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, deems necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the description of the Property, so long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property to be leased. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of April A.D. 2010. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Ward Stanford AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-024 Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Maintenance of Traffic Signals Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City has a long-standing contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to maintain traffic control devices within the City’s Growth Management Area. This update increases the amount that CDOT pays the City for maintenance of signs and pavement markings to more accurately reflect actual costs incurred by the City. Under this new contract, the amount paid to the City by CDOT will increase from $193,440 to $217,568 annually. The contract is for 5 years. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This contract for the maintenance of traffic control devices on state highways within the City’s Growth Management Area has proven beneficial for both CDOT and the City. Since our citizens are the primary users of the transportation system in Fort Collins, having local control of the signals and other devices allows us to best serve our local needs. At the same time, CDOT is able to operate with less maintenance cost with less duplication of services. City staff reviewed the cost for maintenance of traffic control devices and requested an increase in payment for signing/marking based on that review. That additional payment is reflected in this updated contract. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This action will require CDOT to reimburse the City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations Department for maintenance of traffic signals, signage and pavement markings on State Highways at the rate of: 11.6 Miles of signs and markings at $321.61 per mile = $3730.66 x 12 mo. = $44,768/year. 48 Signals at $300 per month = $14,400 x 12 months = $172,800/year. Total Maximum Annual Cost = $217,568. Total 5 year contract ($217,568 x 5) = $1,087,840 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Scope of Work RESOLUTION 2012-024 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITHIN THE FORT COLLINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes Section 43-2-135(1)(i) requires the State of Colorado to install, operate, maintain and control, at State expense, all traffic control devices on the state highway system within cities and incorporated towns; and WHEREAS, the State of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) has historically contracted with the City to maintain traffic control devices with the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (“GMA”); and WHEREAS, CDOT has proposed an updated Intergovernmental Agreement, the form of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection (the “IGA:), which provides for continuation of such maintenance by the City, with updated reimbursement rates and amounts; and WHEREAS, the IGA is for a term of five years and sets a cumulative five-year maximum reimbursement at $1,087,840; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the City continue to maintain traffic control devices on CDOT rights-of-way within the Fort Collins GMA, and that the Mayor be authorized to execute the IGA between the City and CDOT in support thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into the IGA, in substantially the form as is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of April A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Courtney Levingston Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-025 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the February 16, 2012, Planning and Zoning Board Denials of Two Stand-alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305 to 1319 South Shields Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 1, 2012, an appeal of the February 16, 2012 decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standards was filed by Charles A. Bailey with Catamount Properties, Ltd. On April 3, 2012, City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Appellants notice of appeal was based on the allegation that: • The Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing; and • The Planning and Zoning Board improperly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Code and Charter At the April 3, 2012 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff, the Appellants, and the Opponents to the Appeal. In subsequent discussion at this hearing, Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing and properly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Land Use Code. City Council determined to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-025 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE FEBRUARY 16, 2012, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DENIALS OF TWO STAND-ALONE MODIFICATIONS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS LOCATED AT 1305 TO 1319 SOUTH SHIELDS STREET WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) denied a requested stand-alone modification from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B) concerning the proposed Carriage House Apartments located at 1305 to 1319 South Shields Street, and a stand-alone modification from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E) concerning the proposed Carriage House Apartments located at 1305 to 1319 South Shields Street (together referred to as the “Modifications”); and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2012, a Notice of Appeal of said decisions of the Board was filed in the Office of the City Clerk by the applicant for the Modifications, Charles A. Bailey on behalf of Catamount Properties, Ltd., alleging that the Board had failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading, and further alleging that the Board improperly interpreted and applied relevant portions of the Land Use Code in its denial of the Modifications; and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2012, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the City Council considered said appeal, reviewed the record on appeal, heard presentations by parties in interest to the appeal, and, after discussion, voted to uphold the decisions of the Board denying the Modifications; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-56(e) provides that no later than the date of its next regular meeting after the hearing on an appeal, the City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decisions on the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-56(e) of the City Code, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. That the grounds for appeal as stated in the Notice of Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code; 2. That, in reaching its decisions to deny the Modifications, the Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing; 3. That, in reaching its decision to deny the proposed modification from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B), the Board properly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code; and 4. That, in reaching its decision to deny the proposed modification from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E), the Board properly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code; and 5. That, in light of the foregoing, the February 16, 2012, decision of the Board denying the proposed modification from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B) is hereby upheld. 6. That, in light of the foregoing, the February 16, 2012, decision of the Board denying the proposed modification from Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(E) is hereby upheld. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of April A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-026 Making an Appointment to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Councilmember Lisa Poppaw’s term on the Fort Collins Housing Authority expires on May 1, 2012. Councilmember Poppaw has expressed a desire to be reappointed. This Resolution will reappoint Councilmember Poppaw to the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board of Commissioners until May 1, 2017. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Section 2-247 of the City Code provides that the Housing Authority shall consist of commissioners selected by the City Council in a manner provided by the State Statute. Section 29-4-205(3)(b) C.R.S. provides that the initial terms of the appointed commissioners shall be staggered from the date of their appointments so that, to the extent possible, the terms of an equal number of commissioners end each year and, thereafter, the term of the commissioners shall be for five years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-026 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, Section 2-247 of the City Code provides that the Housing Authority shall consist of commissioners selected by the City Council in the manner provided by state statute; and WHEREAS, the manner of selection specified in the statutes and in Section 2-247 permits the Council to either appoint its own members to serve ex-officio as the commissioners of the Authority or, in the alternative, to appoint no more than nine commissioners, one of whom may be a City official; and WHEREAS, Section 29-4-205(3)(b) C.R.S. provides that the initial terms of the appointed commissioners shall be staggered from the date of their appointments so that, to the extent possible, the terms of an equal number of commissioners end each year and, thereafter, the term of the commissioners shall be for five years; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Lisa Poppaw was appointed by the Council on May 1, 2007 to serve a five-year term on the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (the “Board”); and WHEREAS, Councilmember Lisa Poppaw’s term on the Board will expire on May 1, 2012 and she has expressed a desire to be reappointed; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to fill the vacancy on the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that Councilmember Lisa Poppaw is hereby appointed as a member of the Board of Commissioners of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, for a five-year term to begin on May 2, 2012 and expire on May 1, 2017. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of April A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk DATE: April 17, 2011 STAFF: Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18 SUBJECT Resolution 2012-027 Making an Appointment to the Parks and Recreation Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of Selena Paulsen. Mayor Pro Tem Kelly Ohlson and Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz reviewed the applications on file. The interview team is recommending Todd Galbate to fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2015. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2012-027 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Parks and Recreation Board due to the resignation of Selena Paulsen; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make an appointment to fill the vacancy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the following named person is hereby appointed to fill the current vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Board, with a term to begin immediately and to expire as set forth after the name: Parks and Recreation Board Expiration of Term Todd Galbate December 31, 2015 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 17th day of April A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Courtney Levingston, Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23 SUBJECT Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Remington Annex located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2012, the Appellants submitted five stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests to the Planning and Zoning Board; however, only two of these requests are the subject of this Notice of Appeal. One of the two modifications requests is relating to the Historic and Cultural Resources, General Standard in the Land Use Code (LUC) (Section 3.4.7(B)), regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and, regarding the preservation of structures that are officially designated on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the State Register of Historic Properties, and/or which are located within an officially designated historic district. The second modification request is for the relocation of a structure that is individually eligible for local landmark designation, and/or relocation of a structure that is designated on the National or State Registers, and/or relocation of a structure that is located within an officially designated historic district (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellants requested to redevelop the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three existing single family residences located within the Laurel School National and State Register Historic District, including one that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, and constructing one multi-family building with 42 units in their place. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered five stand-alone Modification of Standard requests, including requested modifications to LUC Sections 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicants, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five modifications of standards requests (5-1). On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board for two of these Modifications of Standard requests. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone Modifications of Standards requests in question. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Remington Annex Development project proposes to tear down the buildings and structures on three properties, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street. All three properties are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register District, established in 1980. At the time the District was established, two of the properties, at 705 and 715 Remington, were less than fifty years old (the minimum age for designation, without special consideration), and were identified as intrusions to the District. The middle property, the Button House at 711 Remington Street, was found to contribute to the district, and is designated on the National Register as a contributing element of the Laurel School National Register District. Properties designated on the National Register of Historic Places are also designated on the State Register of Historic Properties. With the exception of the two “intrusion” properties, all other properties located in the 700 block of Remington Street are designated on both the National and State Registers. Additionally, two of these other properties, 700 Remington Street and 729 Remington Street, are further designated as Fort Collins Landmarks. The properties at 705 and 711 Remington Street contain buildings and structures that are over fifty years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish or relocate these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process.” In April 2008, pursuant to the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the property at 705 Remington Street was not individually eligible for local landmark designation. In August 2011, the residence at 711 Remington Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair. The residence at 711 Remington Street April 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 23 was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that both make it individually eligible and add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and the Laurel School neighborhood context. As provided for in Chapter 14, Article IV, of the Municipal Code, on October 12, 2011 and January 11, 2012, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition or relocation of the historic dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration, including relocation to an appropriate location. At the Preliminary Hearing, a mutually agreeable solution was not identified, and the Commission moved that the application proceed to a Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing is scheduled after the receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property. For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. The General Standard pertaining to Historic and Cultural Resources, Section 3.4.7(B), describes the Code’s applicability to this proposed project. The property at 711 Remington Street meets all three criteria for applicability. The Code states: “If the project contains a site structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation…, [or] (2) is officially designated as a…state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto.” As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the National and State Register designated, and individually eligible Landmark home, at 711 Remington Street; or by providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with the code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Therefore, the Appellants chose to submit two “stand-alone” modification requests. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board denied all five Modifications of Standards requests for this project. Regarding the two modification requests that are the subject of this Notice of Appeal, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions: 1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. 2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, and voted to deny the requests for modifications of standards to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code (5-1). QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? April 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 23 ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. The Appellants allege that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. The Appellant states, “The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be blatantly incorrect...” The Appellants maintain that the Planning and Zoning Board considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellants maintain that the building at 711 Remington Street is not eligible for Fort Collins Landmark designation, stating that it does not meet the standards for designation; cite two specific comments made by the Board during the February 16, 2012 Hearing and identified in the Notice of Appeal as, “…references to certain City policy interpreted as discouraging students from bring (sic) cars to campus - in favor of zip car subscriptions - and references to potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the allegedly eligible property…”; and cite a letter from Dr. Kozial. The Appellant asserts that the Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 711 Remington structure. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the eligibility of the building at 711 Remington Street in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standards requests, as determining the eligibility of the property is not in its purview. The determination of eligibility was made in full accordance with the policies and procedures established in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. As documented in the staff report and in the Hearing Transcript, the factual information that the building is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties, and was determined to be eligible for designation, was provided to the Board in its staff report and during the February 16, 2012 Hearing before the Board. • The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to zip cars in making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests. All discussion relating to zip cars was made in the Board’s discussion of the first of the five modification of standard requests, that to Standard 4.9(D)(1) Density. During this discussion, board member Schmidt did state in reference to the proposed PDOD process that she hoped that it would encourage creativity, including zip car subscriptions. (Transcript, page 39, sentences 9-15.) • In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider references to “…potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the … property….” The only reference to the number of potential alternative designs occurs on page 47 of the Transcript, when board member Carpenter states, “I think the other thing that I would like to point out is that, incumbent on us, if we were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has shown that no feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and to find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven’t been looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated.” • In making its motion to deny the two modifications of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the letter from Dr. Kozial. While the Appellants’ attorney, Mr. Johnson did read out loud certain passages from the letter during his presentation, the Transcripts from the Hearing make it clear that the Board did not discuss this information or consider it in making its motion. B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states, “A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good” and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 711 Remington Street and April 17, 2012 -4- ITEM 23 maintaining the character of the existing Laurel School National and State Register Historic District outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at this location. The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. • On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board) grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows: Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E), the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with. LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that: The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Some of the City Plan policies listed on page 3 of the Notice of Appeal do not apply to the proposed project. The staff report specifically addresses this fact on page 17 stating, “Relationship to City Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant asserts.” Additionally, staff report to the board notes that, “the granting of two modifications, one to Section 3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report, pg. 18). April 17, 2012 -5- ITEM 23 The Planning and Zoning Boards’ discussion at the Hearing did not cover specific City Plan policies, as they relate to the two requested modifications in question. In its denial of the two stand alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal. C. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard. • The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation on February 16, 2012. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility for the residence at 711 Remington Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. D. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and relocation of the Property substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. • The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2). SUMMARY The property at 711 Remington Street is designated on the National Register of Historic Places as well as on the State Register of Historic Properties. Additionally, the residence was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the policies and procedures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that is located within the Laurel School National and State Register Historic District and/or has been determined to be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished, relocated or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements, and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the submittal of a Project Development Plan, heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny all five of the request for modifications (5-1), including the two that are the subject of this appeal, based on their determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Notice of Appeal Hearing and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal 3. Staff Report (with attachments) to the Planning and Zoning Board, dated February 16, 2012, Remington Annex Stand-Alone Modification of Standard, MOD120002 4. Letter from Dr. Kozial, City Visions, dated February 16, 2012 5. Requested Findings of Fact submitted by Applicant Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, February 16, 2012 6. Verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, February 16, 2012 7. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 8. Applicant PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 9. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Council 10. Summary of City Council Site Visit, 705, 711, 715 Remington Street April 12, 2012 (to be provided in the Council Read-Before packet, April 17, 2012) 11. Written materials submitted by Appellant for City Council to consider in deciding the Appeal, submitted prior to 12:00 p.m., the Wednesday immediately preceding the date upon which the hearing is scheduled. ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 1 PROJECT: Remington Annex –Modifications of Standards Request, MOD120002 APPLICANT: Jeff Hansen and Justin Larson Vaught Frye Larson Architects 401 West Mountain Avenue, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNER: Christian and Robin Bachelet Remington Annex, LLC 706 South College Avenue, Suite 202 Fort Collins, CO 80524 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for five stand-alone modifications; one regarding Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (N-C-B) District density standards, one for N-C-B rear-lot floor area ratio (FAR), one regarding the N-C-B dimensional standards and two relating to historic preservation standards. As proposed, the project would demolish the existing structures and combine the lots at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, constructing one multifamily building with 30 studio units, 8 one bedroom units, and 4 two bedroom units for a total of 42 units. Additionally, to meet their parking requirement, the applicant is proposing a bi-level parking garage, with one level at grade and one below grade providing a total of 65 parking spaces. The parcels are located in the N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District. The approval of these modifications is critical to project viability; that is why this request precedes the project development plan. If approved, the stand-alone modifications are valid for one year. Upon approval of this request, the applicant intends to continue to move forward with their previous Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board Review) Project Development Plan submittal and provide additional plans for approval. RECOMMENDATION: Denial Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 2 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Section 4.9 (D) contains three standards relating to density and bulk that the applicant is unable to meet in their proposal for a 42 unit multifamily project. Additionally, the applicant is unable to meet two standards contained in Section 3.4.7 regarding the preservation of an individually eligible local landmark structure that is located within the National and State Register District, to the maximum extent feasible. Due to the scale, massing and the overall divergence from the character of the Laurel School National Register District, as well as the neighborhood at large, staff is recommending denial of the proposed plan because is not equal to or better than a plan that would comply with each of the standards nor does it substantially alleviate a City-wide need or substantially further other cited City Plan policies. COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: NCB—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential converted to commercial use with Kensington Apartments to the northeast); S: NCB—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential); E: NCB—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential) with NCM—Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density District (existing single-family residential) beyond; W: CC—Community Commercial District (existing commercial and mixed-use properties) with Colorado State University beyond. All three subject properties, 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street, are located within the boundaries of the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980 (see attachment 2). Two of the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were determined to be National and State Register “intrusions” when it was established in 1980. Ten additional properties on the 700 Block of Remington Street are also listed on the National and State Register as contributing to the district. The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Additionally, the property at 711 Remington Street, also known as the Button House, was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation in August, 2011. Constructed in 1888, the Button House has unique and distinct architectural features that add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and neighborhood context. The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be eligible for individual local landmark designation. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 3 3 In October 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) held a Preliminary Hearing on the individually eligible property to explore all means of substantial preservation and moved to continue the meeting. The meeting was continued to January 2012 and the applicant and LPC did not agree upon a means to substantially preserve the structure. The Commission found that the proposed demolition of the Button House, at 711 Remington Street, does not meet the criteria contained in Section 14-72(b) (1) (b) of the Municipal Code, and the Commission moved to recommend that the application proceed to the LPC Final Hearing. A final LPC hearing can only take place after the receipt of the submittal requirements, of which include approved from the Planning and Zoning Board plans (in this instance). The plans, as proposed, do not meet Land Use Code requirements and the applicant is asking for modifications to the specific standards in which they do not meet. A neighborhood meeting was held regarding this project on November 7, 2011. Approximately 25 people were in attendance. The notes from this meeting are attached. 2. Review Criteria A. Land Use Code Section 2.8.2 – Modification of Standards: (H) Step 8 (Standards): The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 4 4 in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). B. Citation of the Standards Relating to the Five Modifications: Section 4.9 (D)(1): Density. Minimum lot area shall be equivalent to the total floor area of the building(s), but not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. For the purposes of calculating density, "total floor area" shall mean the total gross floor area of all principal buildings as measured along the outside walls of such buildings, including each finished or unfinished floor level, plus the total gross floor area of the ground floor of any accessory building larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet, plus that portion of the floor area of any second story having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7½) feet located within any such accessory building located on the lot. (Open balconies and basements shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating density). Section 4.9(D)(5): Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Lots are subject to a maximum FAR of thirty-three hundredths (0.33) on the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot as it existed on October 25, 1991. The lot area used as the basis for the FAR calculation shall be considered the minimum lot size within the zone district. Section 4.9(D) (6)(d): (6) Dimensional Standards. Minimum side yard width shall be five (5) feet for all interior side yards. Whenever any portion of a wall or building exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height, such portion of the wall or building shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot, beyond the minimum required, for each two (2) feet or fraction thereof of wall or building height that exceeds eighteen (18) feet in height. Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen (15) feet on the street side of any Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 5 5 corner lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, minimum side yard width for school and place of worship uses shall be twenty-five (25) feet (for both interior and street sides). Section 3.4.7(B): General Standard. If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto. Section 3.4.7 (E): Relocation or Demolition. A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. 3. First Modification – Section 4.9(D) (1) – Density: A. Standard This standard requires that buildings in the N-C-B District have a total lot area equal to the total floor area of the project (1:1 ratio). That is to say that a 19,897 square foot lot is allowed a maximum of 19,897 square feet of floor area. B. Proposal The proposed total floor area of the project is 38,662 square feet. The lot is a total of 19,897 square feet. As proposed: the first floor contains 14,803 square feet o 3,973 square feet of residential floor area o 10,830 square feet of at grade parking garage floor area Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 6 6 the second floor contains 13,290 square feet and the third floor contains 10, 569 square feet of floor area. (See attachment 10. Fig. 2A) C. Extent of the Modification The first modification would permit the proposed multifamily development to have an additional 18,765 square feet of floor area in excess of the 19,897 square feet allowable per the standard. This is representative of a 1.94 overall lot density exceeding the standard by 94% or practically almost twice as much as would otherwise be permitted. D. Applicant’s Request In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (2) of the Land Use Code, the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Although the building exceeds the maximum floor area allowed by 94%, the applicant contends that, “the granting of the modification will enable implementation of the various portions of the Fort Collins City Plan… and also help this area of the NCB District to begin to function as more effective transitional zone.” The applicant’s narrative for the first modification request is as follows: The Fort Collins Land Use Code Division 4.9 (A) states that the purpose of the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (NCB) is to "...provide a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones..." In the particular area in which the proposed Remington Annex project is located this transition occurs over the span of only four-hundred feet with the Community Commercial District (CC) to the west and the Neighborhood Conservation, Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 7 7 Medium Density District (NCM) to the east (refer to attached figure 2A). The properties adjacent to the west side of the proposed project have been identified in the Fort Collins City Plan as a Targeted Redevelopment Area. According to Policy LIV 5.1 the purpose of this designation is to promote higher density redevelopment and infill. The attached figure 2A illustrates that, for the most part, this redevelopment and infill has yet to take place. Division 4.18(E): Development Standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code does not prescribe any requirements or limitations on the overall density of these properties when they are redeveloped. The Collegio development, which is just across the alley from the proposed project, is one of the few examples in the immediate area of what might be expected from these infill redevelopment projects when they are constructed. The lot density of the Collegio project is 2.54. This high density development is in stark contrast to the lot density of 0.50 that Division 4.8(D): Land Use Standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code prescribes for the NCM District that abuts the east side of the NCB District where the proposed Remington Annex Project is located. Because of the narrow nature of the NCB District in this area, residential expansion and redevelopment projects (which are encouraged through Principle LIV 6.1 of the Fort Collins City Plan), with lot densities higher than prescribed by Division 4.9(D)(1) would provide a more effective transition between the highly contrasting densities of the CC and NCM Districts. This transition could be made even more effective by promoting higher densities on the west side of Remington Street than on the east side. The nearby Kensington Place apartments to the north-east of the proposed project and the Phi Delta Theta fraternity to the south-east (see attached figure 2A) are examples of existing buildings with a lot densities exceeding 1.00 which successfully work to facilitate this transition. The balance of the existing structures along this portion of Remington Street do comply with the maximum lot density defined in Division 4.9(D)(1) yet are ineffective in defining a transition between the medium density NCM District and the higher density CC District. Granting a modification of this standard for the Remington Annex project under the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(2) will enable implementation of the various portions of the Fort Collins City Plan as described above and also help this area of the NCB District to begin to function as more effective transitional zone. E. Staff Evaluation of the First Modification Request Intent of density standard: The density standard is intended to limit new development to an overall massing that keeps with the existing character of the neighborhood, single family homes and a predominant pattern of narrow, deep lots. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 8 8 Zoning: Staff is in agreement that the N-C-B District was intended to provide a “transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial- use areas or high traffic zones” as stated in the purpose statement of the N-C-B District. In this N-C-B specific context, the character is primarily two story single- family homes, with substantial backyards. As the name suggests, the purpose of this zone district is to provide a buffer area, allowing for commercial uses and traffic while keeping the existing character and residential aspect of the neighborhood. While the Community Commercial (C-C) district is indeed to the west and part of the targeted redevelopment areas as stated in City Plan, that is not to say that the C-C requirements and standards are appropriate for the N-C-B district. The applicant’s justification for the modification, citing standards in a different zone district (C-C), is inapplicable and does not satisfy the criteria for the granting of a modification. Code Citation for Modification The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Staff Analysis Public Good: The concept of the public good is a broad and inclusive notion in so much that the values it represents are not only physical and fiscally related, but also aesthetic and culturally related. The root of the public good lies within a delicate balance of these values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people. A modification to the N-C-B density standard to allow a substantial divergence from the 1:1 lot coverage maximum could be seen as detrimental to the public good via the propagation of the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern, street rhythm and defined 700 Remington Block neighborhood context as well as weakening the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District. Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:…(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.” Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 9 9 The proposed project, if approved with this requested modification, would impair the intent and purpose in that it would lack sensitivity and undermine the established character of the existing neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M) of the Land Use Code. Substantial Community Need: The applicant fails to provide a compelling substantial community need and the logic behind the request does not follow; therefore, the granting of the a modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) does not substantially address an important and defined community need as described in the city's Comprehensive Plan resulting in a substantial benefit to the city of Fort Collins. 4. Second Modification – Section 4.9(D)(5) – Floor Area Ratio (FAR): A. Standard The standard requires that in the rear one-half of the lots, no more than 33% of the land area can be devoted to the gross floor area of buildings and garages combined. B. Proposal The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) on the rear half of the site is 2.28 (attachment 10, Fig. 2A and 2B). The total lot area is 19,897 square feet and the rear half of the lot contains 9,948 square feet. C. Extent of Modification The second modification would permit the proposed multifamily development to have 22,712 square feet of floor area in the rear 50% of the lot. This equates to 19,429 square feet of floor area in excess of the 3,283 square feet allowable in the rear half of the lot per the standard, for an increase of 16,146 square feet over standard. This is representative of a 2.28 rear FAR and exceeds the .33 standard by 195%. D. Applicant’s Justification In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of Section 4.9(D)(5) is justified because the proposed Remington Annex plan is equal to or better than a plan that would comply with the standard. The applicant’s narrative for the second modification request is as follows: Generally, compliance with the maximum rear yard FAR encourages smaller single family homes and duplexes to be constructed closer to the street and Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 10 10 works in tandem with Division 3.4.7(F)(1) & (2) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code to maintain the established building patterns on a block face. The higher density residential expansion and redevelopment projects which are promoted under Principle LIV 6.d of the Fort Collins City Plan are also subject to the provisions of Division 3.4.7 when constructed in historic neighborhoods. With specific relevance to the rear-yard FAR for these projects, Section F, paragraph 1 states in part: " To the maximum extent feasible, the height, setback and/or width of new structures shall be similar to those of existing historic structures on any block face on which the new structure is located... ...Taller structures or portions of structures shall be located interior to the site..." And paragraph 2 states: "New structures shall be designed to be in character with such existing historic structures... ...and the pattern of the primary building entrance facing the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible. See Figure 6." In the illustration from the Fort Collins Land Use Code above, the major mass of the new building in the preferred example has been pushed away from the street towards the rear portion of the lot to help maintain the established building patterns on the block face. This is contrary to the literal interpretation of Division 4.9(D)(5) yet is a better solution in a historic neighborhood setting. A conceptual design was developed (see attached figures 1A & 1B) which followed a strict application of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, including Division 4.9(D)(5) limiting the FAR of the rear fifty-percent of the lot to 0.33. This concept included the demolition of the various additions made to the structure at 711 Remington Street, restoring its original 1888 configuration. This compliant conceptual design, as well as the proposed Remington Annex design, also strives to fulfill the principles of the Fort Collins City Plan which encourages, among other things, targeted redevelopment and Infill (LIV 5.1), public investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2), expansion or redevelopment of properties in residential areas (LIV 6.1), providing a variety of housing types and locations (LIV 7.1), and maximizing land for residential development (LIV 7.4). Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 11 11 Other principles of the Fort Collins City Plan that were considered during this conceptual design effort include LIV 16 and LIV 17. It was discovered all principles of the City Plan are not necessarily compatible with each other in all instances, particularly in this case where small scale historic residential structures are in such close proximity to the density that the Fort Collins City Plan calls for along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2) at College Avenue. Nonetheless, while recognizing these conflicts, the conceptual design does incorporate the principles of increasing awareness of historic resources (LIV 16.2), utilizing incentives for preserving historic resources (LIV 16.3), integration of historic structures into redevelopment activities (LIV 16.6) and preserving historic buildings (LIV 17.1). The results of this conceptual design exercise is a three story, 17,171 square foot residential building with 4,000 square feet of enclosed parking at ground level (20 additional spaces cover the rear portion of the lot). Fourteen (14) studio apartments, four(4) one-bedroom and two (2)two-bed room units comprise the remaining 13,171 square feet of building area. As previously described in the illustration from the Land Use Code above, the intent of Division 4.9(D)(5) is to promote patterns along a block face that appear more like the proposed design (see figures below). Granting a modification of this standard for the Remington Annex project under the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(1) will promote the general purpose of the standard, which encourages buildings to address and align with other buildings on the block face, and provide for better compliance with Division 3.4.7(F) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code. E. Staff Evaluation of Second Modification Request Intent rear FAR standard: The NCB district standards are tailored to reflect the value placed on the established neighborhood character, with the rear FAR standard being one of those standards. The intent of the standard is to ensure Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 12 12 the established residential nature of the zone and to reduce the amount and massing of additional structures in the rear of a lot, in keeping with the existing character of the area. Currently, 86% of the properties on the 700 block of Remington comply with the .33 rear FAR standard. Code Citation for Modifications The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; Staff Analysis Public Good: The public good, in this application, lies within a balancing act of established values, aesthetics, culture, the built environment and economics, with the caveat that one should not be at the expense of the other. A modification to the N-C-B rear FAR standard to allow a substantial divergence from the .33 rear FAR maximum could be interpreted as detrimental to the public good due to the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern of the 700 Remington Block. Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:…(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.” The proposed project, if approved with this requested modification, would impair the intent and purpose in that it would lack sensitivity and undermine the established character of the existing neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M) of the Land Use Code. ‘Equal to or better than’ justification: The applicant prepared a hypothetical conceptual design illustrating a project that would comply with the rear FAR requirement (see attachment 10, Fig. 1A and 1B). The applicant asserts their proposed plan (attachment 7) is equal to or better than the hypothetical plan in attachment 10 as it relates to meeting the rear FAR requirement; however, this is not the case in Staff’s opinion. The hypothetical plan is lacking other mandatory design elements, such as the required block face articulation, compatibility, and sensitive design, required by Section 3.5.1 and 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. The proposed plan is not equal to or better than a project that would comply with the rear FAR because the massing and bulk of the proposed plan is too impactful and the divergence between the proposed 19,823 square feet and the 3,283 square foot code maximum is severe. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 13 13 5. Third Modification – Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) – Dimensional Standards: A. Standard This standard requires that buildings taller than 18 feet step back the height in excess of 18 feet 1 foot for every 2 feet beyond 18 feet in height. B. Proposal As proposed, the structure is 36 feet tall and is not stepped back at any point from the interior side lot lines. (See attachment 7 and 8) C. Extent of the Modification At 36 feet tall, the standard requires project to have the top of the structure be an additional 9 feet from the lot line, instead as proposed, there would be a zero step back. D. Applicant’s Request In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (4) of the Land Use Code, the divergence from the standard and what is proposed is nominal and inconsequential. The applicant’s narrative for the first modification request is as follows: Strict application of the minimum side yard setback standard would prescribe The entirety of the north and south walls of the Remington Annex project to be set back five feet from grade up to eighteen feet above grade and then increasing at a rate of one foot for every two foot increase in wall height to equal eleven feet at the point where the majority of the third floor walls intersect the roof structure or thirty feet above grade. In order to comply with the various subsections of Division 3.4.7(F) of the Fort Collins Land Use Code the north and south walls of the building have been designed to reflect the character of historical buildings in the area. This includes an articulated facade, varying roof heights and dormers all which encroach into the specified side yard setback at various points. These features also create areas where the side yard setback exceeds the requirements of the Land Use Code for the NCB District. When averaged, the side yard setbacks for the proposed Remington Annex project are as follows: Average setback at grade equals five feet and nine inches (5'-9") Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 14 14 Average setback at eighteen feet above grade equals six feet and five inches (6'5") Average setback at thirty feet above grade equals fourteen feet and zero inches (14'-0") These averaged side yard setbacks exceed the requirements Division 4.9(D)(6)(d). Furthermore, the portions of the sidewalls with the greatest encroachment into the required setback is limited to only twenty-percent of the combined length of the north and south walls (see attached figures 3A and 3B). Figure 3A provides plan views at grade level, eighteen feet above grade and thirty feet above grade which illustrate the articulation of the facade as the building height increases. Figure 3B provides section views at a selection of specific conditions along the north and south walls as well as a section view illustrating the averaged side yard setbacks. Both these figures visually describe the nominal and inconsequential nature of the diversion from the standard set in Division 4.9(D)(6)(d) when the building is viewed as a whole, therefore, the Remington Annex project should be granted this modification of standards based on the provisions of Division 2.8.2(H)(4). E. Staff Evaluation of the Third Modification Request Intent of the dimensional ‘step-back’ standard: The purpose of this standard is one of impact mitigation. The step-back standard is considered key in regulating the magnitude of construction in the N-C-B district. This standard also recognizes that there are direct impacts to abutting, existing homes and that these impacts can be onerous, detracting from the quality of life for adjacent residents. Additionally, consideration should be given to the impact this structure has on solar access in terms of the shading of adjacent properties and the enjoyment of sunshine. Code Citation for Modification The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 15 15 Staff Analysis Public Good: A divergence from N-C-B dimensional “setback” standard, in this instance, may be contrary to the public good in so much that the volume of this structure, as proposed, creates a looming presence with potential safety implications. The lack of articulation vertically creates a tunnel or cave-like atmosphere at the pedestrian level, not only between the existing structures to the north and south but also in the alley between the existing Collegio development. This results in excessive mass too close to the property line. Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:… (J) Improving the design, quality and character of new development. The proposed project, if approved with this requested modification, could impair the intent and purpose in that it would lack in important design considerations as stated in Section 1.2.2(J) of the Land Use Code. Nominal and Inconsequential: In this instance, the zero step back is not nominal nor inconsequential when looking at the design impact it has on the project as a whole. As proposed, the two side walls of the structure would cause a significant negative impact by looming over the two existing historic structures to the north and south and would negatively impact safety and solar access. 6. Fourth and Fifth Modification – Section 3.4.7(B) and (E) A. Standards These standards require designated or individually eligible structure to be preserved and incorporated into the project’s design to the maximum extent feasible. B. Proposal As proposed, the project would not incorporate nor preserve the individually eligible structure into the design. C. Extent of the Modification The fourth and fifth modifications would allow the proposed multifamily development to not incorporate the structure. The Landmark Preservation Commission, in their January 12, 2012 meeting, said they would not support the proposed relocation of the home at 711 Remington Street due to the new locations contextual incompatibility. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 16 16 D. Applicant’s Request In the request for modification letter, the applicant states that a modification of this standard is justified because, as is set forth in Section 2.8.2 (H) (2) of the Land Use Code, The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. The applicant’s narrative for the first modification request is as follows: A conceptual design was developed (see attached figures 1A & 1B) which apply a strict application of the Fort Collins Land Use Code, including Division 3.4.7(B), preserving the original portion of the existing house at 711 Remington Street. This concept included the demolition of the various additions made to the structure beginning in the 1960's and restoring the building as closely as possible to its original 1888 configuration. This design also strives to fulfill the principles of the Fort Collins City Plan which encourages, among other things, targeted redevelopment and Infill (LIV 5.1), public investment along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2), expansion or redevelopment of properties in residential areas (LIV 6.1), providing a variety of housing types and locations (LIV 7.1), and maximizing land for residential development (LIV 7.4). Other principles of the Fort Collins City Plan that were considered during this conceptual design effort include LIV 16 and LIV 17. It was discovered not all principles of the City Plan are not necessarily compatible with each other in all instances, particularly in this case where small scale historic residential structures are in such close proximity to the density that the Fort Collins City Plan calls for along the Community Spine (LIV 5.2) along College Avenue. Nonetheless, while recognizing these conflicts, the conceptual design does incorporate the principles of increasing awareness of historic resources (LIV 16.2), utilizing incentives for preserving historic resources (LIV 16.3), integration of historic structures Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 17 17 into redevelopment activities (LIV 16.6) and preserving historic buildings (LIV 17.1). The results of this conceptual design exercise is a three story, 17,171 square foot residential building with 4,000 square feet of enclosed parking at ground level (20 additional spaces cover the rear portion of the lot). Fourteen (14) studio apartments, four(4) one-bedroom and two (2)two-bed room units comprise the remaining 13,171 square feet of building area. Graphically, this conceptual design re-emphasizes the realization that not all principles of the Fort Collins City Plan are necessarily compatible with each other or with the standards of the Fort Collins Land Use Code in all cases. It should be noted that the scope of this conceptual design focused only on the redevelopment of the properties involved with the Remington Annex project and does not reflect the redevelopment and infill of the other properties along College Avenue and Remington Street that will eventually occur when the goals of the Fort Collins City Plan are fully realized. Per the criteria of Division 2.8.2(H)(2), in the best interest of the individually eligible historic structure at 711 Remington Street and to encourage the full implementation of the Fort Collins City Plan a modification to Division 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code is being requested so that the structure at 711 Remington Street can be considered for relocation under the provisions of Division 3.4.7(E) to a location that remain contextually appropriate to the scale and historic character of the house while Fort Collins continues to develop according the vision of the City Plan. E. Staff Evaluation of the Fourth and Fifth Modification Requests The two standards in question require the individually eligible building located within the Laurel School National Register District to be preserved and incorporated into the project’s design to the maximum extent feasible. The maximum extent feasible clause puts the burden on the applicant to show that: …no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts (by the applicant) to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. The applicant has not demonstrated a willing to consider the “prudent alternatives” to demolition or relocation, including retaining and rehabilitating the historic building at 711 Remington and adding stand-alone dwellings (duplex or 4-plex dwellings) on either side; or, to retaining the historic structure and build a compatible multi-unit property around it, in such a manner as to meet the LUC requirements. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 18 18 Additionally, neither the proposed nor the hypothetical conceptual design appropriately protects and enhances the historical and architectural value of the historic property at 711 Remington Street or the other properties in the Laurel School National Register Historic District. Relationship to City Plan Policies: The project site is not located in the targeted redevelopment area as the applicant asserts. Moreover, the policy cited, LIV 5.2, does not apply because: 1) the project is not in the targeted redevelopment area; and 2) the policy is referring to public investment, such as streetscape improvements, not a privately developed multifamily project. Analysis of the ‘City-wide need’ justification: Code Citation for Modification The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Public Good: The concept of the public good is a broad and inclusive notion in so much that the values it represents are not only physical and fiscally related, but also aesthetic and culturally related. The root of the public good lies within a delicate balance of these values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people. Modifications to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible and National and State Register designated structure at 711 Remington Street is detrimental to the public good in so much that it would weaken the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School National Register Historic District and overall neighborhood context. Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 19 19 Intent and Purpose of Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:…(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.” The proposed project, if approved with this requested modifications, would impair the intent and purpose in that it would lack sensitivity and undermine the established character of the existing neighborhood as stated in Section 1.2.2(M) of the Land Use Code. Substantial Community Need: The granting of two modifications, one to Section 3.4.7 (B) and one to 3.4.7 (E), would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan. 7. Findings of Fact In evaluating the request for five (5) stand-alone modifications: Section 4.9 (D)(1), Section 4.9(D)(5), Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d), Section 3.4.7(B) and Section3.4.7(E), Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The granting of modifications to Section 4.9 (D)(1), Section 4.9(D)(5), Section 4.9 (D)(6)(d), Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. a. A modification to Section 4.9.(D)(1) to allow a substantial divergence from the 1:1 lot coverage maximum would be detrimental to the public good due to the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern, street rhythm and defined 700 Remington Block historic context as well as weakening the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School Historic District. b. A modification to Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow a substantial divergence from the .33 rear FAR maximum would be detrimental to the public good due to the deterioration to the established neighborhood pattern of the 700 Remington Block and the imposition of an excessive amount of mass and bulk on the enjoyment of the two abutting properties. c. A modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) to not require the structure to step back 1 foot for every 2 feet over 18 feet in height would be contrary to the public good in that the volume of the proposed structure creates a looming presence with potential safety implications. The lack of articulation vertically creates a tunnel or cave-like atmosphere at the pedestrian level, not only between the existing structures to the north Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 20 20 and south but also in the alley between the existing Collegio development. d. A modification to Section 3.4.7(B) to not require the preservation of the historic structure at 711 Remington Street and to not protect and enhance the designated and individually eligible adjacent structures and the Laurel School National Register District holistically, is detrimental to the public good in so much that that it would weaken the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School Historic District and overall neighborhood context. e. A modification to Section 3.4.7 (E) to not preserve the individually eligible home at 711 Remington Street, to the maximum extent feasible, is detrimental to the public good in terms of weakening the sense of identity and heritage of the Laurel School Historic District and overall neighborhood context. B. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) would not result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in City Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. a. The project does not provide substantial, compatible infill and redevelopment as it related to the block face. The N-C-B standards are appropriate and tailored for the residential area and the context. C. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow a rear FAR of 2.32 would not result in a project that is equal to or better than a project that has a rear FAR of .33 due to the large mass of the structure in the rear half of the lot. D. The granting of a modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) to not require the structure to step back 1 foot for every 2 feet over 18 feet in height is not nominal nor inconsequential. a. The standard would require to project, starting at approximately 2 feet after the second floor to step back one foot for every two feet of height. This would result in an additional 9 feet of stepping back the two side walls. A zero step back for the entire height of the two side walls is not nominal and would have a negative impact on the abutting properties and the design as a whole. E. The granting of a modification to Section 3.4.7 (B) to a modification to Section 3.4.7(B) to not require the preservation of the historic structure at 711 Remington Street and to not protect and enhance the designated and Remington Annex, Modification of Standard – MOD120002 February 16, 2012 Planning & Zoning Hearing Page 21 21 individually eligible adjacent structures and the Laurel School National Register District would not result in a substantial benefit to the city. Moreover, the proposed project does not substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. F. The granting of a modification to Section 3.4.7 (E) to not require the preservation individually eligible structure at 711 Remington Street to the maximum extent feasible in accordance with the standards of Section 3.4.7 would not result in a substantial benefit to the city nor would it substantially address any important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. Staff concludes that the individual and cumulative effects of the modifications are incompatible with the N-C-B District and the neighborhood context. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of all five Requests for Modification. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Map of Laurel School National Register Historic District 4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 5. LPC Staff Report, 711 Remington Street 6. Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Minutes, October 2011 7. Proposed Project Development Plan Site Plan (PDP-1 and PDP-2) 8. Proposed Project Development Elevations (PDP-3) 9. Applicant Modification Request Narrative dated January 30, 2012 10. Applicant Modification Supporting Graphics: Fig. 1A –Concept Design Fig. 1B –Concept Design Fig. 2A – Density and FAR Fig. 2B – Rear half FAR Fig. 3A – Side setback Fig. 3B – Side setback E PLUM ST S MASON ST MATHEWS ST E LAUREL ST REMINGTON ST S COLLEGE AVE OLD MAIN DR W LAUREL ST REMBRANDT DR CITY GEOGRAPHICCOLLINS OF FORT INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS © These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 0 60 120 240 360 480 600 720 Feet eL eg dnaparGsciheleSdetcioPstn tneC nilre e aL sleb craP sle saM k ATTACHMENT 1 - Site Map ATTACHMENT 2 - Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 3 401 Janu City o Com 281 N P.O. Fort C Atten Re: M Dear VFLA Anne 1 W. Mountain A ary 30, 2012 of Fort Collins munity Devel North College Box 580 Collins, CO 8 ntion: Courtne Modification to r Courtney: A is respectfu ex project: 1. Modificat NCB Distr Code Lan the rear fi calculation The propo and calcu Generally be constru This work building p projects a with Divis neighborh paragraph b s t Streng Ave, Suite 100 s opment & Ne e Ave. 80522 ey Levingston o Standards f lly requesting tion to Divisi rict. nguage: Floor ifty (50) perce n shall be con osed Floor Ar lations) y, compliance 401 W. Mountain A And parag " . t In the illus example h building p solution in A Land Us strict appl percent of structure a This comp principles (LIV 5.1), residentia residentia Other prin 16 and LIV principles where sm Plan calls conflicts, t 16.2), utili redevelop The result square fee (14) studio square fee Ave, Suite 100 graph 2 states "New structur ..and the patt the maximum stration from t has been pus patterns on the n a historic ne se Code com ication of the f the lot to 0.3 at 711 Remin pliant concep of the Fort C public invest al areas (LIV 6 al developmen nciples of the V 17 which p of the City P mall scale histo s for along the the conceptua izing incentive pment activitie ts of this conc et of enclosed o apartments et of building 401 2 W. Mountain A As previo promote p compliant Granting a will promo buildings Code. 2. Modificat Code Lan less than the total g each finis larger tha ceiling he lot. (Open The allow represent proposed exceeding at ground relieve pre proposed Ave, Suite 100 usly describe patterns along t conceptual d a modification ote the genera on the block f tion to Divisi nguage: Dens five thousand gross floor are hed or unfinis n one hundre ight of at leas n balconies an wable total gro ed as a ratio design calcu g the standard level. This bu essure from t lot density w Fort Collins, ed in the illustr g a block face design (see fig n of this stand al purpose of face, and pro ion 4.9(D)(1) sity. Minimum d (5,000) squa ea of all princi shed floor lev ed twenty (120 401 3 W. Mountain A The Fort C Buffer Dis commerci In the par span of on Conserva the west s Redevelo redevelop yet to take any requir The Colle the immed constructe the lot den the NCM located. Because o (which are prescribed of the CC the west s The nearb fraternity t exceeding this portio ineffective Granting a will enable this area o 3. Modificat every 2’ w Code Lan a wall or b the interio thereof of fifteen (15 school an Strict app walls of th Ave, Suite 100 Collins Land U strict (NCB) is ial-use areas rticular area in nly four-hund ation, Medium side of the pro pment Area. pment and inf e place. Divis rements or lim egio developm diate area of ed. The lot de nsity of 0.50 t District that a 401 4 W. Mountain A then incre where the project is figure 3B. the north buildings into the sp setback e setbacks • A ni • A co • A th These ave the sidew combined Figure 3A illustrate t selection averaged diversion Remingto 2.8.2(H)(4 4. Modificat structure a C (1 S pl A Land Us strict appl the existin the structu This desig targeted r redevelop 7.1), and Ave, Suite 100 easing at a rat e majority of th thirty feet abo In order to co and south wa in the area. T pecified side y exceeds the re for the propos Average setba ine inches (9" Average setba ode requirem Average setba he code requi eraged side y alls with the g 401 Since Jeff H W. Mountain A Other prin 16 and LIV principles where sm Plan calls conflicts, t 16.2), utili redevelop The result square fee (14) studio square fee Graphical Plan are n cases. It s properties other prop Collins Ci Per the cr Remingto 3.4.7(B) o considere appropria vision of t We thank of the City erely, Hansen Ave, Suite 100 nciples of the V 17 which p of the City P mall scale histo s for along the the conceptua izing incentive pment activitie ts of this conc et of enclosed o apartments et of building ly, this conce necessarily co should be not s involved wit perties along ty Plan are fu riteria of Divis on Street and of the Land Us ed for relocatio te to the scale he City Plan. you for your y of Fort Colli Fort Collins, ATTACHMENT 5 1 HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Tuesday, February 16, 2012 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Remington Annex Modification of Standards, MOD120002 Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., February 16, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Smith, Chair Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Gino Campana Angelina Sanchez-Sprague, Administrative Assistant Jennifer Carpenter Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Kristin Kirkpatrick Courtney Levingston, City Planner Brigitte Schmidt Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner Butch Stockover 2 1 CHAIRMAN ANDY SMITH: Let’s jump right in to our very first item, the Remington 2 Annex modification of standards request. Could we get a staff report please? 3 MS. COURTNEY LEVINGSTON: This is a request for five stand-alone modifications: 4 one regarding Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) district density standards, one for NCB 5 rear lot floor area ratio standards, one regarding the NCB dimensional standards, and two 6 relating to the historic preservation standards. As proposed, the project would demolish the 7 existing structures, and combine the lots, at 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street, constructing 8 one multi-family building with thirty studio units, eight one-bedroom units and four two- 9 bedroom units, for a total of forty-two units. Additionally, to meet the parking requirement, the 10 applicant is proposing a bi-level parking garage with one level at grade and one below grade 11 providing a total of sixty-five parking spaces. 12 As you can see from this zoning map, the parcels are located in the NCB zone district, 13 and they are also part of the Laurel School National Register Historic District. This is the 14 approximate location of the site in regard to the Laurel School National Register Historic 15 District. All three subject properties, 705, 711, and 715 Remington Street are located within the 16 boundaries of the Laurel School National Register Historic District, established in 1980. Two of 17 the properties, 705 and 715 Remington Street, were determined to be National and State Register 18 intrusions when it was established in 1980. Ten additional properties on the 700 block of 19 Remington Street are also listed on the National and State Register as contributing to the District. 20 The properties at 705 and 715 Remington Street were determined not to be individually eligible 21 for local landmark designation; however, the property at 711 Remington Street, also known as 22 the Button House, was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation in 23 August of 2011. 24 The first modification is to Section 4.9(D), Density. This standard requires that buildings 25 in the NCB district have a total lot area equal to the floor area of the project, a one to one ratio. 26 That is to say, a 19,897 square foot lot is allowed a maximum of 19,897 square feet of floor area. 27 The proposed total floor area of the project is 38,662 square feet. The lot is a total of 19,897 28 square feet. The first modification would permit the proposed multi-family development to have 29 an additional 18,765 square feet of floor area in excess of the 19,897 square feet allowable per 30 the standard. This is representative of a 1.94 overall lot density, exceeding the standard by about 31 94%. You can see from the proposed site plan, the lot density. 32 The second modification is to Section 4.9(D)(5), Floor Area Ratio. This standard 33 requires that, in the rear one-half of the lot, no more than 33% of the land can be devoted to the 34 gross floor area of the building and garages combined. The proposed rear floor area ratio on the 35 rear half of the site 2.28. The total lot area is, once again, 19,897 square feet and the rear half of 36 the lot contains 9,948 square feet. The second modification would permit the proposed multi- 37 family development to have 22,712 square feet of floor area in the rear 50% of the lot. This 38 equates to 19,429 square feet of floor area in excess of the 3,283 square feet allowable in the rear 3 1 half of the lot, per the standard. This is representative of a 2.28 rear FAR and exceeds the .33 2 standard by about 195%. You can see from this plan the rear floor area ratio and how much of 3 the proposed project would be in the rear of that lot. 4 The third modification is to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d). This standard requires that buildings 5 taller than eighteen feet step back the height in excess of eighteen feet, one foot per every two 6 feet beyond eighteen feet in height. As proposed, the structure is thirty-six feet tall. It is not 7 stepped back at any point from the interior side lot lines. You can see the project elevations here. 8 The fourth and fifth modification are to Section 3.4.7(B) and (E). These standards 9 require designated or individually eligible structures to be preserved and incorporated into the 10 project’s design to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed project does not preserve or 11 incorporate the project at all into the design. 12 Right here you can see a picture of 711 Remington Street. This is the individually 13 eligible structure. This is 705 Remington Street, and 715 Remington Street. Both of those 14 structures are not individually eligible but are part of the site. This is a photo looking northeast 15 to 711 Remington Street, and this is looking east across the street from the project site. This is 16 taken at the corner and this is looking at the project site. This is a photo of the alley between the 17 existing Collegio development and you can see the proposed site would be right there. This is 18 the property to the north, 701 Remington Street, and, you can see right here, this would be where 19 the proposed project would be. This is the Community Commercial zone district, this is the 20 NCB zone district, and this is the NCM zone district. 21 Due to the scale, massing, and overall divergence from the character of the Laurel School 22 National Registry District, as well as the neighborhood at large, staff is recommending denial of 23 the proposed plan because it is not equal to or better than a plan that would comply with each of 24 the standards, nor does it substantially alleviate a city-wide, or substantially further other cited 25 City Plan policies. That concludes my staff presentation. 26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Does the Board have any questions of staff at this 27 point? Any clarification? Okay, let’s get to the applicant presentation. Would the applicant 28 please step forward and tell us about their project please. 29 MS. ROBIN BACHELET: There’s a sign in sheet, should I sign in? 30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, if you don’t mind. State your name for the record and sign 31 in please. 32 MS. BACHELET: My name is Robin Bachelet. I’m going to go ahead and sign in here. 33 Okay, again, my name is Robin Bachelet. My husband and I are proposing the Remington 34 Annex project tonight. Wanted to give you a little background on who we are and what we do. 35 Christian and I have lived here since 1996. We had a fee management business…residential 4 1 property management business from 1996 to 2005. We managed approximately 450 residential 2 properties; 65% of those were student housing, mainly in the vicinity of the University. Seventy- 3 five percent of those single-family dwellings were student housing near the University. We feel 4 like we’re very well experienced in the student housing market. We have two different 5 completed projects today that we would deem to be successful. One is the Collegio building 6 which was referenced here, at 706 South College. It is a mixed-use building, it’s 37,000 square 7 feet. It has covered parking, retail, office, and then twenty residential units on the third floor. 8 We also have 1335 Elizabeth, which is the corner of City Park and Elizabeth, also a retail, 9 mixed-use, basically comprised of retail and student housing. Also, we would deem a successful 10 project. Residential is generally 100% leased. These projects, in our mind, are successful 11 because of the product that we offer. It’s a higher end studio, one-bedroom type component. We 12 like these, especially because they are, we feel, more manageable, less impactful. The student 13 that is interested in renting the studio apartment is serious about their studies, not interested in 14 partying. These are well managed, well maintained projects that seem to run along, you know, 15 without issue. We also have parent co-signers on all of our leases, which just adds to the 16 accountability. This is a proven product for us, it’s a product that we like and that we know, and 17 that we would like to build here. 18 We…having Collegio in the area, exactly mirroring the proposed project, there is a 19 synergy there that makes this project very worthwhile for us. We also have a significant, 20 obviously a significant, vested interest in the area. We’d like to improve the alley, we’d like to 21 provide more student housing, suit the needs. As was mentioned in the staff report, it is on the 22 fringe of the District, it’s about seven feet from the western boundary, and it’s about two hundred 23 feet from the University. This kind of project utilizes existing infrastructure, it’s close to 24 transportation. We’re about a block from the Mason Street Corridor. It’s easy for kids to ride 25 their bikes to school, less vehicle trips per day, you know, all of the things that we find promoted 26 in City Plan and the SHAP, or the SHAP study, and it’s also being considered in PDOD. We 27 believe this is the right project, and that it’s the right location, and that we’re the right developers 28 to do it. And, we feel as though the low vacancy rates and increasing student population and 29 other reports and statistics indicated in the SHAP, and other student housing studies, are really 30 sort of in sync and in harmony with this project that we’re proposing. We feel like the project 31 that we’re proposing is, you know, something that we are well-versed in managing. It inherently 32 relieves a lot of the impact to City services in keeping, you know, trying to keep those yards of 33 the student houses, and trash out of the yards, and the number of enforcing, let’s say, things on 34 the book like the three-unrelated rule, noise violations, things like that. Projects such as ours, 35 that takes the pressure off the City services. 36 I think it’s also important to point out that, based on the current LUC standards today, 37 without these modifications, we can build a twenty-three unit building. We could build twenty- 38 three units with two bedrooms. It wouldn’t be properly parked, it would be underparked, which, 39 according to neighborhood meetings that we’ve had, parking and traffic flows are a significant 5 1 issue and they would like us to address these. So, a project that we could build today with LUC 2 standards…within the LUC standards, would not be the product we want. We feel it would be 3 more impactful to the neighborhood. Two-bedrooms, we feel, invite more parties, more traffic, 4 more people. The one-bedroom, studio units tend to be extremely manageable. Again, 5 something that we’re familiar with, comfortable with, and have been doing for the better part of 6 ten years now. So, we’ve really chosen the more difficult route here, in coming into a Type II 7 review, rather than going the administrative route, because we believe deeply in this product and 8 this project, that it’s the right one for this area. We feel like we are in harmony with PDOD, 9 SHAP, Transit Overlay District, and I think, you know, in conclusion, I would like to state…put 10 out a few of the facts from a recent student housing survey that was done in 2011, CSU student 11 housing survey. Eighty percent of the students polled would choose to be within walking or 12 biking distance of campus, 48% would choose to be in close proximity to a bus route or other 13 transportation, 44% of those polled would choose to be in an energy efficient and safe structure, 14 and 75% of those polled would also choose to have parking available to them. So, again, the 15 right project in the right area is the forty-two unit studios, one-bedrooms, with sixty-five parking 16 places. 17 I think that it’s also important to look out into the future and to try and figure out what 18 this particular area might look like if it continues to deteriorate at the level that it is. There hasn’t 19 been a lot of investment in the area. We’ve invested in this area for about seven years. The 20 Collegio building was built in 2003-2004. We’ve watched that area deteriorate, continue to 21 deteriorate. We purchased these properties with the intent of building a beautiful project that 22 would serve a need and be a safe, long-term, sustainable housing opportunity for the large 23 demands that are being created by the University, and are largely going unaddressed. There’s 24 going to be ten thousand students added to the University rolls and they’ve only planned for 860 25 beds on campus. They are clearly looking to the community to provide student housing and to 26 fill this delta. So, that’s all I have tonight. I’d like to introduce my husband, Christian, who 27 would like to talk about the process and how we’ve gotten here. Thank you. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 29 MR. CHRISTIAN BACHELET: Thank you for this time. I’d like to thank P&Z as well 30 as the City for having this opportunity to speak tonight. Before this meeting, I guess, I was 31 looked upon as trying to play the bad cop in this delivery here, in this narrative, and I’ll try not to 32 do that so much. But, I wanted to start by really speaking to the Municipal Code, Chapter 14, 33 which is the landmark preservation, and, to highlight the manner in which this code was 34 executed and administered, and more importantly, how Chapter 14 impacts the integrity of the 35 historical preservation process and how in conflicts with Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, in 36 my opinion. As we all know, the current three properties are in what’s known as the NCB, of 37 which two of them are listed as intrusion. 6 1 In August of 2011, 711 Remington was determined individually eligible. And, let me 2 just sort of step back a bit and just give you a little background of just how we got here. Prior to 3 purchasing the three properties, Robin and I received our first initial conceptual review staff 4 comments on January 26, 2009, in which Karen McWilliams confirmed that both 705 and 715 5 Remington are not eligible, but referred to 711 Remington as “the other property are probably 6 not eligible.” And, being that it’s a Type II review, it would be subject to LPC. Two and a half 7 years later, after Robin and I had decided to move forward with this proposed development and 8 putting our team together, we met with Karen McWilliams and Steve Dush to discuss the 9 eligibility of the three properties. Following that meeting, Ms. McWilliams provided new 10 comments that directly contradict her January 2009 comments. First, she said that 711 11 Remington would qualify for individual landmark designation, and, two, the proposal is a Type 12 II review and would be subject to P&Z review, and would not need to go to LPC for decisions. 13 Again, we’re having two different types of narrative coming from City with regards to this 14 process. However, two months later, in August of 2011, both the Director of the Community 15 Development and the Chair of the LPC made the determination that 711 Remington be deemed 16 as individually eligible. Now, this conflicts with the intent outlined in Chapter 14. What should 17 have happened was that LPC should have presented their recommendations to the City Council. 18 At that point, we too could have had our opportunity to refute the eligibility. That never 19 happened. As a result, this process has been tainted and now we find ourselves in this figure 20 eight process. Do we go in front of LPC? Do we not go through LPC? You know? And it just 21 goes around and around. And, as a result, it’s now deemed as eligible and we have no way to 22 refute this until today. 23 I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the LPC subjectively base their opinion on seven 24 criteria: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feelings, and association. According 25 to historical records, 711 Remington is described as irregularly shaped and we’ve realized that 26 there have been major alterations performed on this property, dating back to 1947, ’62 and ’63. 27 All three alterations are still visible today. The property is deemed as a duplex with a detached 28 garage and a shed located in the alley. These alterations are consistent with the intrusions within 29 the district. In other words, it’s been significantly modified. There’s the detached garage and 30 shed that sits on the alleyway there. 31 So, once it was deemed eligible, the process was then redirected back to LPC. So, back 32 and forth. As a result of the meetings…as a result of the two meetings with LPC, we, the team, 33 respected the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7 by providing LPC with renderings, and we had the 34 rendering there earlier. And, our intent was “is intended to ensure that, to the maximum extent 35 feasible, that historical resources are preserved and incorporated into proposed development.” 