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 - 12/06/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDA
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 Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING December 6, 2011 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring December 10, 2011 as Human Rights 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. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Item No. 39, Pulled Consent Items. 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 29. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of: ! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine ! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine ! Those of no perceived controversy ! Routine administrative actions. 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 9, 2011 Adjourned Meeting and the November 15, 2011, Regular Meeting. 7. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. This property contains 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road and was annexed on November 15, 2011. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is 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 addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. Ordinance No. 152, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, places this annexation in the UE – Urban Estate Zoning District. 8. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road and was annexed on November 15, 2011. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road. Ordinance No. 154, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, places the property in the U-E, Urban Estate Zone District, in conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, appropriates $11,725 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and Environment. It also transfers a matching amount of $11,725 from the 2011 General Fund and combine these funds in a Radon Program account. The Program will carry out radon risk-reduction activities identified in the current City Budget. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Project Budget. Ordinance No. 158, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, appropriates a grant in the amount of $30,000 from the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants fund for salaries associated with the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program for all other offenses. An $3,333 cash match is required and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for Restorative Justice Services. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses. Due to the snowstorm on October 25 and 26, 2011, the City has incurred unanticipated costs associated with the tree and branch cleanup. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, appropriates the incremental costs (direct costs) associated with the cleanup effort but not covered in the operating budget. This includes personnel overtime and planned "work for other departments" costs that cannot be recouped, as well as other incremental costs associated with contractors, equipment rental, fuel, etc., that are uniquely and directly related to the snowstorm cleanup. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. The City Code provides for automatic annual adjustments to the capital improvement expansion fees and the neighborhood parkland fee based on an inflation index (CPI). Also, to account for rising construction costs, the City adjusts the street oversizing fees to reflect changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 3.8% and the ENR has increased 7.55%. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011. Page 4 13. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, increases the after- hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request utility connection after normal business hours. It also establishes a trip charge of $19.65 for special requests during normal business hours. The Ordinance establishes a monthly meter reading charge of $11.00 for those customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program. The fee recovers additional costs incurred by the Utilities for a manual meter reading once the advanced metering infrastructure is in place. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the Point of Measurement for the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, amends the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(E), that identifies where the buffer zone should begin regarding rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The proposed revision addresses the current requirement that this point of measurement be from “bankfull discharge.” Instead, the term “top of bank” is recommended as the most appropriate term for this point of measurement. 15. Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Development Construction Standards. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish and Provide for Technical Revision of Water Utilities Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Water Utilities Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. Fort Collins Utilities maintains construction standards adopted by City Council for stormwater, water and wastewater improvements installed within new residential and commercial developments within the respective City service areas. These standards require the use of specific materials, methods and products to insure uniformity within the systems and to standardize various components. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, combine these standards into a unified document that is more convenient for engineers and contractors to use and more easily updated in the future. The definition of Water Utilities Development Construction Standards and the provision relating to technical revisions have been amended in Ordinance No. 163, 2011, to provide consistency in language used under similar circumstances. 16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, 424 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, designates the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, located at 424 West Olive Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of the property, Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani, are initiating this request. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project. This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue of $163,068 from the Discovery Science Center ($160,625) and LaFarge ($2,443) for the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. Page 5 18. Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2011, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Grant Contract with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for Funds to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. The State of Colorado awarded the City a grant of $93,392 from the State Historical Fund to fund 75% of the estimated cost of $124,523 to restore two historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area: the 1888 pioneer barn and log chicken house. To accept the grant and proceed with the project the City must enter into a contract with History Colorado. The contract requires a twenty-year covenant on the property surrounding the barn and chicken shed, which states that the City will agree to maintain the buildings, once restored, for twenty years and will not alter anything on the property without express written permission of History Colorado. The City also received a $24,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable Trust to provide most of the 25% in funds necessary to match the funds received from the State. Natural Areas Program funds will be used to fund the remaining $7,131 necessary to fully fund the project. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Exterior Rehabilitation of the Seckner Brothers Building at 216 Linden Street. This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue in the amount of $73,890 for the exterior facade rehabilitation of the Seckner Brothers Building, 216 Linden Street. The City was awarded a State Historical Fund grant in the amount of $35,000. Matching funds totaling $36,890 are provided by the Downtown Development Authority ($25,890), a City-funded Zero-Interest Loan ($6,100) and the remainder by the building’s owners, Irwin and Judith Winterowd. The City will only be responsible for administering the grant, which will be carried out by Community Development and Neighborhood Services staff. Staff time allocated to administration will be reimbursed by the grant. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2011, Adopting the 2012 Classified Employees’ Pay Plan. The City of Fort Collins 2012 Pay Plan establishes a pay range structure for employee compensation. It is the framework that sets the minimum and maximum pay for City positions. The methodology used by the City is based on compensation best practices. The 2012 Pay Plan uses average actual salary data collected from public and private sector markets for benchmark positions to determine pay range midpoints within occupational groups. Ranges for non-benchmark jobs are established using a point factor system that is calibrated against the benchmark jobs. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2011, Amending the City Code Concerning the Issuance of Special Event Permits by the Local Licensing Authority. Legislators passed Senate Bill 11-066, which authorizes a local licensing authority to issue special event permits to qualifying organizations and political candidates without sending the application to the state authority for approval. The proposed amendments to the City Code will authorize the local licensing authority to approve special event permit applications locally without obtaining state approval as allowed under Senate Bill 11-066. Additionally, there is a proposed increase of $25 in the local application fee to help defray some of the costs associated with the local application process, which generally exceed the proposed fee of $50 per day of permitted event. Page 6 22. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Adopt and Provide for Technical Revision of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. The Stormwater Repurposing effort was initiated at a City Council work session in October 2008. The intent of this effort was to review the City’s stormwater program in its entirety, and explore new or reformed methods of water quality and quantity management in each of the City’s stormwater basins. The program review was broken down into 14 categories, with one specifically identifying the need to update the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Adoption of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Criteria Manual will set the standard for the City of Fort Collins. Exception language that identifies key aspects specific to the City will be adopted into the City Code concurrently with this action. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2011, Designating the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage, 160 Yale Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The owner of the property, Judith Goeke, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage at 160 Yale Avenue. The residence is eligible for designation as a Landmark under Designation Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. A 1950s Split-Level home, it is a early example of this housing type within Fort Collins, and exhibits a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2011, Designating the Chestnut/ Wombacher Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace, 331 South Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street, as Fort Collins Landmarks Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The Chestnut/Wombacher Property, at 331 South Shields Street, is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. The house and attached three-car garage embody distinctive characteristics of the Tudor Revival style, prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s. Notable features include the stucco exterior, with randomly placed decorative large rock; the large chimney; steep, multi-gabled roof lines; a classic sloped gable or “cat-slide” entryway; and two and three light casement windows. The house contains two separate apartments in the basement. The property also contains a freestanding historic brick and stone fireplace, dating to the period of construction. 25. First Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 2011, Designating the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, 2500 South College Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The owner of the property, Joanne Gallagher, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, at 2500 South College Avenue. The residence with attached garage is significant under Designation Standard (2) for its association with Mae, Lewis, and Bill Tiley, Fort Collins developers who platted and developed several post-World War II residential subdivisions, including the South College Heights subdivision where this property is located; and under Designation Standard (3), as an architecturally significant example of a mid-1950s Ranch type home. This property retains a very high level of integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. 26. Resolution 2011-104 Adopting the Annual Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort Collins’ Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2012 for Operations and Maintenance This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for operating and maintenance of the Poudre Fire Authority. Page 7 27. Resolution 2011-105 Extending the Time Period for Completion of the Annual Performance Review of the City Attorney. The City Council has not yet conducted with the 2011 annual performance evaluation of the City Attorney because the City Attorney has been out on medical leave and temporarily unavailable. In order to provide additional latitude for completion of the performance evaluation process, the Resolution authorizes the Council Leadership Team to work with the City Attorney to determine an appropriate time for that process to move forward. 28. Resolution 2011-106 Adopting the 2011 Update to the Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. This is the annual update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. The Three-Mile Plan is a policy document that is required to ensure that the City complies with the regulations of the Colorado Revised Statutes. 29. Resolution 2011-107 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings. This Resolution amends the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council meetings by moving consideration of items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a member of the City Council to earlier in the Order. In addition, the Resolution clarifies the point in the Order of Business at which items may be pulled off of the Consent Calendar for individual consideration. END CONSENT 30. Consent Calendar Follow-up. This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. 31. Staff Reports. 32. Councilmember Reports. DISCUSSION ITEMS The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ! Staff presentation (optional) ! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen)* ! Council questions of staff on the item ! Council motion on the item ! Council discussion ! Final Council comments ! Council vote on the item *Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Page 8 33. First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding Digital Signs and Pole Signs. (staff: Peter Barnes, Steve Dush, Bruce Hendee, Ginny Sawyer; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) In response to Council feedback, staff has prepared an ordinance amending current Land Use Code regulations for digital signs and freestanding pole signs. With respect to digital signs, the recommended Code changes address such things as brightness, color, design, and location. Additional design criteria to enhance the appearance of pole signs are also proposed. 34. Items relating to the Safe Ride Home Program. (staff: Kurt Ravenschlag, Jeremy Yonce, Mark Clitnovici, Jerry Schiager; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) A. Resolution 2011-108 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System for the Benefit of the Associated Students of Colorado State University to Create the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Reserves in the Transit Fund For the Operation of a Late Night Bus Service. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has had recent discussions with the Associated Students of Colorado State University (ASCSU) about creating an additional transportation option for people leaving the downtown area on weekend nights. In this partnership Police Services hopes to accomplish important goals of reducing the number of people and the associated problems in the downtown area and increasing traffic safety by giving people an additional option for leaving downtown safely and decreasing the number of drivers who have been drinking during this timeframe. The available transportation is unable to meet the demand for transportation during this timeframe. ASCSU has an interest in providing this service for students and is willing to invest funds from student fees to address this need. By combining available funding, these parties are able to provide this service to all members of our community for a modest fare. The proposal is to enter into a one year contract between ASCSU and Transfort to provide two fixed bus routes on Friday and Saturday nights, every weekend during the term of the Agreement, from 11:30 PM to 2:30 AM. An ongoing assessment will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of this project, any potential improvements, and explore opportunities for long-term funding. 35. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. (staff: Brian Janonis, Patty Bigner, Bill Switzer; 3 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) This residential energy rate is used to bill about 55,000 residential customers. These customers include single-family dwellings, individually metered apartments and home occupations. This rate class also includes a small group (220) of multi-family customers with a single meter. Seventeen of these customers occupy four-plex or larger units. This rate ordinance increases the residential energy rate by an average of 6%; however, the percentage of increase varies by season and customer usage. Option B of the Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011 by a vote of 4-2 (Nays: Troxell, Weitkunat; Kottwitz absent). If adopted on Second Reading, the rate will be effective with meter readings after February 1, 2012. The residential electric rate has three components: (1) a fixed charge, the monthly charge that recovers the cost of metering, billing, collecting and providing customer service, and all other customer-related costs; (2) a distribution facilities charge that recovers the cost of operating and maintaining the distribution substations, poles, wires, conductors, and transformers required to deliver power to customers, applied on a $/kilowatt hour (kWh or unit of electricity) basis; and (3) an energy charge that recovers the cost of fuel, purchased power, and all other variable costs associated with the production of electricity. The energy charge includes both energy and demand components of purchase power. The new rate will change the structure of the energy charge in two ways: (1) creating specific pricing for three tiers or blocks of energy use; and (2) creating seasonal pricing in the summer season billing months of June, July and August. Page 9 The fixed charge will increase to $4.48 per bill from the 2011 charge of $3.91. The distribution facilities charge will increase to $0.0256/kWh from the 2011 charge of $0.0220/kWh. The current 2011 energy charge is $0.0248. The Ordinance creates three inclining blocks or tiers that will differ in the summer months of June, July and August from the remaining months of the year. 1. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge per kWh will be tiered with the following charges: a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0531 / kWh. b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0689 / kWh. c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.1005 / kWh. The meter reading date will generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates. 2. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December, the energy charge per kWh will be tiered with the following charges: a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0482 / kWh. b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0520 / kWh. c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0603 / kWh. Accommodation for customers with medical needs is planned. Also a pilot time-of-use rate for electric vehicles will be developed for Council consideration in mid-2012. 36. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Articles IX and X of the City Code to Update Language Related to the Use of Motorized Devices on City Trails by People with Disabilities. (staff: Marty Heffernan; 5 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) On First Reading, the City Council amended Ordinance No. 167, 2011 to eliminate the provisions pertaining to implementation of a one year trial period to allow electric assisted bicycles on City trails. Provisions in the Ordinance to change the City Code to clarify that people with temporary or permanent mobility disabilities are allowed to operate ebikes and other power driven mobility devices on trails, and in parks and natural areas, in accordance with City regulations, were retained. This Ordinance was adopted with these revisions, on First Reading on November 15, 2011 by a vote of 4-2 (Nays: Troxell, Weitkunat). Changes were made to the Ordinance between First and Second Readings to shorten the title of the Ordinance, add information about recent ADA regulations, and remove a definition that is no longer needed. 37. First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2011, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the City Manager. (staff: Janet Miller, Amy Sharkey; no staff presentation; 10 minute discussion) City Council met in executive session on November 9, 2011, to conduct the performance review of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 180, 2011, establishes the salary of the City Manager. 38. First Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2011, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge. (staff: Janet Miller, Amy Sharkey; no staff presentation; 10 minute discussion) City Council met in executive session on November 9, 2011, to conduct the performance review of Municipal Judge Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 181, 2011, establishes the 2012 salary of the Municipal Judge. 39. Pulled Consent Items. Page 10 40. Other Business. 41. Adjournment. a. Motion to adjourn meeting to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 13, 2011. 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. urban renewal authority Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz Wade Troxell Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, Executive Director Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, Secretary The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY WORK SESSION December 6, 2011 (after the Regular Council Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures; Best Approach for Tax Increment Financing. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Christina Vincent; 45 minute discussion) The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board approved a thorough revision to the Policies and Procedures (Policies) in May 2010 from the original Policies created in 2006. At the May 17, 2011 URA Board meeting, it was discussed that the Policies should have more detail regarding green building practices and therefore should come back to the URA Board for more revisions. Staff received feedback from June 14, 2011, and October 4, 2011 work sessions to modify the language as proposed by the URA Board. These Policies are intended to give guidance to the eligible developments and objectives of the URA to applicants, staff, citizens and the URA Board for decision making purposes. At the last work session in October, the conversation was continued to a later date to discuss the Policies in the greater context of tax increment financing and the best approach for awarding grant monies. 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948; and WHEREAS, it was the first time a document declaring human rights and fundamental freedoms was adopted by an international organization, and it continues to have universal value in defending and advancing people’s rights; and WHEREAS, America’s commitment to individual freedom and democracy provides the foundation for our society and the Bill of Rights serves to guide our people and our government to ensure basic human rights and liberties; and WHEREAS, as a community, we are committed to upholding these principles and making Fort Collins a place where all citizens have the opportunity to voice their opinions, practice their faith, and enjoy the blessings of freedom; and WHEREAS, our nation and our community find encouragement in rallying together to defend human rights. By working together to advance the rights of all people, we help to build mutual trust and harmony for all individuals in our community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim December 10, 2011 as INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY in Fort Collins and hereby encourage all residents, businesses, and institutions to recognize International Human Rights Day 2011 by observing our nation’s Bill of Rights and pledging to uphold the universal principles of liberty and justice that define our dreams and shape our hopes as we face the challenges of a new era. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Wanda Krajicek AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the November 9, 2011 Adjourned Meeting and the November 15, 2011, Regular Meeting. November 9, 2011 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Wednesday, November 9, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Daggett. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn into executive session, as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(1)(a) of the City Code to conduct the annual performance review of its direct employees, the City Manager and Municipal Judge. Yeas: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell, and Weikunat. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. (Secretary’s note: The Council went into executive session at this point in the meeting. Councilmember Poppaw left the Executive Session after the City Manager’s review. Councilmember Kottwitz attended by phone.) Adjournment At the conclusion of the executive session, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 140 November 15, 2011 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, November 15, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Daggett. Agenda Review City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. Citizen Participation Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, opposed personal attacks on City Manager Atteberry and expressed disappointment that more Councilmembers did not attend the Veteran’s Plaza opening. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, made comments regarding a “gag rule” being placed on citizens. Virginia Farver, 1214 Bellview Drive, opposed the Smart Meter program. Cherry Thornton and Becky Lindsey, Senior Advisory Boardmembers, provided an update on the “Silver Tsunami” event. Rich Crisler, Occupy Northern Colorado, discussed the basis of the Occupy movement and opposed the use of Fort Collins’ federally-allocated funds. Paul Smith, Fort Collins resident, encouraged further studies of ethanol use. Cheryl Distaso, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, 135 South Sunset, provided an update regarding the residents who have been required to move from the Bender Mobile Home Park. She encouraged further details be provided to residents regarding any relocation assistance they may be provided. Debra Goodson, 912 Wood Street, stated a request has been made for $7,000 per resident to Gino Campana, the new project developer. 141 November 15, 2011 CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the October 18 and November 1, 2011, Regular Meetings. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Planning and Design of an Art Incubator Proposed for the Carnegie Building. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, appropriates unanticipated grant revenue of $100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) “Our Town” grant program in the Cultural Services Fund. The Cultural Services Department and the non-profit Beet Street collaborated on the grant as required by the NEA. The grant provides funding for the design and planning of a proposed art incubator to be housed in the Carnegie Building in late 2012. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of One Rapid Transit Bus. The MAX BRT project is a five mile; primarily fixed guideway located about one block to the west of College Avenue. The BRT includes seven park-n-ride lots, eight BRT stations with pedestrian and bicycle access, eight BRT curb-side stops, a transit center at the southern and northern termini, and off-line upgrades to an existing transit maintenance facility to provide MAX BRT service. Six exclusive BRT buses will be acquired and added to the existing City bus fleet in order to provide MAX BRT services. All six buses will be new bus purchases, and will replace older buses beyond their useful life. The six BRT buses will be purchased at the same time, once the Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) has been executed in March 2012. The one BRT bus funded by this grant will be purchased at the same time as the other five BRT vehicles. Three BRT vehicles are funded through CDOT grants (SB-1, FASTER), while the other three are funded through the federal Small Starts grant. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, appropriates the grant funds received from CDOT. Ordinance No. 146, 2011, has been amended on Second Reading. The provision of the local match for the FASTER project contract (Resolution 2011-096) is being met from existing appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor project accounts. As a result, Transfort does not require the appropriation of $350,000 in local match from the Transit Capital Reserve Fund, as originally outlined in the First Reading Agenda Item Summary. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Amendment and Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, authorizes the extension of the existing Agreement with Collindale Golf Course contractual Golf 142 November 15, 2011 Professional, Dale Smigelsky, PGA, which expires on December 31, 2011. The existing five-year Agreement was entered into on January 1, 2006, with Jim Greer, and was assumed by Dale Smigelsky on January 1, 2009. From 2001 through 2008, Mr. Smigelsky was the Golf Professional at SouthRidge Golf Course. Mr. Smigelsky assumed Jim Greer’s contract as the Head Professional at Collindale on January 1, 2009. The performance of Mr. Smigelsky has been very satisfactory during the term, and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Extension of the Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years. The existing Agreement with the SouthRidge Golf Course restaurant/snack bar concessionaire, the Sandtrap, Inc., dba Mackenzie's Pub & Grill at SouthRidge, expires on December 31, 2011. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, extends the Agreement. The performance of the concessionaire, Mr. Rob Dahl, has been very satisfactory during the term, and staff has negotiated a mutually acceptable extension to the Agreement for the year 2012 with annual renewal options for the years 2013 through 2016, or a potential total term of ten years. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a New Section 2-506 Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability Services. The City Manager and executive leadership team continue to examine and consider ways to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the City organization. The City Manager has decided to implement some changes to the City’s internal organizational structure. These changes impact existing service areas which necessitates updates to related provisions of the City Code. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, establishes Sustainability Services as a Service Area. On Second Reading, the functional responsibilities of the new service area have been amended to add “social sustainability”. 12. Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 151, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, annexes 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the 143 November 15, 2011 east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. Ordinance No. 152, 2011, will place this annexation in UE – Urban Estate Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary as this property is already in the District. The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an established residential area. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement on City Property to Public Service Company of Colorado. The City of Fort Collins owns land south of Zach Elementary School along McClelland’s Creek known as Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD and Outlot D of McClelland’s Creek PD & PLD 2nd Filing (the Property). The Property was dedicated on the McClelland’s Creek plats as easement for landscape, drainage, and utility purposes. The Property is part of the McClelland’s Creek Drainage Basin and is owned and maintained by City’s Stormwater Utility. McClelland’s Creek conveys stormwater flows to the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch. Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) has planned a project to install a gas line to service the proposed residential development to east of the City’s Property. The gas line will extend east from Xcel’s existing service line off of Rock Dove Drive across property owned by the City, as well as property owned by Poudre School District. The line will run adjacent and parallel to an existing sanitary sewer easement on the City’s Property. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, grants Xcel a 10-foot wide utility easement across the City’s property for the installation and maintenance of the new gas line improvements. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget. This Ordinance appropriates $11,725 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and Environment. It also transfers a matching amount of $11,725 from the 2011 General Fund and combine these funds in a Radon Program account. The Program will carry out radon risk-reduction activities identified in the current City Budget. 144 November 15, 2011 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Project Budget. A grant in the amount of $30,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants fund for salaries associated with the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other offenses. Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a young offender accountable by facilitating a meeting with the offender, the victim/victim representative and members of the community to determine the harm caused by the crime, and how to repair the harm. By identifying and repairing the harm caused by the crime, criminal justice officials are optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced and the needs and concerns of the victims and affected community will be addressed. A $3,333 cash match is required for the $30,000 grant and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for restorative justice. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses. Due to the snowstorm on October 25 and 26, 2011, the City has incurred unanticipated costs associated with the tree and branch cleanup. This appropriation request will be used for the incremental costs (direct costs) associated with the cleanup effort but not covered in the operating budget. This includes personnel overtime and planned "work for other departments" costs that cannot be recouped, as well as other incremental costs associated with contractors, equipment rental, fuel, etc. that are uniquely and directly related to the snowstorm cleanup. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. The City Code provides for automatic annual adjustments to the capital improvement expansion fees and the neighborhood parkland fee based on an inflation index (CPI). Also, to account for rising construction costs, the City adjusts the street oversizing fees to reflect changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 3.8% and the ENR has increased 7.55%. 18. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges. This Ordinance increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request utility connection after normal business hours. It also establishes a trip charge of $19.65 for special requests during normal business hours. 145 November 15, 2011 The Ordinance establishes a monthly meter reading charge of $11.00 for those customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program. The fee recovers additional costs incurred by the Utilities for a manual meter reading once the advanced metering infrastructure is in place. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the Point of Measurement for the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams. This Ordinance will amend the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(E), that identifies where the buffer zone should begin regarding rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The proposed revision addresses the current requirement that this point of measurement be from “bankfull discharge.” Instead, the term “top of bank” is recommended as the most appropriate term for this point of measurement. 20. Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Standard Development Specifications. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish and Provide for Technical Revision of Standard Development Construction Specifications for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Standard Development Construction Specifications for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. Fort Collins Utilities maintains standard construction specifications adopted by City Council for stormwater, water and wastewater improvements installed within new residential and commercial developments within the respective City service areas. These specifications require the use of specific materials, methods and products to insure uniformity within the systems and to standardize various components. Water Utilities is combining these specifications into a unified document that is more convenient for engineers and contractors to use and more easily updated in the future. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, 424 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. The owners of the property, Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani, are initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, at 424 West Olive Street. The MacDonald/Cooke House and Garage are significant under Designation Standard (2) for their association with Stewart L. MacDonald; and under Designation Standard (3), as a notable and unaltered example of the American Foursquare architectural style, with historic matching detached garage. This property retains a very high level of integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. 146 November 15, 2011 22. Public Hearing and Resolution 2011-101 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive Funds from the Federal Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program and the City’s Affordable Housing Fund. The Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating $813,577 of City financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects. 23. Resolution 2011-102 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 (the “IGA”) pertaining to the development of the I-25 interchange at the intersection of State Highway 392 (the “Interchange”). Staff for the City of Fort Collins and Town of Windsor has completed the work required by the Amended IGA but requires an extension to continue public outreach, to incorporate any input from the outreach, and to draft necessary documents for consideration by Council. The staff of both municipalities have recommended that the December 6, 2011, deadline be extended in order to complete the public outreach, draft necessary documents, and make their recommendations. The deadline for all actions to be taken under the Amended IGA by December 6, 2011, should be extended to April 3, 2012. 24. Resolution 2011-103 Adopting the City’s 2012 Legislative Policy Agenda. Each year the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist in the analysis of pending legislation. The Legislative Policy Agenda is used as a guide by Council members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general reference for our state legislators and congressional delegation. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Planning and Design of an Art Incubator Proposed for the Carnegie Building. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund, Mason Corridor Project for the Purchase of One Rapid Transit Bus. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No.147, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Amendment and Extension of the Golf Professional Services Agreement for Collindale Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years. 147 November 15, 2011 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2011, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Extension of the Restaurant/Snack Bar Concession Agreement at Southridge Golf Course for up to Five Additional Years. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2011, Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Add a New Section 2-506 Establishing a New Service Area to Be Known as Sustainability Services. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2011, Authorizing Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Utility Easement on City Property to Public Service Company of Colorado. 28. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless. 29. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 30. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2011, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2012, and Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 12. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget. 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Project Budget. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses. 148 November 15, 2011 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. 18. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the Point of Measurement for the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams. 20. Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Standard Development Specifications. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish and Provide for Technical Revision of Standard Development Construction Specifications for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Standard Development Construction Specifications for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, 424 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 29. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. 31. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. (Option A or Option B) 32. First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Articles IX and X of the City Code to Allow Electrical Assisted Bicycles on the City’s Paved Trails for a One Year Trial Period. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, pulled Item No. 18, Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges. City Manager Atteberry withdrew from the discussion of the Consent Calendar due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. 149 November 15, 2011 THE MOTION CARRIED. Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Troxell discussed the Veteran’s Plaza grand opening. Staff Reports Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, provided an update on storm debris removal and stated the costs of clean-up are on track with expectations. Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager, stated the Natural Areas Program recently received a State Historic Fund grant and a Pulliam grant to aid in restoration of two structures at the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. City Manager Atteberry stated Fort Collins Utilities received the Clean Tech Champion award from the Colorado Clean Tech Industry Association. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Horak discussed the opportunities to meet the Poudre Fire Authority Chief finalists. Mayor Weitkunat announced the City’s quarterly receipt of more than $100,000 from the Platte River Power Authority for dark fiber lease revenues. Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map to Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent years have seen an increase in the number of families and individuals seeking overnight shelter at area homeless shelters. Construction is underway to expand shelter capacity at The Mission; however, delays have pushed the completion date back to February 1, 2012. This Ordinance, adopted 4-0 (Manvel absent, Poppaw withdrawn, Troxell absent at time of vote) on First Reading on November 1, 2011, will temporarily suspend Land Use Code restrictions for an 8-week period at the Knights of Columbus facility at 101 North Meldrum in order to be able to shelter people on those winter evenings when other homeless shelters are full. “ Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of Item No. 28, Ordinance No. 150, 2011, Temporarily Suspending the Operation and Enforcement of the Land Use Code and Zoning Map to 150 November 15, 2011 Allow for a Temporary Overflow Wintertime Night Shelter for the Homeless, due to a potential conflict of interest. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 150, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning, Adopted The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. Ordinance No. 153, 2011, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Ohlson) annexes the Leistikow parcel. The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire northern boundary which is shared with the Westchase P.U.D. The Annexation includes a condition such that if the property develops as a residential land use, the owner shall request disconnection from City so that Larimer County would then be able to implement its Transfer of Density Units program. The effective term of this condition is ten years. Ordinance No. 154, 2011, will place the property in the U-E, Urban Estate Zone District, in conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 153, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell asked why Ordinance No. 154, 2011, was not presented with Ordinance No. 153, 2011, on First Reading. Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, replied the items went before the Planning and Zoning Board at different times due to a notification glitch for the initial Planning and Zoning Board hearing. 151 November 15, 2011 Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 154, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 156, 2011, Being the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Relating to the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2012; Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2012, and Ending December 31, 2012; and Fixing the Mill Levy for Fiscal Year 2012, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, amends the adopted 2012 Budget and sets the amount of $454,382,997 to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012. Including the 2012 adopted budgets for the General Improvement District No. 1 of $303,179 and the Urban Renewal Authority of $1,503,583, the total City appropriations amount to $456,189,759. City Budget (in $ million) Adopted Amended 2012 2012 Change Operations $405.3 $410.4 $5.1 Debt Service 23.2 23.2 - Capital 19.1 22.6 3.5 Total City Operated Appropriations * $447.6 $456.2 $8.6 Less Urban Renewal Authority (URA) (1.5) (1.5) 0.0 Less General Improvement District (GID) (0.3) (0.3) 0.0 Total City of Fort Collins Appropriation $445.8 $454.4 $8.6 * This includes GID and URA which are appropriated in separate ordinances. This Ordinance also sets the 2012 City mill levy at 9.797 mills, unchanged since 1991.” Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, discussed the 2012 appropriations. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, asked why the URA audit is not included in the annual audit and discussed the legitimacy of charitable appropriations as per the City Charter. Steve Yurash, 4821 Yellowstone Circle, asked about addressing on-bill financing in the budget revisions and encouraged postponing a decision on that aspect of the budget. He noted the attrition rate of Utilities employees should be considered as part of the budget as well. 152 November 15, 2011 Ingrid Decker, Senior Assistant City Attorney, noted there is an exception to the rule prohibiting the City from making appropriations to charitable entities not entirely under City control. The Public Purpose exception allows for expenditures to be made when they result in a benefit to a substantial portion of the community. Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, discussed the Energy Efficiency Income Assistance program mentioned by Mr. Yurash. The item is in the budget; however the funds will not be expended and the program will not move forward without additional Council approval. The 2012 budget includes funds for a “movement to market” in the electrical pay structure. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked about the placement of funding for home energy audits in the budget. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, replied a half-time position has been hired for the Healthy Homes Initiative, which has been very successful in attracting volunteers as well. The program may be more effective with a full-time employee. Beckstead confirmed there is funding available to create that full-time position. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 156, 2011, on Second Reading. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson proposed a friendly amendment to increase the budget by $40,000 to allow funding for a full-time employee for the Healthy Homes Initiative. Councilmembers Troxell and Horak accepted the amendment. The vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance as amended was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 166, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. Adopted Option A on First Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has prepared two Residential Energy Rate Options for Council consideration. This electric rate is used to bill about 55,000 residential customers. Option A is a seasonal rate form, Option B is a three-tiered seasonal rate. Both options increase the residential energy rate by an average of 6% over the current 2011 rate, however, the increase varies by season and customer usage. Both options are proposed to be effective for billings with meter reading dates on or after February 1, 2012. In three City Council work sessions, staff presented electric rate design principles, four residential rate options, a change to the residential demand rate and a pilot Time of Use rate for electric 153 November 15, 2011 vehicles. At the September 13 Work Session, City Council also discussed a change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate proposed by staff that will result in two rate classes, a GS (up to 25 kW) and GS 25 (25 – 50 kW). With the exception of proposed changes to the residential electric rate structure, these changes were adopted by Council on Second Reading November 1, 2011, along with proposed rate increases. At the October 11, 2011 Work Session, Council further reviewed four residential electric rate options and answers provided by staff. Based on feedback from this work session, two rate ordinances have been drafted for Council consideration and public notification has been completed. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Approximately 55,020 residential customers comprise this rate class. These customers include single-family dwellings, individually metered apartments and home occupations. This rate class also includes a small group (220) of multi-family customers with a single meter. Seventeen of these customers occupy four-plex or larger units. As noted above, City Council has discussed options for changes to the electric rate structure at three previous work sessions. Previous presentations and discussions have included information about national trends related to utility rate structures, comparisons of City of Fort Collins rates compared to other utilities within Colorado and nationally, customer rate impacts on various levels of use, potential for impacts on low-income customers, expected customer response (price elasticity) and impacts on the distribution system. Based on City Council discussion, staff and consultants from SAIC have prepared background information on the two options. The current electric rate (single tier) has three components: (1) a fixed charge, the monthly charge that recovers the cost of metering, billing, collecting and providing customer service, and all other customer-related costs; (2) a distribution facilities charge that recovers the cost of distribution substations, poles, wires, conductors, and transformers required to deliver power to customers, applied on a $/Kilowatt Hour (kWH or unit of electricity) basis; and (3) an energy charge that recovers the cost of fuel, purchased power, and all other variable costs associated with the production of electricity. The energy charge includes both energy and demand components of purchase power. This energy charge currently does not vary based on the season or the amount of electricity used by the customer. Through the end of 2011, the fixed charge is $3.91/bill (month); the distribution/facilities charge is $0.0220 per kWh; and the energy charge is $0.0532 per kWh. Based on the current tier structure, the 6% rate increases adopted November 1, 2011 and effective January 1, 2012, these charges would be: fixed charge, $4.48/bill; distribution/facilities charge, $0.0252/kWh; and energy charge, $0.0540/kWH. These charges are shown for comparison only and are not among the proposed options. Option A, Seasonal Rate Option A, the Seasonal Rate structure, changes the current single tier or flat structure to a rate structure that results in a higher rate per kWH in the summer months of June, July and August. This 154 November 15, 2011 structure mirrors the rate structure adopted by Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), the City’s wholesale electric provider, and passes through the price charged by PRPA to residential customers. If adopted, Option A will have a fixed charge of $4.48/bill; and a distribution/facilities charge of 0.0256/kWh. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge will be $0.0640/ kWh. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December, the energy charge will be $0.0506/kWH. As provided in the Ordinance(Option A), the meter reading date will generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates. Option A, the Seasonal Rate, is consistent with the current practice of directly passing through PRPA costs to customers. Seasonal rates also are a simple time of use rate. A potential advantage of seasonal rates, in addition to recovering costs, may be a reduction in overall electricity demand during the summer months due to reduced use of air conditioning (in response to higher priced electricity during that period). A simple time of use rate may also serve as a step toward a more standard or traditional time of use rate that will be available by 2014, once the City’s Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program is completed and residential customers have an advanced meter. Data from AMI meters could then be used to determine an appropriate time-of-use residential rate. A disadvantage of the Seasonal Rate is that it is a more limited price signal during the non-summer months, resulting in a weak conservation signal to customers. Although it is not as complex as Option B, the Seasonal Rate is a shift from the current single tier rate structure and robust customer communication is planned for early 2012 with additional outreach prior to the summer months. Option A is planned to increase revenue from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%, which is consistent with the projected increased revenue requirement for this customer class. The average increase will be 16.8% in the three summer months and 2% in the non-summer months. Option B, Seasonal, Three-tier Rate Option B, the Seasonal Three-tier rate combines the rate recovery aspect of the Seasonal Rate with an inclining block or tiered rate structure. If adopted, Option B will have the same fixed charge of $4.48/bill; and distribution/facilities charge of 0.0256/kWh as Option A, the Seasonal Rate. The inclining blocks or tiers will differ in the summer months of June, July and August from the remaining months of the year. 1. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge per kWH will be tiered with the following charges: a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0531. b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0689. c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.1005. 155 November 15, 2011 As with the proposed Seasonal Rate, the meter reading date will generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates. 2. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December, the energy charge per kWH will be tiered with the following charges: a. For the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0482. b. For the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0520. c. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0603. Option B, the Seasonal Three-tiered rate, retains the cost recovery benefits of the Seasonal rate, passing through costs from PRPA to the customer. It also sends a strong signal to large users of electricity to incentivize conservation, and with the seasonal component, serve as a step toward further implementation of a time-of-use rate, once the City’s AMI project has been completed. The rate is more complex and significantly different from the current single tier rate structure. As a result, communication to all customers will be important throughout the year, with emphasis on the summer months. Option B also is planned to increase revenue from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%, similar to Option A above. The average increase will be 16.8% in the three summer months and 2% in the nine non-summer months. With this option, customer that use more than 700kWh monthly will see larger percentage increases than most customers who use less than average. Future Time-of-Use Rates With the implementation of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project underway, the amount of information available from the new meters will improve the ability of the City’s electric customers to understand when and how much electricity is being used in significantly greater detail, opening the door for a more efficient pricing signal. Installation of the advanced water and electric meters is expected to be completed by mid-2013. Once completed and supporting time-of-day data has been gathered and analyzed, progression to time-of-day pricing (with or without tiers) can be implemented utilizing the new information. As discussed at the October 13 Work Session, staff is planning to develop and recommend a pilot time-of-use rate specifically targeted to plug-in electric vehicle owners in 2012. Conclusion As discussed in previous meetings, the City’s utility rates are designed to generate the revenue needed for operations, capital requirements, and the purchase of electricity from PRPA. As a municipal utility, rates are not designed to recover revenue above current requirements. This is sometimes referred to as a zero-sum strategy. Regardless of the structure of the rate, the utility does not design a rate to generate a profit. The proposed rate changes are designed to assist in achieving City Council goals and support customer choice in behavior related to their use of energy . These changes remain true to the City’s long-held values of fairness, equitability and financial responsibility. As mentioned above, staff 156 November 15, 2011 anticipates the need for a robust communications to support the implementation of the new residential rate forms, beyond the annual rate increase communication. Final planning will be developed once the rate option is chosen. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Both options are designed to increase revenues from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%. When combined with the Residential Demand and commercial rate increases approved by Council on November 1, 2011 total Light and Power operating revenues are planned to increase 8.3%. Residential Energy customers will experience an average increase of 6%, however, the impact of Option B will be much higher for larger users and will be higher in the three summer months. The Utilities provides many programs to assist our customers to reduce their energy usage and thereby reduce their monthly electric bill. Proposed changes to the Residential Energy Rate are designed to be revenue neutral. Since the change to rate structure is likely to have a customer response, over or under collection of revenue will be evaluated each year and incorporated into any needed rate changes on an annual basis. The option adopted by City Council will determine individual customer impacts. Because there is a new Seasonal component to the rate structure, financial impacts on customers will be greatest in the three summer months. If the Seasonal Three-tier rate is adopted, financial impacts will be greatest on large electricity users, especially in the summer months. In some cases, customers generally use less electricity and do not have air conditioned homes or use their air conditioner in the summer. This group of low users may experience minimal impact to their monthly bills from a changed rate structure. Customers may choose to conserve electricity by changing their use of electricity (adjusting the thermostat up or down, turning off lights, etc) or by implementing efficiency measures such as insulation, high efficiency appliances. The City offers a variety of conservation and efficiency programs to help customers reduce their electricity use and may help lower bills. Financial impacts on low income customers are also a consideration. Existing programs that assist this group of customers will be expanded in 2012, including an expanded efficiency financing program. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Overall reduction in electricity use, whether from conservation of energy efficiency measures result in reduced Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel generation. As noted previously, tiered rate structures are used designed to help lower overall electricity use, especially among large users. A seasonal rate may result in less electricity use in the summer months, but does not provide a strong conservation message during the rest of the year. Customer response to the new rate structure will determine the impact of reducing electricity use and overall environmental impacts from generation.” 157 November 15, 2011 Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, discussed the rate options and noted Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) will begin billing on a seasonal basis beginning January 1, 2012. The purpose of revising the rate structure is to align rates with policies which call for carbon reduction and energy efficiency, reduce consumption, avoid future capital costs of a new power plant, pass through the PRPA seasonal rate, and to meet increase revenue requirements. These rate increases would become effective February 1, 2012 and both options generate the amount of revenue needed to meet operating costs. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the cost of the consultant hired by the City to examine rate changes and opposed the City’s investment in the Smart Meter program. Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported tiered rates. Dr. Suzanne Bertram, 2306 Tanglewood, expressed concern about enforcing tiered rates for individuals with allergies or asthma. Virginia Farver, 1214 Bellview Drive, opposed the Smart Meter program and its increased cost. Bill DeMarco, 913 Kimball Road, discussed the impact of a tiered rate structure. Steve Yurash, 4821 Yellowstone Circle, suggested using a 5-tier rate structure. Eric Levine, 514 North Shields, , supported a 3-tier rate structure with an expanded lower tier to allow for a decrease in rates for energy-saving residents. Phil Friedman, 201 South Grant Avenue, supported tiered rates. Kevin Cross, Fort Collins Sustainability Group member, 300 Peterson, supported tiered rates with exceptions for individuals with special medical needs or electric vehicles, requiring additional electricity. Cheryl Distaso, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, 135 Sunset, supported tiered rates. Rick Coen, 412 Garfield, supported tiered rates. Steve Raymer, Mennonite Center Pastor, supported tiered rates. Mayor Weitkunat asked staff to address the issue of individuals with medical conditions requiring additional electricity. Ellen Switzer, Utilities Financial Operations Manager, replied medical exemptions are used regularly around the country when tiered rates are adopted. Councilmember Manvel asked if medical exemptions are part of this Ordinance or if the issue would be handled administratively at a later date. Switzer replied staff anticipates bringing options before Council in the near future. 158 November 15, 2011 Councilmember Troxell asked if tiered rates impact peak use. Joe Mancinelli , SAIC Consulting, replied the tiered rate structure encourages consumers to use less electricity over the course of the month; however, it is not time specific per day. A slight reduction of 1% or less in the system peak is expected. Councilmember Troxell noted peak consumption drives energy costs and stated the proposed rate structure does not consider peak usage. Councilmember Troxell asked about the timing of the Smart Meter Program implementation with the proposed rate increases. Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, replied there is no association between the two. Councilmember Manvel asked when Smart Meters would be placed on homes. Catanach replied the initial deployment area is approximately 2.5 sqaure miles east of College Avenue and south of Prospect Road and installations will begin in early February. Full deployment will begin June 1, 2012, and will be complete by early 2013. Mayor Weitkunat clarified that the utility rate for Fort Collins Utilities customers will be increasing 6% regardless of the means of implementation and requested a reiteration of the reason for the increase. Catanach replied the reasons for the increase include the Platte River Power Authority rate increase and summer/non-summer structural change as well as the need to replenish Light and Power reserves which have been used to fund capital improvements. However, this rate increase will only lessen the rate of reserve fund use. The City Utilities are revenue neutral. Councilmember Horak asked if the implementation of the Smart Meter program has an impact on the rate increase. Catanach replied in the negative. Councilmember Poppaw requested a comparison of Fort Collins’ base rate to Longmont’s base rate. Bill Switzer, Utility Rate Analyst, replied the Fort Collins base rate is $4.48 plus 6% with this increase and the Longmont base rate is $7.20. Fort Collins has one of the lowest base rates in the area. Councilmember Troxell asked when Longmont implemented its tiered rate. Catanach replied it was approximately two years ago and is a very modest tiered rate. Councilmember Troxell asked how residents will be kept informed regarding Smart Meter installation and rate increases. Ellen Switzer, Utilities Financial Operations Manager, replied bill inserts, direct communication, and open houses are planned throughout the spring. Staff levels will also increase with the implementation of the Smart Meter program. Councilmember Troxell asked how individuals will be able to calculate their new rate. Ms. Switzer replied a rate calculator is available. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Option B of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, on First Reading. 159 November 15, 2011 Councilmember Manvel supported energy-conservation incentives. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson encouraged exploration of issues beyond peak demand and climate change. Councilmember Troxell supported time of use rates and opposed tiered rates. Councilmember Horak noted time of use rates would not be able to be implemented until at least 2014 when the Smart Meter program has been fully implemented. He encouraged staff to follow up on medical exemption issues in the near future. Mayor Weitkunat supported simple time of use rates and opposed tiered rates as a means of adjusting social behavior. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Weitkunat and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. (**Secretary’s note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Ordinance No. 167, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Articles IX and X of the City Code to to Update the Language Regarding the Use of Motorized Devices by People with Disabilities in Order to Be Consistent with Recent Federal Regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Adopted as Amended on First Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council has expressed interest in considering a trial period to allow electric assisted bicycles (ebikes) on City paved trails. In response, the City Manager formed a cross-departmental team to: investigate the relevant issues; gain input from associated boards and commissions; conduct a public opinion survey; and find out how other cities are managing ebikes. City staff presented this information to the Council at the June 28, 2011 Work Session. After reviewing the information provided at the work session, the City Manager’s recommendation, and other input received from citizens, Council supported consideration of a change to the City Code to implement a one year trial period to allow electrical assisted bicycles on the City’s paved trail system. Council requested that staff prepare an ordinance to make the needed changes to the City Code to implement the trial period and return to Council at a regular meeting for a determination on whether or not the trial period should be implemented. Adoption of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, implements a one year trial period allowing ebikes on City paved trails from April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013. 160 November 15, 2011 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION Council expressed interest in considering a trial period to allow ebikes on City paved trails. In response, the City Manager formed a cross-departmental team to: investigate the relevant issues; gain input from associated boards and commissions; conduct a public opinion survey; and find out how other cities are managing ebikes on their trails. City staff presented this information to the Council at its June 28, 2011 Work Session. (Attachment 2). After reviewing the information provided at the Work Session, the City Manager’s recommendation, and other input received from citizens, Council supported consideration of a change to the City Code to implement a one year trial period to allow electrical assisted bicycles (ebikes) on the City’s paved trail system. Council requested staff prepare an ordinance to make the needed changes to the City Code to implement the trial period and return to Council at a regular meeting for a determination on whether or not the trial period should be implemented. Council requested that the trial period expire after one year unless renewed, be limited to paved trails, and encompass an uninterrupted warm weather season. Council also indicated the trial period should be limited only to ebikes, which should be defined to exclude other electric vehicles or devices like mopeds, motorcycles, skateboards and scooters. Council also requested that staff prepare a plan to educate the community about the rights of people with mobility impairments to use ebikes on the trails and also help educate the community about trail etiquette, warnings, safety and the recreational purpose of the trail system. Additionally, Council asked staff to develop a plan to gather information and assess the impacts of ebike use during the trial period. Issues regarding safety, conflicts with other trail users, impacts to wildlife, public opinion and related issues were to be addressed. CODE CHANGES Adoption of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, implements a one year trial period allowing ebikes on the City’s paved trails and clarifies that people with mobility disabilities can use ebikes and other power-driven mobility devices on the trails (as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) by making the following changes to Chapter 23 of the City Code: 1. Defines a “bicycle” by adopting the definition used in the Fort Collins Traffic Code. 2. Defines an “Electrical Assisted Bicycle: Electrical assisted bicycle shall mean a vehicle having two (2) tandem wheels, or two (2) parallel wheels and one (1) forward wheel, fully operable pedals, an electric motor not exceeding seven hundred fifty (750) watts of power and a top motor-powered speed of twenty (20) miles per hour, which also has a tire size of not more than three (3) inches in width, a wheel diameter of not less than fourteen (14) inches, and a weight of not 161 November 15, 2011 more than seventy-five (75) pounds. A bicycle with an electric-powered bike trailer that meets the power and speed limitations listed above is also considered an electrical assisted bicycle. The electric-powered bike trailer need not meet the above wheel and tire requirements. 3. Defines “Mobility Disability” and “Other Power-Driven Mobility Device” by adopting the definitions in the ADA. 4. Modifies the prohibition against operating a motor vehicle or other motorized means of conveyance in or on a natural area, park, or trail by allowing ebikes to be ridden on paved trails from April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013. 