36 That does not adversely affect the integrity of the historical surrounding. And I believe that our 37 rendering and the efforts done by our architects have proved that. Also…we also informed the 38 LPC that we, the landlord and developer, that we exercised the right that “no feasible and 39 prudent alternatives exist and all possible efforts to comply with the regulations or minimize 7 1 potential harm or adverse impacts had been undertaken.” In other words, we deemed this to be 2 prudent and feasible to reconstruct. 3 There were two meetings that we had with LPC, and both times we tried to have an 4 opportunity to refute the eligibility, and it was not…we were not heard. The one positive note 5 that came out of the LPC meeting, that it came to a vote that three board members, including the 6 Chair, voted to relocate 711. We had proposed to relocate the middle property, 711, to another 7 location there on Laurel Street, just east of that location, closer to Riverside. And, we did get 8 three board members to conclude, or to vote, to have it moved. So, the point I’m trying to make 9 is that this property, 711, is indeed an intrusion. 10 So, the example of Chapter 14, together with the Land Use Code, negatively impacts the 11 entire process by unwarranted hardships to the owners, all designed to slow down the process 12 and drive up the cost of redevelopment. LPC interpretation of Chapter 14 and the Land Use 13 Code adversely affects the fate of these properties. If local developers like Robin and I can’t find 14 a way to develop an infill boutique property, then the theory will be that we’ll have no choice but 15 to sell our properties to another landlord who will likely keep them as rentals. By doing so, the 16 Code enables any opportunity for local developers to address the needs of the community, and its 17 impact that burdens the surrounding neighborhood. Keep in mind that such actions only add 18 unwarranted cost to the City by staff having to enforce various codes and violations to land laws 19 throughout this district. That is why we are coming to you, Planning and Zoning, to help resolve 20 these differences. LPC’s interpretation of Chapter 14, again, only enhances this problem. One 21 major reason why certain sections of the district is turning into student ghettos, is because it’s no 22 longer prudent and feasible for owners to maintain their properties. Yes, we do have a low 23 vacancy rate, but at the end, landlords are able to get and maximize the rent from these 24 properties; but, unfortunately, these properties are very difficult to maintain. Not only do you 25 have property taxes, insurance, but the wear and tear and the overall maintenance makes it very, 26 very difficult. You can just go up and down that corridor and you can see one property after 27 another after another slowly being deteriorated. And, so, obviously, some of those pictures show 28 that. 29 So, we believe that the student ghettos will only continue to spread throughout the district 30 unless developers are given the opportunity to provide safe, affordable, sustainable housing near 31 CSU, providing a safe and secure environment with on-site management, energy efficiency, as 32 well as providing basic amenities such as parking, internet, washers and dryers, and, encouraging 33 residents to walk to Mason Corridor, CSU, and Old Town. If such proposed projects are 34 discouraged, then developers will have no choice but to switch their projects further away from 35 CSU and Old Town, like the proposed student housing north of the Poudre River. Such projects 36 will impose unwarranted burden on the existing infrastructure. Infill development will pull 37 students out of the districts; Collegio is a testament of that. And, in doing so, it will encourage 38 tenants to go into quality products that produces quality behavior. Again, quality product will 39 produce quality behavior. So, I know this is very difficult to raise these issues before you 8 1 tonight, however, this process that we have had to undertake over the past years has created 2 undue cost, stress, and hardships, all of which is unnecessary. We believe in Old Town and we 3 believe in historical preservation; however, the market has spoken, and I hope you can receive 4 my comments as constructive criticism in this process. Thank you so much for your time and I’d 5 like to introduce Justin Larson. 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 7 MR. JUSTIN LARSON: Justin Larson, I’m architect of record with Vaught Frye Larson. 8 Our office is at 401 Mountain. I would also like to add that I’m a resident of downtown, or 9 downtown Fort Collins for the last twelve year. I live, fortunately, just outside the Laurel School 10 District so I wasn’t deterred when my wife and I decided to remodel our house. 11 We are enormously proud to be part of this project. I do think that, in contradiction to the 12 statement earlier, that this does not fit the language and intent of the adopted codes, I believe this 13 is, again, the right project, and is a great fit. And, we’ll start to talk through that. I want to step 14 back for a moment, Jeff, if we can, and run through a little bit of the site context. I know you 15 guys have seen the pictures and I’m hoping that many people…I believe we have residents here 16 tonight and, hopefully, you guys have had a chance to walk through the site. But, this is standing 17 across the street looking directly on the project. We’ve had the benefit, as we’ve been going 18 through the process, to meet with City foresters and talk about the trees and landscaping. You 19 can imagine the difference even this scene has as the full foliage and everything takes on. It’s 20 easier to see a lot of the structures, but these are quite heavily lined…tree-lined streets. The 21 structures across the street are buried in materials. You’ll see lap siding, to stucco, to brick, 22 some structures that are two and a half to three stories tall there, and some structures are one and 23 a half stories tall. As we click through and we look at the alley side, this is the…we’re kind of 24 walking down heading south on the alley, Collegio is just to my right, and then as we turn 25 around, here is Collegio which is in the…it’s zoning, that structure’s about three and a half 26 stories. By the way it’s zoned, that could have been a five-story structure. So, I think one of 27 the…I think the tasks that the City has, and Planning and Zoning has, is to not only look at where 28 we’re at today, but where is the City of Fort Collins headed, and where will, based on zoning, 29 things start to develop. So, as we walk through this, be mindful of how the City is, and will be, 30 developed. This is Kensington, it’s just across the street. This is a three and a half, about, is it 31 forty-seven feet? Four stories. And, is it forty-seven Jeff? I think it’s at forty-seven feet, it’s 32 about ten feet higher than the structure we’re proposing. 33 Now, the other thing that’s been a…I think a good compliment to Robin and Christian 34 and everybody that’s involved in the project, is how it’s developed, both through informal and 35 formal meetings and getting feedback. So, here’s some renderings of early conceptual drawings 36 looking at how this would start to fit and how it’s developed of each time, feedback where, you 37 know, a lot of the terminology…step back one, Jeff. A lot of the terminology of saying, this sole 38 project that is a forty-two unit mass, reads like some of the early conceptual ideas. But, as we’ve 9 1 gotten feedback and really looked at, how do we develop the architecture to kind of follow the 2 City Plan and follow the character…and, as you see, the next slide, to say that, well, if we break 3 it up into three individual buildings and how, if we be mindful, in the next slide, of setback and 4 spacing and the character of the street, the elements that are, again, incorporating the masonry 5 that you see across the street, the stucco that is on our site and adjacent, the lap siding, the 6 change of materials that, although we are proposing…we’re developing three lots and a project 7 that, at one time, is going to not only solve both energy, life safety, and kind of some needs that 8 are in the area…and I can talk more to that. But, that, in implementation, this really would be, 9 visually to the street, and the way that you experience as you walk through any downtown site, 10 three buildings that are interlinked by a connected parking structure and everything, that’s set 11 back beyond it. 12 We step to the next slide…and this is…a comment was made of, that we’ve heard several 13 times, the concern with planting the trees that are existing along Remington, and on our site, of 14 being mindful of, that we’ve met with City Forester, we’ve incorporated the site plan layout to 15 keep all the trees that are in good health and then bring in more. So, when we’re showing 16 images, the…it’s harder to understand the architecture if we show what the landscape material 17 along the street is, so we’ve taken the liberty to remove, visually, the existing treescape, 18 primarily for visual understanding. But, recognize that the slide before is really, when the 19 project is in completion, how our building will be perceived from across the street. Now, the 20 next slide. 21 Robin mentioned that this is in the PDOD district that is currently just in draft form. 22 And, I really want to commend the City of Fort Collins, Planning and Zoning, that this is going 23 to be a helpful tool in order to help infill along borders to CSU as well as downtown. If this were 24 implemented the way it’s in draft form right now, we would meet, with being very conservative 25 in our review, we would meet seventy-four of the forty-five required points under that guideline. 26 Some of those are on the community side, with adjacency to transit, to school, to public 27 resources. Others are on the environmental side with the fact that we have…all of our on-site 28 detention is being handled, we have a rainwater…we have incorporated rainwater system in the 29 front, the use of recycled materials of…also, because Robin and Christian are long-term owners 30 so they are very concerned with the energy modeling and how efficient, and that, if we were to 31 move forward, this would meet LEED certification. So, all those steps that are, I think, again, 32 how buildings should be built and why we’re extremely proud to be involved with this project. 33 If we step to the next slide, now as we get into the variance requests, the…again, a lot of 34 these in the PDOD would be part of the process, because the way this is laid out really lends 35 itself to being…we’re on that fringe between commercial development and residential. And, so, 36 we’re really looking at this from an urban standpoint, of how do we make that transition, and 37 how do we give good articulation. So, in order to give this building a lot of break up in 38 dimension on all elevations, that the requirement on building setback…if we step to the next 39 slide…you can see, what we’ve done, is taken several sections along the building, and several 10 1 completely conform, and several do not. If you look at the average, which is the last image on 2 that slide, it is extremely minor, to the point of how it is not meeting the language of the Code on 3 setback. We believe that the articulation is critical, and more important than creating a uniform 4 side that all would…if you can imagine if the whole building fit that last slide. So, that 5 articulation gives the building definition. And, because, predominantly, we are north and west 6 side is facing an alley and a parking lot, that there isn’t , from a solar study side, it’s not 7 that…the shading of this is a detriment to the public either. Jeff, did you have any thing that I 8 kind of gleaned over on that? 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Could you speak…turn your microphone on if you’re going 10 to…we want to get this on the record please. 11 MR. JEFF HANSEN: There’s a statement in the staff comments that there was zero 12 setback to the building. I think these drawings illustrate that, you know, on the left we have the 13 building footprint at grade, and then at eighteen feet, according to Code language, we wouldn’t 14 be required to step back at all, and the building has already started to step back at points, you 15 know, at eighteen feet above grade. This next slice through the building is at thirty feet above 16 grade, and you can see significant setbacks, you know, along the side yards. And these sections, 17 you know, kind of show a vertical view that demonstrates that same thing. A few examples of 18 how we’ve provided varying setbacks on the north and on the side yards. 19 MR. LARSON: And, it’s that step back and articulation that allow us to have material 20 changes and scale that really fit the scale of the area. And, again, change is perception of when 21 you are walking at pedestrian level, how you experience buildings. Change is really what your 22 height and dimension of any structure is, as opposed to a flat plane that just runs off into space. 23 The next item is… 24 MR. HANSEN: Talking about the lot density and the rear yard floor area ratios. 25 MR. LARSON: Which, again, in the…there’s several kind of conflicts that the gull of the 26 comments that came out of, kind of, LPC and on to some of the other City language, describes 27 the intent to be able to control the massing at the front, relative to scale of the adjacent buildings, 28 move any large massing to the rear of the site. Now, that’s one of the goals, both in the City 29 Plan, as well as mentioned in the PDOD, as well as was some of the design feedback we got 30 from LPC. So, you know, it is a balance to which Code language you want to meet. But, in the 31 NCB, it would read that, you know, we’d have 0.33 percent on the back lot, which would not 32 lend itself, effectively, for us to be able to set the mass towards the back of the site. And, what I 33 think we’re really able to do is keep that scale appropriate to the street level and make a nice 34 transition to the back of the lot…meet parking, meet all of the requirements that we’ve heard in 35 public review. Jeff, do you have any additional items on that? 36 MR. HANSEN: No. 11 1 MR. LARSON: Let’s jump to the next. Now, this next few slides is going to articulate 2 the, I think, some of the challenges that Planning and Zoning is seeing, and the reason that the 3 PDOD is coming up. That overlay district allows for, I think, the intent of the NCB to better be 4 facilitated, so you wouldn’t need modifications like we’re asking for today. The commercial 5 district that is…sits right to our side, as I mentioned earlier, is…if you built that to the full 6 extent, that’s a five-story…you can imagine that, all the way down college, you know, twenty 7 years, and I love hearing, you know, people talk about in the ‘80’s when they bought their first 8 house out on Ticonderoga off of Lemay, that it was a dirt road that you drove there. Now, you 9 look at how that development has happened, and how do you forecast, you know, where are we 10 going to be in the next twenty years, and how do you have your zoning meet that growth 11 effectively? So, where we’re at with NCC, five stories. NCB, which is a transitional zone…and 12 I agree a hundred percent, it is a transitional zone, and should be a scale break to the NCM; 13 however, if you read through the requirements, and, if we go to the next slide, this is a quick 14 sketch of, according to Code, how that breaks out. And, I think the intent of that transitional 15 zone isn’t as effective as the language. So, you have, and here’s a great illustration as you see, 16 five story to the, you know, front-loaded three-story transitioning over, and then to the NCM. 17 The language, the intent of the Code makes perfect sense. The implementation in the actual 18 parameters starts to say, you know, why do I have a front-loaded building with a backyard to a 19 five-story commercial building. I don’t want to have my back yard to a restaurant’s grease 20 container, personally. 21 So, with the next slide, here’s how this project starts to infill that transition. And, I do 22 believe that, if you read the language, this is really starting to be the intent. And, in the premise 23 of the PDOD, this is exactly the intent, that we’re able to bring in infill and make that transition 24 where the alleys are safer, the pedestrian ways are better…we’re improving that whole flow, and 25 still being respectful to the adjacent neighbors that start to transition into the NCM. 26 Now, as we get into the…tying into the idea of being able to push that setback…this 27 image, and I think we’re getting feedback from a couple people that thought we drew this image. 28 This image is actually right out of…it’s kind of a compliment, I take it, that people looked and 29 said, we, this, you just drew this because this is your project. And, it’s like, no, this matches our 30 project, but this is right out of Section 3.4.7 of the this not this…where, you know, you can see 31 how the scale of the buildings are being maintained along the street, the mass is being set back, 32 as opposed to letting that mass be forward. 33 Now, when we look into the this not this, if we were to build this project exactly to the 34 letter of the law where we shift the bulk of the mass forward, we step the sides in, and we 35 maintain 711. This is a quick rendering of what that would be, realize that these take us a little 36 bit of time. Since we submitted to, our proposal, we did have time to continue to develop that, 37 and here is the project that would, again, be, as Robin talked about, with the twenty-three unit, 38 meet an administrative review. We don’t believe that this is the right project. This has got an 39 open parking lot in the rear. It meets everything in the language, so we won…great, it’s not the 12 1 right fit. It’s not the way that, we think, from an urban standpoint, people should be mindful of 2 how to develop along this line between the five-story commercial, and transition into two-story 3 and one-story residential. Jeff, as we’re looking at that, any other comments? 4 MR. HANSEN: This slide just describes what, you know, the scope of the residents that 5 would be there. One thing I would like to note is, you know, as you’re encouraging 6 development, you want property owners to take advantage of their site as much as they can. 7 And, even if you were to stick with the lot density standards, you know, you’re trying to promote 8 people to maximize the use of the lot, we would be aiming for a total square footage of the 9 building of 19,987 square feet or something. Because of all the other restrictions in place, we 10 can’t even reach that, because we’ve complied with the rear yard and the side yard setbacks, you 11 know, every aspect of the dimensional standards. The density standards of the Land Use Code 12 that we weren’t able to maximize the potential of this property. 13 MR. LARSON: Elevations to just kind of articulate, and again, 711 is about 500 square 14 feet sitting there in between the other two wings. And, again, the scale between 701 and on 15 down, is more contiguous with what we’re proposing than what would be if 711 remained. Now, 16 I’d like to introduce Jeff Johnson. 17 MR. JEFF JOHNSON: My name is Jeff Johnson and I’m an attorney with Myatt, 18 Brandes, and Gast in Fort Collins. I’ve been working with the Bachelet’s and Vaught Frye 19 Larson on this project. Tonight, I’d like to address a couple things. You know, this hearing is 20 for a modification of standards. You’ve heard now from the developer and their vision for their 21 proposed development, and little bit from the architect about the project plans that will be filed. 22 And, after tonight’s hearing, you know, we would have a year to file the actual plans. 23 You know, tonight, as you know, is a modification of standards, and there’s five stand 24 alone standards. What I’m going to address, primarily, would be the last two as they pertain to 25 Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code, and Section B and Section E. And really what this is all 26 about is a request by the developers to relocate the property, 711 Remington. That is really what 27 they would like to do, is have a relocation. The original structure was built, records indicate, in 28 approximately 1880’s. It was about a five hundred square-foot facility, or home, single-family 29 residence. It’s subsequently been subject to a couple significant modifications: a three-car 30 garage, cinder block garage, which you saw in the pictures was added. And then, subsequently, 31 the single-family residence was converted to a duplex. What we’d like to do is focus on the 32 modification of standards. Under the Code 2.8.2, as you know, H, there are really four or five 33 different requirements that need to be met to grant the modification request to relocate. Not to 34 demolish, but to relocate this property, and to restore it to its original five hundred square-foot 35 structure in a more appropriate setting. One of the first standards is that, the grant, the 36 modification of standards, is not detrimental to the public good. We actually believe that this 37 particular request for relocation would advance the public good by allowing the particular site to 38 be improved and enhanced to modern Code standards. So, the code for, the standard for, a 13 1 modification of standards, is actually less, it’s a lesser standard, not detrimental to the public 2 good. But, we believe this actually advances the public good. 3 Another standard that…or consideration…that you need to find, is that allowing 4 relocation of 711 Remington will not impair the intent and the purpose of the Land Use Code. 5 Again, we believe that the relocation would actually enhance the intent and the purposes of the 6 Land Use Code. The Code, again, being a lesser standard, not impair…we believe it enhances. 7 Further, we believe that we meet the requirements that the proposed development, to be 8 facilitated by the relocation, would substantially alleviate and substantially address problems of 9 city-wide concern that are addressed in City Plan, zone districts, overlay districts, and, you 10 know, pending, under consideration, overlay districts, as well as the student action plan currently 11 being discussed. 12 This morning, in preparing for the hearing, I was looking forward to hearing from one of 13 the Bachelet’s consultants, a Dr. Koziol, who was, I felt was, and it was my understanding was 14 going to be able to come tonight to speak, but that didn’t work out, so we asked him to prepare a 15 letter for submittal into the record, you know, which I have, and, at this time, Mr. Eckman, if it’s 16 appropriate, I’d like to offer into the record a letter from a consultant of the Bachelet’s, and then 17 also, I have prepared, for the Board’s review, proposed specific findings. One of the things that 18 you’re charged with tonight, as you’re very well aware of, is to make specific findings as to why 19 the modification of standard…by granting the modification of standard, is appropriate. And, I 20 have prepared proposed findings for your review and consideration, specific findings. And, I’ve 21 also proposed some general findings of fact that I’m happy to use as discussion points, if you feel 22 relevant. There are ten copies there. May I continue? 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, in one moment. When we get material in the hearing, the 24 likelihood that we’re going to read it in a meaningful way is very, very small. I just need to let 25 you know that. And, you know, I think that our options are that, one, I mean if it’s material that 26 we’re getting at the hearing, that we would want everybody in the audience to be able to have an 27 opportunity to read as well. Or, you know, the Board may elect to take a recess to read it, or 28 even continue the hearing. I just want to let you know those are a couple things that will be 29 going through our mind. We haven’t seen it yet, how lengthy it is, but just so that you know, 30 kind of, what we’re faced with is a challenge when getting material this late. 31 MR. JOHNSON: All of those options are acceptable, so please feel free to take a recess. 32 If you do feel that you need to continue the hearing for some reason, we certainly respect that. 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. 34 MR. JOHNSON: This is a very important matter, obviously, to the City, to the 35 neighborhoods, to the developer, so, you know, please, let’s take time to be thoughtful. 36 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. 14 1 MR. PAUL ECKMAN: I might also suggest that, with regard to this letter from City 2 Visions, today’s date. Before the Board receives…the other document, apparently has to do with 3 the findings for the modification of standards. 4 MR. JOHNSON: Correct. 5 MR. ECKMAN: Which would clearly be a relevant document to submit to the Board, 6 though it may take the Board some time to study that document. If there’s any question about 7 relevance of any documents that are being presented to the Board, we’d have to discuss that and 8 decide whether those are relevant and should be made a part of the record or not. Or, if made a 9 part of the record, it may take a little advice from me as to whether they should be regarded or 10 disregarded in the context of this hearing. For example, a lot of the issues regarding the behavior 11 or decision of the Landmark Preservation Commission in deciding the eligibility really isn’t 12 something that this Board can deal with, that’s a decision that was made by the Landmark 13 Preservation Commission under Chapter 14, while we’re looking at the Land Use Code. 14 MR. JOHNSON: That’s not the intent of my discussion, so…and, again, when I woke up 15 this morning, I didn’t believe that I’d be going through this letter. I hadn’t seen the letter, hadn’t 16 read it, and thought I’d be listening, you know, to the speaker. And, unfortunately, we’re 17 reacting and doing the best we can, so please bear that in mind. Dr. Koziol is a resident of Fort 18 Collins, he’s a Colorado licensed architect and historic architect, as defined by the Secretary of 19 Interior. His resume is in the back of his two page letter, so it’s a three page submittal into the 20 record, and his resume is in the back. He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Public Policy from the 21 University of Colorado, Master of Architecture, University of Illinois in 1986, Master of Urban 22 Planning and Policy, also University of Illinois in 1985, Bachelor of Arts in Cultural 23 Anthropology, University of Chicago in 1980. I’ll just focus on just a couple paragraphs in the 24 letter and, for the benefit of the audience, I’ll read the first paragraph. This is addressed Robin 25 Bachelet. “Mrs. Bachelet, at your request, I have reviewed issues related to the historic 26 significance and integrity of 711 Remington Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. As a licensed 27 Colorado architect, Secretary of Interior qualified historic architect, and degreed urban planner, 28 formerly AICP, I attempted to consider this property in a professional, holistic way. As a 29 preservationist, I might want to save this and other equally “charming” buildings, but, 30 professionally, I find that the current condition of the building and the context of the Laurel 31 Street Historic District, does not merit regulatory in situ protection. However, some form of 32 mitigation, such as relocating the structure, may contribute to the public good.” 33 There’s a paragraph, bullet point, original survey of eligibility. Another bullet point 34 entitled “Inadequate Argument for Reevaluation.” Third bullet point is “Eroded Integrity of 35 District Context” but, it’s really the last one that I felt most significant. It’s entitled “Bad Results 36 by Incremental Deterioration.” And, I’ll read that. “Finally, as a planner and Fort Collins 37 resident, I’d like to say, that while many might prefer a nostalgic streetscape along Remington, 38 policies currently in place through zoning and potential design overlays, will not result in this 15 1 outcome. A realistic look at Remington should convince anyone that current policies (without 2 new development) is leading to clumsy additions, often for egress from permitted rental units in 3 existing structures, haphazard surface parking configurations, and under-investment in building 4 improvements by absentee landlords. Denying reinvestment along Remington is more surely a 5 path to more incremental decline than to historic preservation.” The last paragraph of his letter 6 concludes: “Again, although I consider myself a historic preservationist, I must conclude that the 7 most appropriate outcome for this property, and for the integrity of the bulk of the Laurel Street 8 Historic School District, is to support reinvestment of Remington (at least the west block face) to 9 an urban design standard and an urban density that can support amenities such as high quality 10 housing, structured parking, and well-maintained grounds.” 11 Again, I apologize for the inability to have Dr. Koziol here this evening, but the letter, 12 which I read this afternoon for the first time, I think really was very much consistent with the 13 modification and request…the modification of standards, which, you know, again, emphasizes 14 the relocation, not the demolition, of this particular property. It’s not their desire to demolish it. 15 They’d like to relocate it. There’s been interest in the community in doing so, and we’d like to 16 continue those efforts in earnest, with the cooperation of City staff, to find an appropriate place 17 where this structure can be restored to its original five hundred square-foot, approximately five 18 hundred square-foot, footprint. But, first, we need the modification of standards to be able to 19 fully engage in that process. 20 And, secondly, as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, the final development 21 plan has been well thought out, and it has gone through many revisions, listening to the feedback 22 of the City and the neighborhoods. But, it has not yet been submitted, and the project vision 23 would come back before this Board for Section 3.4.7 review, as part of the historic district. So, 24 the modification that we’re really…that I’m really focusing on this evening…is the request for 25 the relocation, which allows us to fully develop the infill site, which, according to…which is 26 consistent with the, you know, the opinion of Dr. Koziol. 27 Secondly, and I guess at this time, Mr. Chairman, do you have questions of me, or would 28 you like to take some time to review the letter? 29 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No, at this point I think you should continue. I want the applicant, 30 for your team, to be able to conclude and then we’ll get to staff, and we’ll probably have 31 questions for both of you. 32 MR. JOHNSON: Okay, absolutely. And then, the second submittal were proposed 33 findings of fact, to kind of help guide the discussion, you know, through the relocation request 34 from the applicants’ perspective. And, really what we’re talking about is a balancing of the 35 public good, which, you know, you read about in staff’s report. We believe that, on balance, a 36 relocation of 711 Remington is in the public good, and advances the public good. This particular 37 structure, we don’t believe qualifies as a landmark eligibility property. That, to have landmark 16 1 designation, it has to have exterior integrity, plus it also has to be significant, both of those 2 requirements are per the Code. In fact, the Code says that before you get to the significance of a 3 structure, under Chapter 14-5, you have to find that the home has exterior integrity, which is a 4 composite of seven aspects, or qualities: the location, the setting, the feeling, and the association, 5 are four of those seven. And, we believe that 711 Remington, at its current location, which is on 6 the outermost fringe of the Historic District, and directly abuts a fairly high traffic commercial 7 alley, and it abutting the commercial, CC, zone district…we feel that that location is detrimental 8 to, you know, to the original historic value of this home in the 1800’s. Also, 711 Remington is 9 located directly between two properties that were listed in a nomination form in 1980 as 10 intrusions to the District. So, what we have is two properties on either side of 711 Remington, 11 which, in 1980, were listed as intrusions to the District, and they are now officially not eligible 12 for landmark designation by the City of Fort Collins. In the middle was the original 711, of five 13 hundred square-feet, that has, in essence, doubled in size with additions, backs to a commercial 14 alley. We believe that all those factors impact, negatively, the location, the setting, the feeling, 15 and the association of this property. 16 With regard to the other three aspects of exterior integrity: the design, materials, and 17 workmanship, we also submit that the home is, as modified, is flawed in that regard as well. The 18 three-car garage that was added on the back of the site in 1947 is a cinder block structure, and 19 when it was converted to a duplex, it also used a mix of materials and workmanship, that we 20 believe is not consistent with the original construction of the home in the 1880’s or 1890’s. 21 The ultimate question of exterior integrity, under the Code, is whether or not the property 22 retains the identity for which it is significant. We submit that the property is not significant and 23 it does not meet any of the requirements under Chapter 14-5. We believe that. The Chair of the 24 LPC and the Director made a finding that it qualified under finding number three, we believe 25 that’s misguided. But, for the point of discussion, if you were to agree that the property meets 26 that third requirement, and therefore has, you know, some significance, that’s one of the two 27 prongs for landmark designation. The other is that it has to have exterior integrity. It must 28 possess exterior integrity before it can be found to have significance. But, the ultimate question 29 of exterior integrity is whether the property has retained its identity. And, the Code…one 30 sentence from the Code: “ultimately, the question of exterior integrity is answered by whether or 31 not the property retains the identity for which it is significant.” If the property is found 32 significant because it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period of construction, or 33 method, which is one of the third prongs, possesses high artistic values…we believe that this 34 property, because of its extensive modifications and additions, and because of its location that its 35 set in, its feel, it doesn’t actually retain any elements for what it could potentially be found 36 significant. So, we’re here requesting the modification on two bases. You know, number one is 37 it’s not significant. In the alternative, if you were to find that it is significant, we request that you 38 find that it’s not, that it doesn’t have the exterior integrity necessary to be a landmark. With 39 regard…and that analysis, we submit, is directly relevant to one of the initial determination for 17 1 the modification, which is that the modification, the relocation, must not be detrimental to the 2 public good. We believe that it’s not because the property is not landmark eligible, in our 3 opinion. And, secondly, you would need to find that it doesn’t impair the intent and the use of 4 the Land Use Code. And, I assume that, I know you’re all familiar with City Plan. Briefly, some 5 of the policies that we believe that this project, as proposed, would facilitate, you know, provided 6 the modification for relocation is granted. It’s a target infill area, it’s a higher density locations 7 in the Code, in City Plan, it prioritizes targeted redevelopment. There’s a policy, again, 8 encourage targeted redevelopment and infill. There’s a policy 5.2 for target public investment 9 and…on the community spine. There’s a policy 7.7, accommodate the student housing 10 population, and, you know, this particular project at its location, basically directly across from 11 CSU, would fill, definitely, an unmet need, one which is the subject of significant study right 12 now with the Student Housing Action Plan. It encourages housing choice…so, there’s a variety 13 of City Plan policies that we believe this proposal actually specifically addresses, and does so in 14 a substantial way, to alleviate matters of city-wide concern, which is one of the matters that you 15 need to address, or consider. So, I guess, with that, I’ll conclude my remarks. I think next it 16 opens up to staff and public, and we’re available, and I would love the opportunity to come up 17 again if you find it appropriate, to address specific questions and to go through more 18 information. Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Jennifer, go ahead. 20 MS. JENNIFER CARPENTER: Yeah, I would just like to get some really 21 straightforward clarification on this because my understanding is that we do not have purview 22 over whether or not this is eligible, and so, I don’t want to spend a lot of our time and effort 23 here…as eloquent as Mr. Johnson was on those point and these letter are. If that’s the case, I 24 would like to spend time based on the things we do have purview over. So, can we get…I would 25 really like to…we said it once, but I’d really like to clarify that and get it really straight, what our 26 purview is here tonight and what it is not. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, let’s ask Paul. 28 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think what you cannot do is decide whether something is or is 29 not eligible for historic designation. That’s something that is done under Chapter 14 by the 30 Landmark Preservation Commission. What, as I have tried to read through these proposed 31 findings while Mr. Johnson was speaking, and he may need to clarify this, but it looked to me 32 like, what is being asked of you in part A of this package of findings, is for you to determine that 33 it is not detrimental to the public good to relocate or, they talk about relocation, although 34 demolition is also certainly a possibility, or relocation to Omaha is tantamount to demolition. 35 And, I think that you are being asked to decide that it’s not detrimental to the public good, 36 because that’s one of the findings you have to make. Even in the face of the decision made by 37 the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Planning Director, that, even though that 38 happened, it’s okay, still, to relocate this, and that would not be detrimental to the public good. 18 1 That, I think, is what they’re asking you to decide. Is that correct? That’s the first step of what 2 you have to decide. 3 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, Mr. Eckman, that is correct. And, the reason we’re…we focused 4 on the landmark eligibility standard is, we believe that, as part of the analysis of determining 5 whether or not is detrimental to the public good, you have to really look, practically, at what 6 we’re requesting to relocate. 7 MR. ECKMAN: Okay, the next part of that request…the first part, as you know, in every 8 modification that you do, you need to decide that it’s not detrimental to the public good. The 9 next part of this request is hinged on the idea of an important community need, one of the other 10 criteria for the granting of a modification. Embedded inside of that important community need 11 criteria, is the fact that you need to make a determination that it would not impair the intent and 12 purpose of the Land Use Code. If you read that provision about important community need, it 13 says that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without 14 impairing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code. That’s where that discussion came 15 from…substantially alleviate an existing, defined, and described problem of city-wide concern, 16 or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project 17 would substantially address an important community need, specifically identified in the Comp 18 Plan, or wherever. And then, you have to do the how come part on that. You have to make a 19 finding as to how it advances that important community need and does not impair the intent and 20 purpose of the Land Use Code. Finding that it’s not detrimental to the public good, you can just 21 make that finding, without explaining how come. 22 The second part of their request has to do with the hardship approach, once again there’s 23 the finding that it’s not detrimental to the public good, but under the hardship approach, you 24 don’t have to worry about advancing the purposes of the Land Use Code, you only have to find 25 the property to be unique, and so forth. And their argument, if I am phrasing it correctly, is that 26 the uniqueness of this property has something to do with alleged misrepresentations made by the 27 City, if I got that straight. That’s what’s unique about the property that would justify the 28 hardship variance. Talked about inconsistent statements and the applicant, reason to believe, 29 relied on the City’s initial determination. I don’t know if they want to pursue that, or if they’d 30 rather pursue the other one, or if they want to pursue both. But, that’s what I read as I was 31 scanning this document as Mr. Johnson was speaking. Would you like to embellish upon that? 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, come on up. 33 MR. JOHNSON: Our intent is to focus on the first specific finding of fact and not the 34 second one, Mr. Eckman. 35 MR. ECKMAN: So, is it safe to say the Board can disregard that second one and just 36 spend its time…are you withdrawing that part of the request? The hardship part? 19 1 MR. JOHNSON: We’ll work through it. We’ll withdraw that for this evening. 2 MR. ECKMAN: Okay. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I didn’t hear you, what did you say? I’m sorry. 4 MR. JOHNSON: We will withdraw the second, the hardship, prong for this evening. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. Okay. Does anybody else on the Board have any 6 questions right now? Of Paul, really, to be able to get clarification. 7 MR. BUTCH STOCKOVER: I just had one quick one. There’s been quite a bit of 8 reference to the Plan Development Overlay District, relating to a city-wide concern or important 9 community need, but I think that we need to realize that that has been tabled because there’s no 10 consensus and we’re looking for more community input. So, that’s not a policy that we can look 11 at, in favor or against, because it’s still just opinion at this point. So, I think we need to be really 12 careful, would you agree? 13 MR. ECKMAN: Yes, that’s not part of the City’s law yet. I took it to mean that the 14 applicant was just trying to say that, if it ever should become part of the City’s law, they thought 15 they would comply with the PDOD. But, we have no way of knowing that until the law has been 16 established. 17 MR. STOCKOVER: Okay, thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Does anybody else on the Board have questions of the applicant 19 right now? I’d like to get to public comment as soon as we can, and then we can come back and 20 ask more questions…I’m sure we will, of the applicant and staff. How do you all feel? Okay, 21 let’s open this up for public testimony then, please. If you’re here and you want to address the 22 Board on this issue, here’s how we’ll do it. We’ll kind of keep it orderly. Can I get a…raise 23 your had if you’re going to speak to this issue, please. That’s like six dozen people, that’s a lot. 24 Just joking. If you could come up to the microphone, line up…the way we’ll do this is, you’ll 25 get three minutes. Please step up, state your name and address for the record and please sign in, 26 and then let’s hear your comments please. Ted? 27 MR. TED SHEPARD: And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind, for protocol 28 purposes…we used to have two podiums, but we don’t, and so it’s really important for the 29 second speaker to line up behind the first speaker, the third behind the second, so we don’t have 30 to wait for everyone to get up out of their seat and walk down to the podium. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Good point, thank you. Feel free to step up and let’s begin the 32 public testimony please. 33 MR. STEVE MACK: My name is Steve Mack, I live at 420 East Laurel, about two 34 blocks from the proposed development. I also own five other houses within the Historic District 20 1 and, in short, I urge you to act on the recommendations of staff, that I find this proposal to be 2 inconsistent in terms of size, mass, and scope of the project, and inconsistent with the context of 3 that block face and the opposing block face. I also urge you to think about the fact that the 4 notices that went out only went out to the specified narrow radius, and that most other people 5 within the Historic District are uninformed about this project. Thank you. 6 MR. BRIAN BEGLEY: Hello, my name is Brian Begley. Through my LLC, I’m the 7 owner of 701 Remington, which is the immediate neighbor of the proposed project. You can see 8 how close it is there to the property line, so, if you’re looking for a victim of this massive 9 proposed project, you’re looking at him right here. So, I would just urge you to please follow the 10 letter of the Code, it’s the only thing I see protecting me here, plus my residents and their quality 11 of life. Thank you. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Brigitte, go ahead. 13 MS. BRIGITTE SCHMIDT: Well, I would just like to make a general comment to some 14 of the citizens that are going to speak, because there was a lot of discussion by the applicants, I 15 think, about deterioration in the neighborhood and the District and that sort of thing. And I guess 16 I’d like to get some feedback from other people on, if you feel things have been deteriorating, 17 and what might change some of that. 18 MR. BEGLEY: If I could take a minute to address that. Yeah, I bought this in December 19 of 2010, and, yes, it was deteriorating, and that was the fault, in my opinion, of the previous 20 owner. In his mind, I think, he was selling it for investment purposes down the road and it 21 wasn’t worth his while to keep it up. In the last year, year and a half, with blood, sweat, tears, 22 and money, I’ve restored it to some degree of its former glory. It’s a 1908 house. It’s been a 23 four-plex for fifty years at least, so my property is not deteriorating. 24 MR. TIM FECTEAU: My name is Tim Fecteau, I own a property at 717 Mathews, which 25 is the same block but one street over. I was shocked to hear that I owned property in a ghetto, 26 myself. I mean, this is a Historic District. There are old buildings, some need repair, many are 27 being fixed up, but I try to keep mine up. I’ve seen the neighborhood come up, I’ve not seen it 28 deteriorate. This building is way too large. It doesn’t fit a Historic District, it’s a brand new 29 building. It just…it does not belong there, it’s too tall. The parking, I think, is a real problem. 30 Every student…I rent…my property has been a rental for students since the 1890’s. Every 31 student has a car, and every student that’s going to be in one of these buildings is going to have a 32 car, and they’re going to need parking out on the street, where it’s already short parking now. I 33 think the house that’s there is very historic. I was at some other meetings and they called it a 34 handyman house. Because a house was built in the 1880’s and had an addition put on in 1920, 35 does not mean that that addition is not historic either. I think it’s, I mean, every house evolves, 36 and it’s not just something that was first built when it was five hundred square foot, I think, if it’s 21 1 a thousand square feet now, the whole thing should be moved, if that’s what you guys decide. I 2 don’t think it should be, I think it should stay there. 3 What else? I think that this…I’ve lived in Miami a long time, and I saw this happen. 4 This is commercial encroachment on a residential district, and it starts just like this. Well, it’s 5 just this one block, here, and then all of a sudden, the person next to it wants it, and the guy 6 across the street wants it. If this happens, I will be here asking you for variances to build 7 something like this. I don’t want to see it happen, but that’s the precedent you would be setting 8 by letting this happen. Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please. 10 MR. CARL PATTON: Carl Patton, I’ve owned the property at 515 Remington for about 11 forty years. I am a, what do you call it, slum lord…no, you said a different word. I would like to 12 first say that this neighborhood is not deteriorating, there are a lot of committed owners, whether 13 we live there or not, and I think it’s going up, thanks in part to the Landmark Preservation 14 Commission’s work. That’s my first point. 15 Let me also say that they’ve been consistent over my dealings with them for the past 16 fifteen or twenty years, and they’ve contributed significantly to the improvement of the area, and 17 to my cost in doing that on my property, which is fine. They did offer to move 711, but they 18 offered to move it to an alley, pretty much, in an industrial area with no real access. I would 19 welcome them providing alternatives for that move. The historic structure needs to be preserved 20 in a good way. I won’t go into the attack on the purview of the LPC, that’s been stated. My 21 final point is, pure and simple, too many units, not enough parking, traffic flow issues, destroys 22 at least with the proposal I read at 6:00 tonight, destroys the landmark property. Now, they are 23 again proposing to move it, which I would support. But, I don’t think that, as proposed, what 24 they want to do, while laudable, is definitely not unique. Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please. 26 MR. BILL JENKINS: My name is Bill Jenkins, I live at 710 Mathews Street, and I’m 27 talking for myself as well as my wife, Barbara Liebler, who could not attend the meeting tonight. 28 I agree…I read…I had a chance to read the staff report and their recommendation, and I would 29 encourage the Planning and Zoning Board to go along with the staff recommendation and not 30 allow these modifications. It’s going from…it’s based on the scale, going from a neighborhood 31 that basically has long, narrow lots with single houses, to a huge three-lot, three-story building. 32 And, so, in the staff recommendation, they made notes about density, about the dimensions, and 33 the public good. There’s not a case for public good, from what I can see. The benefits to the 34 neighborhood, they haven’t been pointed out I don’t think, in regards to the standards. And, we 35 have these landmark preservation regulations, we have the Land Use Code, and we have the City 36 Master Plan for reasons, is to not let things go out of control in terms of architecture and density 37 and those kinds of things. My personal fear is that this block will turn into a neighborhood that 22 1 looks like Laurel, the north side of Laurel between Mason and Shields, which is a lot of new 2 apartment complexes going up, and a lot of commercial. And, the purpose of this neighborhood 3 is it’s a buffer zone, and I think we should keep it that way. So, once again, I would like to see 4 you folks go along with the staff recommendation and deny these modifications. Thank you. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please. 6 MS. LINDA BLAKE: My name is Linda Blake, I’m a relative recent resident of Fort 7 Collins, and, when I learned about this, I was a little concerned. But, tonight, I’ve heard a lot 8 about code and law, and what the developer’s desire. But, I haven’t heard anything about the 9 residents’ rights in the surrounding neighborhoods. I know that there are people who have 10 invested significant money, and time, and energy and passion in some of the homes in the 11 surrounding area, and I would just encourage you to consider the rights of those people, in 12 addition to your weighing the value of the project relative to the developer. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mam, did you sign in? Would you please, for the 14 record. Thank you, go ahead and take your time. 15 MR. LARRY DUNN: Larry Dunn, 729 Peterson Street. We’re several blocks away from 16 this, but I’d like to speak to, I guess, the community good part. We’ve seen some interesting 17 development, in terms of people coming together in this area of town. We get together on kind 18 of a regular basis, like once or twice a month, and people from all of the streets, including that 19 area, and Remington and Laurel, and all of the streets that are adjoining us. And, we just feel 20 that it’s a nice mix, you know, we’ve got students, we’ve got older people, we’ve got people 21 with children. We’ve got a nice community mix, and bringing in a big infusion of students into 22 this mix of people…they’re probably not going to be there very long, who are coming in for one 23 year, two years, you know, maybe three years, to live there. To us, it’s not a benefit to our 24 community organization that we have. Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. While he’s doing that, I just want to remind 26 everybody, please do sign in, it’s important for a lot of reasons. And, don’t steal the sign in 27 sheet. 28 MR. BEN KING: My name is Ben King, and I own the property at 601-603 Mathews 29 Street. It’s a duplex, and I bought that property in 1994, and it was deteriorating at that time. I 30 did a substantial amount of work then, and I’m actually planning to do more this year as well. I 31 do believe that that neighborhood is not deteriorating, I mean one property at a time may not 32 look so good, but, you know, people in their timeframe will kind of help bring it back I think. I 33 do agree with most everything that everybody else has said, and one of the biggest things, as far 34 as the size, the mass of that building, the density of the number of people living on that size of a 35 lot, and just the scale, don’t fit, in my mind, in that neighborhood. He was talking about it, you 36 know, being a buffer zone, but the buffer zone between College, or from College, really, in my 37 mind doesn’t really make…well, he was talking about, sort of, the down side. When you’re on 23 1 Remington, you see what’s on Remington, you don’t see what’s on College, so, as far as being a, 2 you know, seeing that buffer, I don’t think we need to bring it into the neighborhood any further. 3 And, I just don’t believe it fits in the neighborhood. Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 5 MR. MARK ANDERSON: Hi, my name is Mark Anderson. I live at 704 Mathews, 6 about one block east of the proposed project. I’ve been living there fifteen years, and, like many 7 other people, I’ve actually seen modest improvements in the neighborhood, no real detriments. 8 A lot of people getting new roofs, new paint, window work, it’s a lot of little incremental things, 9 but it’s going the right direction. 10 My first point is, I think they actually made a little math error in their calculations of 11 FAR, on item three here of the allotment. They’re saying it goes from 0.33 maximum floor area 12 to 2.3. That’s actually a 700% increase, not a 199% increase, as represented. The way to look at 13 it is, the lot will provide…if you want to bring up the numbers, I can show you, but the lot will 14 provide for about 2,400 square feet, I think you had in the numbers, and they’re asking for 15 19,000 square feet. Okay, my apologies. 16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You’re fine, don’t worry about it. 17 MR. ANDERSON: It’s a common math error, people get percentage points and 18 percentages goofed up, but anyway, they are asking for seven times more lot area than the Code 19 really allows. Okay? 20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. 21 MR. ANDERSON: Other than that, I think it’s a beautiful building, but it’s just way too 22 big, way, way, way, way, way too big. Thanks for your time. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. What we’ll do is, staff will have some time to look 24 through what you just brought up, and then we’ll ask staff here, in a moment, to comment on 25 that. 26 MR. DAVE LINGLE: Good evening Boardmembers, hi Kristen, congratulations on your 27 appointment. I can tell you it’s a whole lot more relaxing being out here now. Just a few 28 comments, and I think some of your questions took care of some of the things I was going to talk 29 about. But, I guess, in general, you know, the emphasis of what you’re here for is for the 30 modifications, and the presentation from the applicant was sort of all over the place. Are they 31 going to go for equal to or better than, or a physical hardship, or the community-wide concern 32 issue, and that seems to be where they’ve landed. But, from my experience on the Board, that 33 was generally the more, the most, difficult to justify because it’s really hard when you look at 34 doubling the density, somewhere near 200% increase in floor area ratio, except maybe even more 35 than that, and then really no compliance at all with the other three standards. It’s kind of hard to 24 1 identify what community-wide concern is being addressed with those kinds of requests. And, I 2 think it’s incumbent on the applicant to prove to you that they have met that standard, as opposed 3 to you trying to come up with the justification why they have. That was always a struggle that 4 we had, and I’m not sure that they’ve met that requirement. While VFLA, I think, has done a 5 really good job in trying to make this massiveness of, you know, the project density and scale 6 and everything, as compatible as possible, it’s just, it’s really difficult to try to go from 7 something that would be allowed at twenty-three units, to forty-two units, and make it look 8 compatible. So, I guess those are my comments. One other thing, I understand PDOD hasn’t 9 been approved, but, in its current form, the two historic preservation standards would not be 10 waived, I mean that would not be something that would not have to be complied with. So, while 11 they might have some provisions allowed by PDOD on the first three modifications, it wouldn’t 12 help them necessarily on the other two. So, those are my comments. 13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 14 MR. LINGLE: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t…Dave Lingle, 517 East Laurel, I live about three 15 and a half blocks from the project. 16 MS. INGRID SIMPSON: I’m Ingrid Simpson, actually used to be a member of your 17 Board. I don’t live in this area, I live north of town, but I own property on College Avenue. I 18 own those old houses next to the Book Ranch. This is a very difficult decision for developers to 19 decide where to put something that large. I know Robin very well, in fact we had the dental 20 office next to the big building they have on the corner of Laurel and College. And, the time that 21 was before the Board…well, it didn’t go before your Board, but…it was an administrative 22 one…we were pretty shocked by the size of it. And, to be real honest with you, it has had very 23 little impact on the dental practice. We don’t own that anymore. I realize, back on Remington, it 24 is residential, but I think one thing the City, and we as residents, whether you’re in the County or 25 the City, need to start looking at, are all these two and three-story buildings being popping up all 26 over town, that are being approved. For instance, the one on North Grant that badly affected that 27 neighborhood. And, unfortunately, that isn’t decided to be a historical area. I grew up on the 28 corner of Washington and Laporte. That house is way over a hundred years old, it’s never been 29 looked at as a historical building. So, you know, this may not be the proper project for that 30 particular area, but I can tell you, that eventually, those areas are all going to get changed 31 because the city is growing and growing, and there’s the desire to have more nice, high rise 32 buildings, which is kind of sad in a way, because people move here for the small town 33 atmosphere and, quite frankly, to be able to see some mountain between the buildings. I don’t 34 know whether this is a good or a bad project, I think it’s much nicer on that corner, what they 35 have designed, than they had on the corner of Laurel and College. But, I do agree that the house, 36 the historical building, should be moved, and there should be someplace that’s equitable to the 37 Landmark Commission and to the developer. And, since that’s the main reason that we’re 38 looking at this tonight, I would propose moving that. Thank you. 25 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 2 MS. RUTH ROLLINS: Good evening Boardmembers, my name is Ruth Rollins, and I 3 live at 5029 Crest Road, outside of the area, but I own properties within the area, also outside the 4 area in the Historic Laurel School District, and down the street on Remington. First, to address 5 Brigitte’s question, I lived on Remington Street in 1983 when I was a CSU student, and the 6 neighborhood looks pretty much the same. You know, there are some houses that are nicer, 7 there are some houses that, you know, have lots of bikes in front of them, and lounge chairs, and 8 that kind of stuff, but it hasn’t deteriorated at all. I didn’t realize it was a ghetto, and believe you 9 me, when my mother came up here with me, if she thought it was a ghetto, I never would have 10 lived on Remington Street, ever. My main thing, you know, and I’m not a historic preservation 11 huge advocate, but I do have an appreciation of that house, that small house. I’ve always thought 12 that that was kind of unique. Whether it’s…hopefully, it’s not ever torn down, and, at the most, 13 relocated to a location that might be more appropriate. 14 My big thing is the square footage. To me, this a rezone through modification of 15 standard. I don’t know how you can double square footage and call that a modification of 16 standard. It’s just too huge, significant, and out of scale. Really, what they’re asking for is to 17 rezone this, and I think that’s inappropriate in a buffer. I just think that this is incredible, that 18 this was allowed to get this far, but staff probably doesn’t have a way to stop it before it gets 19 here. Anyway, I’m greatly opposed to it. I do think the look of it is nice, nicer than a rendering 20 that we got early on, but the density is just phenomenally out of scale. So, thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 22 MS. ROLLINS: You’re welcome. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Don’t steal the pen. 24 MR. STEVE STANDERING: Hello, my name is Steve Standering. I own property at 25 808 Mathews and 301 and 303 East Plum, have since the ‘80’s. I’ve seen no degradation in the 26 neighborhood whatsoever. My rents have gone up consistently, and I’m sure everybody else’s 27 have too. The only property that isn’t kept, are the three properties in question. If the landlords 28 would make some effort to keep them up, that would be nice. We have no need for rabbit hutch 29 houses, quite honestly you’re not going to get cream of the crop when you appeal to the lowest 30 common denominator. And, to pack that many people into such little spaces is inappropriate. I 31 would hope that you would not consider this development. Thank you. 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Does anybody else want to address the Board on this issue? 33 We’re soon going to close…I’m sorry, not yet, no, I’m sorry. I’ve got to be able to make sure 34 we follow the process we have laid out by the Land Use Code. Anybody else from the public 35 like to address the Board on this issue? Alright, we’ll close the public testimony at this time. I 36 want to see if the Board needs to take a break. Does the Board need to take a break or do you 26 1 want to continue on? Alright, we’ll continue going. So, here’s what we’ll do, is we’ll probably 2 ask a couple questions of staff, and perhaps even the applicant, and, at that point, we may be able 3 to get some of your feedback, if that’s okay. Real quick, staff, you want to tell us your 4 comments or thoughts about what you heard, any specific points that were addressed or brought 5 up in the public testimony. 6 MS. LEVINGSTON: I believe Paul Eckman covered most of my points, in terms of the 7 public testimony by Mr. Mark Anderson regarding my map on the second modification, my 8 iPhone calculator app is malfunctioning, so I’m not able to doublecheck my math on that, but I 9 could get back to you to ensure that those numbers are correct, that are in the staff report. I had a 10 Zoning inspector check those over and he did concur that those were the correct calculations; 11 however, I’m more than willing to go back and revisit those to ensure accuracy. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, any other comments from staff, Paul? 13 MR. ECKMAN: My only comment is that the…after public testimony, according to our 14 order in our Land Use Code, the applicant response comes next, and finally the staff response to 15 both the public testimony and the applicant response. 16 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, then I made an error. I apologize. Would the applicant like 17 a chance to come up and refute what they’ve heard, or comment on what they’ve heard. 18 MR. BACHELET: I just wanted to say a few things, and clarify a few things. Right now, 19 as it stands in that Remington corridor, 18% are owner-occupied, 80% are currently rentals, so I 20 just wanted to make that clear. There also hasn’t been any discussion from public in regards to 21 the negative impact of the Kensington property, which actually exists on Laurel and Remington. 22 That project is a lot bigger than what we’re proposing, yet it has no parking and no amenities. 23 Yet, no one speaks about the negative impact that that property may or may not have on the 24 community. And let me add one final though…one more thing, too, if we went through a Type I, 25 we’re allowed to have twenty-three two-bedroom unit, that’s forty-six…I don’t think I need an 26 iPad calculator to figure that one out. But, that’s forty-six tenants, we’re only proposing about 27 the same. And, finally, my sister-in-law came to visit over the holidays, and she brought her 28 brother who went to CSU about twenty-five years ago. And, he took his family out there, he 29 wanted to show his kids and his wife where he went to college. Went around the Laurel District 30 area, I didn’t tell him where to go, but that’s where he went, and his first comment was, wow, 31 this place looks really tired, nothing has changed. So, again, I do think there are sections of the 32 District that is deteriorating, that is in need of a facelift, and there are other parts of the District 33 that are doing fine and preserving what they intended to do. So, I just wanted to make that clear. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, you bet. 35 MS. BACHELET: Just one point of clarification. The forty-four units has sixty-five 36 parking places, covered, and subterranean. The Type I review that we can build, that is twenty- 27 1 three two-bedrooms, would have twenty parking places, so it would be significantly 2 underparked. But, yet, it falls within our ability to build within the Land Use Code under a Type 3 I Administrative Review hearing. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Alright, the applicant, you can continue if you have 5 other members of your team that would like to step up and comment. Mr. Johnson, go ahead. 6 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, and thanks for the, you know, the feedback from the 7 audience as well. These are tough issues, and we knew it would be, and it always is. Your 8 Board is no stranger to differing opinions, no doubt about that. You know, really, the focus and 9 the heart of the matter for tonight, in my opinion and the applicant’s opinion, is the modification 10 of standard to allow a relocation. We’re allowed to proceed on multiple stand-alone 11 modifications, which we have done tonight. But, if the Board, you know, finds…the Board can 12 find one or all of the modifications appropriate, but, if you were to consider one, just one, 13 modification tonight, it would be the request for the relocation. The issues regarding the density, 14 and FAR and setback would ultimately be determined and brought before the Board again, 15 perhaps in a different form, perhaps not, but it can come back before the Board. So, the granting 16 of the modification for the relocation does not impact further discussion, public discussion, staff 17 discussion, and interaction with the neighbors and the development. On the ultimate scope of the 18 proposal, the Code allows applicants to come forward with modification requests before they file 19 their final plan, and you can get the feedback in this form, as difficult as it is. 20 With regard to the modification on the relocation, the proposal is to relocate…a 21 modification of standards to relocate 711 Remington from its current position, which again, is 22 located between two intrusions to the District, on the outer fringe of the Historic District, and on 23 the west block side of Remington. We respectfully submit that the relocation of this…and 24 restoration of this project, would improve the home for the future, at a different location. It 25 would dress up and improve the neighborhood by removing two intrusions, and one home that 26 has been substantially modified in a manner that, we submit, does not convey its original 27 integrity. 28 We believe that, with regard to the community-wide standards, that a proposal of this 29 nature specifically addresses an unmet need in the city of Fort Collins, and that is for student 30 housing. It’s appropriately located for student housing, close to student services, across the 31 street from CSU, close to the Mason Corridor. All of those are important community assets, and 32 increasing the density around campus, we believe, will actually enhance the neighborhood. And, 33 we consider this property adjoining a commercial alley, although it is part of the District, it’s the 34 outer fringe of the Historic District. When I drive, or bike, through the Laurel Historic District, 35 and that neighborhood, whether it was a historic district or not, the commercial alley right there, 36 abutting mixed-use developments…I don’t think of that as part of the residential development. 37 We think it’s highly appropriate at that particular location. Thank you. 28 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 2 MR. LARSON: A couple points, architecturally, that, you know, recognize that the 3 development that’s proposed is doing two things. One, maintaining all the pedestrian along 4 Remington, being that there’s sidewalks, porches, everything is in context to the adjacent. What 5 we’ve done is bring in the…what doesn’t exist, which is adequate parking, safety, and, through 6 traffic studies, all these pieces, to incorporate that on the commercial side. So, I think peoples’ 7 concerns are valid. We’ve heard concerns earlier, about, kind of, traffic flow and size, and how 8 will that be addressed, and that is the intent and the result of what we’ve put together is…here’s 9 how we’re keeping vehicle traffic off of Remington and back towards the College, commercial 10 side. Scale, that was mentioned several times, is in…you know, we’re at two and a half to three 11 stories, which, as you look at 711…my compliments to Brian, is a beautiful revamp of that 12 structure. That is a two and half, three, story building, so we’re right in the same…our proposal 13 is following that same context and scale. Pedestrian along Remington, automobile off of 14 College. Thanks. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Does the applicant have any other comments you 16 want your team to address. Again, I apologize for my procedural error there, want to make sure 17 you guys get a good chance to come back up and talk. Anything else? Okay, alright, thanks. 18 Let’s go to staff real quick, just if there’s any response from the staff to either the public 19 testimony or what we just heard from the applicant, as far as their response. 20 MS. LEVINGSTON: We have no response. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, yeah Brigitte, go ahead. 22 MS. SCHMIDT: I’d like to ask one question, just because I’m a little bit unfamiliar with 23 this. Is this district the only district that we have in Fort Collins, and, sort of, what is the 24 implication to being a district versus just being individually, you know, a house here, a house 25 there sort of thing. 26 MS. KAREN MCWILLIAMS: This is not the only district in Fort Collins, it is one of 27 just a couple that we have. This is the Laurel School National Register District. It is designated 28 on the National Register of Historic Places and on the State Register of Historic Properties. We 29 also have the Old Town Historic District, which also is a National and State Register District. 30 And then Fort Collins has a couple of small, Fort Collins landmark districts. The difference is 31 that, if you are in a designated landmark district, such as the Laurel School National Register 32 District, those residents, people that own property within the Laurel School National Register 33 District, get financial incentives. One of the major ones being a 20% state tax credit for any of 34 the work that they do to the buildings on their property. And, they actually receive that benefit 35 by virtue of being designated in the Laurel School National Register District as contributing 36 buildings to that District. There’s also State Historic Fund grants that residents or owners of 29 1 property in that area can take advantage of, and a few other various financial incentives that, 2 again, accrue to them by virtue of their designation. 3 MS. SCHMIDT: Does it affect the District in any way if certain properties change in 4 character, and then…or, do they eventually change the boundaries. Would it be reevaluated, 5 let’s say, as one person worried, that maybe we would have, after this project, some other 6 projects. At what point, what is the tipping point for the District designation? 7 MS. MCWILLIAMS: We don’t define the National Register Districts so those 8 regulations, or their way of looking at it, would be how the National Register would look at it. 9 But, indeed, every time a property is demolished or relocated out of it, or inappropriately 10 changed, that is located within the District, that degrades the District and then becomes, 11 typically, a non-contributing element to the District. So, you can have buildings that formerly 12 contributed to having a District, and then, at a certain point you do, you run out of sufficient 13 properties, or even sufficient properties within an area, and then, either the District goes away or 14 the boundaries end up being changed. 15 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, thank you, that helps. 16 MR. GINO CAMPANA: What was the LPC’s position on the relocation? 17 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The Landmark Preservation Commission heard some testimony 18 about two different potential locations. One of them was located near the…near Cowan Street, 19 in that location, and near the fast food restaurant that’s there…Hardee’s…I can’t think of what it 20 is right now. But, kind of in that general vicinity, and that was really not discussed at any depth 21 by the applicants, and so the Commission really didn’t focus on that one at all. The other one 22 was a proposal for the property at 901 East Laurel, and the Commission did talk somewhat about 23 that property. The building would have been located on the back of the lot behind the existing 24 house. It would be located along a pedestrian pathway that’s used also as a drive for the Laurel 25 Elementary School that’s that way, but it’s a private drive that’s closed off much of the time. 26 And, there was little information presented as to the character of the neighborhood, or how the 27 building, if it were to be relocated to this spot, would retain the sufficient integrity to be, still, 28 individually eligible, which is the requirement, that the Landmark Preservation Commission 29 needs to find. So, if a building is relocated into an area that does not retain its individual 30 eligibility to still be designated, then the Commission has to turn it down. 31 MR. CAMPANA: I got the feeling from reading the minutes of the meeting that they 32 weren’t as concerned with relocating it. They were okay with relocating as long as they could 33 find a location, as you said, would allow it to continue to be eligible. Am I thinking correctly on 34 that? 35 MS. MCWILLIAMS: I think the Commission would be willing to consider the relocation 36 of the building, they would need to find a location that, again, retains that building’s individual 30 1 eligibility and does not, by the fact of its being relocated to a different parcel, impact those 2 buildings’ eligibility. 3 MR. CAMPANA: So, they would never make a decision that it’s okay to be relocated 4 without having a location for it to be relocated to? 5 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Actually, the motion made was to the effect of…they turned down 6 the relocation of the building. I can actually find the motion here for you and read it to you if 7 you would like. But, the motion was flat out, we find that we do not want to relocate this 8 building. And, the motion passed five to three. 9 MR. CAMPANA: Do you think that was because of the location it was being moved to? 10 MS. MCWILLIAMS: I don’t know. There was a lot of discussion about the integrity of 11 the building once it’s moved, and how moving a building affects its eligibility to be designated 12 on the National Register, once it’s moved, or for State or local designation as well. 13 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, and on our purview here, for what we’re looking at tonight, are 14 we looking at the relocation to a specific location, or just being able to prove that it can be 15 relocated. 16 MR. ECKMAN: You’ll have to ask the applicant, I think, but I couldn’t tell any 17 relocation to a specific location, but, in addition to that, I’m not sure that the relocation 18 itself…you’re being asked to modify the standard of the Land Use Code that contains a couple of 19 requirements: 3.4.7(B) talks about, since this has an eligible, Landmark Commission has 20 determined to be eligible, property on it, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development 21 plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic 22 structure. I think that’s one of the problems that the applicants have, is with that language. Over 23 on the next page, under paragraph E, dealing with relocation or demolition, it says that the 24 building may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the Board 25 in this case, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, 26 structure, or object in accordance with the standards of this section, and the preservation of the 27 site, structure, or object is not feasible. So, I’m not sure how the relocation…I could stand to 28 have some more explanation by the applicant about how the relocation fits in, or if it’s just the 29 language about this preservation not being feasible, is what the applicant wants to erase from 30 your consideration, because of the important community need, and so forth. And, on the prior 31 page, the language about the adaptive use of the historic structure, maybe that’s really what the 32 applicant wants to take out of the equation because of the important community need, with 33 regard to that paragraph. There are two paragraphs, B and E, that they’re seeking modifications 34 for. 35 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let me ask real quick…we could always, I mean one of the 36 options for the Board is to condition the approval of a request to modify a standard. Is that true? 31 1 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. Gino, did you want to hear from the applicant, any 3 clarification on that? 4 MR. CAMPANA: It would help me out, yes. 5 MR. ECKMAN: Also, while they’re thinking about that, the culinary expert that I am, 6 that restaurant is Carl’s Junior. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thanks, yeah, come on up. 8 MR. JOHNSON: With regard to the request for relocation, 3.4.7(E) is entitled 9 “Relocation or Demolition,” I’m sure you’ve all read it. But, I read the Code that a property 10 that’s individually eligible for landmark designation, and 711 Remington was determined 11 individually eligible for landmark designation by two individuals, the Director and the Chair of 12 the LPC. So, this property may be relocated or demolished, only if, in the opinion of the 13 decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, tried to preserve the site and 14 the structure. What this Code provision does, is it allows P&Z, is my reading of the Code, to 15 grant a relocation. And, as you did correctly state Mr. Smith, that the Code allows P&Z to 16 condition an order, or an approval, whether it’s a modification or otherwise…any sort of a 17 provision. So, you know, what the applicant desires to do is relocate this property to a more 18 suitable location. A couple of locations have been suggested and Ms. Bachelet would like to talk 19 about, I guess elaborate, a little bit about the LPC hearing and what was presented, if that’s 20 acceptable. Go ahead. 21 MR. CAMPANA: I was going to say, what would really be helpful, to me, is…since we 22 can’t really change a decision that was made by the LPC, I’m not sure it’s going to be valuable to 23 us to have a better understanding of that process. What would be helpful is, you know, for us to 24 rule on the relocation, we have to believe that, in our opinion, the applicant has, to the maximum 25 extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure, or object in accordance with the 26 standards of the section. So, that’s really what I’m curious…tonight, I want to hear how you’ve 27 done that so that I could possibly form an opinion as to whether or not you have. 28 MR. ECKMAN: May I interject though. It sounded like what you are thinking is of a 29 way for the Board to determine whether the applicant has in fact complied with that paragraph. 30 If there’s compliance with the paragraph, there need be no modification to it. And, I’m sensing 31 the applicant is wanting the same thing, wanting to make a finding that the paragraph E has been 32 complied with because the preservation is not feasible. That’s not a modification request. So, 33 I’d like to see how that can be phrased into a modification request. What are we wanting to 34 modify in that standard, and not how are we complying with that standard…that would be an 35 entirely different question. 32 1 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, you’re right Paul, I’m sorry. We have to pick a direction to go 2 though. 3 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, it sounds like the significant community need was what you were 4 arguing. 5 MR. JOHNSON: That was one of the prongs under the modification of standard, correct. 6 But, it terms of Mr. Eckman’s comment about what we’re asking to be modified, what we’d 7 like…the bottom line is we’d like to relocate the property and it’s been quite a process to get 8 approval, even conditional approval, to do so, and to address that matter because the property is 9 individually eligible. And, you know, ultimately, maybe there’s a process, we could get before 10 City Council to determine whether this is landmark worthy or not. In lieu of that, we are trying 11 to find a prudent, feasible alternative to allow, what we believe is a proper development for this 12 location, and we happen to believe that it does advance many policies of the City of Fort Collins. 13 So, back to the modification of standards, if I were to ask that a certain section in 3.4.7(E) be 14 deleted, which I believe is what Mr. Eckman has requested, it would be a modification of 15 standards deleting the maximum extent feasible, so that the Board, in its discretion, subject to a 16 condition…a condition could be approval of the LPC as to a suitable location, if that’s what the 17 Board desires. But, a modification of standard to delete that section, and, I believe that would 18 give the Board the legal authority to grant approval for the relocation, again, with or without 19 conditions. And, is that responsive to your question? 20 MR. CAMPANA: Yes, thank you. 21 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, now I’m thoroughly confused. When we’re talking about 22 deleting a standard, we don’t have the ability to delete a standard, so I don’t know what we’re 23 being asked to do. 24 MR. LARSON: Yeah, the correct term would be to modify that standard for this project, 25 and the reason that we’re asking that is…please recognize that, to relocate a building, you need 26 to negotiate with property owners, come up with an adequate plan that gives the LPC and the 27 City effective information. But, all of that has a cost burden and commitment that’s tied with it, 28 that, for the owner, if we went down this line on ten different pieces of property, and no matter 29 what we suggested, the relocation wouldn’t be approved, it wouldn’t be a very prudent approach. 30 What this would allow us to do is say, yes, relocation is okay, granted that you do these things. 31 But, we would at least know that we’re not constantly taking this bencher and spending dollars 32 and investing other community members into a process that will never go anywhere. 33 MS. CARPENTER: So, are you asking for a modification of standard? That’s the 34 question, for me, is, if you’re asking for a modification of this standard…I mean, we can’t just 35 make this go away in the Code, that’s not our job. So, are you asking for a modification of the 36 standard, and if so, then we have to have grounds to do that. 33 1 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, we are asking for a modification of standard, and, the grounds for 2 the modification of standard…first, you know, the requested modification can’t be detrimental to 3 the public good, it can’t impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, and we believe that 4 we’ve satisfied those requirements. And, we also believe we’ve satisfied and demonstrated that 5 we’re addressing, substantially addressing, and alleviate city-wide, areas of city-wide concern, 6 and address important community needs as described in comprehensive plans and adopted 7 policies. It is a matter of public policy and, of course the discussions that are on-going, that 8 aren’t yet policy. It’s our belief that we have satisfied those modifications and that you could 9 grant us a modification to the standard, to the maximum extent feasible, we’ve attempted to 10 preserve this site, and allow us to relocate the property, that’s really what we’re asking for. And, 11 Mr. Eckman, if there’s any assistance you could offer, that would be great, or clarification for the 12 Board. 13 MR. ECKMAN: Well, like Mr. Lingle said, I’m not charged with the duty of presenting 14 the case. I think, though, that, in response to your statement, Ms. Carpenter, that the Board can, 15 in the process of granting a modification to a standard, almost eviscerate the standard. I think 16 that their request is to take paragraph B and paragraph E, and just take them out, because this is 17 an important community need, there’s no detriment to the public good, and it doesn’t impair the 18 intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. I gather that’s what the request is. 19 MS. CARPENTER: So, would you say that this Remington Annex Specific Findings that 20 was given to us tonight, that what they’re looking for is A one and two on this, and three. Is that 21 what you’re saying? 22 MR. ECKMAN: That’s right, they have withdrawn B, part B. 23 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, so, but, we kind of got confused there, and that was what I 24 was not really understanding what was going on, so, this is really what you’re asking for, the first 25 piece of this? 26 MR. JOHNSON: My apologies for the confusion, and in terms of…to build on what Mr. 27 Eckman said, to, I guess, to eviscerate Section 3.4.7(B) and (E), with condition, and that would 28 be the relocation of 711 Remington. It’s very difficult to pursue, and to take the resources of the 29 applicant and the community and the City staff, to try to seek an alternative, an acceptable 30 alternative, unless you know the path you’re going down, relocation, is a viable, legal option. 