5. Clarifies that a person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability is allowed to use a motorized wheelchair or other power-driven mobility device in City natural areas, parks and trails, in accordance with City regulations. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION City staff has launched the education campaign to inform citizens that people with mobility disabilities are allowed to use ebikes and other power-driven mobility devices on City trails. Articles in City News, Fort Shorts and Neighborhood News are being published and the information is also posted on the City’s web page and social media outlets. In the spring of 2012, staff will launch an outreach campaign on trail etiquette to remind citizens to share the trail, give audible warnings, stay to the right, ride at controlled speed, stay alert! and similar messages. The campaign will include: press releases, videos on Cable 14 and on-line; posters; partnerships with bike shops; FC Bikes materials, the Recreator, Natural Areas Tracks and Trails publication, and social media. If Council approves the ebike trial period, the trail etiquette campaign will be expanded to publicize the trial period, including the on-line feedback form to gather citizen input. In mid-summer staff will engage in additional outreach to promote the on-line ebike feedback form and reinforce the trail etiquette message, with additional reminders deployed in the fall. Finally, staff will be improving the signage along the trail system. Signage will be standardized and will include stop signs, warnings about sharp curves or steep grades, trail etiquette reminders, wayfinding and distances and directions to parks, natural areas and public facilities. SURVEYS Staff has been conducting trail use surveys to gather information on how the trails are being used. The surveys record the number of users in a 30 minute time frame, what they are doing (walking, running, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding etc.) and related information. Trail maintenance staff and rangers also have good information on trail use from the time they spend on the trails. This information provides a general baseline of trail use information that can be compared against information gathered during the ebike trial period, if it is implemented. Staff will conduct trail use 162 November 15, 2011 surveys (using volunteers and paid hourly workers) during the trial period and will include information on ebike use, user conflicts, safety issues and impacts on wildlife. Trail maintenance staff and rangers will also be asked to report on ebike use they observe on the trails. The public will also be encouraged to report their observations and experiences with ebikes on the trails through the City’s on-line feedback form. FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION If the ebike trial period is implemented, and prior to the expiration of the trial period, staff will provide Council with all the information gathered during the trial period. Council can then determine if the trial period should be extended, made permanent, or be allowed to expire. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Minimal funding may be needed to pay hourly staff to conduct trail use surveys. The cost is estimated at less than $5,000 and is currently budgeted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Environmental impacts from ebikes on the trails is unknown but will be assessed during the trial period.” Marty Heffernan, Director of Culture, Parks, Recreation, and Environment, discussed the research efforts and public participation aspects of allowing ebikes on the City’s paved trail systems. This Ordinance would allow ebikes on the trails for a trial period of one year, beginning April 1, 2012. Individuals with mobility disabilities are allowed to use ebikes on City trails as per the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bill DeMarco, 913 Kimball Road, supported allowing ebikes on trails. Michael Robertson, Fort Collins resident, supported allowing ebikes on trails. Dottie Spivak, 1914 Lookout Lane, opposed allowing ebikes on trails. Ray Jenkins, 950 Southridge Greens Boulevard, opposed allowing ebikes on trails. Dawn Tice, 3722 Dalton Drive, supported allowing ebikes on trails. Mike McGrath, Fort Collins resident, opposed allowing ebikes on trails. Leroy Cynkar, 2614 West Prospect Road, supported allowing ebikes on trails. Charles Sturgill, 2808 Sunstone Drive, opposed allowing ebikes on trails. 163 November 15, 2011 Councilmember Manvel asked why electric scooters and Segways are not allowed as part of this Ordinance. Heffernan replied Council provided direction to limit the trial period to traditional bicycles with electric assist and sidekick trailers. Councilmember Manvel asked if it will be obvious that a bike meets the criteria as it is traveling on the trail. Heffernan replied the engine size limits should self-regulate the speed limit. Councilmember Manvel asked if input from trail users has been sought. Heffernan replied in the negative but stated it could occur should the trial period be implemented. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Mayor Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 167, 2011, on First Reading. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson, to amend the Ordinance to eliminate the trial period for ebikes and to only update the Code language regarding the use of motorized devices by people with disabilities. Deputy City Attorney Daggett suggested developing a new Ordinance related only to that subject matter. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated, if Council’s directive is to ban ebikes, it should be made clear that ebikes are banned with the exception of individuals with mobility disabilities. Councilmember Horak outlined the changes his amendment would make to the Ordinance. Councilmember Troxell asked about the current Code language with regard to the ADA. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied the current Code language is minimally adequate and is interpreted and applied to comply with the ADA. The proposed Ordinance would clarify language to be more consistent with the ADA language. Councilmember Manvel stated ebikes may be more suited for street use than paved trail use. He stated his informal survey of trail users showed a majority of respondents were opposed to allowing ebikes on the trail system. Mayor Weitkunat supported the use of ebikes on the City’s paved recreational trails, citing the City’s desire to include alternate modes of transportation on multi-use trails and the fact that federal and state regulations consider ebikes to be bicycles. She opposed amending the Ordinance. Councilmember Troxell agreed with Mayor Weitkunat. Councilmember Manvel supported the motion to amend and opposed the use of ebikes on the City’s recreational trails. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated staff and Council will be examining the City’s recreational trail system. 164 November 15, 2011 Councilmember Horak stated there is no need to allow ebikes on City trails and they are more appropriate for street bike lanes. Councilmember Poppaw stated the City and the trail system are not prepared for this change and supported the amended version of the Ordinance. The vote on the motion to amend Ordinance No. 167, 2011 was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Weitkunat and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Troxell stated he would not support the amended Ordinance as it was presented with false intent. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson supported the ban on ebikes on recreational trails. Councilmember Horak noted the amended Ordinance title has been changed to make the Ordinance more accurate and simply deletes language. Mayor Weitkunat stated deleting the language changed the intent and direction of the Ordinance set before Council. The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 167, 2011, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw and Horak. Nays: Weitkunat and Troxell. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges, Adopted on First Reading The following is staff’s memorandum for this item. “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request utility connection after normal business hours. It also establishes a trip charge of $19.65 for special requests during normal business hours. The Ordinance establishes a monthly meter reading charge of $11.00 for those customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program. The fee recovers additional costs incurred by the Utilities for a manual meter reading once the advanced metering infrastructure is in place. 165 November 15, 2011 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Ordinance increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request utility connection on weekends or holidays and after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. The proposed change reflects the Utilities’ costs to connect the utilities after normal working hours. The Ordinance also establishes a trip charge for special requests for service during working hours. (Example: temporary disconnect requested by an electrician or plumber working on a customer premise.) The fee would not apply for service requests related to system outage or repairs. A monthly fee for manual meter reading is also established by the ordinance. This will be a fee to recover the cost of manual meter readings for customers who choose to opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program for electric and/or water meters. The manual meter reading charge is proposed to be $11.00 per month for one or both metered services. The fee is calculated to cover the cost of labor and equipment required to make a manual read of the meter(s) each month. All customers are eligible and encouraged to participate in Advanced Meter Fort Collins. Those customers who allow the installation of an advanced meter will not require a manual reading and will not incur this fee. The fee will not become effective until after advanced metering infrastructure is installed in the non-participating customer’s vicinity. The fee is not intended to be a penalty for opting out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins but is an equitable means to recover the costs of reading the optional mechanical meters. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The proposed fees cover the Utilities’ expense of providing the service connections and manual meter reads from those customers who cause Utilities to incur the expense. Customers who opt out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins will not have granular utility usage data available to aid them in making well-informed water and electric purchasing decisions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Monthly manual meter reading will require vehicle miles that are normally avoided through the advanced metering infrastructure. In addition, customers who opt out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins will not have granular metering data available to aid in electricity and water conservation and efficiency. “ Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the $11 opt-out fee for the automated meter reading program. He suggested the Smart Meter program will not actually result in cost savings. Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, stated additional information regarding the $11 fee will be provided prior to Second Reading. It was derived by the cost expended to dispatch an individual to manually read a meter. The amount may need to be refined based on the number of households which opt out of the program. 166 November 15, 2011 Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 161, 2011, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson discussed a memo received by Council dealing with a pilot program involving CSU and Transfort to provide safe rides home from the downtown area on weekends. He stated the issue should be brought forth for Council input and community discussion. Councilmember Poppaw agreed the topic should be publically vetted. Councilmember Horak suggested appropriate Boards and Commissions be involved as well. City Manager Atteberry stated that should be possible in the next three weeks. Councilmember Troxell suggested John Toliver’s name for the alley naming project noting lifelong Fort Collins residency and legacy make him an ideal candidate. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 167 DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Steve Olt AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This property contains 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road and was annexed on November 15, 2011. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. Ordinance No. 152, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, places this annexation in the UE – Urban Estate Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Steve Olt AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Courtney Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 151, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 1, 2011, annexes 3.13 acres located east of Ziegler Road and south of East Horsetooth Road. The property is Lot 3 of the Strobel M.R.D. and is addressed as 3256 Nite Court, which is at the east end of Charlie Lane. Portions of street right-of-way for Nite Court and Charlie Lane are included in the annexation boundary. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The property is developed and is in the FA1 - Farming District in Larimer County. Ordinance No. 152, 2011, will place this annexation in UE – Urban Estate Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will not be necessary as this property is already in the District. The “Residential Neighborhood Sign District” was established for the purpose of regulating signs for nonresidential uses in certain geographical areas of the City which may be particularly affected by such signs because of their predominantly residential use and character. The subject property is in an established residential area. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On November 1, 2011, Council asked what the cost associated with the Courtney Annexation would be to the City. The City’s Streets Superintendent has indicated that the potential cost of maintaining the gravel portions of Charlie Lane and Nite Court would be approximately $400 per year for once a year grading, based on the following criteria in the Municipal Code and the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards: Section 24-97. Annexed Streets of the Municipal Code … Streets annexed into the City that were not designed and constructed to comply with City standards shall be maintained and upgraded in accordance with the "Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards" as adopted by the City Council by ordinance or resolution. G.02.01.02 STREET Section G.02.01.02. Streets Not Built To City Standards of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards … All other streets and roads that have been annexed into the City and not constructed to County Urban Standard nor to City standards, shall be handled in the following way: This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. There are no issues or known controversies associated with this annexation. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 12 (a) The City shall provide only minor maintenance to the pavement surfaces to keep them from becoming unsafe. Minor maintenance may consist of periodic grading of gravel surfaces and filling potholes in asphalt surfaces. In addition the City will maintain all culverts and storm drainage pipes that pass under an annexed street. (b) The property owners adjacent to annexed county streets will be responsible for maintenance of curb and gutter and/or borrow ditches and culverts that cross under driveways. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 151, 2011, on Second Reading and Ordinance No. 152, 2011, on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On November 3, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend the Courtney Annexation be placed in the UE – Urban Estate Zoning District. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011 (w/o attachments) 2. Vicinity Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Structure Plan Map 5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 20, 2011 and November 3, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 152, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE COURTNEY ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the property known as the Courtney Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described to wit: Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87, and a portion of Charlie Lane and Nite Court, situate in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: considering the North line of said Lot 3, Strobel M.R.D. No. S-60-87 as bearing S89°33'00"E and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at the Northeast corner of said Lot 3 and run thence along the East line of said Lot 3, S20°31'30"E 193.45 feet to the Southeast Corner of said Lot 3; thence along the South line of said Lot 3, N89°33'00"W 605.44 feet to a point on the existing Easterly right-of-way line of Nite Court; thence along said existing Easterly right-of-way line, S00°27'00"W 15.59 feet, and again along the arc of a 70.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance of 77.34 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears S31°12'00"E 73.46 feet, and again along the arc of a 130.00 foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 138.06 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears S32°25'30"E 131.67 feet, and again along the arc of a 40.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 52.72 feet, whose central angle is 75°31'05", the long chord of which bears S35°45'32"W 48.99 feet; thence departing said existing Easterly right-of-way line, N02°00'16"W 38.73 feet to the centerline of Nite Court; thence along said centerline, along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Southwest a distance of 106.20 feet, whose central angle is 60°51'00", the long chord of which bears N32°25'30"W 101.28 feet, and again along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northeast a distance of 110.48 feet, whose central angle is 63°18'00", the long chord of which bears N31°12'00"W 104.95 feet, and again N00°27'00"E 15.59 feet to a point on the existing South right-of-way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing South right-of--way line, N89°33'00"W 265.54 feet; thence departing said existing South right-of-way line, N00°00'00"E 57.48 feet to a point on the existing North right-of- way line of Charlie Lane; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, along the arc of a 270.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 36.95 feet, whose central angle is 07°50'25", the long chord of which bears N86°31'48"E 36.92 feet, and again S89°33'00"E 233.75 feet; thence departing said existing North right- of-way line, along the arc of a 15.00 foot radius curve concave to the Northwest a distance of 28.08 feet, whose central angle is 107°15'00", the long chord of which bears N36°49'30"E 24.15 feet to a point on the existing right-of-way line of Nite Court; thence along said existing right-of-way line, N16°48'00"W 56.63 feet, and again along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius curve concave to the South a distance of 218.50 feet, whose central angle is 250°22'48", the long chord of which bears N55°15'36"E 81.72 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 3; thence along said North line, S89°33'00"E 497.28 feet to the point of beginning, containing 3.1295 acres, more or less. Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above- described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Ted Shepard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road and was annexed on November 15, 2011. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road. Ordinance No. 154, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, places the property in the U-E, Urban Estate Zone District, in conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Ted Shepard AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Leistikow Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2011, Annexing Property Known as the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2011, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 153, 2011, adopted on First Reading by a vote of 5-1 (nays: Ohlson) annexes the Leistikow parcel. The parcel is 18.04 acres located east of Timberline Road and south of Trilby Road. The property is a portion of the Leistikow Amended Minor Residential Division as approved in Larimer County and addressed as 6732 South Timberline Road. Contiguity with the existing municipal boundary is gained along the entire northern boundary which is shared with the Westchase P.U.D. The Annexation includes a condition such that if the property develops as a residential land use, the owner shall request disconnection from City so that Larimer County would then be able to implement its Transfer of Density Units program. The effective term of this condition is ten years. Ordinance No. 154, 2011, will place the property in the U-E, Urban Estate Zone District, in conformance with the City’s Structure Plan Map and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 153, 2011 on Second Reading and Ordinance No. 154, 2011 on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On November 3, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend the Leistikow Annexation be placed in the UE – Urban Estate Zoning District. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 1, 2011 (w/o attachments) 2. Vicinity Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Structure Plan Map 5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 20, 2011 and November 3, 2011 6. Graphic provided by Applicant at November 1, 2011 Council meeting 7. Powerpoint presentation This annexation request is in conformance with the Colorado Revised Statutes, City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Code and the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. There are no known controversies associated with this annexation. ORDINANCE NO. 154, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE LEISTIKOW ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that said property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including the property known as the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Urban Estate (“U-E”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as: Legal description of a parcel of land being Lot 2, of the Amended Leistikow MRD and a portion of the existing right-of-way of Timberline Road situate in Sections 17 and 18, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Larimer County, Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner of said Section 17, and considering the North line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 17 as bearing South 89<56’00” East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; thence along said North line, South 89<56’00” East 785.96 feet to the True Point of Beginning, said point being a point on the South line of Westchase Annexation No. 2 to the City of Fort Collins according to the plat on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder said County; thence along said South line, South 89<56’00” East 140.27 feet; thence departing said South line, South 00<04’00” West 91.40 feet; thence South 75<01’11” West 126.44 feet; thence South 14<58’49” East 95.52 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 98<02’18” and a radius of 528.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve 903.46 feet; thence departing said curve, South 07<22’24” East 175.33 feet; thence South 89<54’32” West 467.79 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line of said Timberline Road; thence along said West right-of-way line the following courses and distances, North 00<09’18” East 55.71 feet; thence South 89<54’44” East 10.00 feet; thence North 00<09’18” East 959.03 feet to a point on the South line of said Westchase Annexation No. 2; thence along said South line South 89<56’00” East 273.04 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 512.50 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 21.95 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said curve North 87<36’45” East 95.36 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Southeast having a central angle of 2<27’15” and a radius of 487.50 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 20.88 feet to the end of said curve; thence tangent from said curve, South 89<56’00” East 207.42 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 17<15’28” and a radius of 733.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along the arc of said curve 220.78 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The above described parcel contains 18.035 acres more or less. Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the above- described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Brian Woodruff AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, appropriates $11,725 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and Environment. It also transfers a matching amount of $11,725 from the 2011 General Fund and combine these funds in a Radon Program account. The Program will carry out radon risk- reduction activities identified in the current City Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Brian Woodruff AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $11,725 that has been granted by Colorado Department of Health and Environment. It also transfers a matching amount of $11,725 from the 2011 General Fund and combine these funds in a Radon Program account. The Program will carry out radon risk-reduction activities identified in the current City Budget. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Colorado Department of Health and Environment has granted $11,725 to the City for a program to encourage radon testing and mitigation through media advertising, and low-cost test kit sales, and to develop and test outreach messages designed to encourage homeowners with high radon to install radon-reduction systems. The grant directly supports radon activities identified in two City budget offers, Air Quality Improvement and the Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study. The grant requires a local match of $11,725. Matching funds would be transferred from the existing 2011 General Fund. Matching funds would come from two sources within in the Natural Resources operating budget: $1,725 from Air Quality Improvement and $10,000 from Radon Mitigation Behavior Study. Grant and matching funds would be combined a Radon Project account. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS City resources would be increased by $11,725. Required matching funds have already been appropriated in the 2011 General Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS These funds would be used to lower the lung-cancer risk of Fort Collins residents that have elevated home radon levels. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 157, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES RADON PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN THE NATURAL RESOURCES OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Natural Resources Radon Program (the “Program”) is part of the City’s indoor air quality program, which is guided by the Air Quality Plan with a policy goal to educate and encourage residents to reduce their exposure to indoor air pollution; and WHEREAS, the Program includes aggressive education, a voluntary radon testing program, mandatory radon mitigation in new construction, and an ordinance requiring the distribution of radon information to all residential home buyers; and WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (“CDHE”) in the amount of $11,725; and WHEREAS, the CDHE grant funds are to be used to encourage radon testing and mitigation through media advertising and offering affordable test kits, and to develop and test outreach messages designed to encourage homeowners with high radon to install radon- reduction systems; and WHEREAS, the grant requires $11,725 of matching funds, which have been included in the 2011 Natural Resources budget and are available for transfer to the CDHE project for the Program; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the CDHE grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one project to another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund the sum of ELEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($11,725) for expenditure in the General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program. Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($11,725) is authorized for transfer from the Natural Resources operating budget in the General Fund to the CDHE grant project for the Natural Resources Radon Program and appropriated herein. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Perrie McMillen AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Project Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 158, 2011, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, appropriates a grant in the amount of $30,000 from the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants fund for salaries associated with the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program for all other offenses. An $3,333 cash match is required and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for Restorative Justice Services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Perrie McMillen AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services’ Restorative Justice Program and for the Transfer of Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Project Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A grant in the amount of $30,000 has been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants fund for salaries associated with the continued operation of Restorative Justice Services, which includes the RESTORE program for shoplifting offenses, and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Program (RJCP) for all other offenses. Restorative Justice is an alternative method of holding a young offender accountable by facilitating a meeting with the offender, the victim/victim representative and members of the community to determine the harm caused by the crime, and how to repair the harm. By identifying and repairing the harm caused by the crime, criminal justice officials are optimistic repeat offenses by these youth will be reduced and the needs and concerns of the victims and affected community will be addressed. A $3,333 cash match is required for the $30,000 grant and will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for restorative justice. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Restorative Justice Services and its two programs; RESTORE for shoplifting offenses, and RJCP (Restorative Justice Conferencing Program) for all other offenses, has been grant funded since its inception in 2000. City Council yearly accepts grant funds from Colorado Division of Criminal Justice and other grant funding agencies to support Restorative Justice Services. The RJS programs are supported by three grants and some money from the City. Since it began, Restorative Justice Services has provided a restorative justice alternative to more than 2,000 young people, their families and the victims/victim representatives of their crimes. The objective of the RJS programs is to educate young people who have committed chargeable offenses in the City of Fort Collins about how others are impacted by their actions, words and behaviors. The intention is that young people, who understand how they, their families, friends and community are harmed by their actions, will make better future decisions and not commit the same or similar crime again. In RJCP, the victim’s needs and concerns are central to the process. Reducing future criminal behavior, addressing the needs and concerns of crime victims and keeping young people out of the justice system, all contribute positively to a safer and healthier community. Without grant funding and the support of the City, Restorative Justice Services would not be a service available to young people and their families, the victims of their crimes, the courts, law enforcement and our community. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The additional grant money in the amount of $30,000 from Division of Criminal Justice, Juvenile Diversion Grants, provides funding for the continuation of Restorative Justice Services. The match requirement of $3,333 (10%) will be met by appropriating funds from the police operating budget designated for restorative justice. Diverting youth and young adults from the justice system relieves pressure on Fort Collins Municipal Court and the 8th Judicial District Court and saves courts personnel time and money. Reducing future shoplifting, theft and other criminal behavior by young people who have participated in the RJS programs will have a long-term positive impact on the economic health of our community by keeping young people out of the justice system, thereby improving their future employment options and encouraging young people to not participate in criminal behavior that harms themselves, their families and our community. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There is no known or measurable impact on the environment. In RESTORE, education about the impact of shoplifting on the environment (excess packaging to prevent theft that ends up in our landfill) is part of the program, so there may be some future positive impact on the environment if fewer youth continue to shoplift. Occasionally there may be a positive impact on the environment when young people are educated about when and how their actions have an environmental impact. The programs have no known negative impact on the environment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. RESTORE Program Information Sheet 2. RJCP Program Information Sheet ORDINANCE NO. 158, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR POLICE SERVICES’ RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAM AND FOR THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN THE POLICE SERVICES PROJECT BUDGET WHEREAS, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice has awarded the City of Fort Collins Police Services (“Police Services”) a grant in the amount of $30,000 (the “Grant”) for salaries associated with the continued operation of the Restorative Justice Program (the “Program”); and WHEREAS, the Program is an alternative method to the traditional criminal justice system, providing services to more than 2,000 young people; and WHEREAS, the Program facilitates a meeting with the young offender, the victim, and community members to discuss the harm caused by the young offender and to find meaningful ways for the young person to repair that harm; and WHEREAS, the grant requires a cash match of $3,333, which will be met by transferring funds previously appropriated in Police Services’s operating budget and allocated for restorative justice; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Grant as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpected and unencumbered amount or portion thereof from one project to another project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the General Fund the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000) for expenditure in the General Fund for continuation of the Restorative Justice Program. Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE DOLLARS ($3,333) is authorized for transfer from the Fort Collins Police Services’s operating budget in the General Fund to the Police Services grant project for the Restorative Justice Program and appropriated therein. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to the snowstorm on October 25 and 26, 2011, the City has incurred unanticipated costs associated with the tree and branch cleanup. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, appropriates the incremental costs (direct costs) associated with the cleanup effort but not covered in the operating budget. This includes personnel overtime and planned "work for other departments" costs that cannot be recouped, as well as other incremental costs associated with contractors, equipment rental, fuel, etc., that are uniquely and directly related to the snowstorm cleanup. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 159, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund for Transfer to Various City Funds for Tree and Branch Cleanup Expenses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Due to the snowstorm on October 25 and 26, 2011, the City has incurred unanticipated costs associated with the tree and branch cleanup. This appropriation request will be used for the incremental costs (direct costs) associated with the cleanup effort but not covered in the operating budget. This includes personnel overtime and planned "work for other departments" costs that cannot be recouped, as well as other incremental costs associated with contractors, equipment rental, fuel, etc. that are uniquely and directly related to the snowstorm cleanup. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The snowstorm began Tuesday evening, October 25, 2011 and lasted until Wednesday afternoon, October 26, 2011. Over that time period, 6 inches to 9 inches of heavy wet snow fell across the City. Warm pavement conditions made snow removal easier, but heavy snow damaged trees throughout northern Colorado. Additionally, 15 minor power outages were reported and resolved. There was extensive damage to trees throughout Fort Collins that impacted rights of way, residential areas, City trees, City parks, cemeteries, golf courses and downtown Fort Collins. The organization quickly transitioned from snow removal to debris cleanup mode to restore power, clear roads of debris and address critical safety hazards. The Utilities Light and Power crews also provided regional assistance to other northern Colorado cities in need. Over 300 work hours were provided to help restore power across the region. The City has offered to pick up residents’ downed limbs within the City limits or residents can drop branches off at the City’s Hoffman Mill Crushing Facility. This multi-week effort began on October 31, 2011 and will continue through the end of the year. Tree pruning activities will extend well into 2012. The table below displays preliminary cost estimates for the tree and branch cleanup. The total appropriation requested from General Fund reserves is a maximum of $1.3 million. Approximately $100,000 of the incremental cost, as indicated in the table below, is associated with Utilities Fund expenses. Those specific amounts are still being determined and will reduce the requested appropriation from General Fund reserves. These amounts will be finalized and incorporated in the second reading. Department/Division Redeployed Cost Incremental Cost Total Cost Streets & Utilities $52 $1,026 $1,078 Traffic $20 20 40 Forestry 342 228 570 Parks 61 19 80 Golf 37 6 43 Cemeteries 17 2 20 $529 $1,301 $1,830 $ in thousands COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 16 The amount of the appropriation will not all be expensed in 2011. Any appropriation not carried forward into 2012 via a valid contractual purchase order with a vendor and for which there is a valid expense associated with the cleanup effort, will likely be requested in the 2012 Reappropriation Ordinance. Because these are estimates, staff will provide a final expenditure report at the close of the tree branch pickup operation (we are targeting the end of the first quarter in 2012). FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Approval of this appropriation will reduce prior year General Fund reserves by a maximum of $1.3 million depending on the final amounts for Utility expenses. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS All materials collected at the City’s Hoffman Mill Crushing Facility will be mulched or composted and will be used in a “Free Mulch Giveaway” this spring. Materials collected by the City will be recycled. No branches will go to Larimer County Landfill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Streets Department Storm Cleanup costs 2. Parks Department Storm Cleanup costs ORDINANCE NO. 159, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR TRANSFER TO VARIOUS CITY FUNDS FOR TREE AND BRANCH CLEANUP EXPENSES WHEREAS, heavy wet snow fell across Fort Collins on October 25 and 26, 2011 damaging trees and breaking branches throughout the city; and WHEREAS, the extensive tree damage throughout the city impacted rights of way, residential areas, City trees, City Parks, cemeteries, and downtown Fort Collins, and caused a reported 15 power outages; and WHEREAS, City staff and crews of various departments quickly changed priorities to clear roads of debris, restore power, and address critical safety hazards; and WHEREAS, City management also determined that in order to protect public health, safety and welfare, the City would pick up downed branches gathered from city residential properties; and WHEREAS, all tree and branch debris collected by the City will be mulched or composted and will be available in a “Free Mulch Giveaway” in the spring; and WHEREAS, the City’s tree and branch cleanup efforts are expected to result in unanticipated costs in the amount of $1,301,000, which cannot be covered within the existing 2011 budget; and WHEREAS, this ordinance appropriates $1,301,000 from General Fund prior year reserves for transfer to the following funds for tree and branch cleanup costs: Cemeteries Fund $ 2,000 General Fund 247,000 Golf Fund 6,000 Transportation Services Fund 1,046,000 Total $1,301,000 WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the prior year reserves as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the City Funds to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund to another fund, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($247,000) for tree and branch cleanup costs in the Parks and Forestry departments. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of ONE MILLION FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,054,000) for transfer to the following funds: Cemeteries Fund $ 2,000 Golf Fund 6,000 Transportation Services Fund 1,046,000 Total $1,054,000 and appropriated therein for tree and branch cleanup costs in each fund. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead John Voss AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Code provides for automatic annual adjustments to the capital improvement expansion fees and the neighborhood parkland fee based on an inflation index (CPI). Also, to account for rising construction costs, the City adjusts the street oversizing fees to reflect changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 3.8% and the ENR has increased 7.55%. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead John Voss AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2011, Amending Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to Increase the Amounts of the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees So as to Reflect Inflation in Associated Costs of Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Code provides for automatic annual adjustments to the capital improvement expansion fees and the neighborhood parkland fee based on an inflation index (CPI). Also, to account for rising construction costs, the City adjusts the street oversizing fees to reflect changes posted in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The CPI has increased 3.8% and the ENR has increased 7.55%. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In May 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 1996, which established capital improvement expansion fees for Community Parkland, Police, Fire, and General Government services. The purpose of the fees is to have new development pay a proportionate share of the capital improvements and equipment that will be necessary to provide services to the development. The Code provisions approved by the Ordinance provide for the annual adjustment of the fees to keep up with inflation, using the Denver-Boulder (now Denver-Boulder-Greeley) Consumer Price Index. The City has imposed a Parkland fee for neighborhood parks since 1968. In August 1996, Council adopted Ordinance No. 105, 1996, which aligned the Neighborhood Parkland fee to the housing size differentials in the Capital Improvement Expansion fee ordinance, and updated the fee schedule to reflect pre-1996 inflation. The Neighborhood Parkland fees were adjusted for inflation in 1997-2007, along with the Capital Improvement Expansion fees. Based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, the inflation level since the last annual adjustment is an increase of 3.8% for 2012. This Ordinance adjusts the fee schedules in Chapter 7.5 of the City Code to account for inflation. In the Ordinance, all amounts for the capital improvement expansion fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The 2012 revenue budget in the table below reflects changes in both the rates and volume of building activity. Summary information: Revenue 2009 2010 2011 2012 * Fee Type Actual Actual Forecast Comparison Capital Expansion Fees $ 467,263 $ 777,353 $ 1,374,000 $ 1,426,000 Neighborhood Parkland Fees 221,736 346,749 906,000 940,000 Street Oversizing Fees 641,491 2,121,165 1,531,000 1,647,000 * The 2012 comparison applies the proposed fee increase to the 2011 forecast. The estimated revenue is really $1,650,000 for Capital Expansion Fund, $519,000 for Neighborhood Parkland Fund, and $2,038,000 for Street Oversizing Fund. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 17 Rate Change 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fee Type Authorized Authorized Authorized Proposed Capital Expansion Fees 3.70% 0.00% 1.10% 3.80% Neighborhood Parkland Fees 3.70% 0.00% 1.10% 3.80% Street Oversizing Fees 6.30% 0.00% 5.48% 7.55% At year-end of 2011, staff estimates that the total available balance in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund will be approximately $14.4 million, the Neighborhood Parkland Fund about $6.0 million, and the Street Oversizing Fund nearly $6.6 million. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 160, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 7.5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNTS OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPANSION FEES SO AS TO REFLECT INFLATION IN ASSOCIATED COSTS OF SERVICES WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipality having the full right of self-government in local and municipal matters under the provisions of Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, among the home rule powers of the City is the power to regulate, as a matter of purely local concern, the development of real property within the City; and WHEREAS, the City’s Comprehensive Plan shows that the rate of future growth and development in Fort Collins will require a substantial expansion in library, community park, police, fire, and general government facilities, and related capital equipment, if its level of service standards for such facilities are to be maintained; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should contribute its proportionate share of providing such capital improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council has broad legislative discretion in determining the appropriate funding mechanisms for financing the construction of public facilities in the City; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 051, 1996, establishing certain capital improvement expansion fees; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 7.5-18 provides for annual fee increases in the capital improvement expansion fees corresponding to the increases in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers; and WHEREAS, in September 1968, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 038, 1968, which established the original Neighborhood Parkland Fee to fund the acquisition and development of parkland, which ordinance has since been amended on several occasions to adjust the fee and to refine related procedures and requirements; and WHEREAS, with the adoption in August 1993, of Ordinance No. 082, 1993, the City Council directed the City Manager to annually review the Neighborhood Parkland Fee and submit to the Council proposed inflation-related increases based on the Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index; and WHEREAS, the City Code calls for the annual adjustment of all Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, including the Neighborhood Parkland Fee, for inflation; and WHEREAS, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent Denver-Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, staff anticipates that the Index will reflect an inflation increase of 3.8 percent since the last annual adjustment of the fees in 2011, effective January 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City has historically used the Engineering News Record as a reference to determine whether the street oversizing capital improvement expansion fee should be increased to account for rising construction costs; and WHEREAS, based on the Engineering News Record, the cost of constructing street improvements has increased 7.55 percent since the last adjustment of the Street Oversizing Capital Improvement Expansion fee; and WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council has determined that it is necessary, in the interests of the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, that the Capital Improvement Expansion Fees, including the Neighborhood Parkland Fee and the Street Oversizing Fee, be increased as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-28(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Community Parkland Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows: 700 sq. ft and under $ 1,023.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 1,451.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 1,704.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 1,961.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 2,385.00 Section 2. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-29(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Police Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows: 700 sq. ft and under $ 74.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 107.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 127.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 145.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 177.00 Commercial buildings (per 1,000 square feet) 157.00 -2- Industrial buildings (per 1,000 square feet) 43.00 Section 3. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-30(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the Fire Protection Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows: 700 sq. ft and under $ 110.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 157.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 183.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 211.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 257.00 Commercial buildings (per 1,000 square feet) 225.00 Industrial buildings (per 1,000 square feet) 62.00 Section 4. That the fee schedule in Section 7.5-31(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the General Government Capital Improvement Expansion Fee, is hereby amended to read as follows: 700 sq. ft and under $ 139.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 197.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 231.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 267.00 2,201 sq. ft. and over 324.00 Commercial buildings (per 1,000 square feet) 252.00 Industrial buildings (per 1,000 square feet) 70.00 Section 5. That Section 7.5-71(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, regarding the Neighborhood Parkland Fee is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-71. Collection of neighborhood parkland fee. (b) The amount of the fee established in this Section shall be determined for each dwelling unit as follows: 700 sq. ft. and under $ 920.00 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 1,302.00 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 1,531.00 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 1,759.00 -3- 2,201 sq. ft. and over 2,142.00 Section 6. That Section 7.5-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, regarding the Street Oversizing Capital Improvement Expansion Fee is hereby amended to read as follows: STREET OVERSIZING CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE SCHEDULE Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Transportation Impact Fee Rate Residential (per housing unit) SF Detached 9.55 3,056 per D.U MF and Other Housing 6.59 2,109 per D.U Hotel/Motel 8.70 2,784 per room Apartment 6.12 1,959 per D.U Retirement Community 3.30 1,056 per D.U Assisted Living 4.52 1,447 per D.U Congregate Care Facility 2.15 688 per D.U Residential Condominium 5.86 1,875 per D.U Duplex 7.18 2,298 per D.U Townhome 5.86 1,875 per D.U Mobile Home 4.92 1,575 per D.U Non Residential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Comm/Shopping Center 1000K GLA 32.09 5.98 /sq. ft. 500K GLA 38.65 7.20 /sq. ft. 200K GLA 54.50 10.16 /sq. ft. 50K GLA 91.65 11.74 /sq. ft. Movie Theater 77.79 14.50 /sq. ft. Fitness/Racquet Club 17.14 3.44 /sq. ft. Day Care 79.26 6.21 /sq. ft. Government Office 68.93 13.81 /sq. ft. Post Office 86.78 17.39 /sq. ft. Building Materials/Lumber 39.71 7.40 /sq. ft. Specialty Retail 40.68 7.58 /sq. ft. Discount Club 41.80 7.79 /sq. ft. Nursery(Garden Center) 36.08 7.23 /sq. ft. Sit Down Restaurant 130.34 16.70 /sq. ft. Fast Food w/ Driveup 496.12 38.84 /sq. ft. Car Sales 37.50 7.52 /sq. ft. Service Station 168.56 /pump 13,196.03 /pump Wholesale Tire Store 20.36 4.08 /sq. ft. Self Service Car Wash 5.79 /stall 453.28 /stall Supermarket 111.51 14.29 /sq. ft. Convenience Market 737.99 57.77 /sq. ft. Furniture Store 5.06 1.58 /sq. ft. Bank 189.95 13.83 /sq. ft. Drive-In Bank 265.21 20.76 /sq. ft. -4- Insurance Building 11.45 2.29 /sq. ft. Manufacturing 3.85 1.21 /sq. ft. Warehousing 4.96 1.55 /sq. ft. Light Industrial 6.97 2.18 /sq. ft. Mini-Warehouse 2.50 0.78 /sq. ft. Business Park 14.37 4.50 /sq. ft. General Office 200K GFA 11.54 3.61 /sq. ft. 50K GFA 16.31 5.11 /sq. ft. 10K GFA 24.39 7.64 /sq. ft. Recreational 3.64 /ac 1,139.86 /acre City Park 3.66 /ac 1,146.12 /acre Golf Course 5.04 /ac 1,578.26 /acre Elementary School 1.02 /student 319.41 /student Church/Synagogue 9.11 2.85 /sq. ft. Library 54.00 16.91 /sq. ft. Hospital 16.78 5.25 /sq. ft. Nursing Home 2.60 /bed 813.24 /bed Medical Clinic 31.45 9.85 /sq. ft. * Notes: 1. Rate calculation for each item based on the product of Number of Weekday Trips, Trip Adjustment Factor, and Cost Per Unit of Trip. 2. Italicized building types indicate that high pass-by trip adjustment factor is used when calculating SOS Rate. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -5- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Brian Janonis Ellen Switzer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request utility connection after normal business hours. It also establishes a trip charge of $19.65 for special requests during normal business hours. The Ordinance establishes a monthly meter reading charge of $11.00 for those customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program. The fee recovers additional costs incurred by the Utilities for a manual meter reading once the advanced metering infrastructure is in place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Brian Janonis Ellen Switzer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18 SUBJECT Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating To Utility Connection Fees And Miscellaneous Charges. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request utility connection after normal business hours. It also establishes a trip charge of $19.65 for special requests during normal business hours. The Ordinance establishes a monthly meter reading charge of $11.00 for those customers who opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program. The fee recovers additional costs incurred by the Utilities for a manual meter reading once the advanced metering infrastructure is in place. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Ordinance increases the after-hours service connection fees from $46.00 to $85.35 for customers who request utility connection on weekends or holidays and after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. The proposed change reflects the Utilities’ costs to connect the utilities after normal working hours. The Ordinance also establishes a trip charge for special requests for service during working hours. (Example: temporary disconnect requested by an electrician or plumber working on a customer premise.) The fee would not apply for service requests related to system outage or repairs. A monthly fee for manual meter reading is also established by the ordinance. This will be a fee to recover the cost of manual meter readings for customers who choose to opt out of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins program for electric and/or water meters. The manual meter reading charge is proposed to be $11.00 per month for one or both metered services. The fee is calculated to cover the cost of labor and equipment required to make a manual read of the meter(s) each month. All customers are eligible and encouraged to participate in Advanced Meter Fort Collins. Those customers who allow the installation of an advanced meter will not require a manual reading and will not incur this fee. The fee will not become effective until after advanced metering infrastructure is installed in the non-participating customer’s vicinity. The fee is not intended to be a penalty for opting out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins but is an equitable means to recover the costs of reading the optional mechanical meters. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The proposed fees cover the Utilities’ expense of providing the service connections and manual meter reads from those customers who cause Utilities to incur the expense. Customers who opt out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins will not have granular utility usage data available to aid them in making well-informed water and electric purchasing decisions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Monthly manual meter reading will require vehicle miles that are normally avoided through the advanced metering infrastructure. In addition, customers who opt out of Advanced Meter Fort Collins will not have granular metering data available to aid in electricity and water conservation and efficiency. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 18 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Water Board recommended approval of the after-hours service fees and special trip charge as part of their water/wastewater rate recommendation at its September 15, 2011 meeting. The manual meter reading charge was not discussed. At its October 5, 2011 meeting, the Electric Board recommended approval of the after-hours service fees and special trip charge as part of its electric rate recommendations. The specific manual meter reading charge was discussed, but the amount was unknown at the time and was estimated at $10 to $20 per month. The after-hours service fees were presented to the Council Finance Committee on October 17, 2011, as part of the overall utility rate discussion. PUBLIC OUTREACH Notice of the proposed electric rate changes was published in Coloradoan on October 30, 2011 and a mailing was sent to city electric customers outside of the city limits in accordance with PUC requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Water Board Minutes, September 15, 2011 2. Electric Board Minutes, October 5, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 161, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATING TO UTILITY CONNECTION FEES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6 of the City Charter to by ordinance from time to time fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of such utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Utility bill account and miscellaneous charges apply to all City utility customers receiving any utility service pursuant to the terms of Chapter 26; and WHEREAS, due to the increased costs associated with after-hour service connection or trip charges; and WHEREAS, there are increased costs associated with manually reading meters of those customers who opt not to allow installation of an advanced meter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That paragraph (b) of Section 26-712 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: Service connection fee for account with one or more metered services (including non metered 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 non-metered 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 following disconnection for delinquency $20.00 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 Other miscellaneous charges will be based on direct cost plus 15% indirect costs. . . . Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect on January 1, 2012. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Lindsay Ex AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the Point of Measurement for the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, amends the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(E), that identifies where the buffer zone should begin regarding rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The proposed revision addresses the current requirement that this point of measurement be from “bankfull discharge.” Instead, the term “top of bank” is recommended as the most appropriate term for this point of measurement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Lindsay Ex AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Related to the Point of Measurement for the Establishment of Buffer Zones for Streams. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance will amend the Land Use Code, Section 3.4.1(E), that identifies where the buffer zone should begin regarding rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The proposed revision addresses the current requirement that this point of measurement be from “bankfull discharge.” Instead, the term “top of bank” is recommended as the most appropriate term for this point of measurement. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Land Use Code was first adopted in March 1997. Subsequent revisions have been recommended on a regular basis to make changes, additions, deletions and clarifications that have been identified since the last update. The proposed changes are offered in order to resolve implementation issues and to continuously improve both the overall quality and “user-friendliness” of the Code. The bulk of the items were taken to the July 21, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. One item (Item 888) was deleted from consideration for further study. Item 888 regards Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Use Code, which identifies where the buffer zone should begin in relation to rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. Conflicting language appears in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code. Section 3.4.1(D), subsection (e) requires data for the Ecological Characterization Study be collected on the following: “the bank, shoreline, and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site.” However, in Section 3.4.1(E), footnote 3(c) requires the following: “stream corridors, lakes, reservoirs, and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be measured from the level of bankfull discharge toward the boundary of such lot, tract or parcel of land.” During the annual Land Use Code change process, staff presented the Planning and Zoning Board with a recommendation to change the point of measurement for streams (where the buffer zone begins) from “bankfull discharge” to “top of bank.” During the July 21, 2011 meeting, the Board expressed concerns that this particular item would benefit from further analysis. The Board requested specific examples and pictures from the field that would help illustrate the concept being proposed. The overall intent of clarifying the standard is supported but questions about stream character and hydrology remain and should be addressed. Other concerns included the following: 1. Top of bank is not a clearly defined term that is widely accepted as an industry standard; 2. The term is arbitrary and requires you hire an expert, go out in the field with City staff, and argue your case as to where top of bank is; 3. It varies over time where streams may braid; 4. The term does not solve the problem; it may not be consistently applied; 5. Would like to see a term more consistent with floodplain mapping; 6. Top of bank is a more restrictive term than bankfull discharge; and 7. Buffer standards are a minimum, if top of bank were adopted, this would increase the overall area of the buffer requirements. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 19 To address these concerns, staff conducted research on the literature surrounding the best terms to use for this point of measurement, researched what other communities use, and conducted a focus group with various experts from the fields of engineering, hydrology, ecology, floodplain management, and planning to discuss what is the most appropriate term. Experts invited to the focus group included representatives from the private sector, public sector, nonprofit sector, CSU professors, and City staff. Based on this research, meetings with experts, and reviews of other municipal, state, and federal codes and recommendations, staff recommends the adoption of the term “top of bank” as an alternative to “bankfull discharge”, because it is the most readily identifiable and consistently applied term in the field. In addition, based on discussion with numerous experts, it is the most widely used term across the country for determining where buffers should begin on these types of waterbodies. Finally, based on the waterbodies within the municipality, all experts agreed this was the most appropriate term for Fort Collins’ streams, rivers, and irrigation ditches. At the October 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, each of these concerns was addressed in detail during a staff presentation, and a written response is including within the summary report for Item 888 (Attachment 1). Based on staff’s research and revised recommendation, this proposed change received unanimous approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. This revision also received general support from Council during the June 14, 2011 work session, where all of the proposed updates to the Land Use Code were presented. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS A Land Use Code that is systemically updated is able to respond to changing trends and conditions. This continuous improvement provides for an adaptable regulatory environment yet remains predictable for all users and decision- makers. While there may be no direct financial and economic impacts in the typical fiscal sense, a dynamic Land Use Code creates a valid and credible legal framework that serves a vibrant local economy. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Proposed revision Item 888 would more holistically protect the stream and other moving waterbody resources within the community. “Top of bank” encompasses the entire stream resource, where bankfull discharge may not(as noted in the Planning and Zoning Board discussion). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On July 21, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed revisions to the Land Use Code. The Board separately discussed Item 888. While general agreement was reached that top of bank was more clear than bankfull discharge, the Board was concerned that the City was moving from good to better, but maybe not from good to best. The Board expressed concerns that this particular item would benefit from further analysis. Staff prepared this analysis for the October 20, 2011 Planning and Zoning Board hearing. During the October 20, 2011 Meeting, the Board voted 4 – 0 to recommend approval of this item. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff conducted a focus group with various experts from the fields of engineering, hydrology, ecology, floodplain management, and planning to discuss what the most appropriate term is. Experts invited to the focus group included representatives from the private sector, public sector, CSU professors, and City staff. An additional, follow-up meeting with representatives from the Poudre Waterkeeper was also held to obtain their feedback (see Attachment 4). Public outreach also included the general notice that accompanies both of the Planning and Zoning Board public hearings. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -3- ITEM 19 ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary report of Item 888 2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, July 21, 2011 3. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, October 20, 2011 4. Poudre Waterkeeper Letter of Support ORDINANCE NO. 162, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE RELATED TO THE POINT OF MEASUREMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BUFFER ZONES FOR STREAMS WHEREAS, Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code contains, among other things, provisions regarding the establishment of the boundaries of natural habitats or features and of buffer zones for natural habitats or features; and WHEREAS, in its provisions relating to the establishment of these boundaries, Section 3.4.1 contains conflicting language regarding stream banks by, in one location, referring to “the bank” while in another location referring to “the level of bankfull discharge” as the point of measurement; and WHEREAS, in an effort to correct conflicting language, City staff has proposed that the term “top of bank” be used in both instances; and WHEREAS, after extensive public outreach and presentation to the Planning and Zoning Board, the staff has proposed and the Board has recommended that the term “top of bank” be defined in Article 5 of the Land Use Code and used uniformly in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code for the purpose of describing a point of measurement in order to establish buffer zones adjacent to streams; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the term “top of bank” is readily identifiable and consistently applied among experts in establishing protective riparian areas, and is the most widely used term for determining where buffers should begin adjacent to streams; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the term “top of bank” be included in the Land Use Code in replacement of the term “the bank” and “the level of bankfull discharge” as a suitable means to clarify previously conflicting language. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 3.4.1(D)(e) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (D) Ecological Characterization and Natural Habitat or Feature Boundary Definition. The boundary of any natural habitat or feature shown on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map is only approximate. The actual boundary of any area to be shown on a project development shall be proposed by the applicant and established by the Director through site evaluations and reconnaissance, and shall be based on the ecological characterization of the natural habitat or feature in conjunction with the map. (1) Ecological Characterization Study. If the development site contains, or is within five hundred (500) feet of, a natural habitat or feature, or if it is determined by the Director, upon information or from inspection, that the site likely includes areas with wildlife, plant life and/or other natural characteristics in need of protection, then the developer shall provide to the city an ecological characterization report prepared by a professional qualified in the areas of ecology, wildlife biology or other relevant discipline. The Director may waive any or all of the following elements of this requirement if the city already possesses adequate information required by this subsection to establish the buffer zone(s), as set forth in subsection (E) below, and the limits of development ("LOD"), as set forth in subsection (N) below. The ecological characterization study shall describe, without limitation, the following: . . . (e) the top of bank, shoreline and high water mark of any perennial stream or body of water on the site; . . . Section 2. That the footnotes contained in the Buffer Zone Table for Fort Collins Natural Habitats and Features in Section 3.4.1(E) are hereby amended to read as follows: . . . 3 Buffer zone table distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to topography. Measurements will be made from the outer edge of the natural habitat or feature to the boundary of the lot, tract or parcel of land that defines and describes the development. . . . (c) Stream corridors, lakes, reservoirs and irrigation ditches buffer zones will be measured from the top of bank toward the boundary of such lot, tract or parcel of land. . . . Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Top of bank” which reads in its entirety as follows: Top of bank shall mean the topographical break in slope between the bank and the surrounding terrain. When a break in slope cannot be found, the outer limits of riparian vegetation shall demark the top of bank. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Jon Haukaas Roger Buffington AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Development Construction Standards. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish and Provide for Technical Revision of Water Utilities Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Water Utilities Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fort Collins Utilities maintains construction standards adopted by City Council for stormwater, water and wastewater improvements installed within new residential and commercial developments within the respective City service areas. These standards require the use of specific materials, methods and products to insure uniformity within the systems and to standardize various components. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, combine these standards into a unified document that is more convenient for engineers and contractors to use and more easily updated in the future. The definition of Water Utilities Development Construction Standards and the provision relating to technical revisions have been amended in Ordinance No. 163, 2011, to provide consistency in language used under similar circumstances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Jon Haukaas Roger Buffington AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20 SUBJECT Items Relating to Stormwater, Water and Wastewater Development Construction Standards. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Establish and Provide for Technical Revision of Water Utilities Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2011, Adopting Water Utilities Development Construction Standards for the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fort Collins Utilities maintains construction standards adopted by City Council for stormwater, water and wastewater improvements installed within new residential and commercial developments within the respective City service areas. These standards require the use of specific materials, methods and products to insure uniformity within the systems and to standardize various components. Water Utilities is combining these standards into a unified document that is more convenient for engineers and contractors to use and more easily updated in the future. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The current construction standards for development exist in three separate documents that were prepared at different times: Stormwater – Last update adopted in 1997 Water - Last update adopted in 1987 Wastewater – Last update adopted in 1990 The stormwater standard was developed prior to stormwater becoming a part of the Utilities department. As a result, the format of the stormwater standard is different from that of the water and wastewater standards. Since the three standards were prepared and adopted at different times, there are duplications within the three documents. For example, all three contain sections that pertain to trenching and backfilling for the installation of pipelines. The requirements are generally the same; however, the formats are different. The current update to the standards consolidates the three documents into one to eliminate the duplication and overlap. The construction methods/requirements covered by the standards will be essentially the same. The approved manufacturers, products and model numbers will be updated to reflect the currently available products. In addition, the project converts the standards to the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format that is widely recognized among engineers and contractors. This update to development construction standards is primarily a consolidation and re-formatting of the standards rather than a change of requirements. The construction methods included in the combined document are unchanged from the basic requirements of the three separate documents. The update of the standards will also incorporate a process for future updates of the document. The revision process would follow the amendment procedure outlined in the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). Revisions would be grouped as policy revisions or technical revisions as follows: • Policy revisions, which include major changes that may cause significant increased costs or may be controversial, would require approval and adoption by City Council. Policy revisions would require a public hearing process for the adoption. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 20 • Technical revisions, which include minor additions, revisions or corrections that are necessary to better conform to good engineering and/or construction standards and practices. The Utilities Executive Director would have the authority to approve the technical revisions that: (1) are consistent with all existing policies relevant to the revision, (2) do not result in any significant additional cost to persons affected by the revision, and (3) are consistent with existing law. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The primary purpose of the construction standards is to insure that public improvements included in new developments are constructed in a manner that the overall reliability of the systems will be maintained and that the future maintenance costs related to these systems is minimized. The document reflects current construction standards that are widely accepted throughout the construction industry. There should be no significant impact to the cost of improvements. This update has provided an opportunity to review the pipeline materials and products used in new developments. In the past few years, the cost of ductile iron pipe and copper service line pipe has increased more rapidly than some alternate materials. In order to provide options to offset these increases, another type of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was added to the water main material list and high density polyethylene (HDPE) was added as an alternative material for water service lines. These materials are also used the Utilities Field Operations crews. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The requirements of the development construction standards are in place to promote and maintain the high standards in the areas of water distribution, wastewater collection and stormwater control. The City’s erosion control requirements are referenced in the standards to minimize the effects of any site runoff during construction. The selection of approved materials for construction considers environmental impacts. The second type of PVC water main material which has been added has a thinner wall which results in less plastic and correspondingly less petroleum required in manufacturing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its October 20, 2011 meeting, the Water Board recommended adoption of the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards including the process outlined for future updates. PUBLIC OUTREACH A primary driver of this update has been communication with engineers, designers, and the development community. Water Utilities has collected many comments and much input from developers and contractors regarding the requirements for improvements in new developments focusing on the need to update the format and include new material technologies. In addition, many requests have been received to post the development standards on the City’s website. ATTACHMENTS 1. Water Board Meeting Minutes – October 20, 2011 ORDINANCE NO. 163, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE FOR TECHNICAL REVISION OF WATER UTILITIES DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR THE WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER UTILITIES WHEREAS, the City’s Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities maintain and apply standard construction specifications for related improvements installed within new residential and commercial developments within their respective service territories; and WHEREAS, historically, each of these Utilities has developed individual standards documents that were presented for City Council review and approval independent of each other; and WHEREAS, in order to eliminate duplication and simplify the use and application of these standards, Utilities staff has prepared a consolidated version of these standards using the Construction Specifications Institute format that is widely recognized among engineers and contractors; and WHEREAS, to document and provide a clear reference to the adopted standards, the City Council desires to update and clarify the City Code so as to identify the newly adopted standards as the technical requirements applicable to new water, wastewater and stormwater construction projects; and WHEREAS, in addition, in order to allow for the incorporation of updated technical and good engineering techniques, equipment and industry practices, City Council desires to authorize the administrative adoption of limited technical revisions to the adopted standards, as set forth in the amended City Code language below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the definitions applicable in Chapter 26, is hereby amended to add the following definition: Sec. 26-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: . . . Water Utilities Development Construction Standards shall mean the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted by Ordinance No. 164, 2011pursuant to § 26-29, and applicable to construction of water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, together with any technical revisions thereto, as more specifically described in § 26-29. . . . Section 2. That Article II of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, is hereby amended to add a new Section 26-29, to read as follows: Sec. 26-29. Water Utilities Development Construction Standards. (a) The Utilities Executive Director shall promulgate Water Utilities Development Construction Standards, which shall constitute standard specifications governing the depth, size, slope, alignment, materials, or construction of water, wastewater and stormwater fixtures, lines, and other improvements, as well as the methods to be used in the excavation, placement, joining, testing, trenching and backfilling, and such other technical specifications as may apply to construction of water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. Said specifications shall be effective upon approval by the City Council by ordinance, and will have the same force and effect as provisions of this Chapter, and shall be enforceable pursuant to the terms of this Chapter and as provided in § 1-15. Except for the administrative adoption of technical revisions as authorized in Subsection (b), revisions to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards shall be subject to approval by the City Council by ordinance. (b) The Utilities Executive Director may adopt minor additions, revisions, and corrections to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards as may, in the judgment of the Utilities Executive Director, be necessary to better conform to good engineering and/or construction standards and practice. The Utilities Executive Director shall approve only those proposed technical revisions that: (1) are consistent with all existing policies relevant to the revisions, (2) do not result in any significant additional cost to persons affected by the revision, and (3) do not materially alter the standard or level of service to be accomplished through the specified infrastructure. Upon adoption of any technical revisions pursuant to the authority of this Subsection (b), the Utilities Executive Director shall provide to the City Clerk documentation of such technical revisions specifying the date upon which they shall become effective, and shall maintain said documentation on file in the permanent records of the City Clerk and Utility Services and available for public inspection. Section 3. That Section 26-52 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -2- Sec. 26-52. Rules and regulations. The Utilities Executive Director may promulgate such rules, regulations, policies and procedures consistent with the provisions of this Article as the Utilities Executive Director may deem necessary for the proper administration of the water utility and the requirements of this Article, including the establishment of standard specifications for construction of service lines and other technical specifications as provided in § 26-29. Such rules and regulations are effective upon the approval by the City Council by ordinance and will have the same force and effect as provisions of this Chapter, and shall be enforceable pursuant to the terms of this Chapter and as provided in § 1-15. A user's failure to abide by all effective rules, regulations, policies and procedures promulgated by the Utilities Executive Director is the same as a violation of this Article. Section 4. That Section 26-97 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. 26-97. Water service lines; general regulations. (a) Specifications, design and construction. The design, number, location, depth and size of all service lines shall be subject to the approval of the Utilities Executive Director. The size, depth, alignment and materials of construction of a service line and the methods to be used in excavating, placing of the pipe, jointing and testing and backfilling the trench and all other work shall conform to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29 and the requirements of the building and plumbing codes or other applicable codes, laws, rules and regulations of federal, state and local entities. In the event of a conflict, the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards shall control. All work concerning the installation or repair of service lines and their appurtenances is subject to inspection by the City. (b) Connection specifications. The connection of the service line to the public water system shall conform to the specifications and regulations of the City, including but not limited to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29, and shall only be made by or under the supervision of the Utilities Executive Director. All such connections shall be made watertight. (c) Materials. In the case where the service line between the water main and the premises has been deemed a private main because it is made of materials other than ductile iron or copper, it shall be replaced by copper or ductile iron lines at the expense of the user when in the opinion of the Utilities Executive Director such line has become so disintegrated as to be unfit for further use. Once such a line has been replaced with the required materials, it becomes part of the water utility and the utility will assume the maintenance of the service line between the water main and the curb stop the same as for any public service line. -3- Section 5. That Subsection (b) of Section 26-213 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-213. Supervision of the wastewater utility. . . . (b) The Utilities Executive Director may formulate and promulgate rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this Article for the administration of the wastewater utility and the implementation of this Article, to become effective upon approval by the City Council by ordinance. The Utilities Executive Director shall have the authority to regulate the volume and flow rate of discharge to the wastewater system, to establish permissible limits of concentration for various specific substances, materials, waters or wastes that can be accepted into the wastewater system, to establish pretreatment requirements, to specify those substances, materials, waters or wastes that are prohibited from entering the wastewater system, to specify standards for installation of wastewater lines and services as provided in § 26-29, and to enforce local compliance with federal standards promulgated pursuant to the act. Section 6. That Section 26-258 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. 26-258. Wastewater service lines; general regulations. (a) Specifications, design and construction. The design, number, location, grade and size of all service lines shall be subject to the approval of the Utilities Executive Director. The size, slope, alignment and materials of construction of a service line and the methods to be used in excavating, placing of the pipe, jointing and testing and backfilling the trench and all other work shall conform to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29 and the requirements of the building and plumbing codes or other applicable codes, laws, rules and regulations of federal, state and local entities. In the event of a conflict, the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards shall control. All work concerning the installation or repair of service lines and their appurtenances is subject to inspection by the City. (b) Connection specifications. The connection of the service line to the public sewer shall conform to the specifications and regulations of the City, including but not limited to the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29, and shall only be made by or under the supervision of the Utilities Executive Director. All such connections shall be made gastight and watertight. (c) Runoff drain connections prohibited. Except as authorized pursuant to Subsection 26-336(a) of the -4- Code, it is unlawful for any person to connect roof downspouts, exterior foundation drains, areaway drains, sump pumps or other sources of surface runoff or groundwater to a service line or building drain which in turn is connected directly or indirectly to a sanitary sewer. Section 7. That Section 26-367 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-367. Rules and regulations. The Utilities Executive Director may promulgate rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this Article for the administration of water and wastewater system extensions and oversizing and the implementation of this Article, including the establishment of standard specifications for construction of water and wastewater improvements and other technical specifications as provided in § 26-29. Such rules and regulations are effective upon approval of City Council by ordinance and will have the same force and effect as provisions of this Chapter, and shall be enforceable pursuant to the terms of this Chapter and as provided in § 1-15. . Section 8. That Section 26-544 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-544. Stormwater facilities required for subdivisions. Prior to the final approval of the plat of any subdivision, or prior to commencement of construction upon any lot or parcel of land for which a drainage report and construction plan for the installation of stormwater facilities has not been prepared and approved by the City, the owners of the property being subdivided or upon which construction is being commenced shall, at such owners' cost, prepare a detailed drainage report and construction plans for the installation of all stormwater facilities required for such subdivision or lot, including any off-site facilities required to convey stormwater to existing drains, channels, streams, detention ponds or other points, all in conformity with the master plan of the stormwater basins, the Design Criteria and Construction Standards adopted by the City Council, and the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29 . The Utilities Executive Director shall review such reports, plans and costs estimates; and after approval of the same, the plat of the subdivision or the building permit, if applicable, may be approved subject to the City's being furnished with acceptable assurance that such facilities will be constructed and installed as indicated and approved. -5- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -6- ORDINANCE NO. 164, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING WATER UTILITIES DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR THE WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER UTILITIES WHEREAS, the City’s Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities maintain and apply standard construction specifications for related improvements installed within new residential and commercial developments within their respective service territories; and WHEREAS, historically, each of these Utilities has developed individual standards documents that were presented for City Council review and approval independent of each other; and WHEREAS, in order to eliminate duplication and simplify the use and application of these standards, Utilities staff has prepared a consolidated version of these standards using the Construction Specifications Institute format that is widely recognized among engineers and contractors; and WHEREAS, the City Council is considering of even date herewith Ordinance No. 163, 2011, which will standardize references to the proposed standards in the City Code and provide for administrative revisions to update technical aspects of the standards; and WHEREAS, a copy of said consolidated standards, entitled Water Utilities Development Construction Standards and dated December 16, 2011 (the “2011 Water Utilities Development Construction Standards”), is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to adopt and approve the 2011 Water Utilities Development Construction Standards, for use by the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities in applying, implementing and enforcing the related provisions of Chapter 26 of the City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the 2011 Water Utilities Development Construction Standards are hereby adopted and approved as set forth herein. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, 424 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011, designates the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, located at 424 West Olive Street as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of the property, Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani, are initiating this request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 165, 2011, Designating the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, 424 West Olive Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owners of the property, Brian Cooke and Lisa Viviani, are initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, at 424 West Olive Street. The MacDonald/Cooke House and Garage are significant under Designation Standard (2) for their association with Stewart L. MacDonald; and under Designation Standard (3), as a notable and unaltered example of the American Foursquare architectural style, with historic matching detached garage. This property retains a very high level of integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. BACKGROUND Stewart L. MacDonald was a professor of mathematics at Colorado Agricultural College. He was very active in many of Fort Collins’ civic, fraternal and benevolent organizations, as a church elder, a member of the Knights of Pythias, an Odd Fellow, a founder and board member of the Fort Collins YMCA, and a Republican who ran for office several times. His wife, Virginia Ish MacDonald, came from a pioneer Fort Collins family. Her father, Captain John Ish, a Confederate officer, was a prominent stockman, farmer, surveyor, and miner. Both the Ish and MacDonald families have had a significant historical impact on the Fort Collins community. The MacDonald/Cooke house is an intact American Foursquare, notable both for its architectural characteristics, as well as for its excellent integrity. It is a two story building, resting on a sandstone foundation. It has a wood frame with narrow lapped board siding; a hipped roof with wide overhanging boxed eaves; open front porch featuring Doric columns; sash and transom windows with diamond light pattern transoms, and a south facade oculus window. The historic detached garage is nicely compatible with the main house. Constructed of wood frame with a hipped roof, it matches the architectural style and characteristics of the home. It features pairs of original garage doors, with five-light uppers. Both the house and garage are in excellent condition and are an important example of American Foursquare residential architecture in Fort Collins. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Landmark Preservation Commission recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. At a public hearing held on November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standard (2), for its historical association with Stewart L. MacDonald and Designation Standard (3), for its architecture. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Resolution 4, 2011, Landmark Preservation Commission, Recommending Landmark Designation for the McDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, 424 West Olive. 3. Photos of house ORDINANCE NO. 165, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE MACDONALD/COOKE HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE, 424 WEST OLIVE STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution 4, 2011, dated November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") has determined that the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standard (2), for its historical association with Stewart L. MacDonald; and Designation Standard (3), for its architecture (3), as an excellent example of American Foursquare residential architecture, with a high level of physical integrity; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the Code and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owners of the property have requested such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property's significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate said property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the property known as the MacDonald/Cooke House and Detached Garage, and the adjacent lands upon which the historical resources are located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Commencing at a point sixty-two feet East of the Southwest corner of Block Eighty- Two, in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, thence East sixty-eight feet, thence North one hundred feet, thence West sixty-eight feet, thence South One Hundred (100) feet, to point of beginning; being a portion of Lots Eleven and Twelve in said Block Eighty-Two be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter l4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 2. That the criteria in Section 14-48 of the Municipal Code will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Cheryl Donaldson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 168, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue of $163,068 from the Discovery Science Center ($160,625) and LaFarge ($2,443) for the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center 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 (total contract of $1.285 million) shared equally ($642,500 each) between the City and the Discovery Science Center. The Discovery Science Center has previously provided the City $481,875. This Ordinance appropriates the final payment of $160,625 paid to the City by the Discovery Science Center for this contract. The Fort Collins Museum received a $2,443 donation from LaFarge toward the new Museum project. These funds will be used toward the fabrication of the Exhibit Master Plan for the new Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance will appropriate $163,068 into the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 168, 2011 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 PROJECT WHEREAS, on November 1, 2005, Fort Collins voters passed Ordinance No. 092, 2005, approving the “Building on Basics” (“BOB”) tax for certain capital projects; and WHEREAS, $6,000,000 was included in the BOB capital project program for construction of a new combined-use facility for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center (“the Project”); and 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 Project; and WHEREAS, the Project will be jointly owned, managed, and funded by the City and the NPC and will expand the educational experience of city residents by providing a broader array of scientific, cultural and historical exhibits in a single location, and will also provide an exciting new City amenity; and WHEREAS, the cost of the exhibit design contract in the amount of $1,285,000 will be shared equally by the City and the NPC, which is $642,500 for each party; and WHEREAS, the NPC has previously provided funds in the amount of $481,875 for the exhibit design contract which funds have been appropriated; and WHEREAS, the final payment of $160,625 from the NPC for the exhibit design contract has been received by the City; and WHEREAS, the City has also received a donation of $2,443 from LaFarge for the Project and these funds will be appropriated and used for the fabrication of the Exhibit Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-THREE THOUSAND SIXTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($163,068) for expenditure on the Building on Basics - Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Mark Sears AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 18 SUBJECT Items Relating to Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 169, 2011, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Grant Contract with History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society for Funds to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 170, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Natural Areas Fund Project to Restore Two Historic Structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State of Colorado awarded the City a grant of $93,392 from the State Historical Fund to fund 75% of the estimated cost of $124,523 to restore two historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area: the 1888 pioneer barn and log chicken house. To accept the grant and proceed with the project the City must enter into a contract with History Colorado. The contract requires a twenty-year covenant on the property surrounding the barn and chicken shed, which states that the City will agree to maintain the buildings, once restored, for twenty years and will not alter anything on the property without express written permission of History Colorado. The City also received a $24,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable Trust to provide most of the 25% in funds necessary to match the funds received from the State. Natural Areas Program funds will be used to fund the remaining $7,131 necessary to fully fund the project. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Bobcat Ridge Natural Area is rich in cultural resources as well as natural resources. With generous donations from the Pulliam Charitable Trust, Natural Areas has already restored a historic cabin and a calving shed, published a book and a booklet on the history of the Bobcat Ridge area, and hired education staff to lead many cultural interpretation programs each year for hundreds of people of all ages. Visitors really enjoy learning about the early pioneers in the area and the farming and ranching history on Bobcat Ridge. They enjoy seeing the historic buildings and learning about how the early pioneers worked and lived. The Pulliam Charitable Trust funded the preparation of the application for historic designation, which was received last December and also funded the preparation of this grant application. Carol Tunner, retired City Historic Preservationist, was hired to prepare both applications and serve as the grant administrator for the project. Steve Seefeld from Operation Services will serve as the Project Manager. Staff will put out a request for proposals early in 2012 to select an architect/contractor team to prepare plans for and restore the two historic structures, to be completed by the end of the year. Staff and the contractor are required by the State Historic Fund to fully document each phase of the restoration process. Before pictures of both structures and an historic picture of the barn are attached (Attachment 2). Once the project is complete, staff will provide after pictures to Council. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The $93,392 grant will fund 75% of the estimated cost of $124,523. The 25% cash match, $31,131, is being funded with a $24,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable Trust and the remaining $7,131 from Natural Areas Funds. December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 18 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There will be no environmental impacts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its November 9, 2011 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the State Grant Contract and the appropriation of the Grants. PUBLIC OUTREACH The preservation, restoration and interpretation of these historic structures is per the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan adopted administratively in 2005 after thorough public review. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Photos of historic structures 3. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, November 9, 2011 Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Location Map Bobcat Ridge NA HWY. 392 PROSPECT RD. HARMONY RD. TAFT HILL RD. SHIELDS ST. Trailhead and Parking Lot Historic Structures ¹ 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles Map Created by Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2001 Natural Area Trails CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREA COUNTY OR CITY OPEN LANDS LEASE STATE, COUNTY OR OTHER PUBLIC NATURAL AREAS Bobcat Ridge NA Historic Structures ATTACHMENT 1 Excerpt from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Meeting Minutes - Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Excerpt - Bobcat Ridge – State Historic Fund Grant Contract Sears: The State Historical Fund awarded the City a grant to fund the restoration of two historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area, the 1888 Pioneer Barn and log Chicken House. The Contract will require a twenty-year covenant on the site of the barn and chicken shed, which state that the City will agree to maintain the buildings once restored for twenty years. The grant will fun 75 percent of the estimated cost of $125,000. The 25 percent cash match, $31,000, is being funded with $24,000 grant from the Pulliam Charitable Trust and the remaining $7,000 from Natural Areas Funds. We also need to appropriate the unanticipated grant revenues in the Natural Areas fund. Quayle: Do you all ready have a contractor? Sears: No. We are planning to do a Request for Proposal for a Design Build contractor. We had a thorough historic assessment done on the buildings several years ago, Allen Lingle was the architect, and they did a thorough job of describing all the improvements that need to be made especially to the barn. Stanley: I see no reason not to approve this. Haines: What do you see as future maintenance on the structures? Sears: Vandalism or fire would be the biggest threat for maintenance. Grimes: Will the monies be used for other structures? Sears: The monies will be used only for the pioneer barn and chicken shed. Haines: Is signage included in this grant? Sears: No, signage is budgeted separately. Stanley moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommend that City Council approve the State Historical Fund Grant Contract and appropriate the unanticipated grant revenues in the Natural Areas Program fund. Grimes second. It was unanimously approved. ORDINANCE NO. 169, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A GRANT CONTRACT WITH HISTORY COLORADO, THE COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR FUNDS TO RESTORE TWO HISTORIC STRUCTURES AT BOBCAT RIDGE NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, in 1990 the Colorado Constitution was amended to permit limited gaming in three Colorado cities; and WHEREAS, the limited gaming amendment also created the State Historical Fund (the “Fund”) and directed that a portion of gaming tax revenues be distributed through a competitive process for historic preservation projects throughout the state; and WHEREAS, grants from the Fund are administered through History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society (the “Historical Society”); and WHEREAS, in early 2011 City Natural Areas staff applied for a grant from the Historical Society to help pay for restoration of two historic structures, the 1888 pioneer barn and a log chicken house (the “Project”), at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area (the “Natural Area”); and WHEREAS, in August 2011 the Historical Society awarded the City a grant in the amount of $93,392 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the estimated total cost of the Project is $124,523, with additional funding coming from the Pulliam Charitable Trust and the Natural Areas program; and WHEREAS, to receive the grant funding the City must enter into a Grant Contract with the Historical Society; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements, such as a grant agreement, to provide any function, service or facility, under Article II, Section 16 of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins and Section 29-1-203, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Grant Contract is on file and available for review in the office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of the Grant Contract is a 20-year covenant running with the land that would prohibit the City from permitting or undertaking any construction, alteration, movement, relocation or remodeling or any other activity on the property where the Project is located that would adversely affect the structural soundness of the property or encroach on the open land area of the property without the express written permission of the Historical Society; and WHEREAS, the Natural Area property affected by this covenant would be all or a portion of the property described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, placing a restrictive covenant on the Property that is enforceable by the State is the equivalent of conveying an interest in real property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the Council is authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City provided that the Council first finds, by ordinance, that such disposition is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council approve the Grant Contract as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Council hereby finds that placing a restrictive covenant on the Property as required by the Historical Society in order to receive grant funding is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to enter into the Grant Contract with the Historical Society obligating the City to use the $93,392 in grant proceeds from the Fund for restoration of historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area, including the covenant described above, in substantially the form of agreement as is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and that the terms of the Grant Contract are approved together with such other terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the best interests of the City. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -2- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- EXHIBIT A Property Address 10184 W COUNTY ROAD 32C, LOVELAND 80538-0000 Legal Description A POR OF SW1/4 OF 15-6-70; COM AT S 1/4 COR OF SD SEC 15 AND POB; TH WRLY ALG S LN OF SD SW1/4 TO SW COR SEC 15; TH NRLY ALG W LN OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4 TO CNTY RD; TH ERLY WITH SD RD TO PT ON W LN OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4; TH DEPART FROM SD CNTY RD NRLY ALG SD W LN TO NW COR OF SD SE1/4 OF SW1/4; TH ALG N LN OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4, N 88 23' 04" E 985.86 FT M/L TO PT ON CEN LN OF ESMNT; TH N 30 37' 29" E 250.50 FT TO NW COR OF A TR DESC @ 88049434; TH N 88 23' 04" E 10 FT; TH S 21 30' 01" E 163.30 FT; TH S 40 30' 59" E 74.93 FT M/L TO PT ON N LN OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC 15 FROM WHENCE TH NE COR OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 BEARS N 88 23' 04" E 93.10 FT; TH S 01 59' 43" E 188.87 FT; TH S 35 12' 21" E 170.81 FT M/L TO PT ON E LN OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 FROM WHENCE SD NE COR BEARS N 00 12' 07" E 330.96 FT; TH S 00 12' 07" W 999.46 FT M/L TO POB; LESS AND EXCEPT THAT POR DESC AS TR D IN BK 881, PG 286; LESS 20070047079 ROW ORDINANCE NO. 170, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE NATURAL AREAS FUND PROJECT TO RESTORE TWO HISTORIC STRUCTURES AT BOBCAT RIDGE NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a Colorado Historical Fund grant in the amount of $95,392 to fund 75% of the cost to restore two historic structures at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area, the 1888 Pioneer Barn and the log Chicken House; and WHEREAS, the grant requires a 25% project match in the amount of $31,131 for a total estimated project cost of $124,523; and WHEREAS, the City has also received a grant in the amount of $24,000 from the Pulliam Charitable Trust which will cover most of the required match; and WHEREAS, the remaining matching funds in the amount of $7,131 are available from existing appropriations in the Natural Areas Fund operating budget; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Colorado Historical Fund Grant Contract and the appropriation of the Grants; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of grant funds will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Natural Areas Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year. WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund to another fund, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant revenue in the Natural Areas Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED NINETY-TWO DOLLARS ($117,392) for the grant project to restore two historic buildings at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area. Section 2. That the unexpended appropriated amount of SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE DOLLARS ($7,131) is authorized for transfer from the Natural Areas Fund operating budget to the grant project to restore two historic buildings at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area and appropriated therein Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Courtney Rippy Levingston AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 19 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 171, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Exterior Rehabilitation of the Seckner Brothers Building at 216 Linden Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates unanticipated revenue in the amount of $73,890 for the exterior facade rehabilitation of the Seckner Brothers Building, 216 Linden Street. The City was awarded a State Historical Fund grant in the amount of $35,000. Matching funds totaling $36,890 are provided by the Downtown Development Authority ($25,890), a City- funded Zero-Interest Loan ($6,100) and the remainder by the building’s owners, Irwin and Judith Winterowd. The City will only be responsible for administering the grant, which will be carried out by Community Development and Neighborhood Services staff. Staff time allocated to administration will be reimbursed by the grant. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Seckner Brother’s Building, 216 Linden Street, is designated on the National, State and Local Historic Registries as part of the Old Town Fort Collins Historic District. The turn of the century building was built by the Seckner Brothers to house their photography shop. Over time the facade of this landmark building has suffered from deferred maintenance, resulting in significant structural issues and an altered storefront. In keeping with the historic character of the adjacent properties, the new owners are proposing a historic restoration and reconstruction of the building’s facade to its 1906 appearance, with special attention being focused on the exceptional second floor square oriel window – the only one of its kind in Fort Collins. By reconstructing the original storefront, adding structural reinforcement to the upper bay, and rehabilitating the original windows using techniques, materials and joinery appropriate for historic window rehabilitation, 216 Linden will once again add to the charm and character of Fort Collins’ Old Town Historic District. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City will not be responsible for any monetary contribution, but will be responsible for receiving and administering the funds, which will be reimbursed from the grant. This project represents an opportunity not only to rehabilitate the facade of 216 Linden Street, but it will also add to the positive economic impact that already exists along Linden Street in Fort Collins. With the completion of the Old Firehouse Alley Project, pedestrian use along Linden Street is seeing a dramatic increase. The proposed project will compliment the Old Firehouse Alley Project, increase the economic vitality of Fort Collins as a whole, and promote civic pride of the surrounding businesses. Additionally, the project will generate sales tax revenue from materials and services purchased locally, and increase property taxes, due to the property’s higher assessed value. Since this matter involves an intergovernmental agreement with the State in order for the City to obtain the grant, Section 1-22 of the City Code requires that the City Council authorize, by Resolution, the execution of the intergovernmental agreement by the City Manager. That Resolution will be presented to the City Council at the December 20, 2011 Council meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project supports the City’s goal of environmental sustainability. As with all historic preservation projects, this project maximizes the use of existing materials and infrastructure, and reduces waste in landfills from demolition costs. Historic buildings were traditionally designed to be energy efficient, with many sustainable features that respond to December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 19 climate and site. The restoration and rehabilitation of the Seckner Brothers Building at 216 Linden Street will increase the overall energy efficiency of the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its February 10, 2010 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed plans for the exterior rehabilitation of 216 Linden Street for the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program and voted unanimously to allocate $6,100 in loan monies to this project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Photo of building 3. Landmark Preservation Commission minutes, February 10, 2010 Jefferson Street Park «¬287 «¬14 Pine St Maple St Mathews St Old Town Sq Chestnut St Linden St Walnut St Linden St Willow St Jefferson St N College Ave E Mountain Ave Remington St S College Ave Laporte Ave W Mountain Ave © 216 Linden (Currently Street Indigo - Vicinity Rose) Map 216 Linden Street 1 inch = 200 feet Starbucks Coopersmith's ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 2 Photo of exterior façade of 216 Linden Street Photo of exterior façade of 216 Linden Street ORDINANCE NO. 171, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE EXTERIOR REHABILITATION OF THE SECKNER BROTHERS BUILDING AT 216 LINDEN STREET WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant in the amount of $35,000 from the Colorado Historical Society's State Historical Fund; and WHEREAS, the grant will be used to rehabilitate the exterior facade of the historic Seckner Brothers Building located at 216 Linden Street; and WHEREAS, the building’s owners will provide the required matching funds in the amount of $38,890, and will be contracting for the work from sole source vendors; and WHEREAS, the City will administer the grant and cash match funds and be responsible for the distribution of the grant and cash match funds; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of grant funds and the matching funds totaling $71,895 will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to 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 that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund the sum of SEVENTY THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY DOLLARS ($73,890) for the Exterior Rehabilitation Project at 216 Linden Street. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Janet Miller Amy Sharkey AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 20 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 172, 2011, Adopting the 2012 Classified Employees’ Pay Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fort Collins 2012 Pay Plan establishes a pay range structure for employee compensation. It is the framework that sets the minimum and maximum pay for City positions. The methodology used by the City is based on compensation best practices. The 2012 Pay Plan uses average actual salary data collected from public and private sector markets for benchmark positions to determine pay range midpoints within occupational groups. Ranges for non- benchmark jobs are established using a point factor system that is calibrated against the benchmark jobs. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Prior to 2007, the philosophy used to develop the City’s annual pay plan was based on setting pay range maximums, within occupational groups, at the 70th percentile of the market. Pay ranges were developed using pay range maximum data collected from 18 peer organizations. The 2008 Pay Plan began a transition toward a new compensation philosophy. Rather than using pay range maximums to develop the pay structure, average actual pay data collected from the same 18 benchmark organizations was used to set the pay range midpoints. The pay range minimum and maximum was developed using the pay range midpoint, establishing a 40% difference between the minimum and maximum of pay ranges. In 2008, staff attended a course, “Market Pricing - Conducting a Competitive Pay Analysis” to learn about best practices in compensation, benefits and total rewards. Staff used the recommended methodology to design the 2009 Pay Plan. This same methodology was used to design the 2012 Pay Plan and is outlined below: Step 1 – Market Identification Consistent with City Council direction, we utilized a market identification process to ensure that the City’s Pay Plan aligns closely with the actual markets with which we compete (both the public and private sectors). The City identified 143 benchmark jobs for which we could gather market pay data. The Colorado Front Range (Fort Collins to Colorado Springs) was identified as the market for professional and technical jobs. Northern Colorado, including Larimer and Weld Counties, was the market identified for administrative support and some labor trade jobs. Salary data for these two markets includes cities and counties with populations greater than 50,000 and private sector data, where available. Step 2 – Market Data Collection and Analysis Average actual salary data was collected for the benchmark jobs using surveys from Mountain States Employer’s Council (MSEC) and the Colorado Municipal League (CML). Average actual salary (also referred to as the mean) is the sum of all reported pay for every employee in a benchmark job divided by the number of incumbents in a given job. Because the salary data was collected in March 2011, staff “aged” the data by multiplying survey salaries by an Employment Cost Index, 1.2%, (for government jobs) to arrive at an effective average actual pay rate to be implemented in 2012. December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 20 Primary Data Sources Mountain States Employer’s Council (MSEC) Colorado Compensation Survey MSEC Colorado Compensation Survey represents Colorado employers of all sizes. Data was collected from 442 respondents located across the State of Colorado representing 41,755 employees. Government employers represent 20% of the employers. MSEC surveys 379 benchmark jobs. Mountain States Employer’s Council (MSEC) Information Technology Compensation Survey Data is collected from 337 respondents. There are 5,887 employees and 81 benchmark jobs. Information is not broken down by geographic region or type of industry. Mountain State Employer’s Council (MSEC) Public Employers Compensation Survey Data is collected from 118 respondents. There 33,685 employees and 344 benchmark jobs. Colorado Municipal League (CML) CML reports compensation from many jurisdictions in the State of Colorado, including municipalities, counties, and special districts. Step 3 – Establish Pay Ranges After collecting the most recent data, each pay grade was analyzed. Average actual salaries were used to set the City’s midpoint for each pay grade within seven occupational groups that make up the Classified Employees’ Pay Plan. In order to determine pay grade midpoints (the pay structure), staff used regression analysis to establish the best line of fit for the average actual salaries and pay grades. Midpoints were then used to establish the minimum and maximum of the pay range (40% spread). As a result of the market analysis, staff is recommending that the pay ranges for three of the seven occupational groups be adjusted. Accordingly, all pay grades within the Administrative Professional, Information Technology, and Electric Utility Operations and Skill Trade occupational groups have been adjusted upwards by 2%. All pay grades within the other four occupational groups (Administrative Support, Tech/Engineering, Operation Skill Trades/non- electric trades and Police Civilian) remain at their current levels. The result of all this effort is the recommended 2012 Classified Employee Pay Plan. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Funding for the 2012 Classified Employees’ Pay Plan is included in the 2012 Adopted City Budget, as amended. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 172, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE 2012 CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES PAY PLAN WHEREAS, Section 2-566 of the City Code requires that the pay plan for all classified employees of the City shall be established by ordinance of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating employees in a manner that is fair, competitive and understandable; and WHEREAS, the annual market analysis conducted by the Human Resources Department includes public and private employer survey information for Northern Colorado and the Front Range, providing clear benchmark information for approximately 143 benchmark positions; and WHEREAS, the pay plan recommended by the City Manager is consistent with City Council objectives, including the philosophy of establishing pay ranges by using the average actual salaries for benchmark positions to set the mid-point of pay ranges for those positions; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adoption of the recommended pay plan is in the best interests of the City and further believes that the allocation of individual salaries within the pay plan should be related to employee performance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2012 City of Fort Collins Classified Employees Pay Plan (the "Plan"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2. That the effective date of the Plan shall commence with the January 9, 2012, pay period. Section 3. That the City Manager shall fix the compensation levels of all classified employees within the pay levels established in the Plan except to the extent that the City Manager determines, due to performance or other extraordinary circumstances, that the pay level of a particular employee should remain below the minimum or be fixed above the maximum for that employee’s job title. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Aimee Jensen AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 21 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 173, 2011, Amending the City Code Concerning the Issuance of Special Event Permits by the Local Licensing Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legislators adopted Senate Bill 11-066, which authorizes a local liquor licensing authority to issue special event permits to qualifying organizations and political candidates without sending the application to the state authority for approval. The proposed amendments to the City Code will authorize the local licensing authority to approve special event permit applications locally without obtaining state approval as allowed under Senate Bill 11-066. Additionally, there is a proposed increase of $25 in the local application fee to help defray some of the costs associated with the local application process, which generally exceed the proposed fee of $50 per day of permitted event. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Prior to this statutory change, local authorities were authorized to approve applications for special event permits, and then send them to the state authority for final approval. This change will allow the local authority to approve a special event permit in a shortened time period. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The $25 local fee increase diverts the fee previously paid to the State ($25 per day for the malt, spirituous, and vinous liquor and $10 per day for 3.2% beer) to the City, resulting in no net increase for malt, vinous and spirituous liquor permit applicants and a 60% increase in fees for 3.2% beer permit applicants. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH When this bill was signed by the Governor on May 23, 2011, staff began informing all the special event permit applicants about this upcoming change. The response was unanimously positive. In addition to these discussions, staff e-mailed special event permit applicants, notifying them of these changes. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Municipal Judge, Kathleen Lane ORDINANCE NO. 173, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS BY THE LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly adopted Senate Bill 11-066, which took effect August 10, 2011, and which allows a local licensing authority to elect to assume sole authority to approve or deny applications for special event permits to serve alcohol; and WHEREAS, prior to this statutory change, local authorities were only authorized to approve applications for special event permits and to then submit those approved applications to the State Liquor Enforcement Division for final approval and issuance; and WHEREAS, staff recognizes the benefit to applicants in allowing the local licensing authority to approve special event permit applications locally without obtaining State approval; and WHEREAS, staff believes that the current application process provides an extensive and complete review of each special event permit application submitted to the City Clerk’s Office; and WHEREAS, staff believes it would be in the best interest of the City to exercise local control over special event liquor permitting allowed by Senate Bill 11-066; and WHEREAS, in addition to exercising local control over special event liquor permits, staff also recommends increasing the application fee for a special event liquor permit per day from $25.00 to $50.00 to help defray some of the costs associated with the local application process; and WHEREAS, said fee increase diverts the fee previously paid to the State ($25 per day for the malt, spirituous, and vinous liquor and $10 per day for 3.2% beer) to the City, resulting in no net increase for malt, vinous and spirituous liquor permit applicants and a 60% increase in fees for 3.2% beer permit applicants; and WHEREAS, the costs associated with processing the two types of special event permits are the same, regardless of the type of permit issued, and generally exceed the proposed fee of $50 per day of permitted event; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to both exercise local control over special event liquor permitting, and to increase the application fee for a special event liquor permit to $50.00 per day of the permitted special event. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 3-16 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to be read as follows: Sec. 3-16. City Clerk duties. The City Clerk shall: . . . (5) Process all applications for temporary, art gallery, special event and bed and breakfast permits on behalf of the Liquor Licensing Authority pursuant to § 3-83. . . . (8) Process all applications for special event permits on behalf of the Liquor Licensing Authority pursuant to Section 3-83.5. Section 2. That Section 3-74 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to be read as follows: Sec. 3-74. Application fees. (a) Application fees shall be payable to the City as follows: . . . (7) Special events permit (per day) ……………. 25.50. . . . Section 3. That Chapter 3, Article III of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 3-83.5 which reads in its entirety as follows: Sec. 3 -83.5 Special Event Permit. (a) The City Clerk may, pursuant to Section 12-48-101 et seq., C.R.S, and the Colorado Code of Regulations 1 C.C.R. 203-2, 47-1000 through 47-1020, approve an application for a special event permit for the sale, by the drink only, of fermented malt beverages, or of malt, spirituous, or vinous liquors to qualified organizations and political candidates. Such special event permit shall authorize a permittee to sell such alcohol beverages at the location and for the duration of time specified on the issued permit. (b) If the City Clerk receives an objection to the issuance of a special event permit from one or more parties in the designated neighborhood as determined by the City Clerk’s Office, the matter will be scheduled for a hearing before the Authority at its next regularly scheduled meeting, at which time the Authority shall consider any and all objections, and it may, pursuant to Section 12-48-101 et seq., C.R.S. and -2- the Colorado Code of Regulations 1 C.C.R. 203-2, 47-1000 through 47-1020, either approve or deny the special event permit application. (c) If the City Clerk decides to deny the application for a special event permit applied for under this Section, and the applicant wishes to contest the denial, the applicant shall be entitled to a hearing before the Authority at its next regularly scheduled meeting, at which time the Authority shall consider whether the City Clerk properly applied the law pursuant to Section 12-48-101 et seq., C.R.S. and the Colorado Code of Regulations 1 C.C.R. 203-2, 47-1000 through 47-1020, and whether to uphold the decision of the City Clerk or overturn it and approve the special event permit application. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Jon Haukaas, Ken Sampley Basil Hamden AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22 SUBJECT Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Adopt and Provide for Technical Revision of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Stormwater Repurposing effort was initiated at a City Council work session in October 2008. The intent of this effort was to review the City’s stormwater program in its entirety, and explore new or reformed methods of water quality and quantity management in each of the City’s stormwater basins. The program review was broken down into 14 categories, with one specifically identifying the need to update the Stormwater Criteria Manual. Adoption of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Criteria Manual will set the standard for the City of Fort Collins. Exception language that identifies key aspects specific to the City will be adopted into the City Code concurrently with this action. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The “Fort Collins Stormwater Drainage Design Manual” was originally adopted in1984. It was updated in 1997 to incorporate water quality criteria in conjunction with federal requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The criteria were updated again in 1999 with the adoption of new rainfall precipitation amounts. Since that time, engineering practice has evolved and new techniques have been developed, especially in the area of water quality treatment regulations. These are commonly referred to as “Best Management Practices” or BMPs. The UDFCD was established by the Colorado legislature in 1969 for the purpose of assisting local governments in the Denver metropolitan area with multi-jurisdictional drainage and flood control problems. The UDFCD includes Denver, parts of 6 surrounding counties, and all or parts of 32 incorporated cities and towns. The UDFCD is nationally recognized as a leader in stormwater management and the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). This expertise in stormwater has been captured in the UDFCD Criteria manual, a 3-volume set that has been widely adopted for use throughout the Denver metro area and other cities in Colorado. Volumes 1 and 2 (last updated 2001) provide guidance for planning and design of drainageway channels and hydraulic structures. Volume 3 (updated 2010) provides guidance for the selection and design of stormwater quality best management practices. The Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual update aims to capitalize on these new technologies by adopting the standards that were developed by the UDFCD, while maintaining hydrologic and hydraulic policies and criteria that are specific to the City of Fort Collins. These specific policies and criteria form what has been identified as the “Fort Collins Exceptions Manual” and are being referenced in the proposed City Code as Sections 26-549 and 26-550. The purpose of the updated standards is to clarify existing criteria and regulations, improve consistency with neighboring communities, facilitate infiltration of runoff, enhance stormwater quality, increase habitat value and plant conservation, and increase the aesthetic appeal of stormwater facilities. The entire text of the UDFCD criteria manual (volumes 1, 2 and 3) can be found online at: http://www.udfcd.org/downloads/down_critmanual.htm and is available in hard copy at the City Clerk’s Office as well as the Fort Collins Utility offices for review . It is important to note that the new low impact development (LID) design criteria will be implemented on an incentive basis and is not required for all new developments. It is City’s intent to update these standards on a regular basis as proven technologies for LID design and construction emerge and as more is learned from the City’s in-progress LID monitoring program, in cooperation with Colorado State University’s Urban Water Center. December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 22 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The economic implications will be mixed as some regulations will lead to slightly higher initial construction costs, but through life-cycle analysis undertaken by the UDFCD, it was proven that lower long term replacement and maintenance costs will offset these higher initial investment costs. Key financial considerations include: 1. More sustainable development regulations will reduce life-cycle costs of operating and maintaining detention facilities, through lower watering and maintenance costs. 2. Less erosion and flooding damages incurred from smaller storms due to higher infiltration capacity of detention ponds. 3. If not properly built and maintained, will lead to loss of installed vegetation, erosion threats and ultimately loss of initial investment. 4. Higher initial investment costs for LID type design for new development projects could discourage development. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Environmental benefits of adopting the provisions allowing LID technologies will be better stormwater quality in streams and water bodies, improved riparian health, less stream degradation due to the reduction in sustained flows in urban streams, and lower consumptive water use practices. Key benefits include: 1. Higher water quality in streams and water bodies receiving stormwater from detention ponds through increased filtration of pollutants, increased evapotranspiration effects and reduced stream degradation and erosion. 2. Less use of resources for irrigation, heating and cooling needs and land consumption. 3. Improved habitat value for flora and fauna. 4. If not properly designed, built or maintained, could lead to stagnant water conditions, nuisance odors, and create a mosquito breeding area. 5. Improved aesthetics in public spaces due to the increased vegetation requirements and standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its October 20, 2011 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommended Council approve the proposed “Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual“ and recommended incorporating the proposed Stormwater Criteria Manual update into the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code, as appropriate. December 6, 2011 -3- ITEM 22 PUBLIC OUTREACH The City undertook an extensive outreach program consisting of meeting with affected community members and professionals, and presenting the new proposed regulations to community groups and professionals. The first focus group consisted of representatives from affected City departments such as Planning, Natural Areas and Engineering. A committee consisting of interested community members and design professionals was formed and tasked with reviewing the proposed standards and providing comments. All expressed support for the new standards and provided valuable input and comments aimed at improving the standards. Here is a brief listing of the public and stakeholder meetings where the stormwater criteria manual update was presented and discussed: Criteria Update Committee – June 22, 2011 and June 29, 20011 Public Meetings: American Society of Civil Engineers – November 2010 (Northern Colorado Branch) Planning and Zoning Work Session – July 15, 2011 Water Board – October 20, 2011 ATTACHMENTS 1. Criteria Manual Update Highlights 2. Water Board minutes, October 20, 2011 Note: The Fort Collins amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Manual are provided as Exhibit A to the Ordinance. Date: June 9th, 2011 From: Basil Hamdan, City of Fort Collins Stormwater Quality Engineer To: Criteria Manual Update Committee Members Re: Highlights of City of Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Update Dear Criteria Manual Update Committee Participants: The criteria manual update will consist of an Exceptions Manual to the current UDFCD Volumes 1, 2 and 3. The master document attached only mentions chapters that are either: deleted, added or amended. If a section of the original UDFCD manual is adopted in its entirety without any modification, then it is not cited. A Table of Contents document is also include to help you visualize what sections of the UDFCD are either added deleted or amended. The Table of Contents document also shows what sections would be adopted with no modifications. The update will preserve all of the City’s current policies regarding rainfall, runoff calculations and routing. It also codifies several policies and practices that the City enforces, but not clearly identified in the old (1997) manual update. The update aims to bring the City more in line with current criteria adopted by the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District. Here are brief highlights of the changes from current regulations and differences from UDFCD standards: Volume 1: The drainage law chapter was omitted as this is a matter dealt by state laws rather than city standards. The Watershed Approach to stormwater management is formally adopted into the City code. Irrigation ditch use, crossing and discharge policies are clarified. Drainage report and plans minimum requirements are outlined. Floodplain modeling reports are outlined. ATTACHMENT 1 Clarification on when SWMM vs the Rational Method should be used. Volume 2 No vertical drops allowed for open channel design. Floodproofing chapter not adopted. City of Fort Collins current floodproofing regulations as described in Chapter 10 in City code retained. Minimum riprap size allowed is 12 inches Trickle channels in detention pond discouraged, pond design must comply with the previously adopted “Detention Pond Landscape Standards and Guidelines”. Volume 3 Adoption of most of the updated Volume 3 with notable exceptions such as omission of the numerical effluent standard for mechanically separating devices. No micro-pools allowed in Extended Detention Basins No hay bale dams allowed as a sediment control measure. 1 Excerpt from Unapproved Water Board Minutes, October 20, 2011 Stormwater Criteria Manual (Attachments available upon request). Stormwater Quality Engineer Basil Hamdan introduced this item. The Stormwater Drainage Design Manual was originally adopted in 1984. There was a minor update to the manual in 1997 to include water quality requirements. The new Volume Three Manual was adopted by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) in December 2010. Staff is recommending adoption of the UDFCD Criteria Manual Three Volume Set as the standard for the City of Fort Collins. Project Goals Mr. Hamdan gave an overview of the project goals, including clarification of the existing policies, providing a mechanism for timely updates, and encouraging the use of sustainable technologies. Staff would also like to provide a standard methodology consistent with neighboring communities along the Front Range. Public Process The public process includes the formation of a steering committee and a stakeholders group. A draft document was created in February 2011. This document underwent a peer review in June 2011. The item was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board in July 2011. Staff would like to present the item to Council as soon as possible. Highlights from the Public Process Highlights from the public process include minimizing the number of absolute requirements, allow flexibility for site specific requirements, provide for a variance process in cases where requirements cannot be met, and provide criteria that are consistent with other communities along the Front Range while keeping what is specific to the City of Fort Collins. Proposed Criteria Highlights Proposed criteria highlights include the use of the UDFCD manual as a base with a Fort Collins Exception Manual, encourage Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater quantity and quality management, promote the use of Low Impact Development (LID) technologies, and encourage stream protection and rehabilitation. Mr. Hamdan explained the concept of LID, which is a site design strategy that uses techniques to create a functionally equivalent hydrologic landscape. He shared examples of LIDs including bio-retention, block pavers, and tree filters. Stormwater Criteria and LID Design Mr. Hamdan shared the benefits of LID design, including lower life cycle costs, more design flexibility, and lower total impervious area. Staff is providing technical assistance to future developments in an attempt to bring issues to the forefront. LIDs do not solve all stormwater issues with respect to flooding. The LID policy is under development subject to effectiveness studies. LIDs could have higher initial investment costs. Chairperson Janett reminded the board that this item is a result of the implementation of the policy work from 2009-2010. The goal of the present board is to determine how these standards meet the policy objectives. ATTACHMENT 2 2 Board discussion: Did Water Board or City Council have concerns about the issues? Was there new content for LIDs since Urban Drainage has already dealt with the concerns? Mr. Hamdan stated policy direction initially came from the Water Board and City Council to look at more innovative techniques. The ideas were part of Council’s vision and City has followed up by adopting the Urban Drainage Standards. Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager Ken Sampley stated testing and monitoring is being conducted to evaluate the program since some of the techniques may not work well. Is there language in the manual to require LIDs as part of the stormwater framework? Mr. Hamdan stated “green” practices are encouraged, but not required. A matrix is used to determine what may work in certain developments. Does the new manual change the MS4 Stormwater Permit? Mr. Sampley stated it does not change the permit. He reiterated that the standards are site specific and depend on the particular development. What is the process to modify the standards if BMPs are not working? Staff will be working with legal to modify the technical standards as necessary. Mr. Sampley stated since there are only two years of data, it is too soon to determine if design standards should be modified. Are there opportunities to modify existing structures? Mr. Hamdan stated retrofits are not required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); however, staff routinely looks at what is functioning well and what is not functioning well. Is there an increased workload to staff because they will be providing technical assistance? Mr. Hamdan stated there is a dedicated staff member to work with new developments. He stated it is more productive to work with developers at the front end of a project rather than having to modify development design after the fact. Can an individual homeowner reduce their stormwater fee? Yes; however, the costs to do this may be more than what is saved with the stormwater fee. Will there be public outreach for these incentives? Mr. Hamdan stated this information will be provided on the City website once approved. Beyond the localized sites for stormwater monitoring, is there a City wide program to monitor how the City is doing as a whole? Mr. Sampley stated Environmental Regulatory Specialist Susan Strong monitors this as part of the MS4 Stormwater Permit. Mr. Hamdan stated there is also baseline data on several creeks in the City. Samples are taken on a quarterly basis at four locations. Is the monitoring sufficient to tell if the water quality has improved because of the new criteria? Baseline data is needed to effectively monitor this and data is only available for the past two years. Better data will be available in the future. Chairperson Janett stated the policy repurposing was completed to not only enable the changes but also encourage the changes. Have any developers suggested the improvements? What has 3 been the reception to the new practices? Mr. Hamdan stated developers that have looked at long term benefits are realizing there will be more return on their investment with the “green” technologies. Most developers have been eager to adopt the standards and reception has been well received for the new practices. Mr. Sampley stated developers will see an economic benefit to the new practices. Is there a fee for adopting the Urban Drainage Standards? No; there is a cooperative effort in sharing the information. What will be done for the individuals in the floodplain concerning fees and BMPSs? Mr. Sampley stated the floodplain component is separate from the stormwater runoff component. How will Volume 3 for Water Quality Requirements be integrated so if a developer looks at Volume 3? The developer will have to look through the Exceptions Manual for changes. The Exceptions Manual lists detention requirements, channel designs, rainfall amounts, etc. Mr. Hamdan stated there is a guide that lists the changes to the manual. Chairperson Janett expressed a comment concerning the 5 percent slope as a minimum standard. She would like to see a maximum slope as well. She is concerned that the steep slopes are counter-productive to LIDs. She asked this be considered as part of the standards. Would the City of Fort Collins provide disincentives for a certain level of stormwater discharge? Mr. Sampley stated this is reflected in the current stormwater fees. There is a higher fee for impervious areas. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Board Member Balderson moved that the Water Board recommend Council approval of the proposed Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual as attached to this Board packet and recommends incorporating the proposed Stormwater Criteria Manual update into the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code and the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code, as appropriate. Board Member Phelan seconded the motion. ORDINANCE NO. 174, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ADOPT AND PROVIDE FOR TECHNICAL REVISION OF THE FORT COLLINS STORMWATER CRITERIA MANUAL WHEREAS, in 1984, the City Council approved and adopted a manual entitled “Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards” (the “1984 Manual”), the purpose of which was to set forth the technical criteria to be used in the analysis, design and construction of drainage systems; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved updates and amendments to the 1984 Manual in 1991, 1999, and 2010; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2010, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 030, 2010, amending Section 26-492 of the City Code so as to update the stated purposes of the Stormwater Utility to articulate the City Council’s intention to foster an integrated, sustainable stormwater management program that reflects the community’s values of protecting and restoring the City’s watersheds, and the Cache la Poudre River and its tributaries, for mutual economic, social and environmental benefits; and WHEREAS, the City Council recently adopted Ordinance No. 164, 2011, approving new consolidated standard construction specifications for use by the City’s Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities in reviewing related improvements installed within new residential and commercial developments within their respective service territories; and WHEREAS, City staff from various departments has worked extensively with interested community members and design professionals to develop and review updated stormwater design criteria; and WHEREAS, as a result of this intensive development process, staff has prepared and proposed for City Council adoption a new set of technical criteria to govern the design and performance of stormwater improvements and related practices, referred to as the “Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual”; and WHEREAS, because the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is substantially based upon the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (“UDFCD”) Criteria Manual (the “Urban Drainage Manual”), a widely applied and referenced set of stormwater-related standards, staff has proposed that the Urban Drainage Manual be adopted by reference and incorporated as part of the City Code; and WHEREAS, to tailor the Urban Drainage Manual to meet the needs and desires of the City, and to customize the standards, policies and practices for use in Fort Collins, staff has prepared extensive exceptions and additions to the Urban Drainage Manual, to be adopted as part of the City Code, attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Fort Collins Amendments”); and WHEREAS, in light of the magnitude of the Fort Collins Amendments, the City Clerk has determined that the Fort Collins Amendments, which together with the Urban Drainage Manual, as more specifically described below, constitute the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, will be published as a separately bound document available on the same basis, but separate from, the main City Code volume; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2011, the Water Board reviewed the proposed Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual and voted unanimously to recommended City Council approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, as proposed by City staff and set forth below; and WHEREAS, in addition, in order to allow for the incorporation of updated technical and good engineering techniques, equipment and industry practices, City Council desires to authorize the administrative adoption of limited technical revisions to the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, as set forth in the amended City Code language below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 26-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, establishing the definitions applicable in Chapter 26, is hereby amended to add the following definition: Sec. 26-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: . . . Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual or Stormwater Criteria Manual shall mean the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual adopted pursuant to §26-500, and applicable to stormwater infrastructure, and management, operation and maintenance of stormwater improvements, together with any technical revisions thereto, as more specifically described in § 26-500. . . . Section 2. That Article VII of Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, is hereby amended to add a new Section 26-500, to read as follows: -2- Sec. 26-500. Stormwater Criteria Manual. (a) Pursuant to the authority conferred by Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, there is hereby adopted by reference as the stormwater design criteria of the City, the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2001 Edition, published by the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, as more specifically described in subsection (b) of this Section, as amended by the City, which shall have the same force and effect as though set forth herein which shall be referred to as the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Said Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual is enacted for the purposes of setting standards in the planning and design of drainageway channels and hydraulic and other structures and for the purposes of setting standards in the selection, design and implementation of stormwater quality best management practices, all for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare. (b) The following articles, sections, divisions, and subsections of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, are deemed to constitute the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2001 Edition, and to be adopted as part of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual: (1) Volume 1, Preface, updated June 2001; (2) Volume 1, Chapter 1, Drainage Policy, updated June, 2001; (3) Volume 1, Chapter 3, Planning, updated June, 2001; (4) Volume 1, Chapter 4, Rainfall, updated January, 2004; (5) Volume 1, Chapter 5, Runoff, updated April, 2008; (6) Volume 1, Chapter 6, Streets/Inlets/Storm Sewers, updated January, 2004; (7) Volume 1, Chapter 7, Major Drainage, updated April, 2008; (8) Volume 2, Chapter 8, Hydraulic Structures, updated April, 2008; (9) Volume 2, Chapter 9, Culverts, updated July, 2001; (10) Volume 2, Chapter 10, Storage, updated April, 2008; (11) Volume 2, Chapter 12, Revegetation, updated June, 2001; (12) Volume 3, Preface, November 2010; (13) Volume 3, Chapter 1, Stormwater Management, and Planning, November 2010; (14) Volume 3, Chapter 2, BMP Selection, November 2010; (15) Volume 3, Chapter 3, Calculating the WQCV and Volume Reduction, November 2010; (16) Volume 3, Chapter 4, Treatment BMPs (including Fact Sheets), December, 2010; (17) Volume 3, Chapter 5, Source Control BMPs (including Fact Sheets), November 2010; (18) Volume 3, Chapter 6, BMP Maintenance, November 2010; (19) Volume 3, Chapter 7, Construction BMPs (including Fact Sheets), November 2010; (20) Volume 3, Glossary, November 2010; and (21) Volume 3, Bibliography, November 2010. -3- (c) The Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, 2001 Edition, as described in Subsections (a) and (b), above, is hereby amended by the additions and deletions as described in amendments adopted by the City Council and separately codified as Fort Collins Amendments to Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual. (d) One (1) copy of each of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual and the Fort Collins Amendments thereto, together referred to as the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual, shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection during regular business hours. (e) The Utilities Executive Director may adopt minor additions, revisions, and corrections to the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual as may, in the judgment of the Utilities Executive Director, be necessary to better conform to good engineering and/or construction standards and practice. The Utilities Executive Director shall approve only those proposed technical revisions that: (1) are consistent with all existing policies relevant to the revisions, (2) do not result in any significant additional cost to persons affected by the revision, and (3) do not materially alter the standard or level of service to be accomplished through the specified infrastructure. Upon adoption of any technical revisions pursuant to the authority of this Subsection (e), the Utilities Executive Director shall provide to the City Clerk documentation of such technical revisions specifying the date upon which they shall become effective, and shall maintain said documentation on file in the permanent records of the City Clerk and Utility Services and available for public inspection. (f) The Utilities Executive Director is hereby authorized to make such determinations, and approve such waivers and variances, in his or her discretion, as set forth in, and in accordance with, the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Section 3. That Section 26-544 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-544. Stormwater facilities required for subdivisions. Prior to the final approval of the plat of any subdivision, or prior to commencement of construction upon any lot or parcel of land for which a drainage report and construction plan for the installation of stormwater facilities has not been prepared and approved by the City, the owners of the property being subdivided or -4- upon which construction is being commenced shall, at such owners' cost, prepare a detailed drainage report and construction plans for the installation of all stormwater facilities required for such subdivision or lot, including any off-site facilities required to convey stormwater to existing drains, channels, streams, detention ponds or other points, all in conformity with the master plan of the stormwater basins, the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual adopted pursuant to § 26-500 Design Criteria and Construction Standards adopted by the City Council, and the Water Utilities Development Construction Standards adopted pursuant to § 26-29. The Utilities Executive Director shall review such reports, plans and costs estimates; and after approval of the same, the plat of the subdivision or the building permit, if applicable, may be approved subject to the City's being furnished with acceptable assurance that such facilities will be constructed and installed as indicated and approved. Section 4. That the Fort Collins Amendments to Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are hereby approved and adopted as part of the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -5- 1 Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual Fort Collins Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual, adopted by the City Council of the City of Fort Collins, as referenced in Section 26-500 (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, are as follows: (A) Volume 1, Chapter 1 - Drainage Policy: (1) Section 1.0 is amended to read as follows: 1.0 Policy 1.1 Drainage Policy The requirements contained in the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual (the “Urban Drainage Manual”), as adopted by the City Council of the City of Fort Collins and as modified by these Fort Collins Amendments (together referred to as the “Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual,” the “Stormwater Criteria Manual, or “Manual’) are the basis for all stormwater management within the city of Fort Collins and are to be used as guidelines in the design and evaluation of all storm drainage facilities. In general, these requirements address five areas of concern: (1) overall storm drainage planning and management; (2) the interface between urban development and irrigation facilities such as dams, reservoirs and canals; (3) the treatment of historic drainageways and natural channels; (4) the requirements and specifications for engineering design of storm drainage facilities; and (5) the quality and extent of urban stormwater runoff and erosion control. 1.2 Purpose and Scope (a) The purpose of this Manual is to set forth the technical criteria to be utilized in the analysis and design of drainage systems within the city limits of Fort Collins, Colorado and its Growth Management Area. (b) Any reference in the Urban Drainage Manual to a city, region or district is to the City of Fort Collins (the “City”) or the Fort Collins area or region. (c) This Manual applies to all land disturbing activities defined as development in the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins (the “City Land Use Code”) or otherwise regulated by the City, including activities on public or private lands, including but not limited to activities on private land, public rights-of-way, easements dedicated for public use, private roads and to all privately, publicly, and quasi-publicly owned and maintained facilities. (d) All planned public or private improvements, or any other proposed construction or development activities regulated by the City must include an adequate plan for storm drainage. This plan must be based on an analysis and design in compliance with all the applicable regulations and specifications set forth in this Manual. (e) Prior to commencement of any construction or development activities subject to the requirements of this Stormwater Criteria Manual, formal approval must be obtained from the Executive Director of the Utilities or his designee. EXHIBIT A 2 (f) Should a conflict arise between the Code of the City of Fort Collins (the “City Code”), the City Land Use Code, or other City adopted standards and requirements, including but not limited to these Fort Collins Amendments, and the Urban Drainage Manual, the City Code, City Land Use Code or other City-adopted standards will govern. (g) References to “standards” or “criteria” refer to those in effect on the date the “Drainage Plans” for a site development or public improvements are approved. 1.3 Regional Master Planning (a) In recognition that drainage boundaries are non-jurisdictional, the City has developed regional basin-wide “Master Drainage Plans”. These Master Drainage Plans establish at a watershed level what public improvements, if any, are needed in each basin and guide or dictate requirements for new developments proposed in each basin. (b) Where a Master Drainage Plan for a given area of the City is available, proposed drainage systems design and construction must comply with all requirements set forth in that Plan. In areas where a Master Drainage Plan is not available, drainage systems must be planned and constructed in a manner that ensures continuity in flow quantity and quality with existing flow conditions. (c) Master Drainage Plans must be developed and, or updated in cooperation with Larimer County, the appropriate affected irrigation companies and any other affected governmental agencies within a given basin or basins. Such plans or updates to plans will be adopted only after they have been reviewed by all affected entities, and after, soliciting public input. (d) Master Drainage Plans are available from the City at the Fort Collins Utilities offices. 1.4 Local Master Planning (a) Local flood control facilities, as planned by the City or developers, are an integral part of the total drainage system required to preserve and promote the general health, welfare, and economic wellbeing of the area. (b) Any facility that generates benefits exclusively to a development (or a group of developments sharing a facility) and not designated by the City as a regional facility, is considered a local facility, and as such is to be maintained by its private owner(s). (c) The City requires the planning and construction of all private local stormwater control and treatment facilities be performed in a manner that ensures that such facilities are compatible with all regional drainage master plans including the City’s Master Drainage Plans. 1.5 Storm Runoff Determination (a) The runoff analysis for a particular area must be based on the proposed land use for that area. Contributing runoff from upstream areas must be based on the existing land use and the topographic characteristics of those areas. (b) All runoff calculations, requirements and assumptions must be based on the Master Drainage Plan for the area, if one is available. (c) Natural topographic features are the basis of location for easements and future runoff calculations. In developed and undeveloped areas, average land slopes may be utilized in runoff computations. Wherever existing drainage patterns and slopes are defined, these 3 must be used. The drainage facilities so designed must be able to handle the design flows with virtually no erosion damage to the system. (d) The City requires storm runoff to be determined by the use of either the “Rational Method”, or the “Stormwater Management Model” (SWMM), within the limitations set forth in this Manual. 1.6 Reasonable Use The City’s management of drainage facilities is guided by the “Reasonable Use” principle. This principle is defined as one that: (a) Limits the rate of flow from developing properties to those release rates as defined in the City’s Master Drainage Plans. (b) Limits the rate of flow from developing properties to their “2-year pre-development condition flow rate” during the 100-year storm event unless otherwise specified by the relevant Master Drainage Plan. (c) Allows a larger release rate than is existing at the time of development or redevelopment if it can be demonstrated that downstream facilities at full watershed development, and analyzed in accordance with the applicable Master Drainage Plan(s), can accommodate a larger release rate to a master planned major drainageway. (d) Causes no increase in downstream runoff rates after development from that under existing conditions unless otherwise specified in the applicable Master Drainage Plan. (e) Properly and orderly transitions flows from developing properties to their pre- development paths on downstream properties unless the downstream property owners agree to alterations of those changes by granting drainage easements for the new drainage paths. (f) Maintains flows, to the extent possible, in their natural and historic drainage paths. In certain instances the transfer of drainage flows from one basin to another is a permissible alternative if it is done in accordance with the approved Master Drainage Plan for that basin and if it causes no undue burden or harm to any downstream property. Basin transfers of drainage flows are subject to City review and may be approved, on a case-by-case basis, subject to a showing of no undue burden or harm satisfactory to the Utilities Executive Director, and a determination by the Utilities Executive Director that the modification of this requirement is appropriate. 1.7 Water Rights The City recognizes the potential effect of drainage facilities on existing water rights. The City requires that the interrelation between the proposed facilities and water rights be accounted for in planning, reviewing and designing drainage and subdrain systems or facilities. 1.8 Drainage Planning and Required Space (a) The stormwater drainage system is an integral part of the urbanization process; and requires storm drainage planning for all developments to include the allocation of space for drainage facilities’ construction and maintenance which may entail the dedication of right-of-way and, or easements. (b) Drainage facilities, such as channels, storm sewers, and detention facilities serve conveyance, treatment as well as storage functions for water quantity and quality. When space requirements are considered, the provision for adequate drainage becomes a competing use for space. Therefore, adequate provision must be made in the land use 4 plan for drainage space requirements. This may entail the dedication of adequate right- of-way or easements, in order to minimize potential conflict with other land uses. 1.9 Use of Streets The use of streets to convey storm runoff interferes with their primary function as transportation corridors. However, streets are an important component of the storm drainage system due to their large storm runoff carrying capacity obtained for little or no drainage-related costs. In order to balance these two competing street uses, limits on the street carrying capacity are required based on the classification of the street related to emergency usage during flood events. The City allows the use of streets for drainage within the limitations discussed in the “Streets” section as described in Volume 1, Chapter 6 of this Manual, “Streets, Inlets, Storm Sewers”. : 1.10 Nuisance Water The City’s stormwater policies and requirements are primarily intended to address water quantity and quality concerns as they relate to the health, safety and welfare of the general public as well as the protection of the environment. This involves the control of runoff during large rainfall or snow melt events on major public drainage systems that could have flooding potential and the control and improvement of the water quality of runoff that enters the City’s receiving waters. Control of “nuisance” waters such as shallow ponding that occasionally concentrate on flat lawns, landscaped, paved or other such areas is strictly the responsibility of the property owner of the land where ponding occurs. Shallow ponding sometimes occurs in street cross pans or flat sections of curb and gutter. These usually are not a major threat to the health safety and welfare of the public. The City will make reasonable efforts to minimize the occurrence of such nuisances through its review and inspection authorities, but if such nuisances do occur, the City is not responsible or obligated to correct or require any other party to correct such a problem. 1.11 Retention Ponds and Pumping 1.11.1 Positive Outfall The City requires that all drainage facilities be designed in a manner that provides a gravity-driven positive outfall into a natural drainageway such as a river or creek, or a component of or a tributary to the public storm drainage infrastructure system. Positive outfall in this context refers to the provision that all sites must be designed to drain with a gravity system to the public infrastructure system or natural drainageway(s). 1.11.2 Retention Ponds Retention ponds are sometimes necessary to hold water until a permanent outfall is built. The City may approve retention ponds as an interim solution until a permanent outfall is built. If accepted, these ponds must be designed to hold twice the 100-year volume generated by a two-hour storm and be evacuated within seventy-two (72) hours. Permanent retention ponds are not allowed to serve as permanent water quantity or quality control measures for any development within the city of Fort Collins. 1.11.3 Pumps in Detention Ponds 5 Pumps in detention ponds may be allowed only when approved in writing in advance by the Utilities Executive Director or his designee. A pump shall only be approved when a satisfactory showing is made that the pump is needed as a back-up system to an infiltration pond or as a designed temporary retention pond. Temporary in this context means that a permanent gravity controlled outlet system is planned to be built within the next 5 years. These must be designed and built with a sump pit as well as a back-up pump. The pump must be of sufficient capacity to drain the retention pond in seventy- two (72) hours or less. 1.11.4 Sump Pumps (a) Discharge from foundation drains or sump pumps must comply with all applicable State requirements and those set forth in Section 26-214 of the City Code, which prohibits discharge across the sidewalk or into or upon any street, alley or gutter and of Section 26-498, which prohibits connections to a storm drainage facility to convey flows other than storm drainage flows and uncontaminated groundwater flows. (b) Discharge from sump pumps must be tied to the City’s stormwater system upon approval from the Utilities Executive Director. All tie-in points must be installed at approved locations such as at a manhole or at an inlet. No direct tie-in to a storm drain pipe will be allowed. Sump pump discharge flows can only be released into a stormwater conveyance system (such as pipes, channels or ponds) specifically designed and approved by the City to accept such discharge. Please refer to Section 26-214 of the City Code for further guidance. 1.12 Conveyance or Detention on Private Single Family Lots In designing drainage systems, the City requires that no undue burden be placed on the owners of single family lots by the placement of large storm drainage conveyance or detention facilities on their property. In order to prevent or minimize such occurrences all storm drainage channels, pipes or detention facilities serving more than three (3) properties must be located within tracts dedicated as drainage easements to the City. 1.13 Lot Grading (a) The City requires that there be a positive grade away from all structures. More specifically, the City requires that there be a minimum grade of five percent (5%) away from a structure within the first five to ten feet adjacent to single family residences. (b) Minimum grades required for different types of sheet flow drainage surfaces are as follows: Grass swales Two (2) percent A one percent (1%) longitudinal slope grass swale may be allowed on single family lots when the swale is draining the runoff from only two adjoining properties. Asphalt One (1) percent Concrete One half (0.5) percent (c) The top of foundation elevation for a structure must be set a minimum of six (6) inches above the highest grade surrounding the structure. 6 1.14 Use of Criteria, Amendments, Technical Revisions and Administrative Modifications of Standards (a) All public or private storm drainage facilities regulated by the City must be planned and designed in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in this Stormwater Criteria Manual. (b) The Stormwater Criteria Manual may be periodically revised and amended, either by approval of the City Council of the City or by Technical Revision approved by the Utilities Executive Director in accordance with Section 26-500 of the City Code, as new technology is developed and, as experience in gained in the use of the criteria. (c) The purpose of this Manual is to promote the health, safety, welfare, and property of the City and citizens through the proper control and treatment of stormwater, (whether above or below surface); and, to ensure uniformity in performance with respect to design and construction of all drainage facilities. Consequently, when the Utilities Executive Director determines that an applicant has made a sufficient showing that an alternate design, analysis or procedure would meet the purposes of a specific requirement of this Manual in a manner and to an extent equal to or better than would compliance with the specific requirement the Utilities Executive Director may authorize a modification of the standard to allow for the use of the alternative design, analysis or procedure, as applicable. (2) Section 2.11 is amended to read as follows: 2.11 Historic Drainage and Easements (a) Whether or not natural drainageways are dedicated, or otherwise formally recognized, these are considered the most appropriate location of stormwater conveyance systems. Historic and natural drainage paths and channels are recognized as easements for storm drainage conveyance. (b) Even when historic drainage is accomplished by means of sheet flow, it is reasonable to assume that after site development, flows will be channelized and concentrated at a point, and an easement for the concentrated flows still exists to the extent of its historic use for the conveyance of stormwater. (3) Section 2.12 is amended to read as follows: 2.12 Off-Site Flows (a) The only way to maintain truly historic drainage flows is to prohibit all future development. “Reasonable” development is allowed so long as any increase or change in runoff does not injure downstream properties. The Master Drainage Plans, as adopted by City Council, establish the most “reasonable” drainage system for the entire basin. All proposed developments are required to be planned and constructed in conformance with the approved Master Drainage Plan(s). (b) Downstream properties have an obligation to accept off-site flows from upstream properties. This obligation includes future developed flows provided they are the result of “reasonable” development upstream in compliance with the applicable Master Drainage Plan for the upstream property and do not result in any injury or have an adverse impact on the downstream property. (c) Drainage easements are needed on the downstream property when the upstream flows entering that property are altered in quality, quantity, or character. 7 (d) If stormwater is being imported from one basin to another, or if a completely artificial drainage path is being created altering the historical flow patterns (in quality, quantity or character) of an existing channel, a natural easement argument cannot be used to justify directing any additional drainage into an existing drainage channel. (e) New improvements that affect or have an impact upon existing drainage easements must preserve and maintain those easements. (4) A new Section 2.13 is added, to read as follows: 2.13 Watershed Approach to Stormwater Management (a) The City has initiated a “Watershed Approach” to stormwater management. This program includes three major watershed components and associated objectives: (i) Land – The objectives of this component is pollution prevention, including public education, regulation, and enforcement. This is accomplished through implementation of the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, as described in Section 4.1.7, “Water Quantity and Quality Integration” in this chapter. (ii) Tributaries – The objectives of this component are stormwater treatment and pollutant load reduction and include the development of design criteria for “Best Management Practices” (BMPs). (iii) Receiving Waters – The objectives of this component are aimed at stream and habitat protection and restoration and include the creation of buffer zones on creeks and natural drainageways. (b) The water quality protection regulations as specified in this Manual are primarily directed at the Tributaries component of this approach. This includes BMPs for erosion control during construction and post-construction controls for new development and re- development. These BMPs are intended to be located on-site and therefore address runoff from development or re-development sites or from any public improvements. (c) Any public or private improvement that has an impact on receiving waters must be constructed in accordance with the criteria specified in this Manual, the City’s Master Drainage Plans, the City Land Use Code, and any other applicable State or Federal regulations such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 404 permit requirements. (d) Runoff generated from any public or private improvement and directed into historic and natural drainageways must be done in a manner that would promote the multi- functional use of these drainageways, protect and restore their natural functions and enhance their aesthetic value. (e) Natural drainageways, creeks or streams are considered important community assets that contribute to the aesthetic value and the livability of the urban environment. Their function extends beyond that of conveying floodwater, to their use as trails and open space corridors, for water quality protection and enhancement, and to preserve natural vegetation and wildlife habitat to the greatest extent possible. (f) Public or private improvements located in or near receiving waters, must not adversely affect the natural character of the stream or water course. To that effect, the following provisions must be met: 8 (i) Pollutant reduction and treatment facilities must be located upstream of streams and natural drainageways. (ii) Natural drainageways must remain in as near a natural state as practicable. (iii) Any proposed modification, including any erosion mitigating measures, must be designed and constructed in a manner that protects and enhances the natural character of receiving waters. Such modification must be addressed in the Drainage Report and clearly shown on the associated Drainage Plans (5) A new Section 2.14 is added, to read as follows: 2.14 Erosion and Sediment Control The clearing and stripping of land for development can cause high, localized soil erosion with subsequent deposition and damage to off-site properties and to receiving waters. The City requires an “Erosion Control Plan”, be prepared and implemented for all public improvement projects, private development projects and all redevelopment projects in accordance with the criteria set forth in Volume 3, Chapter 7, “Construction BMPs”, of this Manual. The terms “development” and “redevelopment” are as defined in the City Land Use Code. The purpose of implementing this policy is to minimize the impact of construction to an acceptable level without placing undue burdens on any public or private infrastructure, downstream drainageway(s), or the community in general. (6) Section 3.1 is deleted in its entirety. (7) Section 3.2 is deleted in its entirety. (8) Section 3.3 is deleted in its entirety. . (9) Section 4.1.2 is deleted in its entirety (10) A new Section 4.1.7 is added to read as follows: 4.1.7 Water Quantity and Quality Integration (a) The public’s concerns with stormwater are not limited to flooding and public safety. Stormwater runoff can have a significant and lasting impact on the City’s receiving waters. This impact is reflected not only in the quality of streams and aquatic ecosystems, but more generally in the quality of life in the community. (b) Pursuant to federal law and regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) operators of small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in urbanized areas are required to obtain permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. In Colorado, the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has primary enforcement authority over MS4 permits via the Colorado Discharge Permit System. Pursuant to these requirements, as an operator of an MS4 the City is required to implement stormwater management programs, which must include the following program elements: 1. Public Education and Outreach – The city must implement a public education program in an effort to promote behavior change by the public to reduce water 9 quality impacts associated with pollutants in stormwater runoff and illicit discharges. 