31 And, right now, we’re told it is not. So, that’s what we’re asking for, and to the extent that we 32 want to eviscerate 3.4.7(B) and (E), it would be conditioned upon a relocation to an acceptable 33 site. 34 MS. CARPENTER: Okay, now that I know what’s being asked of me, I really would like 35 us to take some time to be able to read this, we just got it tonight, and now we know what they’re 36 asking for. It would be useful to me to be able to go through it. 34 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, we’ll do that in just a moment here. But, one thing I think 2 is important, I would like to hear from staff, Karen in particular, just on, what your thoughts are 3 about this conversation that you’ve heard over the past five minutes. 4 MS. MCWILLIAMS: One comment I would make is that the focus of this attention has 5 been on relocating 711 Remington. The crux of the matter is whether this project complies with 6 the standards of 3.4.7 in the Land Use Code, and the project overall still has an impact on 7 numerous other designated Fort Collins landmark, two of those, and buildings that are designated 8 on the National and State Registers, irrespective of 711. So, even if the applicants, or if the 9 Board were to say, go ahead and move 711, it’s unlikely that this project still would comply at all 10 with that standard, because you’ve got the buildings next door, the buildings across the street, the 11 buildings…all other ten buildings on that block, that are listed on the National and State 12 Registers, two of which are Fort Collins landmarks. 13 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Can you elaborate on that a little bit, I’m sorry, I want to make 14 sure that it’s fully understood by the Board and everybody. I mean, it’s the impact of the 15 proposal as it is…what we see it now, adversely on other properties. 16 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Historic properties that are either designated as Fort Collins 17 landmarks or, in this case, on the State or National Register. 18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: And, that was a finding…that was part of the discussion, I mean, 19 that was a finding in the LPC hearing? 20 MS. MCWILLIAMS: Yes, well, I don’t know if you would call it a finding, it was 21 certainly part of the discussion. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, and that was the project itself, okay. 23 MR. ECKMAN: That’s a part of paragraph B, I suppose, that would not be wise for the 24 Board to eviscerate. It says, the development plan…it’s the last, about third of that paragraph. 25 The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and 26 architectural value of any historic property that is A) preserved and adaptively used on the 27 development site…that wouldn’t be applicable anymore, if it’s relocated, or B) is located on 28 property adjacent to the development site, and qualifies under one, two, or three above, which is, 29 is it historic and so forth. And, the word adjacent, surprisingly, doesn’t mean touching, it means 30 nearby. 31 MR. CAMPANA: The problem is, we’ve separated it…we’re doing exactly what our 32 process allow here, a modification before a project plan comes forward. But, we really…it’s 33 very difficult to look at this modification without looking at the project. And, you know, we’re 34 trying to make a decision on the modification without looking at the project, but this requires us 35 to. 35 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’m going to go ahead and move that we take a recess. We’ve 2 been at it for two and a half hours, and I imagine there’s a lot of bathroom breaks waiting in the 3 audience as well. So, we’ll just take a break. We don’t, so the public knows, when we take a 4 break, we don’t discuss this item, just for your confidence. We go to the bathroom, we get a 5 beverage, and we’ll be reading this for a few moments. And, so, I would say that we’ll come 6 back, if the Board’s okay with this, at twenty minutes ‘til. So, we’ve got about twelve minutes. 7 Or, do you want to go longer? 8 MS. CARPENTER: No, since they cut it down in size, that’s fine. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, we’ll come back in twelve minutes, we’re recessed. 10 THE BOARD TOOK A BRIEF RECESS AT THIS POINT IN THE MEETING. 11 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Welcome back to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of February 16 th 12 , we’re going to continue with our consideration of the Remington Annex request 13 for modifications to standards. And, as we left it, we were asking staff a few questions, we were 14 about ready to maybe have some deliberation on the Board, if we’re done with our questioning. 15 What I’d like to be able to do at this point, I think, is if the Board is in agreement, I’m going to 16 propose that we begin, you know, we’ve got a few requests here for modifications. I think it 17 makes sense to start taking those one by one, right from the top, and having our deliberation and 18 some questions followed up by a motion, and then we’ll just take them one by one. How would 19 you all feel about that? Okay, then let’s go to the first one. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: Is that the floor area ratio? 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: That one is density, right? The density, is that right? 22 MR. SHEPARD: And, we’ve got the slide for you. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. Modification to Section 4.9(D)(1), Density. At 24 this point, let’s see if anybody on the Board has questions for staff about what’s being requested, 25 or any clarifications. Jennifer? 26 MS. CARPENTER: I’m not quite sure if this is in the right spot or not, but I do have a 27 question for staff regarding the Type I. It’s been referred to several times that under Type I, this 28 would all be allowed, or something to that effect. Can you respond to that please? 29 MR. SHEPARD: It’s the number of units question. Under a Type I, if you’re under 30 twenty-four units…well, you’re a Type I if you’re under twenty-four, you’re a Type II if you’re 31 twenty-four or over, as I recall. 32 MS. SCHMIDT: But, just because it’s a Type I hearing does not necessarily mean it 33 would be approved, it would just be reviewed by an administrative review officer versus the 34 Planning and Zoning Board. 36 1 MR. SHEPARD: That’s correct, there’s a density cutoff that says, under this you’re a 2 Type I, over this you’re a Type II. 3 MS. CARPENTER: Can you also have the same, all of these modifications, under a Type 4 I that you have under a Type II. 5 MR. SHEPARD: Yes, that’s correct. 6 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any further questions from the Board on this one, of staff. Is 8 somebody ready to make a motion or do you want to share some thoughts and deliberate on this, 9 or do you have questions for, even, the applicant. 10 MR. STOCKOVER: Well, I have tons and tons of thoughts on this. There’s a lot of 11 great, great aspects to this project. And, a couple of them that are really…that always hit my hot 12 buttons, are when we do development with no parking. And, part of this first modification in 13 density, is accommodating parking. Now, I’ve driven by the site a bunch of times recently, 14 looked at it, looked at it, looked at it. And, a couple things come to mind. It’s hard when 15 everybody, as a neighbor is opposed. That reminds me of Mountain Avenue and the railroad, the 16 trolley cars went down through there. I volunteered on that project and people we’re throwing 17 rocks at us, it was amazing how much opposition to what turned out to be a great project that 18 turned out to be. But, with that said, this is just pushing the numbers so, so far, that it’s hard for 19 me to get my arms around whether we’re doing the right thing or not. But, I always look at it 20 with a total open mind, I try to look at is with a total open mind. And, I look at the white house 21 that would be to the right, when you look straight on the project. And, the height is almost the 22 same size. And, when I look at floor area on this one, I look at what’s behind it, and what’s 23 impacted there. I’d have a completely different opinion if that were a row of houses in 24 somebody’s backyard. So, you know, we’re alleviating a parking issue by building to that alley, 25 and I look at that as a positive. And, the fact that we’re taking a lot of the density as covered 26 parking, I think of as a positive. So, on this one, I’m just having a hard time getting over those 27 numbers. I’m generally in favor of it, but I’m having such a hard time justifying the numbers. 28 With that said, I’d like to hear what my Boardmembers’ feelings are. 29 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I just feel like you wouldn’t need that much parking if you didn’t 30 have that much density. So, I mean, you’re creating a solution to a problem that you’ve created. 31 Plus, you know, I know we disagree on this a lot, Butch, but I always feel like, if the whole idea 32 is that you’re building student housing close to CSU, again, you should, I think, really…you 33 can’t encourage people not to drive if you keep providing parking spaces. And, especially if 34 they’ve got a parking space in a garage right there, they’re going to take their cars to campus all 35 the time. I mean, it’s quite a ways if you’re on south campus in those buildings, and, you know, 36 so the only way to really encourage people to use transit, is to provide places that don’t have the 37 parking. And, I don’t think, see, to me, the parking, you know we could look at it in more detail 37 1 at another plan, but I just don’t think that that particular solution, although, you know, it might 2 be good, justifies doubling the density. I mean, that’s just about it, it says…staff report…was 3 exceeding by 94%, or practically twice as much as would otherwise be permitted. And, in my 4 mind, always, when you have a modification, modification means a change. And, so, it’s like, 5 this is very…when you’re almost doubling, that’s pretty major to me. It’s almost like a totally 6 different thing, not just modifying what would ordinarily be allowed there. So, I guess I can’t 7 support this modification. 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Jennifer? 9 MS. CARPENTER: I agree with Brigitte, that in this case, I think that we’re solving a 10 problem after we create it, if we allow this density. But, even if you look at next door on this, 11 it’s not just next door, it’s the whole area that we have to think about. And, across the street, that 12 block face, and the change we make to this block face by adding that much density. So, I’m 13 having a hard time getting past these numbers, too. It’s just so far past that, I think Ms. Rollins 14 spoke to it, when she said it’s almost like a rezoning, as opposed to a modification, when you’re 15 looking at that much difference in the numbers. 16 MR. CAMPANA: I’ll just comment that, I think, as architects, you guys did a really nice 17 job articulating the front to try to bring down the scale. I like the way you’ve thought that 18 through, from a pedestrian perspective, and I’d like to see that a little bit more in future projects. 19 Good job on that. 20 MS. KRISTIN KIRKPATRICK: I also think that the project has a lot of redeeming 21 qualities, and I really like how you’ve done the front face of the project to try to tie in with that 22 neighborhood character. When I think about what we are tied to in our decision making, 23 fundamentally I don’t think that this modification is in line with the neighborhood, and I do think 24 it’s detrimental to the public good, because the numbers are so astronomically different than 25 what is required currently in the Land Use Code. 26 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing I would say is that, I think that the applicant has made a 27 case about this, you know, that…it’s a buffer, of really only four hundred feet, and that you’re 28 making a transition from a very dense, commercial area right along College, to a residential 29 neighborhood that has a very different character, and how tough that is to be able to, you know, 30 accomplish that feathering effect, really, in just, you know four hundred feet. You know, I do 31 think that, you know, in looking at even the diagram, that it does…I would probably be 32 supportive of a nominal, inconsequential increase, above that. And, I can’t say for sure, but it 33 would seem that, in order to make that transition more effective, it might call for a higher 34 density. And, I think that, you know, along those lines is, you know, one thing we’ve always had 35 to struggle with, and I think we’re going to continue to struggle with more and more as a Board, 36 is, when we talk about buffering areas, and how we feather and make the transition from a much 37 higher intensity, especially with the predominant commercial district and commercial use, into 38 1 something that is a, you know, traditionally single-family residences, is the compatibility issue, 2 and that’s what density gets at. And, I think…you know, how can you be compatible with one 3 side, and also the other, and that’s tough. I mean, we always talk about how’s it going to be 4 compatible with the neighborhood. Well, how is it also compatible with the commercial district 5 behind it. So, I think that I would normally be, personally, agreeable to, you know, somewhat of 6 an increase in that density because of this, but, I think that at the number that’s being proposed, I 7 probably can’t support it. 8 I can’t, I’m sorry, we’ve closed that comment. Paul, I’m right, aren’t I? I want to make 9 sure, I don’t want to get in trouble again. 10 MR. CAMPANA: I just want to second what Andy’s saying, and that is, you know, from 11 the back elevation, when you’re in the alley, it does kind of fit it. I don’t have as much issue 12 with that. But, transitioning to the residential on the other side of the street makes it much more 13 difficult, and I think we have to be sensitive, more sensitive to that than the back alleyway. But 14 it is, you know, it’s a difficult site to develop. You guys have put a lot of thought into it, a lot of 15 creativity, and it’s a lot when you’re looking at it from the street side. 16 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I think even from the neighbors on the side… 17 MR. CAMPANA: And sides, you’re absolutely right, and the sides. 18 MS. CARPENTER: I would also have to say that I would be in favor of it if it weren’t 19 going into the Historic District. This is our National Register Historic District, and I think, even 20 when you’re talking about a buffering, there’s a difference between going into a neighborhood 21 that’s not a historic district, and going into the Historic District. It just, to me, makes it much 22 more problematic. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Butch? 24 MR. STOCKOVER: With that said, we’re still on the first modification. And, when I 25 look at their set of plans, the first thing that really irritates me is when a developer threatens us 26 with, this is what we’ll do if you don’t allow this. And, on this one, I’m not taking it that way. 27 I’m taking as, yeah, we can park a bunch of cars out back, uncovered, and put twenty-some units 28 with two-bedrooms, forty some people in there in this way, or, let’s think outside the box on a 29 very unique property and accommodate it a little better. And, I think…I truly believe that this is 30 not a threat, but, here’s a better solution. And, whether this is voted up or down, I think we 31 always need to remember to look at this as a very unique site, and not a precedent setting 32 decision, because we aren’t setting a precedent city-wide, we’re making a decision on a very 33 unique piece of property. And, the fact that the house to the north has, you know, quite a bit of 34 open parking behind there, you’re not affecting their backyard really. The fact that it’s up 35 against a pretty tall building in an alley…most everything that we would be giving variance for is 36 hidden from the public view when you drive down Remington and not able to be seen at all when 39 1 we drive down College. So, I’m, you know, making my statements on this modification of 2 density only. So, I feel I could be in favor of it. 3 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess…do you want me to go ahead and make a motion? 4 MR. STOCKOVER: Just one more thing, college students bring their cars and they go to 5 school during the week, and if they don’t drive their car for six days of the week, it’s sitting in 6 front of somebody’s house for six days of the week, and then they take it skiing on Sunday. So, 7 just encourage them not to drive, doesn’t mean they don’t bring their car and impact the 8 neighborhood, and that’s why parking off-street is so important. 9 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, and I guess I’ll put in a plug if we’re going to get on this topic, 10 because, since you mentioned the PDOD, what I’m hoping with something with PDOD is 11 someone will come in with something creative, like, yeah, we’re not going to have any parking, 12 we’re going to belong to Zip Car, and we’ll have a Zip Car space in our one, or two, three 13 spaces. So, if the students want to use the car on the weekend, they can check out the Zip Car 14 thing. I mean, to me, that is what we’re hoping will be the kind of creative thing that they PDOD 15 proposals will bring in. And they might…you know, we’ll have to see if they work or not. 16 Okay, so I’ll make a motion to deny the request for modification to Section 4.9(D)(1) 17 based on the fact that it is detrimental to the public good. 18 MS. CARPENTER: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a motion and a second, any further discussion? Roll call 20 please. 21 MS. ANGELINA SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 22 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. 25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 26 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 27 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 28 MS. KIRKPATRICK: No. Oh, sorry, I mean yes. 29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 30 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 40 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, the request for the first modification of standard regarding 4 density was denied. Let’s move to the second modification request, which is the floor are ratio 5 section 4.9(D)(5). Staff will put that up for us to be able to look at. Any questions from the 6 Board about this request or the standard? Okay, well, we can deliberate any comments then. 7 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, I guess I’d just like to point out that the one gentleman was 8 correct as far as that it’s actually seven times the amount, that they’re asking for…a difference in 9 the rear lot. Because they would be allowed the 3,283 square feet and they want 22,712. Is that 10 correct, those numbers? 11 MS. LEVISNGSTON: They are allowed 3,283 square feet in the rear 50% of the lot, and 12 they are proposing 22,712 square feet. 13 MS. SCHMIDT: That 3,000 total, is that all three lots combined or would that be for each 14 lot? 15 MS. LEVINGSTON: That’s for all three lots combined. 16 MR. CAMPANA: The 22,712 includes their parking though, right? 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: The at-grade parking, yes. 18 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let me just throw out a comment. You know, as I read the intent 19 of the standard, I think it has more to do with keeping the buildings up front than it does creating 20 a backyard. And, so, you know, I think, largely…I think I’m supportive of this request for 21 modification because I do believe that, especially with the character of the neighborhood in that 22 district, that it is, you know, far more important…once they’ve accomplished having the building 23 forward, that they’ve been able to demonstrate, I think, that it doesn’t…it’s not detrimental to the 24 public good. And, I do believe that they’ve been able to hit the intent of it by keeping the 25 buildings up in the front. I just don’t think we want to get lost in the idea that it’s about creating 26 a backyard. 27 MS. CARPENTER: I think that part of the intent of this standard was to keep backyards 28 backyards. And, by building into the back part of the yard, you impact the yards on either side of 29 you. And that, I think, is what most of the people, when we were working on the Eastside 30 Westside changes that we’re going back into, another reset of that, that was a lot of the problem 31 with it. It’s not just getting things to the front, but also protecting people’s backyards. So, for 32 me, again, this one…especially in light of, that we’re getting ready to go through a reset, that 33 we’re going to be re-looking at all of this, I’m having a hard time supporting this standard as 34 well, or this modification. 41 1 MS. SCHMIDT: I agree exactly with what you’re saying, Andy, except again, I feel like 2 seven times the allowable…I mean, it’s just such a big change that, to me, that’s not a 3 modification. If you wanted to increase it by, you know, so that two-thirds of the yard instead of 4 50%, I mean those…it’s just too large a modification. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Butch, Gino, Kristin, what are your thoughts on this? 6 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I would be inclined to agree with you, Andy. I think that, given 7 the fact that it’s in a buffer zone, and that it backs to an alley, to me, it makes sense. And also, 8 the unique character of the neighborhood, it makes sense to do a lot of that backfill on the back 9 portion of the site so that you can remain…have that character for the pedestrian level scale, and 10 the character that abuts the residential community. I think especially since that north lot, most of 11 that rear, you know, that significant bulk is abutting a parking lot, I think that is something to 12 consider. But, that parking lot might not always stay a parking lot, and there are impacts to the 13 property on the south side and we haven’t heard very much from the residents or the owner of 14 that property. But, I think there are impacts there that are worth considering as well. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Gino? Butch? 16 MR. STOCKOVER: I really don’t have anything to add, I think it’s all been said. 17 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I do think, fundamentally though, that seven times the excess is 18 significant. 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, does anybody have any other comments, or do you want 20 to make a motion? 21 MS. SCHMIDT: I’ll make the motion. Since I’m making it, I’ll make it from my 22 viewpoint I guess. I’ll make a motion to deny the modification of Section 4.9(D)(5) to allow 23 substantial divergence from the 0.33 rear FAR, because it’s detrimental to the public good. 24 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Second. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any further discussion? Roll call please. 26 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 27 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 28 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 29 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 30 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 31 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 42 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 4 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: No. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Motion carries, the second request for modification to the floor 8 area ratio is denied. We’ll move to the third modification to a standard that’s been requested. 9 That is Section 4.9(D)(6)(d), Dimensional Standards. If anybody needs to take a moment to 10 refresh their memories, it’s up on the screen now. Any questions from the Board about this 11 request, or the standard itself? 12 MR. CAMPANA: Again, the issue with this is trying to separate the modification from 13 the actual design, because the design, as we see it in our packet, I think does a great job 14 articulating the building, which is really what we’re trying to accomplish. And, I believe there 15 was a comment in there that your average exceeds the standard anyway. So, I think you’ve done 16 a very good job as architects and developers in meeting the intent of that Code. The difficulty is, 17 to approve a modification without having the final plan, and be able to connect the two. That’s 18 where I’m having difficulty here tonight. 19 MS. SCHMIDT: Because, in a way, since we denied the other two modifications, then 20 technically, this plan that we have here could not really be built, right? 21 MS. LEVINGSTON: That’s correct. 22 MS. SCHMIDT: So, that’s kind of like what Gino said…how could we approve this 23 modification to something that doesn’t… 24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, but I think we still need to be able to take them in isolation 25 without consideration of the other requests, whether they’re approved or denied. And, if nothing 26 else, give the applicant the feedback on this specific request so they can go forward. 27 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, so could we say we’re talking about this specific drawing that we 28 see here? Because I think, too, that that was well done, with some detail and everything in it. 29 Could probably have more, but… 30 MR. CAMPANA: Well, we could, but maybe we could condition it with, you know, 31 something along the lines of, the average exceeds the standard. I could live with that. The 43 1 average setbacks exceed the standard, as this drawing does, instead of trying to tie it to this exact 2 drawing. 3 MR. ECKMAN: I don’t know that you have any assurance that that drawing is what’s 4 going to manifest in the end anyway. 5 MR. CAMPANA: Well, that’s what I’m saying, yeah. 6 MR. ECKMAN: And, if you’re thinking, and I don’t know…I’m not sure it registered to 7 me, that the drawings that you saw meant compliance with the standard, because there were 8 setbacks, or exactly what. But I think that the request before you is that this is a different kind of 9 project that meets an important community need, or alleviates a problem, and, because of that, it 10 merits the modification to this setback of this dimensional standard, as long as you can also find 11 that it doesn’t impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code and it’s not detrimental to the 12 public good. But, it seems like…it all hinges on the important community need issue, I think, 13 because that’s the foundation upon which this is requested, isn’t it? 14 MS. LEVINGSTON: No, it was not. It was…the modification was to Section 15 2.8.2(H)(4), which is nominal and inconsequential. 16 MR. ECKMAN: Oh, I’m sorry. Nominal and inconsequential. 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yes. 18 MR. ECKMAN: In the context of the neighborhood. 19 MS. CARPENTER: But, if we did approve that, we’re not really approving the way 20 this…they could come back with a completely different plan that…I just am having a hard time 21 saying that this one works. I understand what you’re saying, Gino. I think this looks pretty 22 good. But, if we approve that, this means nothing. They could just change it. 23 MR. CAMPANA: I agree, so, I mean, our choices tonight are to either approve it, deny it, 24 or continue it. I mean, I would feel a lot better about continuing until you have an actual 25 elevation that we’re looking at, and design, but… 26 MS. SCHMIDT: Can we continue an individual modification then? Is that an option? 27 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think they’re entitled to a vote. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I do too. 29 MR. CAMPANA: Yea, I was throwing it out there more, in case one of you guys wanted 30 to step up there and consider doing that. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’d like to continue…to get to a vote on it if we can. One thing 32 I’m going to say is that, on this request, I think, the architect did a very good job of being able to 44 1 show how this modification is…the request for the modification, is nominal and inconsequential 2 through the averaging. I think he was able to hit that. And so, I would support this request for a 3 modification to the standard as…if this process follows in a subsequent development proposal, 4 you know, if it’s…I think it is, to me, I’m not convinced that the diversion from that setback 5 standard is detrimental to the public good and I do believe that allowing it is nominal and 6 inconsequential. I’ve been convinced of that, I think, through very, very thoughtful design that is 7 sensitive to the architecture in the neighborhood. Obviously if something comes in…this doesn’t 8 mean yes to a development proposal, things can change. And, a lot of times, it is the whole 9 proposal that we’ll be looking at in consideration. But, as I see it here, notwithstanding the other 10 requests for modifications that have been made or denied, this one I would be willing to support. 11 MR. CAMPANA: The issue is that the modification stands for a year. Any project 12 brought forward could just go, vertically, straight up from the setback, and not have to comply to 13 this portion of the Code at all. That’s my hang up is… 14 MS. CARPENTER: That’s my hang up too. I can’t do that. 15 MR. CAMPANA: I hate to give that up and just give free willy to that right now. I mean, 16 it would be one thing if we’re looking at this design and looking at this modification. I don’t 17 have an issue with…this one I could support, but it’s very open-ended. 18 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the only thing I can say, because I think in a way it’s a moot 19 point, I mean, you really aren’t getting anything, even if we approve it. And, I would think, I 20 think, you’ve heard the Board’s feedback that we like this plan and it’s generally…in the future, 21 it would be the direction to go as far as designing something with the articulation, but, for the 22 conscience of the Board and our consistency, maybe let’s just vote to deny it because then we 23 know exactly where we are with it. And, that’s my feeling on it, and I think you’ve got the 24 feedback and you understand, sort of, where we are because of everything else. That it’s 25 not…it’s not that we don’t like the particular plan that’s presented. Is that fair? 26 MR. CAMPANA: Does a denial tonight on this specific section of the Land Use Code 27 then hold for one year as well so the applicant can’t come forth for a year and ask for a 28 modification of that standard, on that property for a year? 29 MR. ECKMAN: I don’t think so, then they could ask for the modification in connection 30 with a PDP plan. 31 MR. CAMPANA: Okay, so if it’s approved, it’s good for a year. But, if it’s denied, they 32 can come back next month and ask for it again. 33 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, and they might come back with a plan itself and ask for the 34 modification at that point if the plan doesn’t quite comply. 35 MR. CAMPANA: Okay. 45 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, you know Gino, that’s wise. I think I stand a little bit 2 corrected. That’s a good thing, I think, about our Board, is that when we deliberate, I don’t think 3 is necessarily…let’s fight it out. And, I’m glad that I heard what you said. I think the applicant 4 heard what I said about the design and, if we see something back around that at least, yeah, one 5 person, that’s okay I think…with some architectural creativity. But, I’m going to vote to deny it. 6 MS. SCHMIDT: So, you want me to make another motion. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: If you make a motion that…yeah, yeah. 8 MS. SCHMIDT: I hate being the evil person. Okay, I’ll make a motion that the Planning 9 and Zoning Board deny the modification to Section 4.9(D)(6)(d), concerning the setback, 10 because it’s detrimental to the public good. 11 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Second. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a second, any further discussion? Roll call please. 13 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 14 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes. 15 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 16 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 17 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 18 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 19 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 20 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 21 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 22 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 24 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Now we’ll move to the easy requests, the fourth and the 25 fifth, request to modify the standards, Sections 3.4.7(B) and (E). Does anybody need any more 26 discussion or any staff reporting on what these are that we’re discussing, or would you like to go 27 ahead and begin making comments and deliberating? 28 MS. CARPENTER: I’ll start on this one, then. This one to me, I cannot support, really 29 cannot support a modification on this. We have a structure that has been declared individually 46 1 eligible, locally eligible. It’s in the middle of a Historic District. We have historic fabric all 2 around it, and I cannot support it. I think it is detrimental to the public good, and it is not 3 something I can support. 4 MS. KIRKPATRICK: I would agree. I would perhaps be more willing to consider 5 relocation of the home itself if it wasn’t within a Historic District. To me, that’s the really 6 important piece, of sort of layering all of those elements. 7 MS. SCHMIDT: Go ahead Butch, we know you’re waiting. 8 MR. STOCKOVER: Oh, gosh, this reminds me of the little house that’s between the food 9 locker and the church. Nice little house, maybe not the best location for it to be in. I think that 10 house could shine somewhere else. Where it is, I think it’s destined to mediocrity. Just because 11 of its two neighbors on either side. 12 MS. CARPENTER: Those two neighbors could be turned into nice houses, where it’s 13 shown again, without the moving of this out of the Historic District. 14 MR. STOCKOVER: And I would agree with that somewhat, I’m just more flexible by 15 nature, and I think…I think, if it were me, I’d say let them move it. 16 MS. SCHMIDT: I would agree with Jennifer’s last comment, I mean, I think that two 17 houses, definitely the two houses on either side of this one, I think, are the eyesores in the 18 neighborhood. And, but, I think it’s been shown on north, you know, on Laurel Street, north of 19 the campus, and I realize some people obviously don’t like those newer places, but I think there 20 are some that have been done that kind of fit in to the neighborhood scale-wise and everything. 21 And so it’s very possible that you could do something on those two other individual lots that 22 could still add to the District, even though it would be a newer…I mean, not technically maybe 23 add, but make it an attractive area that would still be student housing. I think there are other 24 options that could make an improvement here that would be beneficial to the public good. 25 MR. CAMPANA: This is by far one of the hardest decisions on here is this demolition or 26 relocation. And, I got to be honest with…I hate driving down Laurel today and seeing all the 27 homes that are getting demolished or…I don’t think many of them are being relocated, but, the 28 texture and the feel of Laurel Street has completely changed. And, with this being in a Historic 29 District, you know, I don’t think it’s the right idea to go in there and start removing homes and 30 demolishing it…I think I agree with Butch that, perhaps if the house was put on another lot and it 31 could be rehabbed, you know, maybe it’s not such a huge loss to the house itself, but then I want 32 to look at the context of the neighborhood and I think, what does it do to the neighborhood with 33 that in there. As much as I want to support some of the other City policies we have and get some 34 housing near CSU and deal with some of the parking issues, it just seems like the wrong street to 35 do it on, so I’m going to have a hard time supporting it. 47 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Karen, can I ask a question? One thing I didn’t, maybe I missed, 2 is, specifically, if the relocation was conditioned upon it being put in, you know, it was relocated 3 within the District so it was still to some…maybe it replaced a house that was noted as an 4 intrusion. How would that affect this whole idea? 5 MS. MCWILLIAMS: That would be very difficult to answer; it would depend on where 6 in the District it was going to be relocated. The very fact that you would take something, 7 okay…entering something into the District that’s not there has a negative impact on the District 8 too. So, taking this building from say, Remington Street, and moving it over to Mathews or to 9 the 300 block of Remington, or somewhere else within the District, has, by that nature, an impact 10 on those buildings. So, there is…right, so it impacts, it has a greater impact than just relocating 11 this building. Wherever you relocate this building, if you’re doing it within the Laurel School 12 National Register District, you’re still impacting the District in two ways, one from the loss of 13 the building on Remington, and two, from the addition of a building into another area that didn’t 14 have that building. 15 MS. SCHMIDT: But, if it’s a historic building, would that improve where…whichever 16 part of the District it went into? 17 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The Natural Register Historic District is about authenticity, it’s 18 not…so, you know, if that place does not have a building right now, then bring one in, plunking 19 it there, has an effect. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay. 21 MS. MCWILLIAMS: It’s not a matter of would it look pretty, it’s a matter of 22 authenticity. 23 MS. CARPENTER: I think the other thing that I’d like to point out is that, incumbent on 24 us, if we were to allow this modification, would be that we think the applicant has showed that 25 no feasible or prudent alternative exists, and that all possible efforts were made to comply and to 26 find feasible alternatives. And, I can think of a lot of feasible alternatives that haven’t been 27 looked at for this to stay where it is and to not be relocated. So, that’s where I’m coming from. 28 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess the other comment I’d like to make is…I always hear people 29 talk about all the policies in City Plan. You know, the ones that I rarely ever hear of are…there 30 is a commitment in City Plan to support existing neighborhoods, and always to maintain the 31 integrity of the existing neighborhoods. And, I think that, to me, that especially this being a 32 historical district, would really impact the existing neighborhoods and the people who live there, 33 because there is a certain amount of predictability for them. And, I think when you move it to a 34 historical district and you start investing money to fix up your house and everything, then you 35 have a certain expectation, and if other people can come and just sort of chip away at your 36 efforts, that is very detrimental to those people who’ve made efforts on their places, I think. 48 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: One thing, I’m going to state the obvious, is, I think, that as we 2 continue to implement many of the goals and objectives of Plan Fort Collins, our City Plan, is 3 that we’re going to have competing objectives around the campus. We have historic homes, we 4 want to build density, we want student housing. And it’s all in the same area, and I think that, 5 you know, I value the historic preservation, I think, for all the right reasons, and I think that it 6 has to be, it has to be credible. And, I think a lot of times, that means financial credibility is 7 important for the program in general. And, that doesn’t mean anything really when we’re talking 8 about a real specific proposal right now, and how this kind of weighs out. One thing I think is 9 important in this process though, is that the work that is done by the historic preservation 10 professionals in the city, and the LPC Board, is, it needs to be respected and it is part of the 11 Municipal Code about how we deal with…how we as, you know, I guess, enforcers of the Land 12 Use Code, deal with that. There’s some nuances there that, I think, need to be probably further 13 explored a little bit in the future. And, in the mean time, I think, you know, personally, I do 14 think that, you know, it would make sense, you know, without knowing everything that I’ve 15 heard tonight and learned over the past week or so about this proposal and the historical integrity 16 of the District, beyond just the house. You know, I think that it would make sense to move the 17 house but I think that now we’ve seen it in the context of the District and what it would do as far 18 as authenticity. I probably would vote to deny the request for a modification at this point. That 19 one doesn’t feel that good, I’ll be honest. You know, it wasn’t like they were asking to 20 demolish, you know, one of the houses on Mountain Avenue or anything, you know, the Avery 21 House or anything. But, it is what it is because I think that the rules state what they do, and so, 22 we’ll follow them. Any other comments? Do we have a motion? 23 MS. SCHMIDT: I was just going to ask, can we put these two modifications together? I 24 make a motion to deny the modification of Section 3.4.7(B) because it is detrimental to the 25 public good. 26 MS. CARPENTER: Second. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Alright, we have a motion that’s been seconded. Any further 28 discussion? Roll call please. 29 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 30 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 31 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 32 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 33 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 34 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 49 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 4 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 6 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. 7 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, I make a motion to deny the modification request for Section 8 3.4.7(E), and that was based on detrimental to the public good. 9 MS. CARPENTER: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion or 11 comments? Roll call please. 12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 13 MR. STOCKOVER: No. 14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 15 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 17 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 18 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 19 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 20 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 21 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 22 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, moving on. That concludes our discussion and 24 deliberation of the Remington Annex request for modifications of standard. We will take on the 25 next issue. 26 27 1 1 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2 Hearing Agenda • Hearing Items for 2/16/12 – Discussion Agenda • Remington Annex Modification of Standards (Levingston) • Carriage House Apts. Modification of Standards (Levingston) • Proposed Amendment to the Appeals Procedures Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the Municipal Code – Other Business 2 3 Remington Annex Modification of Standards 4 Remington Annex Project Modifications 1) Overall Floor Area Ratio (lot density) 2) Rear half of lot Floor Area Ratio 3) Side step back (dimensional standard) 4) Historic and Cultural Resources– General Standard 5) Historic and Cultural Resources- Demolition and Relocation 3 5 Vicinity Map E. Laurel St. S. College Ave. E. Plum St. Remington St. Mathews St. N 6 Parcel Map 705 711 715 4 7 Zoning Map N 8 Laurel School National Register Historic District Approx. Project Location 5 9 705 And 715 Remington Street 10 711 Remington Street 6 11 11sstt Modification –– Section 4.9 (D)(1) Density Code Standard Lot Area = Total Floor Area 1.0 Lot Density Proposed Project 19,897 sq ft. lot 38,662 sq. ft. floor area 1.94 Lot Density 12 Proposed Site Plan 7 13 22nndd Modification-Modification - Section 4.9(D)(5) Rear 50% of Lot Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Code Standard Maximum FAR of .33 in rear half of lot. Includes at-grade garage floor area. Site could have up to 3,283 square feet of floor area in rear 50% of lot. Proposed Project 2.28 Rear FAR Exceeds standard by 195% 22,712 square feet total in rear half of lot 14 Density and Rear Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 8 15 33rrdd Modification –– Section 4.9(D)(6)(d) Code Standard Buildings exceeding 18 feet in height must step back 1 foot for every 2 feet in height beyond 18 feet in height. Proposed Project Height: 36 feet Step back: 0 feet 16 Project Elevations 9 17 44tthh and 5tthh 5 Modification-Modification - Section 3.4.7 (B), (E) Code Standard to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure… …and enhance the historic and architectural value of any historic property on site or adjacent to. Proposed Project Does not preserve and adaptively reuse the home at 711 Remington Street into the project. 18 44tthh and 5tthh 5 Modification-Modification - Section 3.4.7 (B), (E) Code Standard A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation … may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. Proposed Project Does not preserve and adaptively reuse the home at 711 Remington Street into the project to the maximum extent feasible. 10 19 711 Remington Street 20 705 Remington Street 11 21 715 Remington Street 22 Looking Northeast to Site 12 23 Looking East from Project Site Remington Street 24 Looking Southwest Project Site 13 25 Looking North from Alley 26 Property to North, 701 Remington St. 705 Remington St. 701 Remington St. 14 27 Proposed Project Aerial N S. College Ave. CC NCB NCM 28 Maximum Extent Feasible Land Use Code Definition (Section 5.1.2) …no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. 15 29 Conceptual Design Does Not Meet the Following LUC Standards: - Section 3.5.1 (B) - Section 3.4.7(B)(F) - Section 4.9 (E)(1)(b) 1 1 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Deny Two Stand-Alone Modifications in connection with the Remington Annex Project 2 Vicinity Map E. Laurel St. S. College Ave. E. Plum St. Remington St. Mathews St. N ATTACHMENT 9 2 3 Laurel School National Register Historic District Project Location 4 705 , 711, 715 Remington Street Site of proposed Remington Annex Apartment Project 3 5 711 Remington Street 6 Looking East from Project Site Remington Street 4 7 Looking Southwest Project Site 8 Project Elevations 5 9 Process for Determinations of Eligibility for Local Landmark Designation • Landmark Preservation Chapter -Municipal Code • Review historical significance of buildings 50 years old and older • Prevent loss of historic resources; preserve character; allow for public participation • LPC Chair and CDNS Director • 711 Remington Street was determined to be eligible for individual local landmark designation. 10 Section Requesting Modification 3.4.7 (B) –– General Standard • Proposed project does not meet all LUC standards: 1: Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7 (B), General Standard, which requires preservation to the maximum extent feasible for those structures which are (1) deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; (2) officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or designated as a State landmark; or (3) located within an officially designated historic district • 711 Remington meets all three criteria 6 11 Section Requesting Modification 3.4.7 (E) –– Relocation or Demolition • Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition, which requires the applicant, to the maximum extent feasible, to attempt to preserve the structure in accordance with the standards of this Section, and show that the preservation of the structure is not feasible. • Maximum extent feasible: no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulations have been undertaken. 12 Process for Approving Relocation or Demolition •1st step: Determination of Eligibility – 711 Remington (the Button House) determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation August, 2011 •2nd step: LPC Preliminary Hearing, October 2011 and January 2012 – No solution found that would retain eligibility •3rd step: P & Z Board Plan Approval – P & Z would need to approve the Remington Annex Project, finding that it complies with all Land Use Code standards including the Cultural and Historic Resources section (3.4.7) •4th step: LPC Final Hearing – At LPC final hearing, relocation/demolition plans are approved; or referred to City Council 7 13 Evaluation of Modification Requests “ The applicant has not demonstrated a willingness to consider the prudent alternatives to demolition or relocation, including retaining and rehabilitating the historic building at 711 Remington and adding stand alone dwellings (duplex or 4-plex) on either side.” (staff report, pg. 17) 14 Evaluation of Modification Requests “Neither the proposed nor the hypothetical conceptual design appropriately protects and enhances the historic and architectural value of the historic property at 711 Remington Street or the other properties in the other properties in the Laurel School National Register Historic District.” (staff report, pg. 18) 8 15 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • Hearing February 16, 2012 • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) • Appeal of these denials filed March 1, 2012 16 Grounds for Appeal • Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading • Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code in the Denial of the Requests for Modification 9 17 11sstt Assertion • Appellants assert that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading – Appellant assets that board deferred to staff opinion and information on which the determination of eligibility was based is incorrect, and 711 Remington Street is not individually eligible 18 Information Citied by Appellants • Eligibility for local landmark designation • P&Z Board reference to zip cars (transcript, pg. 39, lines 9- 15) • P&Z Board reference to “…potentially thousands of possible project designs that preserve the allegedly eligible property…” (transcript, pg. 47, lines 23-27) • Letter from Dr. Kozial (transcript, pp. 14&15) 10 19 22nndd Assertion • Appellants assert that the P & Z Board failed to properly Interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in the denial of the requests for modification – That the proposed modifications are not detrimental to the public good; and – That the project would substantially advance the public good because it substantially addressed adopted plans and policies 20 P & Z Board Discussion • Board discussed value of preserving the existing context of Laurel School National Register District (transcript, pg. 46) • Discussion around detrimental to the public good finding (transcript, pg. 45, line 28-29; pg. 46, line 1-3) 11 21 Requirements for Modification • To grant the requested Modifications, the P&Z Board must find that: – not be detrimental to the public good; and – not impair the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code; and • substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern; or • would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city’s Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council; and – the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. 22 Summary • The Remington Annex Project is located within the Laurel School State and National Register Historic District • Additionally, the house at 711 Remington Street was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process and procedures in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code • The project does not meet the requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. • In order to grant a modification request to Historic and Cultural Resource standards, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code 12 23 Planning & Zoning Board Motions • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) (transcript, pg.48-49) • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (5-1) (transcript, pg.49) 24 Questions for Council Action 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? Site Visit – Remington Annex Appeal Date: April 12, 2012 1:39 p.m. – 1:54 p.m. Attendance: In attendance from City Council were Councilmember Ohlson and Councilmember Horak. City Staff included Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director, Courtney Levingston, City Planner and Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner. The Appellants, Christian and Robin Bachelet, as well as attorney Jeffrey Johnson were present. Additionally, 6 affected property owners; Mark Anderson, Barbra Liebler, John Pickerton, Larry Dunn, Debra Dunn and Marcy Reiser attended the site visit. Summary: The site visited started in front of 711 Remington Street. Deputy City Attorney Daggett informed all in attendance of the rules regarding a City Council site visit. A general overview of the issue of Appeal and site was given by Planner Levingston, noting that on February 16, the Appellants requested 5 stand alone modifications to redevelop the properties located at 705, 711 and 715 Remington Street by demolishing or relocating three existing single family residences and constructing one multi-family building in their place. The Planning and Zoning Board denied all 5 modification requests and on March 1, 2012, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board for two of these modifications of standard requests in connection with the historic preservation standards of the Land Use Code. During the summary, Councilmember Horak confirmed the number of units (42) and asked if the units would be rented by the bedroom or the apartment. Ms. Bachelet confirmed that the units were studio apartments and they would be rented by the unit. Councilmember Horak inquired as to why the residence at 711 Remington was considered individually eligible for Local Landmark Designation. Preservation Planner McWilliams answered that the residence at 711 Remington Street was constructed in 1888 and has unique and distinct architectural features that add to the character of the 700 Remington Street Block and neighborhood context, including a distinctive façade consisting of a hipped central mass with symmetrical projecting hipped end-wings, a central bell-cast hipped dormer and its unusual 15-light window and carved rafter tails under the eaves. The Councilmembers, Appellant, Neighbors and City Staff then proceeded to view the residence at 711 Remington Street from the north side of the property and then proceeded west to the rear of the property. The Councilmembers, Applicant, Neighbors and City Staff then proceeded north down the alley to the rear of the residence at 705 Remington Street. The rear property boundary for the Remington Annex project was pointed out and noted. Shortly after, the group proceeded back down the alley, towards the rear of 711 Remington Street. Councilmember Horak pointed out a small accessory structure and asked Ms. Bachelet if she owned the accessory structure as well. Ms. Bachelet reported that she did not own that structure. Councilmember Horak inquired about the date of the two additions noticed on the rear of the residence at 711 Remington Street, asking if they were added after the construction date of the main house. Staff responded yes. A citizen began to add information she thought the Council should have, but was prevented from doing so by Deputy City Attorney Daggett. At that time, Councilmember Ohlson asked Daggett to clarify what types of questions or information may be asked at a site visit. Daggett replied it was important to note questions and later ask them at the appeal hearing. Daggett then went back over the site visit protocol and procedure. Next, the group continued to walk south down the alley, past 715 Remington Street to the end of the alley and turned left on Plum Street. Walking to the intersection, the group turned left again on to Remington Street and returned to the front of the residence at 711 Remington Street. Upon returning to the front the residence at 711 Remington Street, the site visit ended at approximately 1:54 p.m. and attendees disbursed. DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: John Phelan Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Allow for On-Bill Utility Financing. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance revises language in Chapter 26 of the City Code to enable Utilities to provide financing and on-bill servicing of loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy projects. Utilities is proposing to pilot a new program element for 2012, providing on-bill financing for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program, the Solar Rebate Program and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line. The primary goal of the on-bill financing pilot is to facilitate more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector. These upgrades reduce our need for future energy resources, reduce our environmental footprint, promote local economic health by investing in our built environment and improve the health, comfort and safety of our homes. Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 for the 2012 budget to provide $300,000 for on-bill financing, subject to bringing the necessary changes in the City Code and additional details of the pilot program. Funding for subsequent years will be addressed through the Budgeting for Outcomes process. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Policy Alignment The proposed pilot On-Bill Utility Financing Program supports the policy goals of Plan Fort Collins, the Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan. The Program will be a valuable addition to Utilities’ efficiency and renewable energy programs which foster sustainability through energy and water use reductions, local contractors and investment in the built environment and improved home comfort, health and safety. Specific Council Policy references: • Development of On-Bill Financing is a near-term priority action item (#35) within Plan Fort Collins. • Energy Policy objectives which align with On-bill Financing include: N Promote sustainable practices in homes and businesses by supporting increased efficiency in existing buildings. N Strive to invest climate improvement monies locally in programs that have long-term positive impacts. History Fort Collins Utilities has offered the Zero Interest Loan Program (ZILCH) since the early 1980s. The Program was very successful for many years. However, in recent years the Program saw relatively little activity. The recent national mortgage crisis resulted in changes to the requirements for local government entities to be able to originate loans for home improvements. As a result, the Zero Interest Loan Program was suspended in early 2011. The Program restarted in fall 2011 under a model where the loans are unsecured. The On-Bill Financing Program will supersede the energy and water efficiency aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program. The air quality related aspects of the Zero Interest Loan Program, with funding from the Environmental Services Department, will be continued under a revised administrative model that is currently being developed. Home Efficiency Program Description Utilities began offering the Home Efficiency Program to customers in 2010, with a goal of providing a comprehensive and best practices approach to improving the performance of existing homes. The Home Efficiency Program elements guide homeowners with: April 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 24 • Low-cost audits which prioritize home improvement measures to address the barrier of “what to do” • Participating contractor lists which address the barrier of “who to call” • Rebates which partially address the “first cost” barrier • Installation standards and verification which address the barrier of “is it done right” Since January 2010, the Home Efficiency Program has: • Completed over 1,100 audits • Supported efficiency improvement projects in over 375 homes • Trained over 100 individuals from 40 contracting companies • Received ratings from customers of over 95% “extremely satisfied” with the audit, contractor and rebate aspects of the Program The On-Bill Financing Program will be integrated into the Home Efficiency Program and provide the financing mechanism for homeowners to implement recommendations from the audit using the established contractors and installation standards of the Home Efficiency Program. Pilot Program Summary The objective of the On-Bill Financing Program element is to increase the number of residential efficiency and renewable energy projects by addressing the up-front cost barrier via on-bill financing. Key aspects of the Program include: • Simple application and approval processes • Financing 100% of project costs • Repayment of loans on the utility bill Specific elements of the Program include: • Eligible properties are single family homes and townhomes, both owner occupied and rental properties with the owner as applicant. • Project types are based on existing definitions within utility programs and include energy efficiency (e.g., insulation, furnace, AC, windows), water supply line replacement/repair and renewable energy (e.g., solar PV and wind) • Direct Program expenses will be recovered via fees and interest rates • On-Bill Financing will replace the existing Zero Interest Loan Program. The proposed Program is based on selecting best practices from on-bill programs in Kansas, Kentucky, South Carolina and Oregon and loan parameters from a successful Fannie Mae and Pennsylvania energy improvement loan program. Together with the proven components of Fort Collins Home Efficiency Program, an On-Bill Financing Program element will further support customers who choose to improve the efficiency of their homes. Pilot Program Details Description Details Customer eligibility Energy projects – Utilities electric customer Water projects – Utilities water customer Project eligibility Home Efficiency Program • 23 types of projects based on rebate categories http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/energy-efficiency/home-efficiency- program/rebates Renewable energy rebate requirements • http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/residential/conserve/renewables/solar-rebates Water supply line replacement/repair (similar to Zero Interest Loan Program) Not carried over from Zero Interest Loan Program • Air quality projects, high efficiency clothes washers April 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 24 Description Details Rental properties Owner is applicant and note holder Owner options for payment mechanism: • Owner receives separate loan payment bill from Utilities, or • Tenants may make payments depending on lease type and if utility account is in tenant’s name (requires notification and acknowledgement by tenant) Applicant qualification Varies with loan amount and credit score (2 tiers) • Utility bill payment history • Credit score • Income Loan details Amount: $1,000 to $15,000 Term: 3 to 10 years Interest: prime plus 2-5% Application fee ($25) Origination fee ($150) Risk mitigation and security Chapter 26 utility service – permanent lien and disconnect provisions Recorded lien (provides notification for title search) Loan qualification track record Payments and Payoff Payments on utility bill Payoff on loan completion or property sale Pilot Program Administration The pilot program will be administered collaboratively by Utilities staff and a third party (to be selected). Due to the state and federal requirements related to mortgage origination, Utilities will seek a third party to complete several of the steps in the loan process. The table below represents a simple overview of steps and likely split of responsibilities between Utilities and the third party. Loan Process Responsible Party Utilities 3rd Party Efficiency Audit required X Application: project approval based on preliminary rebate application and contractor estimate XX Application: Bill payment history, credit score, income X X Project verification X Loan origination X Contractor payment X Set up loan within billing system X Recording of obligation X Loan payment servicing X Pilot Program: Next Steps Utilities has several tasks that need to be completed prior to being able to offer the pilot On-Bill Financing Program to customers. The goal is to be ready to offer this service to customers by June 1. These steps include: • Finalize testing of billing system • Document/finalize internal business processes and 3rd party resources • Document accounting procedures • Integrate financing options with existing Home Efficiency Program outreach and marketing plans April 17, 2012 -4- ITEM 24 On-bill financing has great potential to increase efficiency and renewable energy projects in the community. It is the intent of this 2012 pilot program to prove the concept in Fort Collins with a limited scope of building, project types and available funds. Future expansion of the Program could include the small commercial sector and additional projects types (e.g., expanded water conservation measures, both indoor and outdoor). The structure of the pilot, especially the loan parameters, is based on successful programs with extended track records. This structure was chosen because it is scalable, both in administrative and financial terms. The long-term vision is to attract capital to the loan fund so that the funding is not limited to what Fort Collins Utilities can provide, either through reserves or ratepayer funds. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Council approved a budget exception in fall 2011 to provide $300,000 for on-bill financing, subject to bringing the necessary changes in City Code and additional details of the pilot program, which are presented here. This funding for the 2012 pilot is coming from Utilities reserves. Utilities expects to also have available approximately $30,000 in remaining Zero Interest Loan funds from the 2012 adopted budget which can be utilized by the pilot program. Based on 2011 efficiency project rebate requests, it is expected that this level of funding will support 50 to 75 efficiency projects. The On-Bill Financing Program element will add to the positive economic impact of the Home Efficiency Program. There are currently 40 participating contractors working with the Program, with over 100 individuals going through training for best practices installation standards. Retrofit projects in 2011 represented an investment (by homeowners, supported by rebates) of approximately $1.2 million towards improving existing home efficiency. Utility bill savings from improved homes also results in additional spending on local goods and services. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The On-Bill Financing Program supports the City’s goals for energy use reduction through efficiency, carbon emissions reduction from improving the efficiency of the built environment and increasing local renewable energy production. Homes are seeing 5-50% (15% on average) energy reductions as a result of improvements made through the Home Efficiency Program. The opportunity for on-going participation in the Program is many thousands of homes. The On- Bill Financing Program is expected to be a very effective approach to reaching these homes in the coming years. The Home Efficiency Program also directly addresses indoor environmental air quality. The audit, installation standards and project verification testing specifically address combustion safety of natural gas appliances and educate homeowners on other aspects of indoor air quality. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Staff presented information related to the On-Bill Financing Program and proposed pilot program at the February 27, 2012, meeting of the Council Finance Committee. A summary of the discussion is included as Attachment 2. At its March 1, 2012 meeting, the Energy Board passed a motion unanimously stating the Energy Board endorses expanding the role of Utilities as the financing agent for energy reduction projects. A memo from the Energy Board is included as Attachment 3. April 17, 2012 -5- ITEM 24 At its March 15, 2012 meeting, the Water Board unanimously voted to endorse the proposed pilot program. An excerpt from the unapproved Water Board meeting minutes is included as Attachment 4. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff met with representatives from the Community for Sustainability, Fort Collins Sustainability Group and other community stakeholders on March 5, 2012 to receive feedback on utility financing in general and the proposed pilot program. Staff has discussed the pilot program with several community members who are rental property owners and property managers, seeking feedback related to the Program in general and the provisions for accommodating rental properties in particular. Notice of the proposed change to City Code to include this type of program was published in the Coloradoan on March 18, 2012, and a mailing was sent to City electric customers outside of the city limits. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Finance Committee minutes, February 27, 2012 2. Water Board minutes, March 15, 2012 3. Energy Board memo, April 5, 2012 4. Powerpoint presentation ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 2 Utilities electric · stormwater · wastewater · water 700 Wood Street PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6700 970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 – TDD utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities Memorandum DATE: February 28, 2012 TO: City Council THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director FROM: John Phelan, Energy Services Manager Mike Beckstead, City Finance Director Patty Bigner, Utilities Customer and Employee Relations Manager RE: Council Finance Committee Summary – February 27, 2012 re: On-bill Efficiency Financing Program discussion On February 27, 2012, the Council Finance Committee (Mayor Weitkunat, Councilman Manvel) discussed with staff the proposed structure for an On-Bill Efficiency Financing Program. John Phelan presented the information with support from Mike Beckstead, Patty Bigner, Brian Janonis and Darin Atteberry. The Finance Committee members supported moving ahead with the general approach proposed by Staff and to proceed with discussing the item and related ordinances at the March 20 Council meeting. There was discussion and clarification on a number of aspects of the proposed program and related issues. Major points of discussion were: Benefits. The purpose of an On-Bill Financing Program Element is to facilitate more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector. These upgrades reduce our need for future energy needs, reduce our environmental footprint and promote local economic health by investing in our built environment while improving the health, comfort and safety of our homes. Need. Utilities Home Efficiency Program provides the core elements to promote efficiency improvements in existing homes (low-cost audits, participating contractors, rebates, quality assurance). However, the up-front cost to complete improvements is still a barrier for many customers. Private sector options for financing include home equity loans, second mortgages and credit cards. While these may be appropriate for some customers, each has significant barriers in terms of cost, interest rates or qualification requirements. The proposed On-bill Financing Program will provide a simple, quick, low-cost option to facilitate projects moving forward. Research. One of the presentation slides included information related to other on-bill financing programs around the country. The definitions and data within the table will be clarified in the Page 2 of 2 March 20 Agenda Item Summary. The primary conclusion related to this information is that Utilities Home Efficiency Program is already out-performing other programs. An On-bill Financing Program Element will provide another tool to improve this performance (in terms of projects completed). Rental Properties. There was extensive discussion on potential issues related to providing on-bill financing for rental properties. Utilities is committed to having a clear path for rental properties to take advantage of the Home Efficiency Program and On-bill Financing. The general direction is to develop disclosure and notification tools for owners and tenants that can be used at the time of loan origination and for future tenants of properties which have utility bill loan payments. The owner will be the originator and note holder for loans on rental properties. Staff and Council members discussed potential issues related to having tenant consent as part of the process. Percentage of projects financed. There was discussion about whether providing 100% project financing is appropriate for a local government financing program. On one hand, there were concerns that this does not have enough customer “buy-in” for the use of Utility funds. However, the program design is intended to be self-funded (interest rates and fees cover the cost of program administration and capital return) so that the funds will be paid back by those using the program. In addition, the risk of loan losses is mitigated by the qualification requirements, Chapter 26 lien and turn-off provisions and a recorded lien on the property. Scope. The On-bill Financing Program is not specifically targeted at the low income sector of customers. Qualification requirements are based primarily on bill payment history and credit score. Targeted low income assistance programs are under development by Utilities. Solar loan efficiency requirements. The question was raised as to whether Utilities should require solar funding recipients to meet minimum efficiency thresholds in order to promote the principle of “efficiency first.” Staff clarified that existing solar rebates require customers to receive an energy audit so that they have the information about their own efficiency level prior to receiving funding. Next Steps Continue development of the On-Bill Efficiency Financing Program. Present the program, and related ordinances, as a discussion item for the Council meeting on March 20, 2012. Reach out to community stakeholders, including property owners, on the proposed program structure. 2 Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Meeting Minutes, March 15, 2012 On-Bill Utility Efficiency Financing Program (Presentation available upon request) Chief Financial Officer Mike Beckstead and Energy Services Engineer Norm Weaver presented this agenda item on behalf of Customer and Employee Relations Manager Patty Bigner and Energy Services Manager John Phelan. $300,000 was set aside in the budget for this type of program (conditionally approved for 2012), but before staff can spend it, a program must be presented to Council. This is a residential “pilot” program and meant to integrate with our existing efficiency programs. The item went to Council Finance Committee in February, and staff has worked to respond to feedback given there. This program is about both energy and water efficiency. A group has been working on the concept for several months. Financing is key to getting a homeowner to move forward with efficiency upgrades. The home energy audit is the starting point for homeowners to know what is recommended for improving the efficiency of their home, and they receive a list of contractors who are trained in efficiency upgrades. Eligible project types would include renewable energy options (solar photovoltaic and wind). Loan repayments are designed to replenish the funding in order to continue offering more loans. Mr. Beckstead noted it will take a long time for the fund to become self-sustaining. This is not designed for low-income and low-credit-tier populations. A lien would be placed on the property to secure the loan, and the loan would be offered at a very competitive rate. The simplicity of the payment process is also very advantageous. Board member questions: Where do interest monies go? If the customer falls in arrears on their bill, can their utility services be jeopardized? Interest goes to replenish the fund for more loans. It’s also important to note that you have to be a customer of the utility related to the type of repair being planned, i.e. a water customer in order to receive funding for a water efficiency project. What makes this program more attractive than other programs that had funds left over? The Utilities’ efficiency initiatives are a multi-year proposition. If the initial $300,000 in funding is not used, Utilities can continue to promote all types of energy and water efficiency projects. There was $30,000 left in the existing ZILCH Program, which will be rolled in with the $300,000. We anticipate that all funding for the pilot program will be used each year by linking it into the energy efficiency audits. What are the administrative costs to the City? The City incurs a cost of $150 for loan processing and $25 for the application fee. The third party’s processing fees will be within the $150 fee structure. This is not staffed by the City, and no FTEs will be added to support the program. However, managing delinquencies could create administrative costs. Is this financing option something that the private sector can do, and the City is considering doing this to get our message out about efficiency programming? The City’s focus is on conservation and trying to make it easier for homeowners to implement home conservation projects. Certainly, anyone can obtain a third-party loan at a bank. ATTACHMENT 2 2 Are the suggested projects from the energy audit prioritized for the homeowner? To some extent, the suggestions are prioritized. Utilities hopes these audits offer a non-biased approach. Staff is still considering guidelines to influence using the loan for the priority projects. Are wind projects allowed in the city? Yes, they are allowed, with some height restrictions. Utilities recommends consulting the wind study before considering a wind system. “Payback” guidelines would be helpful. Service professionals can’t always speak to that. Mr. Beckstead believes that the savings calculation and impact on utility bills is included in the energy audit. What makes it more attractive to use this financing? How are standards established? It’s not compelling, other than 100 percent financing is offered and the interest rate is designed to be lower than bank financing. The ease of having it on your utility bill is also an advantage. There is also flexibility on the loan term, given what the savings are estimated to be. Home equity may not be available for traditional financing, so basing it on credit score apart from equity considerations widens the pool of eligible applicants. How will we convince a customer to use the contractors on our list? An inspection process post- completion would have been necessary, and we elected not to pursue that option. We have an approved and trained list of contractors. How will we audit that the contractors are giving a fair market price for the work? If someone is participating in the efficiency program, we hope the marketplace works and the customer seeks competitive quotes from more than one source. Our contractors have gone through mentoring and training, and specific, random follow-up quality checks are performed. If an issue is found, a contractor can be put on probation. Audits are subsidized. In many cases, residential efficiency progress is less expensive than investing in another coal plant, for example. Utilities is invested in insuring the contractors do quality work. The federal credits for home improvements were based on a do-it-yourself approach. It would be helpful to have contractors that could consult with “do-it-yourselfers” and check their work for a fee. A local rebate is offered by this Utility for specific incentives which are part of the home efficiency program. Our local utility dollars are at stake to get an optimal result. There are options in the community for energy conservation assistance such as the Extension Services, the Sustainable Energy Alliance, etc. Utilities staff also field questions and provide what information they can. Mr. Beckstead noted we may entertain something like that in the next version. The pilot program was designed to keep it simple. Is there a defined success or failure barometer that would negate the pilot becoming a permanent program? It will take a couple of years to determine if we have a delinquency issue. Meanwhile, success means the funding is used quickly and there is a citizen demand for it. Language may need to be more inclusive of water projects. There are also reductions in homes such as low-flow toilets or converting a lawn to xeriscape. Citizens may desire to amortize the costs of those types of projects. Replacing a water line has minor positive impact. How do we use this to focus on primary water conservation opportunities? We started this to be centric to structural improvements, but landscaping and other ideas are worth exploring in the future. 3 Since this appears on the bill, it’s difficult to believe that there will continue to be third-party costs. Is there anything in place to ensure that the administrative costs won’t trickle onto all customer bills, including those who aren’t in a loan? Once the set-up is done, provided the bill is paid every month, it shouldn’t add any administrative costs to the system. Intent is not to add additional utility costs to other customers due to this program. This doesn’t assist small businesses. Small businesses are on the radar, and staff may go into that sector in the next version. Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett reviewed the wording of the public notice that has gone out to electric customers. Chairperson Balderson thinks a pilot program is a good idea and is willing to recommend the program to Council. Board Member Garner would like to include conservation language. Board Member Brown feels it’s too premature to mention the other alternatives such as coaching, funding for xeriscaping, and other types of efficiency projects. This program gives a mechanism to accomplish the projects. Board Member Garner suggested a friendly amendment to remove the word “Efficiency” from the title of the program. Board Member Phelan approved the friendly amendment. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Board members considered the draft memorandum to Council and provided suggestions for edits to Chairperson Balderson around the inclusion of conservation language and removal of the term “efficiency” throughout the memorandum. A statement will be added encouraging the application of this program to water-related projects in addition to the focus on energy-related projects. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Motion: Board Member Phelan moves that the Water Board endorses the proposed pilot program and will transmit a memo to Council encouraging the Council to adopt the On-Bill Utility Efficiency Financing Pilot Program and to adopt Chapter 26 Municipal Code updates to enable the Program. Board Member Garner seconded the motion. Motion: Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board approve the memorandum as adjusted. Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion. Utilities – Energy Board 700 Wood St. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6702 970.416.2208 - fax fcgov.com DATE: April 5, 2012 TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers FROM: Ross Cunniff, Energy Board Chairperson RE: On-bill Utility Financing On April 17, 2012 City Council will consider an ordinance to amend City Code Chapter 26, adding financing to Utility services. If approved, this change will allow Utilities to offer financing for water and energy efficiency projects to Utilities residential customers. Customers will also have the convenience of repaying loans with their utility bills. On-Bill Utility Financing will support the existing energy and water efficiency audit and rebate programs. It provides a low-interest, simple financing structure for qualified efficiency improvements. The qualifiers are that the improvements be completed by Utilities-approved contractors and include only pre-approved projects. Examples include air sealing and insulation, efficient appliances, heating and air conditioning units. The program is designed as a pilot and incorporates what staff and their consultants believe are the best practices of other programs offered by other utilities. Staff has presented information on the proposed pilot and answered questions from Energy Board members. Based on the information presented to the Fort Collins Energy Board, we support the proposed Ordinance. We believe On-Bill Utility Financing will address an unmet community need by reducing the financial barrier to participation in energy and water efficiency programs. Community participation is vital to achieving Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan goals. ATTACHMENT 3 1 1 On-Bill Utility Financing Pilot Program Fort Collins City Council April 17, 2012 Presenter John Phelan, Utilities Energy Services Manager Staff present Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Patty Bigner, Utilities Customer and Employee Relations Manager Carrie Daggett, City Attorney Consultants: Matthew Brown, Harcourt, Brown and Carey ATTACHMENT 4 2 2 • Present the parameters of a pilot On-Bill Financing program for 2012 • Council adoption of Revisions to Chapter 26 of the municipal code to authorize the pilot program Purpose for Council Discussion Item Background Council appropriated $300,000 in funding during the 2012 budget exception process (fall 2011) for an on-bill utility financing pilot program, pending a proposed structure and details. Tonight we are 1) describing the parameters for the proposed pilot, and 2) Seeking Council action making revisions to Chapter 26 of the municipal code to establish financing and servicing of loans as a utility service 3 3 Efficient Built Environment Fort Collins has policies in place which seek outcomes in the 2050 timeframe. One of these outcomes is a highly efficient built environment. We accomplish these goals through several avenues for both new and existing buildings: planning, codes and voluntary programs. Fort Collins accrues the following benefits of a highly efficient built environment Environmental Health Reduced energy and water use, renewable energy Economic Health Lower community energy bills, investing in our built environment with local contractors Social Health Improved comfort, health and safety in our homes Related Policies Plan Fort Collins Climate Action Plan Energy Policy Water Conservation Plan 4 4 Reducing Barriers to Efficiency Our vision is that all Fort Collins citizens live in highly efficient, comfortable and healthy homes. There are barriers to accomplishing these outcomes. Let me introduce you to Mrs. Jones: She wants to save money on utility bills and make her house more comfortable. She can get a comprehensive energy audit for $60 through Fort Collins Utilities (information barrier). She can find and choose qualified and trained contractors through Fort Collins Utilities (“who to call” barrier). She can receive rebates based on the contractor’s estimate (financial barrier). She still needs $4500 to complete the project. She doesn’t have $4500. On-Bill Financing will address the up-front cost barrier to making existing home efficiency improvements. 5 5 • Addressing the up-front cost barrier to increase the number of residential efficiency projects • Key elements for success – Simple application and approval processes – Finance 100% of project cost – Repayment of loans on the utility bill On-Bill Financing Pilot “in a nutshell” 6 6 • Scope • Project types • Qualification • Loan details Pilot Program Details This is a high level summary of the pilot program details. More information is available in your Agenda Item Summary. Scope Single family and townhomes Owner occupied and rental properties Project types Energy efficiency, water supply line, renewable energy Qualification Bill payment history, credit score, income (secondary) Loan details Interest rate, term, fees, security, due upon sale 7 7 • First Reading of ordinance to establish financing and servicing of loans as a Utility service Recommended Council Action 8 8 1. Present the parameters of a pilot On-Bill Financing program for 2012 2. Council adoption of Revisions to Chapter 26 of the municipal code to authorize On- Bill Utility Financing Purpose for Council Discussion Item Tonight we are 1) seeking your feedback on the parameters for the proposed pilot On-bill Utility Financing Program, and 2) recommending Council action making revisions to Chapter 26 of the municipal code to establish financing and servicing of loans as a utility service. ORDINANCE NO. 033, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ALLOW FOR ON-BILL UTILITY FINANCING WHEREAS, Utilities has proposed to pilot a new program element for 2012, providing on- bill financing for residential customers participating in the Home Efficiency Program and the Solar Rebate Program, and for customers who need to repair or replace a water supply line (the “On-Bill Utility Financing Program”); and WHEREAS, the primary goal of the On-Bill Utility Financing Program pilot is to facilitate more efficiency upgrades in the residential sector in order to reduce the need for future energy resources, reduce the community’s environmental footprint, promote local economic health by investing in the built environment, and improve the health, comfort and safety of homes in the Fort Collins community; and WHEREAS, in the fall of 2011, the City Council approved a budget exception for the 2012 budget to provide $300,000 for the On-Bill Utility Financing Program, subject to bringing the necessary changes in the Code and additional details of the pilot program; and WHEREAS, funding for subsequent years will be addressed through the Budgeting for Outcomes process; and WHEREAS, the proposed pilot On-Bill Utility Financing Program supports the policy goals of Plan Fort Collins, the Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan; and WHEREAS, the program will be a valuable addition to Utilities’ efficiency and renewable energy programs, which foster sustainability through energy and water use reductions, local contractors and investment in the built environment and improved home comfort, health and safety; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities has offered the Zero Interest Loan (ZILCH) program since the early 1980s, but after many years of success, in recent years the program has seen relatively little activity; and WHEREAS, in order to update the model for providing this type of support to residential customers, staff has proposed that the On-Bill Utility Financing Program replace the ZILCH program for Utilities-funded loans; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is desirable to establish an appropriate range of interest rates for loans in the On-Bill Utility Financing Program, while providing some flexibility for administration of specific loans based on administrative procedures and standards to be adopted by the Financial Officer pursuant to existing authority under Section 26-720 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2012, the Energy Board voted unanimously to recommend expansion of the role of Utilities as the financing agent for energy reduction projects, and on April 5, 2012, the Energy Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the proposed Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2012, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend the adoption of the proposed On-Bill Utility Financing Program; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council is adopting revisions to Chapter 26 of the City Code, as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That, for the reasons stated above, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the On-Bill Utility Financing Program as described herein will be for the betterment of the affected Utilities, and will be beneficial to the ratepayers of those Utilities. Section 2. That Section 26-129 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of new subparagraphs (f) and (g) which read in their entirety as follows: Sec. 26-129. Schedule D, miscellaneous fees and charges. . . . (f) The interest rate for water service-related loans shall be no less than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus two percent (2%) and no more than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus five percent (5%), per annum, with the interest rate for each loan to be set in accordance with the administrative rules and regulations of the Financial Officer pursuant to §26-720. (g) Loan-related fees for water service-related loans shall be as follows: (1) For loan application: $25.00 (2) For loan origination: 150.00 Section 3. That Section 26-130 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-130. Agreements for special water services. (a) Special services or complex service arrangements that are beyond those required for basic water service may be arranged by a written services agreement which the Utilities Executive Director may negotiate and enter into on behalf of the water utility. Said agreement shall establish the terms and conditions for any such special services or arrangements and shall incorporate by reference the requirements of this Chapter, as applicable. -2- (b) Special services in the form of loans for water service-related improvements, conservation measures or efficiency enhancements shall be documented on forms determined by the Utilities Executive Director and the Financial Officer. Any such loans shall be made consistent with the applicable program requirements, credit and risk standards, and interest rates provisions as set forth in this Article and in the administrative rules and regulations adopted by the Financial Officer pursuant to § 26-720. Obligations for repayment of any such loans are subject to the provisions of Article XII of this Chapter. (c) Any special services agreement modifying the rates, fees or charges for said services from those set forth in this Article shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with § 6 of Article XII of the Charter. Section 4. That Section 26-289 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-289. Miscellaneous fees and charges. The following is a schedule of miscellaneous fees and charges: Description Amount (1) Connection fees and service charges Fees shall be set forth as in § 26- 712(b) (2) Industrial discharge permits a. Administration $76.00 annually b. Surveillance Determined for each user annually, based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs, billed monthly (3) Laboratory support services Determined on a case-by-case basis based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs (4) Materials and labor provided by City Determined on a case-by-case basis based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs (5) Charges for disposal at the Fort Collins Regional Sanitary Waste Transfer Station: a. Septic tanks, vaults, privies, -3- portable toilets: Generated within Larimer County $0.071 per gallon Generated outside Larimer County $0.108 per gallon b. Recreational vehicle sanitary waste holding tanks: Residential customers of the City of Fort Collins Wastewater Utility No charge for individual disposal at Transfer Station Others $2.35 base fee plus $0.071 per gallon (6) Interest rate for wastewater service-related loans: No less than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus two percent (2%) and no more than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus five percent (5%), per annum, with the interest rate for each loan to be set in accordance with the administrative rules and regulations of the Financial Officer pursuant to § 26-720. (7) Loan-related fees for wastewater service-related loans: a. For loan application: $25.00 b. For loan origination: $150.00 (78) Miscellaneous fees Determined on a case-by-case basis based on direct costs plus 15% indirect costs Section 5. That Section 26-290 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-290. Agreements for special wastewater services. (a) Special services or complex service arrangements that are beyond those required for basic wastewater service may be arranged by a written services -4- agreement which the Utilities Executive Director may negotiate and enter into on behalf of the wastewater utility. Said agreement shall establish the terms and conditions for any such special services or arrangements and shall incorporate by reference the requirements of this Chapter, as applicable. (b) Special services in the form of loans for wastewater service-related improvements, conservation measures or efficiency enhancements shall be documented on forms determined by the Utilities Executive Director and the Financial Officer. Any such loans shall be made consistent with the applicable program requirements, credit and risk standards, and interest rates provisions as set forth in this Article and in the administrative rules and regulations adopted by the Financial Officer pursuant to § 26-720. Obligations for repayment of any such loans are subject to the provisions of Article XII of this Chapter. (c) Any special services agreement modifying the rates, fees or charges for said services from those set forth in this Article shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with § 6 of Article XII of the Charter. Section 6. That Section 26-464 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (p) which reads in its entirety as follows: Sec. 26-464. Residential energy service, schedule R. . . . (p) Loans. Special services in the form of loans for electric service-related improvements, conservation measures or efficiency enhancements shall be documented on forms determined by the Utilities Executive Director and the Financial Officer. Any such loans shall be made consistent with the applicable program requirements, credit and risk standards, and interest rates provisions as set forth in this Article and in the administrative rules and regulations adopted by the Financial Officer pursuant to § 26- 720. The interest rate for such loans shall be no less than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus two percent (2%) and no more than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus five percent (5%), per annum, with the interest rate for each loan to be set in accordance with the administrative rules and regulations of the Financial Officer. Obligations for repayment of any such loans are subject to the provisions of Article XII of this Chapter. Section 7. That Section 26-465 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (r) which reads in its entirety as follows: Sec. 26-465. Residential demand service, schedule RD. . . . -5- (r) Loans. Special services in the form of loans for electric service-related improvements, conservation measures or efficiency enhancements shall be documented on forms determined by the Utilities Executive Director and the Financial Officer. Any such loans shall be made consistent with the applicable program requirements, credit and risk standards, and interest rates provisions as set forth in this Article and in the administrative rules and regulations adopted by the Financial Officer pursuant to § 26- 720. The interest rate for such loans shall be no less than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus two percent (2%) and no more than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus five percent (5%), per annum, with the interest rate for each loan to be set in accordance with the administrative rules and regulations of the Financial Officer. Obligations for repayment of any such loans are subject to the provisions of Article XII of this Chapter. Section 8. That Section 26-712(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-712. Utility bill and account charges authorized; procedures. . . . (b) The following account and miscellaneous fees and charges shall apply to all City utility customers receiving service pursuant to the terms of Chapter 26, whether within or outside of the corporate limits of the City, except as otherwise expressly stated: Fees and Charges Amount Service connection fee for account with one or more metered services (including nonmetered services for the same account) $19.65 Customer-initiated rate change (after 90 days of new service) 19.65 Service connection fee for account with only nonmetered services (stormwater, wastewater, wind, flat commercial electric, sprinkler clocks, cable towers and floodlights) 10.00 Service fee to reinstate an account to the owner/property manager between tenants 10.00 Meter reading charge, per month, for those customers who request the option of mechanical electric meter and/or a mechanical water meter instead of the standard advanced metering equipment 11.00 per month Turn-off notice fee 10.00 Reconnect fee per service for water or electric 20.00 -6- following disconnection for delinquency Trip charge for special services requested by customer during normal service hours 19.65 After-hours reconnect or after-hours trip charge for special service requested by customer - Water (after 5:00 p.m. weekdays or weekend/holiday) 85.35 After-hours reconnect or after-hours trip charge for special service requested by customer - Electric (after 5:00 p.m. weekdays or weekend/holiday) 85.35 Return item fee (check, electronic fund transfer, credit card, etc.) 25.00 Owner-requested repair disconnect fee, per trip 20.00 Research/document fee per hour 20.00 Interest rate for utility service-related loans: No less than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus two percent (2%) and no more than the most current U.S. prime lending rate at the time of loan origination plus five percent (5%), per annum, with the interest rate for each loan to be set in accordance with the administrative rules and regulations of the Financial Officer pursuant to § 26-720. Loan-related fees for utility service-related loans: a. For loan application: $25.00 b. For loan origination: $150.00 Other miscellaneous charges will be based on direct cost plus fifteen percent (15%) indirect costs. . . . Section 9. That Section 26-720 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-720. Administrative rules and regulations. The Financial Officer may formulate and promulgate rules and regulations for the administration of this Article, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Article, with respect to the billing and collection of utility fees and charges, credit and lending -7- standards and rates and administrative practices for utility loan programs, and other matters relating to the administration of customer accounts. Said rules and regulations may regulate without limitation, the forms and procedures for giving notice to customers; policies for adjusting billed amounts as necessary to correct errors or for administrative efficiency or to achieve equity; procedures for appeals; and procedures for the documentation of liens. Any rules or regulations promulgated by the Financial Officer hereunder shall be effective upon the Financial Officer's filing of the same with the City Clerk. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -8- DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Lance Smith Patty Bigner AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2012, Amending Section 26-464 of the City Code to Establish a Medical Assistance Program for Electric Customers (Option A, B, or C). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Medical Assistance Program is a pilot program which is aimed at providing financial assistance for customers who are in the tiered residential electric rate class and who have electric medical equipment in their home. Staff is presenting three options for consideration by Council. Fort Collins Utilities is seeking direction on the program details and approval from the City Council to implement this program. Specifically, staff is asking City Council to determine the scope of the program and to adopt the Ordinance allowing the establishment of the program. The program is focused on reducing the cost associated with the additional electrical needs of those with life support equipment in their household. Options for other medical equipment and air conditioning needed to improve the quality of life for those with immune compromising diagnoses are also being presented for consideration. • Option A limits coverage to electrical life support and mobility durable medical equipment. The maximum discount is $12.50 per month. • Option B extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment. The maximum discount is $12.50 per month. • Option C extends coverage to all electrical durable medical equipment and includes a discount for customers whose medical needs require air conditioning. The maximum discount during non- summer months is $12.50 per month. The maximum discount during summer months is $41.73 per month. The key differences between the three options are shown in the Ordinance in bold-face type. Fort Collins Utilities is recommending the implementation of Option C with an income limitation as a pilot program to be implemented by June 1, 2012 when the higher seasonal tiered rates become effective. Based on 2012 participation and costs of the program for the remainder of the year, the program can be adjusted prior to the 2013 cooling season for any necessary changes. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On December 6, 2011, Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011, increasing the Residential Class Electric Rates. The new rates support the conservation values of the City through a tiered rate structure and include a seasonal variation to reflect the higher cost of energy during the summer. In the discussion leading up to the vote to adopt the Ordinance, Council requested Fort Collins Utilities to develop a program so as not to impose any additional economic hardship on those customers who may have sufficient monthly energy usage attributed to medical equipment to be pushed into the second or third tiers. The Pilot Medical Assistance Program is the result of that request. The program could include an income limitation to focus the program on those most in need of economic assistance. It could also include a component with an air conditioning allowance during the cooling season (June – August) for those with medical conditions adversely affected by hotter summer temperatures. Research indicated there are a number of discount programs for customers with medical issues around the country. Comparisons of the programs in the western region of the United States served as a basis for the development of this program. Please see Attachment 2 for a table comparing the programs at other utilities. In addition, outreach for this program has involved review by the Energy Board and meetings with patient advocacy groups and physicians. April 17, 2012 -2- ITEM 25 In determining a reasonable household income ceiling, the Area Median Income (AMI) used by the Federal Housing Authority provided an independent source of income information based on the number of people in a household. The AMI is specifically formulated for Larimer County and factors in local costs of living. Without more detailed information than the median income, it was necessary to take some portion of this AMI as the program is designed to help those customers who will see the tiered rate increase as a substantial economic hardship. The income table included in the draft application shows the income ceiling as 60% of the Larimer County AMI. This level of income is close to 185% of the federal poverty level and is higher than that used for many other income-based social assistance programs. A certain level of fraud prevention is recommended for this program. The application requires the customer to sign an affidavit allowing for Fort Collins Utilities to request documentation to verify income qualifications, if the pilot program has an income ceiling. The application also requires a signed affidavit from a physician verifying the need for durable medical equipment which requires electricity or the need for a temperature controlled household for those customers with certain immune compromising diagnoses. The lawful presence affidavit is required by Colorado state law because participation in the program is considered a local public benefit. An appeal process will be included in the program for those customers who are experiencing a financial hardship due to their medical needs or whose medical condition requires air conditioning, yet fall outside the scope of the program. The Utilities Executive Director will have the authority to consult a medical professional as a hearing officer for medical appeals of a decision that any electrical medical equipment does not meet established criteria. The Utilities Executive Director will have the authority to allow an exception to the established financial criteria. Staff is providing Council with three options for the program. Attachment 1–Program Options summarizes the options, including the pros and cons and the associated costs of each option. Based on City Council’s direction and adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading, staff will return with the specific program for Council to consider adopting on Second Reading on May 1. If adopted, staff anticipates implementation of the program before June 2012. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS It is difficult to estimate the anticipated enrollment in this program and the enrollment depends on what is included in the adopted program. This is because the program may potentially be more comprehensive than other programs reviewed by staff. In addition, data on the prevalence of certain diseases in Fort Collins is not available. For these reasons it is recommended that we consider this program to be a pilot program from June 2012 through May 2013. Once the program has been implemented, enrollment and costs will be better understood so any changes necessary to continue the program or better meet these customers’ needs can be brought back to City Council by the second quarter of 2013. The revenue shortfall in 2012 associated with this program will be accommodated within the Light & Power Reserves for 2012 and 2013. While it is hard to estimate the economic impacts of a new program, this program is not increasing electric rates for customers at this time and is providing a reduction for the eligible customers. Thus, it is not expected that this program will have any substantial economic impact on the community as a whole but it will provide some relief for customers participating in the program. It is expected that the savings seen by these customers will be spent elsewhere within the local community. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This program has minimal negative environmental impacts. This program in conjunction with the new tiered rate structure has the potential to help customers be more aware of their personal energy usage and may be an opportunity in the future to expand on energy efficiency education programs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Option C with an income limitation for the Medical Assistance Program. Option C will allow for some assistance to be provided to the most customers by allowing any electrical durable medical equipment April 17, 2012 -3- ITEM 25 to be covered with a physician’s signature. It will also provide some assistance for those customers with a medical condition requiring air conditioning in the summer. Option A is the most limited of the three options and does not allow for quality of life considerations or an accommodation for air conditioning. Option B does allow for equipment necessary to improve the quality of life of those with medical needs to be covered but still does not cover air conditioning. By including an income limitation, the program will be targeted to those customers most in need of the financial relief from the program. While it is difficult for any program to address all of the needs of the community, Option C with an income limitation covers the most medical conditions of the three options and with the income limitation attempts to balance the needs of the community with increasing the costs to be passed on to other residential customers. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Medical Assistance Program was presented to the Energy Board on February 2, 2012 and again on April 5, 2012. Energy Board members expressed support for the program and indicated support of similar programs that are structured to assist low-income community members and others in situations of hardship. At the April 5, 2012 meeting, the Energy Board voted to recommend Option C with an income limitation. Fort Collins Utilities staff also spoke with a representative from the Senior Advisory Board to explain the intent of the program. PUBLIC OUTREACH Fort Collins Utilities has met with the patient advocacy groups, citizens and physicians in the development of this program including: • Senior Advisory Board • Multiple Sclerosis Society • Disabled Resource Services • Dr. Bruce Cooper with the Health District of Northern Larimer County. Communication that has already been distributed regarding the change in rates has included information that Fort Collins Utilities is considering medical conditions and is working on a program to address the potential impacts. Two of these communication brochures have already been distributed and staff members are keeping track of interested customers. A training session will be offered to Customer Service Representatives so that they are able to answer questions about the new program. Information regarding the Medical Assistance Program and how to apply will be distributed to the customers that are already a part of our Life Support Notification Program. It will be posted on the Fort Collins Utilities website and a simple brochure describing the program requirements and eligibility will be created and distributed at community outreach events. Notice of the proposed change to the Municipal Code to include this type of program was published in the Coloradoan on March 18, 2012 and a mailing was sent to City electric customers outside of the city limits. ATTACHMENTS 1. Program Options 2. Program Comparison Table 3. Draft Program Application Form 4. Letter from Dr. Bruce Cooper 5. Letter from Dr. Gerald McIntosh 6. Fort Collins Energy Board Draft Minutes, April 5, 2012 7 Powerpoint presentation Attachment 1 - Program Options With Income Limitation Without Income Limitation Program Option Description of Program Pros Cons Estimated Enrollment Estimated Cost Estimated Enrollment Estimated Cost Option A Baseline program which only allows life support devices - covers most critical medical equipment - does not address quality of life needs 130 $20,000 335 $50,000 Maximum discount = $12.50 / mo - provides some financial relief - does not cover air conditioning needs Option B Enhanced program which covers all electrical durable medical equipment - addresses quality of life and therapeutic needs - does not cover air conditioning needs 520 $80,000 1340 $200,000 Maximum discount = $12.50 / mo - provides financial relief to more citizens than baseline program - enrollment is more uncertain than Option A Enhanced program covering all electrical durable medical equipment - addresses quality of life and therapeutic needs - most costly option Option C AND air conditioning for those citizens with immune compromising diagnoses - provides financial relief to more citizens than Options A or B - enrollment is more uncertain than Option A or Option B 750 $110,000 1920 $270,000 Maximum AC discount = $41.73 / mo - provides financial relief for citizens with temperature sensitivity issues Attachment 2 Comparison of Medical Life Support Programs Utility State Income Limited? Income Verified? kWh Credited Limited to Life Support? Allows AC? Allows Therapy Devices? Allows Oxygen Nebulizers? Preserves Conservation Message? 1 Salt River Project AZ No 0 Yes No No 2 Tucson Electric Power AZ Yes Potentially No Potentially Yes 3 City of Lodi CA No No Yes No No Yes 4 Imperial Irrigation District CA No calculated No Yes Yes 5 Modesto Irrigation District CA Yes Yes 250 No Yes No 6 PG&E CA No 0 No Yes No Yes No 7 SoCal Edison CA No 0 No Yes No No 8 Turlock Irrigation District CA No <=250 No Yes No Yes 9 City of Longmont CO No <= 150 Yes No Yes 10 FC L&P Option A CO Yes Potentially <=150 No No No No Yes 11 FC L&P Option B CO Yes Potentially <=150 No No Yes Yes Yes 12 FC L&P Option C CO Yes Potentially <=500 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Utility Notes 1 Salt River Project $17 / mo. Credit applied to bill 2 Tucson Electric Power Income < 150% Federal Poverty Level; discount is a function of usage (10-35%) 3 City of Lodi 25% discount on all electric charges 4 Imperial Irrigation District Applicant provides specific equipment energy requirements; AC allocation is 300 kWh 5 Modesto Irrigation District Income < $5,450 / mo.; allows electric wheelchairs 6 PG&E Program extends 1st tier by 500 kWh; allows electric wheelchairs 7 SoCal Edison Program extends 1st tier by 500 kWh; allows electric wheelchairs 8 Turlock Irrigation District Program reduces first 500 kWh by 50% 9 City of Longmont 20% discount on first 750 kWh 10 FC L&P Option A Income < 60% Area Median Income (~185% Federal Poverty Level) 11 FC L&P Option B Allows therapeutic equipment 12 FC L&P Option C Allows air conditioning during the Summer for certain diagnoses City of Application for Fort CoLLins Medical Assistance Program -2012 “iitieN Background. Attachment i Fort Collins Utilities (ECU) has developed this program to provide some assistance to customers who may be significantly impacted economically by the increased consumption of electricity in their residence due to the use of medically necessary equipment. The intent of the program is to ensure that customers are not avoiding medical treatment due to the additional costs associated with administering such treatment in their home from an electric device given the tiered rate structure of the residential electric rate class. As such, this program is not available to customers on the residential demand rate. Customers are required to apply for this discount each calendar year. Customer Information. (to be completed by Fort Collins Utilities account holder) Name on account: Account number:____________________ Service address: Fort Collins, CO ZIP code: Patient Name: Affidavit of Lawful Presence in the United States. (to be completed by Utilities account holder) swear and affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Colorado that: I am a Citizen of the United States — I am not a United State citizen but I am lawfully present in the United States pursuant to Federal Law I understand that this sworn statement is required by law because I have applied for a public benefit. I understand that State law requires me to provide proof that I am lawfully present in the United States and to submit a secure and verifiable document when asked. Acceptable forms of proof are: Colorado driver’s license, Native American tribal document, U.S. military identification card, Colorado identification card, U.S.CG. merchant mariner card. Affidavit of Income Eligibility. (to be completed by Utilities account holder) # in Income Ceiling Househoid (60%AM1) This program is intended to assist customers for whom the costs of running a 1 $32 220 medical device results in an economic hardship. The income threshold for this 2 $36’ 840 program has been set at 60% of the Larimer County Area Median Income (as 3 $41, 460 determined by the Federal Housing Authority). Based on the number of people 4 $46, 020 within this residence and the income ceiling provided in the table at right, I certify that the total household income is less than the income ceiling and, thus, this 7 $57, 120 account is eligible for this program. 8+ $60, 780 I agree, as a condition of my participation in this program, that if asked I will provide copies of my financial records that establish my income including copies of my IRS tax returns. My signature below certifies all information on this application is true and accurate, that I am lawfully present in the United States, the total household income for this residence is less than the household size adjusted income ceiling given in the table above, and the patient named above lives at this address full time and requires medically necessary equipment, used at this address, which requires electricity to operate. I further acknowledge that making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in this sworn affidavit is punishable under the criminal law of Colorado as perjury in the second degree under CR5. 18-8-503 and it shall constitute a separate criminal offense each time a public benefit is fraudulently received. Signature:__________________________________________ Date: Your physician will complete the back of this form. page 1 Physician Information. (to be completed by a licensed physician) Physician’s full name: Office Address: City: ZIP Code: Phone: Colorado Medical License Number: Type of medically necessary equipment used by patient: HCPCS Code: Additional need for cooling: If the patient has a spinal cord injury (quadriplegia and paraplegia), mutiple sclerosis, scleroderma or other condition associated with Raynaud’s phenomenon requiring air conditioning, please note the specific condition here: I certify the patient listed above requires, on an on-going basis, medically necessary equipment, utilized at the patient’s home, which uses electricity to operate. Physician’s signature: Date: Application does not guarantee uninterrupted electric service nor prevent disconnection for non-payment. Medically necessary equipment for this discount rate is defined as any durable medical equipment requiring electricity to operate that is required on an ongoing basis by a patient within the residence being serviced by Fort Collins Utilities. This includes, but is not limited to, respirators, dialysis machines, suction machines, electric nerve stimulators, pressure pads and pumps, intravenous pumps and electric wheelchairs. Return signed form to Fort Collins Utilities. Fort Collins Utilities Customer Service Division P0 Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Fort Collins Utilities Customer Service Division 117 N. Mason St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Mail to: Drop off: fcgov.com/utiities. utilities©fcgov.com (970) 221-6700 • TDD: (970) 224-6003 Fort CoLLins / ities page 2 Attachment 4 HölthiDistrict OF NORTHERN LARIMER COUNTY 120 Bristlecone Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80524 97022452O9 fax 97O•2217165 April 9, 2012 lnfo@healthdistrlctorg www.healthdlstrlct.org Patty Bigner Lance Smith Utilities Department City of Fort Collins Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Lance and Patty: Thanks for asking meto help you think about the implementation of your planned program to assist customers with certain medical problems who may face barriers fully participating in the city’s conservation program. As I understand It, the City of Fort Collins Utilities Department is planning a new tiered electricity rate program aimed at providing incentives for consumers to reduce energy consumption; however the City Council and utilities planners are concerned about the impact on low income customers with medical conditions requiring use of equipment powered by electricity. A special program is being planned for these consumers based on similar programs in California. The desire Is to keep the program simple: Residential customers will be asked to complete an application in which they self-identify that a full-time resident in their household meets both the medical need and income requirements to be eligible for the program. My comments are based on the description and “Medical Baseline Allowance Application” used the Southern California Edison Company (http://www.sce.com/customerservice/billing/tiered-rates/tier 1.htm). In that program and others like it in California, there are two circumstances related to medical condition that qualify someone for discounted rates: 1) If they require the use of a “life-support device” defined as any electrically powered medical devise “used to sustain life or relied upon for mobility”, or 2) if they have a disability or disease “...for which additional heating or cooling is medically necessary to sustain the patient’s life or prevent deterioration of the patient’s medical condition”. My first impression is that although these general criteria—medically necessary to sustain life, mobility or prevent deterioration—are stated in such a way as to be reasonably and reliably interpreted by medical professionals, the same result cannot be expected if customers are left to ascertain for themselves whether they are eligible. Given range of disabilities, diseases, functional impairments, co morbidities and Individual constitutions that Impact on these assessments, medical certification by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner seems to me to be fundamental to fair administration of this program. Examples of “life-support devises” are provided in the Edison application: It “includes, but is not limited to, respirators (oxygen concentrators), iron lungs. hemodialysis machines, suction machines, electric nerve stimulators, pressure pads and pumps, aerosol tents, electrostatic and ultrasonic nebulizers, compressors, IPPB machines, kidney dialysis machines, and motorized wheelchairs. Devices used for therapy rather than life-support do not qualifr.” creating a healthier community medical and dental services • mental health services • health promotion • community collaboration • Regarding the list, there are some that are clearly life-sustaining and others that in some cases would be more appropriately described as “used for therapy rather than life-support”. A health care provider’s judgment would be useful in these cases. If a physician’s statement is not going to be required, it would be helpful to have a list of devices that would not be eligible (e.g., air purifiers are marketed to persons with allergies, but there is little evidence that they actually reduce symptoms). • Among the devices on this list, I would expect the actual energy consumption to vary dramatically depending on the intensity of use and type of devise. I noted that several similar programs in California asked customers to include the voltage and amps or watts stamped on the devise and the duration and frequency of use in their application so that the discount would be contingent on consumption. As for the group of conditions requiring additional heating or cooling of the home to prevent medical deterioration, several specific conditions are listed as meeting criteria: Rate discounts are available if the patient is “...Paraplegic, Quadriplegic, Hemiplegic, has Multiple Sclerosis or Scieroderma... “. • I think there Is sound evidence to support including each of these: o People with spinal cord injuries (quadriplegia and paraplegia) are susceptible to hypothermia or hyperthermia at moderately decreased or increased ambient temperatures that healthy people can tolerate for long periods. Certain people with hemiplegia may also be affected. These customers would be affected in both the cold and hot months of the year. o Some people with multiple sclerosis find that symptoms can be triggered or worsened by sudden changes in temperature. Heat In particular can worsen symptoms. Although the effect resolves within a few hours of regaining normal body temperature, keeping cool can help reduce fatigue and Improve stability. Therefore, the use of air conditioners in summer and keeping the home slightly cool in winter is often recommended. o Scleroderma is a connective tissue disease and one of the autoimmune rheumatic diseases. It is commonly associated with a condition called “Raynaud’s phenomenon” where the blood vessels of the fingers and toes constrict and reduce blood supply when exposed to cold. These patients may need special space warming in cooler months to avoid symptoms and complications. Although less common, any of the other connective tissue diseases may be associated with Raynaud’s. For better clarity, it would be helpful to expand the description to, say “scleroderma or other condition associated with Raynaud’s phenomenon”. Again, lay people may know the name of this condition to be able to self- attest. The application goes on to list more general conditions that may meet criteria and this Is where medical judgment is most fundamental: “Standard Medical Baseline Allowances are also available If the patient has a compromised immune system, life threatening illness, or any other condition for which additional heating or cooling is medically necessary to sustain the patient’s life or prevent deterioration of the patient’s medical condition”. My concern here is that there is the potential to include a big swath of the population depending on how the question is framed in order to apply the criteria. • Many chronic medical conditions may be risk factors for heat Injury during severe heat waves. The elderly, very young children, people with cardiovascular or respiratory disease, diabetes, chronic mental disorders such as schizophrenia and some other chronic health conditions are at greater risk of heat exhaustion or heat stroke in the face of a sustained 2 severe heat wave such as the one that struck Europe in 2003 or Chicago in 1995.But I don’t think your Intention is to frame this In the context of a potential sustained severe heat wave. it is more about conserving energy by turning the thermostat down a few degrees in winter, or up a few degrees in summer. Whether persons with such conditions Attachment 5 NEUROLOGY ASSOCIATES OF NORTHERN COLORADO IOLII)I VALLEY MEDI A. OHOUP April 3, 20 12 City of Fort Collins Utility ATTN: Lance Smith 700 Wood St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Lance Smith, The Colorado-Wyoming Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has asked me to write a letter of explanation regarding heat sensitivity for patients with multiple sclerosis related to potential tier pricing for energy rates during periods of summer ATTACHMENT 6 Excerpt from Unapproved Energy Board Minutes, April 5, 2012 1 Medical Discount Program for Electric Customers (Attachments available upon request). Mr. Janonis introduced the item and introduced Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lance Smith. This item was presented to the Energy Board in February and to Council in March. This item is presented to the Energy Board again because Council would like to see more public outreach, a couple of alternatives with the program, and an appeal process. Background Those individuals using durable medical equipment may be adversely affected by the tiered rates. Fort Collins Utilities has met with several patient advocacy groups as well as physicians to discuss the needs of the patients that may be affected. As a result of meeting with these groups, Utilities will propose that Council consider several options for the program. Program Purpose The program is proposed to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Fort Collins as well as to maintain community conservation values. Utilities would like to provide the same incentive for the customers to conserve energy. Program Options Mr. Smith provided a handout showing the three options, pros and cons of each option, and associated costs. Option A only allows life support devices (only eligible equipment would be equipment necessary to sustain life). This option would cost approximately $20,000 with income limitations, or $50,000 without income limitations. Option B would include any type of medical equipment that would use electricity. This option would cost approximately $80,000 with income limitations, or $200,000 without income limitations. Option C would also include an allowance for air-conditioning for those individuals with immune-compromising diagnoses, such as multiple sclerosis. These individuals would be given an allowance for air-conditioning during the summer cooling season (June, July, and August). This option would cost approximately $110,000 with income limitations, or $270,000 without income limitations. Board discussion: A board member asked if this includes the use of hot tubs. These would be covered if hot tubs are included in the medical coding system. What is the income limitation? This is based on 60 percent of the area median income. Will you ask Council to pick one option? Yes, staff will recommend Option C with the income limitation. Chairperson Cunniff stated Council had two particular questions with the program, specifically, what have other electric utilities done and what does the medical community think of the options? Mr. Smith stated the program in Longmont uses Option A with no income limitations. Xcel is developing a pilot program. Tucson Electric has a program with income limitations ATTACHMENT 6 Excerpt from Unapproved Energy Board Minutes, April 5, 2012 2 similar to Option B. There are several programs in California that cover air conditioning as well as heating. The programs in California are extending the first tier rate and removing the conservation incentive from the rate structure. As part of the community outreach, Utilities has talked to patient advocacy groups as well as physicians. They have been supportive of the program. A board member asked for clarification on the $12.50 per month discount with Option C. Mr. Smith stated there would be a $12.50 per month discount with the durable medical equipment. If the customer qualifies for the air conditioning component, they would receive a $41.73 per month discount during the other nine months of the year. Discussion on the motion: A board member stated he would only support the option if it includes the income limitation. A board member asked for clarification on the appeals process. Mr. Smith stated there would not be an appeals process with the income limitations. From a medical perspective, an exception process would have to be developed that would involve input from a physician. Will customers sign up for the program on an annual basis? Yes. Vote on the motion: Yeas: Baumgarn, Behm, Cunniff, Kronkosky, Moore, O’Neill, Plate, and Rothe. Nays: none. The motion carried. Vice Chairperson Rothe moved that the Energy Board recommend adoption of Option C with the income limitation. Board Member Moore seconded the motion. 1 Medical Assistance Program for Residential Electric Customers City Council Meeting April 17, 2012 ATTACHMENT 7 2 Background • Tiered Seasonal Rates in 2012 • City Council Meeting on March 6th • Community Outreach – Senior Advisory Board Concerns were expressed during the discussion around adopting tiered rates in 2012 that there are some members of the community who are limited in the amount of energy they can conserve because of durable medical equipment in the residence. These concerns were further discussed at the March 6, 2012 City Council meeting. Following that meeting, Fort Collins Utilities reached out to the medical and patient advocacy groups within our community to gather their input on the development of this program. The following organizations provided input into the development of the program options being presented here: •Multiple Sclerosis Society •Disabled Resource Services •Health District of Northern Larimer County •Fort Collins Senior Advisory Board •Neurology Associates of Northern Colorado 3 Program Objectives • Enhance quality of life for citizens • Remove economic impact of tiered rates due to medical needs • Maintain community conservation values In speaking with the organizations listed on the previous slide the following objectives for the program were discussed: •The City recognizes that the quality of life of its citizens is impacted by their utility bills. •The implementation of a tiered rate structure in 2012 causes the utility bill of some customers to be additionally increased due to the need for durable medical equipment in their household. •While we all should do our part to help in the community’s conservation goals, for those citizens with such equipment in their household this is made more difficult. In order to provide the same economic incentive to these customers as every other customer, staff is recommending that all customers remain on a tiered rate structure. We are trying to benefit as many customers with medical needs as possible while being fiscally responsible and recognizing that physicians are patient advocates. 4 Program Option A Option A – Life Support Equipment Only • Provides up to 150 kWh without charge per month • Pros include: √ Life support equipment √ Assistance up to $12.50 / mo. √ Least costly option • Cons include: — Most limited — No air conditioning (AC) accommodation Option B extends the allowed durable medical equipment to include that which might be necessary for therapy or other quality of life considerations. Any durable medical equipment which uses electricity would be allowed under Option B. However, it does not address the air conditioning requirements of some medical conditions. Option B will cost more than Option A. 5 Program Option B Option B – All Durable Medical Equipment (DME) • Provides up to 150 kWh without charge per month • Pros include: √ Life support equipment √ DME for therapeutic or quality of life needs √ Assistance up to $12.50 / mo. • Cons include: — No AC accommodation Option B extends the allowed durable medical equipment to include that which might be necessary for therapy or other quality of life considerations. Any durable medical equipment which uses electricity would be allowed under Option B. However, it does not address the air conditioning requirements of some medical conditions. Option B will cost more than Option A. 6 Program Option C Option C – Enhanced Program Including Limited AC Coverage • Provides up to 150 kWh without charge per month for DME • Provides an additional 350 kWh without charge in the Summer (June – August) for air conditioning needs • Pros include: √ Life support equipment √ DME for therapeutic or quality of life needs √ AC for temperature sensitive diagnoses √ Assistance up to $12.50 / mo. for DME √ Additional assistance up to $29.23 / mo. for AC • Cons include: — Most costly option Option C is the most comprehensive of the three options presented as it covers all durable medical equipment which uses electricity and it provides for some assistance with air conditioning needs for those citizens with temperature sensitive diagnoses. The air conditioning allowance is limited to the three months of Summer. Being the most comprehensive of the three options, it also has the highest expected costs associated with it. 7 Program Costs With Income Limitation * Without Income Limitation Program Option Estimated Enrollment Estimated Cost Estimated Enrollment Estimated Cost Option A 130 $20,000 335 $50,000 Option B 520 $80,000 1340 $200,000 Option C 750 $110,000 1920 $270,000 * Income limitation ‐ Household income must be less than 60% of Area Median Income for Fort Collins. It is somewhat difficult to estimate the expected costs of any new program. The cost estimates shown here are all based on the estimated enrollment for each Option. For Option A enrollment was estimated based on experiential data from the City of Longmont which has a similar program in place already. For Option B there is no experiential data to refer to for these estimates. The estimated enrollment for Option B assumes a four‐fold increase over Option A. For Option C the enrollment over Option B was estimated based on membership data from the local chapter of the MS Society and national incident rates of the other accommodated diagnoses. The income limitation being proposed is 60% of the Area Median Income. An assumption has been made that the average income is close to the median income so 60% of the AMI represents approximately the lowest 1/3rd of the population in terms of income. Because there are several assumptions being made here, we have estimated that the income limitation would limit enrollment to 40% of those who would be eligible without an income limitation. Staff is recommending Option C with the income limitation. And because staff recognizes the uncertainty in these cost estimates, staff recommends that the program be seen as a pilot program for the first year to be reviewed by City Council prior to the summer of 2013. 8 Other Considerations • Appeals process • Financial appeal • Medical appeal • Pilot program in 2012 • Income limitation • 60% Fort Collins Area Median Income (AMI) No program will be able to address the needs of everyone in the community. So it is necessary to have an appeals process. For this program, there are two criteria which could be appealed. A medical appeal would be reviewed by a medical professional designated by the Utilities Executive Director. A financial appeal would be reviewed by the Utilities Executive Director as well. Given that we are trying to address the needs of as many customers with medical needs as possible while being fiscally responsible, it is recommended that this program be reviewed by Council before the end of its first year. 9 Discussion and Questions ORDINANCE NO. 034, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 26-464 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ESTABLISH A MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 166, 2011, increasing the residential energy electric rate effective February 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, the revised residential energy electric rate included significant rate structure modification to a tiered seasonal rate in order to better align the rate structure with the energy conservation values of the City and with purchase power charges assessed to the City by Platte River Power Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed City staff to develop a medical assistance program that would reduce the impact that the rate structure modification and rate increase would have on customers who have below average income and who use electrical medically necessary equipment at a Fort Collins electric customer address; and WHEREAS, Section 40-3.5-104(3), Colorado Revised Statutes, allows the governing body of a municipal utility, for good cause shown, to make changes to its rates or charges without providing 30 days’ notice to the public of the text of the changes to the rates schedule; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2012, the City Council delayed consideration of this Ordinance in order to provide staff additional time to add elements to the medical assistance program with input from medical personnel and to allow for citizen outreach; and WHEREAS, Utilities staff has since conducted outreach with local physicians, citizen groups, and other interested citizens; and WHEREAS, the summer season billing months under the City's tiered rate system begin in June, 2012, which makes the enactment of this Ordinance time-sensitive; and WHEREAS, staff has provided 30 days advance written notice to out-of-city customers that a public hearing regarding a possible amendment to the City Code that would allow for discounted rates to qualifying customers would be postponed from March 20, 2012 to April 17, 2012; and WHEREAS, staff has also published notice in the Coloradoan newspaper to the same effect; and WHEREAS, City staff has developed a medical assistance program that would reduce the monthly electric bill of qualifying electric customers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-464 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to add a new subsection (q)(1) which would read as follows: Sec. 26-464. Residential energy service, schedule R. . . . (q) Medical assistance program. (1) The rates described above shall be discounted for those electric customers to whom this rate schedule applies, and who apply for such discount, as long as such customers meet the requirements of paragraph (2) below. Section 2. That Section 26-464 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (q)(2) which reads as follows: OPTION A: (2) Assistance shall be provided in the form of a discount that is consistent with the average monthly energy expense associated with electrical durable medical equipment required for life support and mobility. Such discount shall not exceed the amount of $12.50 per month and shall be available under this program only to those applicants: a. whose annual household income falls below 60 (sixty) percent of the Larimer County Area Median Income (as determined by the Federal Housing Authority); and b. whose application is submitted on an annual basis on an administratively determined schedule and accompanied by the following: 1. a certified, signed statement from a licensed physician that electrical durable medical equipment used at the residential premises is required for life support or mobility; 2. a certification that such medical equipment has been assigned a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System number; and 3. a sworn affidavit from the applicant verifying that the information provided is true and correct. -2- OPTION B: (2) Assistance shall be provided in the form of a discount that is consistent with the average monthly energy expense associated with electrical durable medical equipment. Such discount shall not exceed the amount of $12.50 per month and shall be available under this program only to those applicants: a. whose annual household income falls below 60 (sixty) percent of the Larimer County Area Median Income (as determined by the Federal Housing Authority); and b. whose application is submitted on an annual basis on an administratively determined schedule and accompanied by the following: 1. a certified, signed statement from a licensed physician that electrical durable medical equipment used at the residential premises is medically necessary; 2. a certification that such medical equipment has been assigned a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System number; and 3. a sworn affidavit from the applicant verifying that the information provided is true and correct. OPTION C: (2) Assistance shall be provided in the form of a discount that is consistent with the average monthly energy expense associated with electrical durable medical equipment and with air conditioning during summer billing months. Such discount shall not exceed the amount of $12.50 per month during the non-summer billing months and shall not exceed $41.73 during the summer billing months, and shall be available under this program only to those applicants: a. whose annual household income falls below 60 (sixty) percent of the Larimer County Area Median Income (as determined by the Federal Housing Authority); and b. whose application is submitted on an annual basis on an administratively determined schedule and accompanied by the following: 1. a certified, signed statement from a licensed physician that: -3- a) electrical durable medical equipment used at the residential premises is medically necessary; b) that such medical equipment has been assigned a Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System number; and c) air conditioning at the residential premises is medically necessary for a resident thereof who, in the absence of the air conditioning, may suffer medical deterioration due to a severe immune compromising medical condition, including but not limited to, multiple sclerosis, quadriplegia, paraplegia, scleroderma or hemiplegia; and 2. a sworn affidavit from the applicant verifying that air conditioning will be operational at the applicant’s address during the summer billing months and that the information provided is true and correct. Section 3. That Section 26-464 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (q)(3) which reads as follows: (3) A decision that an applicant does not qualify to participate in this program for a medical or financial reason may be appealed to the Utilities Executive Director, who shall, prior to making his or her decision, and as he or she deems appropriate, confer with one or more medical or financial experts in reviewing such appeal. Section 4. That the amendments to Chapter 26, Section 464 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect when this ordinance becomes final and customers will become eligible to receive a medical discount on bills issued after customers apply and qualify for the medical discount. Section 5. That the City Council hereby finds that the amendments to Chapter 26, Section 464 of the City Code contained herein serve a purpose that is beneficial to the ratepayers of the electric utility. Section 6. That the City Council hereby finds pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Section 40-3.5-104 (3), good cause exists to establish the medical assistance program without having published the text of the proposed City Code changes 30 days in advance. -4- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 1st day of May, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -5- DATE: April 17, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead Josh Birks AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010- 029. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 by Resolution 2010-029. The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on April 3, 2012 by a 6-0 vote (Poppaw withdrawn) appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - April 3, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead Josh Birks AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010- 029. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson; Abstain: Poppaw; Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On May 18, 2010, City Council adopted a resolution approving a Business Investment Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City and Hewlett Packard Company (“HP”) for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. HP expanded operations at the Harmony Road facility, including construction of an Engineering Focused Lab by retrofitting 40,000 square feet of the Building 6 Annex. The additional operations created over 100 jobs with an annual average wages of $90,000. The expansion included two phases totaling $64.4 million in construction and equipment investment. The Agreement includes two performance based investments: (1) a one-time Use Tax rebate on the lab equipment purchased at installation; and (2) a Personal Property Tax rebate on the same lab equipment for ten years. Both investments relate to revenues the City would not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur. The total investment package has a value of $1.6 million over ten years. During the same time period the City will receive $2.0 million in revenues net of the investments made through the agreement. HP has completed the expansion and submitted an application for Use Tax rebate under the terms of the Agreement. The Agreement authorized a Maximum Use Tax Reimbursement of $600,000. After thorough review by the City’s Sales Tax department, the application requests $241,193 in Use Tax rebate. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Ordinance will have the following impacts on the City of Fort Collins finances: • $241,193 of General Fund Reserves will be appropriated for the purpose of remitting a Use Tax rebate to HP. The Use Tax was received in a prior year and is now held in reserves. • The Sales Tax Department has validated that HP remitted at least $241,193 of Use Tax through the purchase of eligible equipment as indicated in the Agreement. Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economics and Regional Economist at Colorado State University prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of HP’s planned expansion. The following summarizes that analysis: COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 11 Construction Benefits/Impacts • Direct Employment and Income – Based on a $34.4 million budget for retrofit, the proposed expansion will directly support approximately 336 construction jobs during the construction phase earning an average wage of $52,300 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Spin-off Employment and Income – The construction jobs will support approximately 207 spin-off jobs during the construction phase earning an average wage of $35,600 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Total Employment – The project will support a total of 543 direct and spin-off jobs during construction, with an average annual compensation of $45,900(Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Construction Use Tax – Based on an investment of $34.4 million in retrofit, the City will receive approximately $620,000 in construction use tax. The calculation assumes 60 percent of the investment is in materials and 40 percent in labor. (Source: Insight Fiscal Impact Model; CSU Regional Economist) Operations Benefits/Impacts • Direct Employment and Income – Per HP, 100 positions will be created after the retrofit of Building 6, earning an average wage of $90,000. Total payroll including benefits is approximately $12.6 million (based on an assumption of 40 percent of gross pay in benefits). • Spin-off Employment and Income – Based on the anticipated job growth supported by the expansion of Research and Laboratory space at HP, the 100 direct jobs will support an additional 124 spin-off positions in Larimer County with an average wage of approximately $32,900 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Total Employment – The proposed expansion will support a total of 224 direct and spin-off jobs (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • On-going Real Property Taxes – Based on a $24 million investment in Building 6, it is likely the Real Property Taxes will increase after completion. This increase in value could generate an additional $88,000 annually in property tax revenue to the City or $880,000 over ten years. • On-going Use Tax – Assuming HP replaces 50 percent of the $30 million investment in equipment over the next ten years, this could result in an additional $450,000 in equipment use tax revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The HP retrofit will impact the environment in the following ways: • An existing building on the HP Harmony Campus will be retrofit for a productive use allowing 100 new jobs to be added to the community without consuming additional raw land. The stated goal of the facility is to develop an Engineering Focused Laboratory with a “sustainable data center” and provide additional energy efficiency improvements. • HP has and remains a strong ClimateWise partner. Energy Efficiency projects to-date have included lighting upgrades, chiller plant expansion and upgrade, air handling unit upgrades, a building tune-up, and ice thermal storage. The total power savings equals 6.2 million Kilowatt Hours annually and a reduction in demand of 1,641 kilowatts. • Annual water consumption will increase by 8.0 million gallons as a result of cooling operations. A great deal of this water will not enter the waste water system due to evaporative loss. • Annual electricity consumption will increase by 10.67 megawatts. COPY COPY COPY COPY April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH Negotiations of the planned HP expansion and related Business Investment Agreement were conducted confidentially. ATTACHMENTS 1. Area Context Map – Identifies the HP Harmony Road Facility 2. Site Map – Identifies HP Harmony Road Facility – Building 6 Annex 3. Hewlett Packard’s Building 6 Retrofit Economic Impact Analysis, Prepared for the City of Fort Collins by Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economics and Michael Marturana, Research Economist, Colorado State University 4. Resolution 2010-029 ORDINANCE NO. 028, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REBATING USE TAX TO HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF THE BUILDING SIX ANNEX EXPANSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION 2010-029 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2010, City Council approved Resolution 2010-029 approving a Business Investment Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City and Hewlett Packard Company (“HP”) for the Building 6 Annex Expansion project (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project includes retrofitting an HP building located on the Harmony Road facility to include a 40,000 square foot expansion and lab equipment investment for an Engineering Focused Lab facility; and WHEREAS, the total construction and equipment investment for the Project will total approximately $64.4 million and create over 100 high-paying, primary jobs that will provide significant economic benefit to the community at large; and WHEREAS, the City’s Economic Development Department has concluded that the Project will generate an increase in tax revenue for the City, over and above the rebate amount as stated in the Agreement, in approximately the following amounts: (i) $450,000 in additional Use Tax over the next ten years, (ii) $150,000 in new annual Personal Property Tax in the first ten years and $250,000 in new Property Tax in subsequent years, and (iii) $88,000 in new annual Real Property Tax revenues; and WHEREAS, in accord with the terms of the Agreement, HP has completed the Project and has submitted an application for a one-time Use Tax rebate in the amount of $241,193 for the investment of $30 million in lab equipment; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that providing financial assistance to HP, upon the terms and conditions of the Agreement, is in the best interests of the City and serves the important public purposes of increasing employment within the City, stabilizing and improving the long-term tax base of the City, and promoting economic development within the City. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED FORTY ONE THOUSAND AND ONE HUNDRED NINETY THREE DOLLARS ($241,193) for the purpose of rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in support of the Building Six Annex Expansion project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk heat. Multiple sclerosis is a progressive neurologic disease caused by inflammation in the central nervous system that strips the nerve fibers of their natural insulation. When this happens it causes the nerve fibers to be sensitive to increased body heat which then increases neurologic impairment and overall neurologic symptomatology. It is estimated that 80% of the individuals with multiple sclerosis have some heat sensitivity. I understand that you are exploring a potential option of making a tiered pricing system available to individuals with multiple sclerosis who already have very high medical costs and often have below median incomes due to chronic disability. My understanding is that the proposal would reduce the amount paid by the patient as the average multiple sclerosis user is at 1400 kwh hours as opposed to 850 kwh hours which is what the average is for the population at large. I would encourage you to give this proposal favorable consideration as the overall cost would be minimal and the benefits for those afflicted individuals major. Sincerely yours, Gerald C. Mcintosh M.D. cc: Dolores Kueffler, MAAI3S POUDRE VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM I 106 E. Prospect Road, Suite 100 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 • Phone 9 0 482 4373 • Fax 970 484 5684 • www pvhs org meet the criterion that they would need to forego such energy-saving measures “to sustain the person’s life or prevent deterioration of their condition”, is a matter of case-by-case medical judgment. • I am not clear on why the term “compromised immune system” is included in some of the California eligibility lists. It is a very general and Imprecise term that isn’t very helpful to either laypersons or to health care providers. • One of the Councilpersons brought up the question of asthma and air conditioning. Air conditioning is sometimes recommended as an adjunct comfort measure for people who need to stay indoors to avoid allergy triggers. Asthmatics whose attacks are triggered by seasonal outdoor allergens (tree, grass, weed pollen) may be instructed to stay indoors with the windows closed as much as possible during the season when their asthma tends to flare, and AC makes this more comfortable. This is a small minority of asthmatics. Whether or not this would meet criteria, given that it is the closed windows rather than the air conditioning itself that is medically needed, is a question for the policy makers. In summary, the definitions you are considering for “life-sustaining devices” seem to me to be reasonable and reliable if interpreted by medical providers, but difficult for the lay person to operationalize. Interpreting the criteria and description for including cooling and heating beyond the specific conditions of quadriplegla, paraplegia, hemiplegia and MS ought to be made by a health professional on a case-by-case basis. Asthma probably doesn’t meet criteria, although here too, there may be circumstances where eligibility could be defended. Please contact me with questions, Sincerely, Bruce Medical Director 3 Fort Collins C romote the re lan are not ne oric residentia e Community al design doe es for preserv es (LIV 16.6) ceptual desig d parking at g s, four(4) one- area. eptual design ompatible wit ted that the sc h the Reming College Aven ully realized. sion 2.8.2(H)(2 to encourage se Code is be on under the e and historic thoughtful co ns. CO 80521 City Plan that ecognition and ecessarily com al structures a Spine (LIV 5. es incorporate ving historic re and preservin n exercise is ground level ( -bedroom and re-emphasize h each other cope of this c gton Annex pr nue and Rem 2), in the bes e the full imple eing requeste provisions of c character of onsideration o tel. 970.224.1 were conside d preservation mpatible with are in such cl .2) at College e the principle esources (LIV ng historic bu a three story 20 additional d two (2)two-b es the realiza or with the st conceptual de roject and doe ington Street t interest of th ementation of ed so that the Division 3.4. f the house w of our request 191 fax 970. ered during th n of historic b each other in ose proximity e Avenue. Non es of increasin V 16.3), integ ildings (LIV 1 , 17,159 squa spaces cove bed room unit ation that not a tandards of th sign focused es not reflect that will even he individually f the Fort Coll structure at 7 7(E) to a loca hile Fort Colli t for these fou .224.1662 w his conceptua buildings. It wa n all instances y to the densit netheless, wh ng awareness ration of histo 7.1). are foot reside er the rear por ts comprise th all principles o he Fort Collins only on the r the redevelop ntually occur w y eligible histo lins City Plan 711 Remingto ation that will ins continues ur modification www.theartofcon al design effor as discovered s, particularly ty that the Fo hile recognizin s of historic re oric structures ential building rtion of the lot he remaining of the Fort Co s Land Use C edevelopmen pment and inf when the goa oric structure a modificatio on Street can remain conte to develop a ns to the Land nstruction.com rt include LIV d not all y in cases rt Collins City ng these esources (LIV s into g with 4,000 t). Fourteen 13,159 ollins City Code in all nt of the fill of the als of the Fort at 711 on to Division be extually ccording the d Use Code m y V t d total length o A provides pla the articulatio of representa side yard set from the stan on Annex proje 4). tion to Divisi at 711 Remin Code Languag 1) is determin State or Nation lan and buildi se Code com ication of the ng house at 7 ure and resto gn also strives redevelopmen pment of prop maximizing la Fort Collins, te of one foot he third floor ove grade. Th omply with th alls of the pro This includes a yard setback equirements o sed Remingto ack at grade e "). ack at eightee ent by one fo ack at thirty fe rement by thr yard setbacks greatest encro of the north a an views at gra n of the facad ative condition tbacks. Both t ndard set in D ect should be ion 3.4.7(B) i ngton Street. ge: Standard. ned to be indiv nal Registers ing design sh mpliant concep Fort Collins L 711 Remingto oring the build s to fulfill the nt and Infill (L perties in resid and for reside CO 80521 t for every two walls intersec his profile is re e various sub posed project an articulated at various po of the Land U on Annex pro equals five fee en feet above oot and five in eet above grad ree feet (3'-0" s exceed the r oachment into nd south wall ade level, eig de as the buil ns along the n these figures Division 4.9(D) e granted this n regards to t If the project vidually eligib of Historic Pl hall provide fo ptual design w Land Use Co n Street. This ing as closely principles of t LIV 5.1), public dential areas ential develop tel. 970.224.1 o foot increas ct the roof stru epresented b bsections of D t have been d d facade, vary oints. These fe Use Code for t oject are as fo et and nine in grade equals ches (1'-5"). de equals fou "). requirements o the required ls (see attach ghteen feet ab ding height in north and sou visually desc )(6)(d) when t modification the preservat t contains a si le for local lan laces... ...the r the preserva was develope de, including s concept incl y as possible the Fort Collin c investment (LIV 6.1), pro pment (LIV 7.4 191 fax 970. se in wall heig ucture, which y the dashed Division 3.4.7( designed to re ying roof heig eatures also c the NCB Distr ollows: nches (5'-9"). T s six feet and urteen feet an Division 4.9( d setback is li hed figures 3A bove grade an ncreases. Fig uth walls as w cribe the nom the building is of standards tion and adap ite, structure ndmark desig en to the maxi ation and ada ed (see attach Division 3.4.7 ludes the dem to its original ns City Plan w along the Co oviding a varie 4). .224.1662 w ght to equal el h in the case o lone in each (F) of the For eflect the cha hts and dorm create areas rict. When av This exceeds five inches (6 nd zero inches D)(6)(d). Furt imited to only A and 3B). nd thirty feet a ure 3B provid well as a sectio inal and incon s viewed as a based on the ptive reuse of or object that gnation or for imum extent f aptive use of t hed figures 1A 7(B), preserv molition of the l 1888 configu which encour ommunity Spin ety of housing www.theartofcon leven feet at t of the Reming of the illustra rt Collins Land racter of histo mers all which where the sid veraged, the s s the code req 6'-5"). This ex s (14'-0"). Thi thermore, the y twenty-perce above grade w des section vi on view illustr nsequential n a whole, there e provisions o the individua t... individual list feasible, the d the historic st A & 1B) which ing the origin e various addi uration. ages, among ne (LIV 5.2), e g types and lo nstruction.com the point gton Annex ations on d Use Code orical encroach de yard side yard quirement by xceeds the s exceeds e portions of ent of the which ews at a rating the nature of the efore, the of Division lly eligible ting in the development tructure. h follows a al portion of tions made to other things, expansion or ocations (LIV m o , of the narrow e encouraged d by Division and NCM Di side of Remin by Kensington to the south-e g 1.00 which s on of Remingt e in defining a a modification e implementa of the NCB D tion to Divisi wall height in e nguage: Minim building excee or side lot line f wall or buildi 5) feet on the nd place of wo lication of the he Remington Fort Collins, Use Code Div s to "...provide or high traffic n which the pr red feet with Density Dist oposed projec According to ill. The attach sion 4.18(E): D mitations on th ment, which is what might be ensity of the C that Division abuts the east w nature of the d through Prin 4.9(D)(1) wo stricts. This tr ngton Street th n Place apart east (see atta successfully w ton Street do a transition be n of this stand ation of the va District to begi ion 4.9(D)(6)( excess to 18' mum side yard eds eighteen e an additiona ing height tha street side of orship uses sh e minimum sid n Annex proje CO 80521 vision 4.9 (A) e a transition c zones..." roposed Rem the Commun rict (NCM) to ct have been Policy LIV 5. hed figure 2A Development he overall den s just across t e expected fr Collegio proje 4.8(D): Land t side of the N e NCB District nciple LIV 6.1 uld provide a ransition coul han on the ea tments to the ached figure 2 work to facilita comply with t etween the m dard for the R arious portions n to function a (d) in regards . d width shall b (18) feet in h al one (1) foot, at exceeds eig f any corner lo hall be twenty de yard setba ect to be set b tel. 970.224.1 states that th between resid mington Annex ity Commerci the east (refe identified in t 1 the purpose illustrates tha t Standards of nsity of these he alley from rom these infi ct is 2.54. Th Use Standar NCB District w t in this area, of the Fort C more effectiv d be made ev ast side. north-east of 2A) are examp ate this trans the maximum edium density Remington An s of the Fort C as more effec s to the increa be five (5) fee height, such p t, beyond the ghteen (18) fe ot. Notwithsta y-five (25) fee ack standard w back five feet f 191 fax 970. he purpose of dential neighb x project is loc ial District (CC er to attached the Fort Collin e of this desig at, for the mos f the Fort Col e properties w the proposed ll redevelopm is high densit rds of the Fort where the pro residential ex Collins City Pla ve transition b ven more effe f the proposed ples of existin ition. The bal m lot density d y NCM Distric nex project u Collins City P ctive transition ase of the 5’ s et for all interi portion of the w minimum req eet in height. anding the for et (for both int would prescri from grade up .224.1662 w f the Neighbo borhoods and cated this tran C) to the wes d figure 2A). T ns City Plan a gnation is to p st part, this re lins Land Use when they are d project, is o ment projects w ty developme t Collins Land posed Remin xpansion and an), with lot d between the h ective by prom d project and ng buildings w ance of the e efined in Divi ct and the hig nder the crite Plan as descri nal zone. side yard setb ior side yards wall or buildin quired, for eac Minimum side regoing, minim terior and stre be the entiret p to eighteen www.theartofcon rhood Conse d more intens nsition occurs t and the Nei The properties as a Targeted promote highe edevelopmen e Code does redeveloped ne of the few when they are ent is in stark d Use Code p ngton Annex P d redevelopme densities highe highly contras moting higher the Phi Delta with a lot dens xisting structu sion 4.9(D)(1 gher density C eria of Division bed above an back an additi s. Whenever a ng shall be se ch two (2) fee e yard width s mum side yar eet sides). ty of the north feet above g nstruction.com rvation, sive s over the ghborhood s adjacent to d er density t and infill has not prescribe . w examples in e contrast to prescribes for Project is ent projects er than sting densities r densities on a Theta sities ures along ) yet are CC District. n 2.8.2(H)(2) nd also help ional 1’ for any portion of et back from et or fraction shall be rd width for h and south rade and m s e s f st seven and nd basements oss floor area of total buildi lated per the d of Division 4 uilding footpri he limited pa ould be 1.37 CO 80521 ration from th e that appear gures below) dard for the R the standard ovide for bette in regards to lot area shall are feet. For t ipal buildings vel, plus the to 0) square fee one-half (7½) s shall not be per this Divis ng floor area requirements 4.9(D)(1) by n int will provide rking situation (refer to figur tel. 970.224.1 e Land Use C more like the . Remington An , which encou er compliance the total gros ll be equivalen the purposes s as measured otal gross floo et, plus that po ) feet located counted as f sion of the La to lot size, or s of this sectio ninety-four pe e for 65 cove n in this part o re 2B for illust 191 fax 970. Code above, t e proposed de nex project u urages buildin e with Division ss floor area i nt to the total of calculating d along the ou or area of the ortion of the fl within any su floor area for p nd Use Code r lot density, o on is 38,662 s ercent. This in red parking s of Fort Collins trations and c .224.1662 w the intent of D esign rather th nder the crite ngs to addres n 3.4.7(F) of th in relation to t floor area of g density, "tot utside walls o ground floor floor area of a uch accessory purposes of c e is 19,897 sq of 1.00. The g square-feet (a ncludes 11,43 paces fully on s. If this parki calculations). www.theartofcon Division 4.9(D han the Land eria of Division ss and align w he Fort Collin the lot size. the building(s tal floor area" of such buildin of any access any second st y building loca calculating de uare-feet, wh gross floor are a lot density o 33 sq ft of enc n the site whi ng was not en nstruction.com D)(5) is to Use Code n 2.8.2(H)(1) with other ns Land Use s), but not " shall mean ngs, including sory building tory having a ated on the ensity). hich can be ea of the of 1.94) closed parking ch will help nclosed the m g g Fort Collins, s: res shall be d tern of the pri m extent feasib the Fort Collin shed away fro e block face. eighborhood s mpliant concep Fort Collins L 33. This conce ngton Street re tual design, a Collins City Pla ment along th 6.1), providing nt (LIV 7.4). Fort Collins C romote the re lan are not ne oric residentia e Community al design doe es for preserv es (LIV 16.6) ceptual desig d parking at g s, four(4) one- area. CO 80521 designed to be imary building ble. See Figur Divisi ns Land Use om the street t This is contra setting. ptual design w Land Use Co ept included t estoring it to as well as the an which enco he Community g a variety of City Plan that ecognition and ecessarily com al structures a Spine (LIV 5. es incorporate ving historic re and preservin n exercise is ground level ( -bedroom and tel. 970.224.1 e in character g entrance fac re 6." ion 3.4.7(F)(2) Building Patte Code above, towards the r ary to the liter was develope de, including the demolition its original 18 proposed Re ourages, amo y Spine (LIV housing type were conside d preservation mpatible with are in such cl .2) at College e the principle esources (LIV ng historic bu a three story 20 additional d two (2)two-b 191 fax 970. r with such ex cing the stree 2) Figure 6 erns the major ma rear portion of ral interpretati ed (see attach Division 4.9( n of the variou 888 configurat emington Ann ong other thin 5.2), expansi es and locatio ered during th n of historic b each other in ose proximity e Avenue. Non es of increasin V 16.3), integ ildings (LIV 1 , 17,159 squa spaces cove bed room unit .224.1662 w xisting historic et shall be ma ass of the new f the lot to he ion of Division hed figures 1A D)(5) limiting us additions m tion. nex design, al ngs, targeted on or redevel ns (LIV 7.1), his conceptua buildings. It wa n all instances y to the densit netheless, wh ng awareness ration of histo 7.1). are foot reside er the rear por ts comprise th www.theartofcon c structures... aintained to w building in t lp maintain th n 4.9(D)(5) ye A & 1B) which the FAR of th made to the e lso strives to f redevelopme lopment of pr and maximizi al design effor as discovered s, particularly ty that the Fo hile recognizin s of historic re oric structures ential building rtion of the lot he remaining nstruction.com the preferred he established et is a better h followed a he rear fifty- existing fulfill the ent and Infill operties in ing land for rt include LIV d all y in cases rt Collins City ng these esources (LIV s into g with 4,000 t). Fourteen 13,159 m d y V ucted closer t ks in tandem w patterns on a b are constructe ion 4.9(D)(5) hoods. With s h 1 states in p " To the max be similar to t structure is lo the site..." gth in design Fort Collins, eighborhood S n for the Remin g Modification ion 4.9(D)(5) r Area Ratio (F ent of the lot a nsidered the m rea Ratio (FA with the max to the front of with Division 3 block face. Ho ed, which are creates a con pecific releva part: ximum extent those of existi ocated... ...Tal n. Strength i CO 80521 Services ngton Annex p n of the follow of the Fort C FAR). Lots ar as it existed o minimum lot s R) for the rea ximum rear ya f the lot so the 3.4.7(F)(1) & owever, when promoted un nflict with the ance to the rea feasible, the h ing historic st ller structures n partnershi tel. 970.224.1 project wing Standard Collins Land re subject to a on October 25 size within the ar fifty-percent ard FAR enco ey become m (2) of the For n higher dens der Principle provisions of ar-yard FAR f height, setba tructures on a s or portions o p. Strength 191 fax 970. s of the City’s Use Code in a maximum F 5, 1991. The l e zone distric t of the lot is 2 ourages small ore aligned w rt Collins Land sity residentia LIV 6.d of the f Division 3.4. for these proj ck and/or wid any block face of structures s in communit .224.1662 w s Planning Co n regards to F FAR of thirty-t lot area used ct. 2.28 (refer to ler single fam with other buil d Use Code t al expansion a e Fort Collins .7 when cons jects, Division dth of new stru e on which the shall be locate ty. www.theartofcon ode for the Re Floor Area Ra three hundred as the basis figure 2B for mily homes an dings along th to maintain th and redevelop City Plan, co tructed in his n 3.4.7, Sectio uctures shall e new ed interior to nstruction.com emington tio in the dths (0.33) on for the FAR illustrations d duplexes to he street. he established pment ompliance storic on F, m n o d