2. Public Participation and Involvement – The city must provide a mechanism and process to allow the public to review and provide input on the MS4 Stormwater Management Program. 3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination – The city must implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges (non-stormwater discharges to the MS4), including procedures for tracing and removing the source and training for municipal staff. 4. Construction Site Runoff Control – The city must develop and implement a program to assure adequate design, implementation, and maintenance of BMPs at construction sites within the MS4 to reduce pollutant discharges and protect water quality. 5. Post-Construction Stormwater Management in new Development and Redevelopment – The city must implement and enforce a program to address stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects that discharge into the MS4. The program must ensure that controls are properly designed, installed, and maintained to prevent or minimize water quality impacts. 6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations – The city must implement an operation and maintenance program to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from municipal operations, including written standard operating procedures for stormwater pollution prevention and training of municipal staff. (d) Requirements numbered 4 and 5 above are addressed primarily through this Manual, reviewed through the City’s development review process, and implemented through the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”) construction and post- construction inspection and enforcement program. (11) Section 4.3.4 is amended to read as follows: 4.3.4 Maintenance and Maintenance Access (a) All drainage facilities must be designed to minimize the need for facility maintenance and must provide for ease of maintenance access to all storm drainage facilities in order to ensure the continuous operational function of the system. (b) Maintenance access for all stormwater control and treatment facilities must be adequate and must be clearly delineated on the Final Plat and on the Final Development Plans for any development. Maintenance responsibility must be clearly described on the Final Plats and on the Final Development Plans. (c) Stormwater control and treatment facilities must be continually maintained to ensure their long term operational effectiveness. Maintenance of storm drainage facilities includes, but is not limited to the regular performance of the following activities: (i) Sediment and debris must be periodically removed from channels, storm sewers and stormwater treatment facilities. (ii) Trash racks and street inlets must be cleared of debris. (iii) Pipe inlets and outlets must be regularly flushed. 10 (iv) Channel bank erosion or damage to drop structures must be repaired to avoid reduced conveyance and treatment capability, unsightliness, and ultimate failure. (d) The owner of the drainage facility is responsible for the maintenance of all components of the drainage system located on their property; including inlets, pipes, culverts, channels, ditches, hydraulic structures, detention basins or other such appurtenances unless modified by the development agreement or as described in City Code Section 26-547. (e) Should the owner or responsible party fail to adequately maintain said facilities, the City has the right to enter said property for the purpose of maintenance as described in City Code Section 26-22. All such maintenance costs will be assessed to the property owner in accordance with City Code Section 26-28. . (f) Required minimum widths of drainage easements for common types of drainage facilities are listed in Table-DP-4. Table – DP-4 Required Maintenance Easements DRAINAGE FACILITY MINIMUM EASEMENT WIDTH Storm Sewer (a) Storm Sewer Diameter < 36 inches Depth to Invert less than5 feet 5 feet < Depth to Invert 10 feet Depth to Invert greater than 10 feet (b) Storm Sewer Diameter 36 inches Depth to Invert less than 5 feet 5 feet < Depth to Invert 10 feet Depth Invert greater than 10 feet 20 feet 30 feet Minimum of 30 feet or Pipe I.D. + 6 + Depth*2 (in feet) Minimum of 20 feet or Pipe I.D. + 7 + Depth*2 (in feet) Minimum of 30 feet or Pipe I.D. + 7 + Depth*2 (in feet) Pipe I.D. + 7 + Depth*2 (in feet) Open Channel/Swales 100-Year Discharge less than 20 cfs 20 cfs 100 year Discharge < 100 cfs 100-Year discharge greater than 100 cfs Minimum of 15 feet or Top Width of Channel With Freeboard + 10 feet Minimum of 25 feet or Top Width of Channel With Freeboard + 10 feet Minimum of 30 feet or Top Width of Channel With Freeboard + 10 feet Detention Ponds As required to contain storage, freeboard, and associated facilities plus adequate maintenance access around perimeter 11 (g) Smaller drainage easements widths are allowed along residential lot lines (five feet to ten feet on each side), when these are for swales or channels that carry a limited amount of drainage, and drain at the most three residential lots. (12) A new Section 4.3.5 is added, to read as follows: 4.3.5 Open Channels (a) Developments in or near major runoff channels in and near developing areas must be designed to maintain channel stability. Developments in and near major runoff channels must adopt measures to ensure that excessive erosion does not occur under peak flood flow conditions. (b) Realignment of natural channels in urban areas is not encouraged and may only be permitted if the City approves a design that maintains stream stability and aesthetics, enhances or improves the ecological character of the natural channel and prevents failure and erosion under peak flow conditions. (c) The City prohibits the use of backyard swales on residential lots where these can be physically avoided. Where these cannot be avoided due to physical or grade constraints, they must be designed in a manner that will minimize the basin area contributing to the backyard swale. Backyard swales must not receive runoff from more than three (3) residences. (d) Residential lots that include backyard swale(s) are subject to “Certification” as defined in Section 7.1.12.3 of this chapter, “Certifications for Single Family Developments” as well as fencing restrictions that would prohibit the impedance of drainage flows from one residential lot to an adjacent one. Fencing restrictions must be recorded on the development’s plat, and the appropriate deed restrictions on that plat must be filed with Larimer County. (e) The design of all open channels must comply with all the appropriate provisions set forth in Section 4.0, “Open Channel Criteria”, Volume 1, Chapter 7 “Major Drainage”, of this Manual. (13) Section 4.5.4 is amended to read as follows: 4.5.4 Water Quantity Control (a) Detention storage of stormwater runoff as directed by individual Master Drainage Plans and a hydrologic routing analysis is required. In basins where a Master Drainage Plan has not been approved, the City may require detention storage in accordance with the criteria set forth in this Manual as well as when such storage is deemed necessary to protect irrigation rights or structures or to protect downstream properties. More specific information about detention storage criteria are described in Volume 2, Chapter 9, “Storage” chapter of this Manual. (b) Urban development is not permitted immediately downstream of existing or proposed emergency spillways or in areas that may act as spillways for canals, dams, or embankments impounding stormwater. (c) On-site detention is required for all new development, expansion, and redevelopment. The required minimum detention volume and maximum release rate(s) for the developed condition 100-year recurrence interval storm must be determined in accordance with the 12 conditions and regulations established in the appropriate Master Drainage Plan(s) for that development and in accordance with the criteria set forth in this Manual. (d) On-site detention requirements may be deemed met where the Utilities Executive Director determines that an applicant has made a sufficient showing that existing regional conveyance or detention facilities are sized with the capacity to accommodate flows from a fully developed basin and are publicly owned and maintained, provided that any requirements for cost sharing or reimbursement to the City have been met. (14) Section 4.5.5 is amended to read as follows: 4.5.5 Water Quality Treatment (a) Water quality treatment of stormwater runoff is required, at a minimum, for land disturbing activities greater than or equal to one half an acre, including projects less than one half an acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale. (b) On-site water quality detention requirements may be deemed met where the Utilities Executive Director determines that an applicant has made a sufficient showing that existing regional water quality detention facilities are sized with the capacity to accommodate flows from a fully developed basin and are publicly owned and maintained, provided that any requirements for cost sharing or reimbursement to the City have been met. (c) Water quality control and treatment can be achieved through the use of an array of methods and devices as described in Chapter 4, Volume 3, “Treatment BMPs” of this Manual. (d) Water quality treatment structures must be built in compliance with all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. (15) Section 5.1.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 5.1.1 Design Criteria If a proposed development site is located within an area encompassed within a Master Drainage Plan, the criteria specified in the appropriate Master Drainage Plan will hold precedence over the criteria set forth in this Manual in the event these differ or conflict. (16) Section 5.1.3 is amended to read as follows: 5.1.3 Use of Criteria The City will make reasonable efforts to design and build storm drainage improvements and to evaluate the design and construction of non-City drainage improvements, based on the criteria, standards and specifications set forth in this Manual. (17) Section 5.2.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 5.2.1 Design Storm Return Periods (a) The 2-year drainage system, as a minimum, must be designed to transport the runoff from the 2-year recurrence interval storm event with minimal disruption to the urban environment. The 2-year storm runoff can be conveyed in the curb and gutter area of the street or roadside ditch (subject to street classification and capacity), by a storm sewer, a channel, or other conveyance facility. 13 (b) The 100-year drainage system, as a minimum, must be designed to convey runoff from the 100-year recurrence interval flood to minimize life hazards and health, damage to structures, and interruption to traffic and services. Runoff from the 100-year storm can be conveyed in the urban street system, channels, storm sewers and other facilities, provided the conveyance is done within acceptable criteria as specified in this Manual. (c) Storms with recurrence intervals greater than 100-year, must still be considered in the drainage analysis, if only on a qualitative basis. (d) All new public and private improvements must plan, design, and construct drainage systems that account for the 2-year storm event as well as the 100-year storm. (e) The 100-year storm event is the standard level of protection in the city of Fort Collins unless otherwise specified by the applicable Master Drainage Plan. (18) Section 5.4.1 is deleted in its entirety. (19) Section 5.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 5.5.1 Use of Ditches (a) Stormwater facilities and improvements must be designed to avoid discharge of runoff from urban areas into irrigation facilities except as required by water rights or where such discharge is in conformance with the approved Master Drainage Plan. Where these conditions are present, the responsible party must submit to the Utilities Executive Director and the affected ditch company or other affected parties documentation of the relevant water rights-related constraint or Master Drainage Plan condition. The Utilities Executive Director may approve a modification of this requirement upon a determination that sufficient showing has been made that a discharge into irrigation facilities is acceptable to the affected ditch company and is not expected to result in harm or interfere with the operation of affected stormwater management plans or systems, and that the requirements for a modification have been met. Notwithstanding the foregoing, whenever irrigation ditches cross major drainage channels in developing areas, the responsible party must separate stormwater runoff flows from normal ditch flows. (b) Whenever development occurs where an irrigation ditch or facility is present, the responsible party must provide adequate right-of-way for ditch maintenance as required by the owners of the ditch or irrigation company. (c) The City requires the appropriate ditch company’s approval wherever public or private improvements cause any of the following: (i.) Alteration of the existing patterns of drainage into irrigation ditches; (ii.) Increased flow rates or volumes discharged into the ditch; (iii.) Changes in the quality of runoff entering the ditch; (iv.) Change in the historic point of discharge into the ditch; (v.) Any proposed ditch crossing(s) or relocation(s); (vi.) Any proposed grading within the ditch right-of-way; (vii.) Access to the ditch right-of-way during construction activities. This approval may be in the form of signature on the construction plans or documents. If determined by the Utilities Executive Director to be sufficient, other formal legal agreements may be substituted for an approval signature on the construction plans. The 14 list above is not exhaustive and represents examples of circumstances when ditch company approval is required. Early contact with affected irrigation companies may be beneficial. (d) In the rare instance where an irrigation ditch is allowed to serve as the outfall for a stormwater facility the following provisions must be met: (i) The ditch flow water surface elevation must be determined based on the maximum amount of flow in the ditch. (ii) The water surface elevation of the ditch must be obtained by combining the maximum irrigation flow in the ditch with the 100-year stormwater flows in the ditch. (iii) The detention outlet must be designed such that backflow from the ditch into the detention facility is prevented. (iv) The backwater effects caused by the design of a detention outlet, if any, must be reviewed and approved by both the City and the appropriate ditch company. (v) The outlet design must consider tailwater effects on the outlet pipe resulting from the combination of the maximum irrigation flow and the 100-year storm discharge within the ditch. The appropriate ditch or irrigation company, is the determining authority in regards to the maximum irrigation flow in the ditch. Written verification of the maximum irrigation flow from the ditch or irrigation company must be submitted with the hydraulic analysis of the ditch water surface elevation. (vi) The 100-year water surface elevation of the ditch must be determined using the appropriate Master Drainage Plan or if not available, additional studies may be required from the party seeking to discharge into the ditch. For cases where 100-year discharges are not available, upstream restrictions can be considered for determining ditch flows. (e) If new developments are adjacent to irrigation facilities but no flows are being directed into the ditch or canal, the ditch company must be notified of the proposed development. In such cases, ditch company approval shall be required prior to any approval by the City, unless the Utilities Executive Director determines that the development will result in no impact on or to the ditch company, that there will be no impact on stormwater flows or improvements from the adjacent irrigation facilities, and that the conditions for a modification of this requirement have been met. (f) The party seeking modifications to existing ditch conditions must to obtain the appropriate ditch company approvals and signatures prior to seeking City approval for such modifications. (g) When privately owned and maintained irrigation facilities abut private property, it is the responsibility of the private parties involved to develop and implement a policy regarding safety. (h) In summary, City requirements regarding the use of ditches are as follows: (i) Drainage analysis must ensure that an irrigation ditch does not intercept the storm runoff from the upstream basin and that the upstream basin is tributary to the basin area downstream of the ditch. 15 (ii.) Plans for the development must direct the storm runoff into historic and natural drainageways and avoid discharging into an irrigation ditch except as required by water rights. (iii.) Whenever new development will alter patterns of the storm drainage into irrigation ditches by increasing or decreasing flow rates, volumes, or changing points of concentration, the written consent from the ditch company must be submitted with the development applications. The discharge of runoff into the irrigation ditch will be approved only if such discharge is consistent with an adopted Master Drainage Plan and is in the best interest of the City. (iv.) Whenever irrigation ditches cross major drainageways within the developing area, the developer is required to design and construct the appropriate structures needed to separate storm runoff from ditch flows subject to the condition noted in item (ii.) above. (v.) Whenever drainage that is less than the historic amount in quantity and rate drains into an irrigation canal or ditch, such flow is allowed to freely discharge into the irrigation canal or ditch. (20) Section 6.0 is amended to read as follows: 6.0 Review Process (a) As it relates to drainage, all development proposals must be processed and approved through the City’s development review process in accordance with the City Land Use Code. (b) Building Permit Applications, Overall Development Plans (ODPs), Project Development Plans (PDPs), and Final Plans (FPs), and all other development applications submitted to the City under the City Land Use Code, must include storm drainage, floodplain, floodway and erosion control information (in addition to any other information required by applicable City Land Use Code or other related provisions) if the development increases the impervious area in excess of 350 square feet. (c) An analysis and review of floodplain modifications may be necessary if the development proposes to modify the floodplain or floodway. (d) In addition to the submittals mentioned above, a site certification must be submitted to the City, as well as individual lot certifications as appropriate. (21) Section 6.1 is amended to read as follows: 6.1 Conceptual Review The Conceptual Review is an opportunity to discuss requirements, standards, and procedures that apply to a development proposal. During the Conceptual Review, major problems as they relate to drainage must be identified so that they can be resolved prior to a formal application being submitted to the City. At that meeting, the applicant must furnish at minimum a sketch showing the location of existing and proposed streets, drainage courses, drainage facilities and any other significant natural features near the proposed development. (22) Section 6.2 is amended to read as follows: 16 6.2 Overall Development Plan (ODP) Submittal Requirements An ODP is required for any property that is proposed to be developed over time in at least two separate project development plan submittals. The purpose of the ODP is to establish general planning and development control parameters for these multi-phase projects. The required drainage information presented in an ODP submittal does not normally entail a detailed drainage analysis of the project but does require a general presentation of the project’s features and effects on drainage. The drainage report for the ODP must review at a conceptual level the feasibility and design characteristics of the proposed development. The drainage report must be written in accordance with the outline contained in Section 7.1.6 of this chapter listed below and must contain all the applicable information as described in that section. (23) Section 6.3 is amended to read as follows: 6.3 Drainage Plan Submittal and Review All single family residences not in a previously approved subdivision, subdivisions without a drainage plan, new multi-family developments, and commercial developments with an increase in impervious area of 350 square feet or greater must submit Drainage Reports and Plans to be approved by the City. When an Overall Development Plan (ODP) is required an Overall Drainage Plan may also be required. The detailed information contained in such Drainage Plan must be consistent with the ODP. At a minimum, off-site runoff, conveyance locations, detention ponds, outfall systems, and other drainage facilities must be shown on the Overall Drainage Plan. Applicants are encouraged to prepare a plan with as much detail as possible. Please contact the City Stormwater Department early in the process to determine the detail level needed for that plan. All 100-year storm floodplain boundaries must be shown on all preliminary and final Drainage Plans and labeled in the NAVD 1988 and NGVD 1929 (unadjusted) vertical datum for FEMA basins. City basin base flood elevations must be reported in NGVD 1929 only. Review and acceptance by the City of Drainage Plans, studies, and construction drawings are required in order to obtain a final drainage system that is consistent and integrated in analysis, design, and level of protection to the City’s Master Drainage Plans. Due to the dynamic nature of urbanization, the needs of the public will change with time, requiring adjustment of design and construction requirements. Therefore, a time limitation on the approved construction plans shall be as follows: construction of any drainage facility not initiated within a three-year period from time of final plan approval will be re-evaluated and be subject to a renewed approval by the City. (24) Section 6.4 is amended to read as follows: 6.4 ODP Drainage Report Contents Drainage report contents must contain at the minimum the following elements: I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. City, County, State Highway and local streets within and adjacent to the site, or the area to be served by the drainage improvements. 17 2. Township, range, section, ¼ section 3. Major drainageways and facilities 4. Names of surrounding developments B. Description of Property 1. Area in acres 2. Ground cover (type of ground cover and vegetation) 3. Major drainageways 4. Existing major irrigation facilities such as ditches and canals 5. Proposed land use II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. Major Basin Description 1. Reference to major drainageway planning studies such as flood hazard delineation report, major drainageway planning reports, and flood insurance rate maps 2. Major basin drainage characteristics, existing and planned land uses within the basin, as defined by the Planning Department 3. Identification of all nearby irrigation facilities within 150- feet of the property boundary, which will influence or be influenced by the local drainage B. Sub-Basin Description 1. Discussion of historic drainage patterns of the property in question 2. Discussion of offsite drainage flow patterns and impact on development under existing and fully developed basin conditions pursuant to zoning and land use plans adopted by the City. 3. Soils information of the site shall be presented. The discussion on soils shall include rainfall and wind erodibility problems, limiting characteristics, groundwater depths, and suitability of the soils for development. Information shall be presented concerning conceptual plans for controlling wind and rainfall erosion and the effectiveness of establishing vegetation. III. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept 1. Discussion of concept and typical drainage patterns 2. Discussion of compliance with offsite runoff considerations 3. Discussion of anticipated and proposed drainage patterns 4. Discussion of the content of tables, charts, figures, plates, or drawings presented in the report 5. Discussion of the need to provide offsite public improvements for conveyance of minor or major flows to the major drainageway. 18 B. Specific Details (Optional Information) 1. Discussions of drainage problems encountered and solutions at specific design points 2. Discussion of detention storage and outlet design 3. Discussion of maintenance and access aspects of the design 4. Discussion of impacts of concentrating the flow on the downstream properties IV. REFERENCES Reference all criteria, master plans, and technical information used in support of the concept. V. APPENDICES A. On-site and off-site flow calculations B. Preliminary sizing of detention ponds, storm sewers, and channels. (25) Section 6.5 is amended to read as follows: 6.5 ODP Drawing Contents (a) General Location Map: All drawings must be 22" x 34" in size. A map in sufficient detail to identify drainage flows entering and leaving the development and general drainage patterns must be provided. The map should show the path of all drainage from the upper end of any offsite basins to the defined major drainageways. The map shall identify any existing and proposed facilities from the property (i.e., development, irrigation ditches, existing detention facilities, culverts, storm sewers) along the flow path to the nearest major drainageway. (b) Existing and Future Land Use: Existing and proposed vegetation and landscaping must be shown to the extent that it is known at the ODP level. Existing and proposed building footprints, parking lots, sidewalks, and streets shall be submitted. If details of the proposed information are unknown, the zoning as shown on the ODP diagram is acceptable. (c) Floodplain Information: All 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries, cross sections, and base flood elevation lines must be shown. Base flood elevations must be reported in NAVD 1988 and NGVD 1929 (unadjusted) vertical datum for all FEMA basins. City basin base flood elevations must be reported in NGVD 1929 only. All floodplain requirements as detailed in Chapter 10 of the City Code shall apply. (d) Drainage Plan: Map(s) of the proposed development at a scale of 1” = 20’ to 1” = 200’ on a 22" x 34" drawing must be included. The plan must show the following: 19 1. Existing topographic contours at 2-foot maximum intervals. In terrain where the slope exceeds 15%, the maximum interval is 10 feet. The contours shall extend 50 feet beyond the property lines or further, if necessary, to show the drainage relationship with the adjacent property. 2. All existing drainage facilities. 3. Approximate flooding limits based on available information. 4. Conceptual major drainage facilities including detention basins, storm sewers, streets, culverts, channels, swales, riprap, and hydraulic structures in the detail consistent with the proposed development plan. 5. All watercourses, rivers, wetlands, creeks, irrigation ditches or laterals located within 150 feet of the property. 6. Major drainage boundaries and sub-boundaries. 7. Any offsite feature influencing development. 8. Proposed flow directions and, if available, proposed contours. 9. Legends to define map symbols. 10. All water quality on-site detention facilities required for every new development and redevelopment must be designated on the plans, including notes indicating the approximate surface area and volume of the facilities. (26) Section 6.6 is amended to read as follows: 6.6 Project Development Plan (PDP) and Building Permit Submittal Requirements A PDP is needed after the ODP if the project will be completed in phases, or a PDP is needed after the Conceptual Review if the project will be completed in only one phase. The PDP submittal shall contain a general description of the existing and proposed land uses and layout of the site. All Building Permit Process submittals have the same requirements as the PDP requirements. All analyses and designs of storm drainage systems within the City limits of Fort Collins must be submitted to the City for review and must obtain the City's written approval before any phase of construction. PDP submittals to the Stormwater Utility must consist of two copies of a Drainage and Erosion Control Report with one set of engineering drawings containing the necessary information. The information and calculations contained within the Drainage Report and Erosion Control Report must be presented in a neat and orderly fashion to facilitate review. All reports must be stamped and signed by a Colorado licensed professional engineer and must include, at the minimum: a cover letter indicating the date the name of the project or subdivision a vicinity map the name of the engineer(s) designing the site a statement of compliance with the this Manual. Detailed engineering drawings must be included in the Drainage Report supporting the information and calculations provided in the report. 20 All PDP submittals must indicate whether any portion of the development site is located within or is directly adjacent to a FEMA or City designated floodplain. In the event where any portion of the development site meets that condition, then the proposed development plan must comply with all applicable floodplain regulations as specified in Chapter 10 of City Code, “Flood Prevention and Protection”. (27) Section 6.7 is amended to read as follows: 6.7 PDP Drainage Report 6.7.1 Report Contents The Report must be formatted in accordance with the following outline and must contain all the applicable information listed below and meet the requirements of Vol. 3, Chapter 7, “Construction BMPs.” I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location 1. Vicinity Map: A map showing the project location within the City. The project area shall be shaded, major arterial streets labeled, the major water courses and water bodies shall be labeled, and the City’s drainage basin that the site is located in shall be labeled. The map shall be a minimum size of 6 inches by 6 inches with a scale ranging from 1” = 1000’ to 1” = 3000’. The vicinity map shall be located directly after the table of contents of the drainage report. 2. Township, range, section, ¼ section 3. Local streets within and adjacent to the subdivision with ROW width shown. 4. Major drainageways, facilities, and easements within or adjacent to the site. 5. Names of surrounding developments B. Description of Property 1. Area in acres 2. Ground cover (type of trees, shrubs, vegetation, general soil conditions, topography, and slope) 3. Major drainageways 4. General project description 5. Irrigation facilities 6. Proposed land use C. Floodplain Submittal Requirements 1. “City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist for 50% Submittals” II. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. Major Basin Description 1. Reference to major drainageway planning studies such as flood hazard delineation reports, major drainageway planning reports, and flood insurance rate maps 21 2. Major basin drainage characteristics, existing and planned land uses 3. Identification of all irrigation facilities within the basin, which will influence or be influenced by the local drainage design B. Sub-Basin Description 1. Discussion of historic and proposed drainage patterns of the property in question 2. Discussion of offsite drainage flow patterns and impact on development under existing and fully developed basin conditions III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations: Discussion of the optional provisions selected or the deviation from the criteria, if any, and its justification. B. Discussion on how the Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) is being minimized and or disconnected and discussion on how compliance with the “Four Step Process” is being implemented. C. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints 1. Discussion of previous drainage studies (i.e., project master plans) for the site in question that influence or are influenced by the drainage design and how the plan will affect drainage design for the site. 2. Discussion of the effects of adjacent drainage studies. 3. Discussion of the drainage impact of site constraints such as streets, utilities, rapid transit, existing structures, and development or site plan. C. Hydrological Criteria 1. Identify design rainfall 2. Identify runoff calculation method 3. Identify detention discharge and storage calculation method 4. Identify design storm recurrence intervals 5. Discussion and justification of other assumptions or calculation methods used that are not referenced by the criteria. D. Hydraulic Criteria 1. Identify various capacity references 2. Discussion of other drainage facility design criteria used that are not referenced in the criteria 3. If there are proposed modifications to areas within the 100-year floodplain or floodway, a “Floodplain Modeling Report” must be submitted 4. If there are proposed modifications to a natural drainageway where a 100-year floodplain has not been designated, a “Floodplain Modeling Study” must be submitted 22 E. Floodplain Regulations Compliance 1. Complete a “City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist for 50% Submittals” that clearly states the intent to comply with all applicable City of Fort Collins floodplain regulations as specified in Chapter 10 of the City Code. F. Modifications of Criteria 1. Identify provisions by section number for which a modification is requested 2. Provide justification for each modification requested IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept 1. Discussion of concept and typical drainage patterns 2. Discussion of compliance with off-site runoff considerations 3. Discussion of the content of tables, charts, figures, plates, or drawings presented in the report 4. Discussion of anticipated and proposed drainage patterns B. Specific Details 1. Discussion of drainage problems encountered and solutions at specific design points 2. Discussion of detention storage and outlet design 3. A summary table for each detention storage pond on the site to include: Stage-Storage Curve Stage-Discharge Curve Detention Pond Volume Required Detention Pond Volume Provided Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Water Quality Elevation Spillway Elevation Pond Freeboard Outlet(s) size(s) 4. Discussion of maintenance access 5. Discussion of easements and tracts for drainage purposes, including the conditions and limitations for use 6. Discussion of the facilities needed offsite for the conveyance of minor and major flows to the major drainageway V. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards 1. Compliance with Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual 2. Compliance with the City’s Master Drainage Plan(s) 3. Compliance with the City’s floodplain regulations 23 4. Compliance with all State and Federal regulations B. Drainage Concept 1. Effectiveness of drainage design to control damage from storm runoff 2. Influence of proposed development on the Master Drainage Plan recommendation(s) VI. REFERENCES Reference all criteria and technical information used VII. APPENDICES A. Hydrologic Computations 1. Land use assumptions regarding adjacent properties 2. Initial and major storm runoff at specific design points 3. Historic and fully developed runoff computations at specific design points 4. Hydrographs at critical design points 5. Time of concentration and runoff coefficients for each basin B. Hydraulic Computations 1. Culvert capacities 2. Storm sewer capacity. Allowable models include StormCAD, UDSewer, FlowMaster, and Extran. Other models will be accepted on a case by case basis upon prior approval from the City 3. Street flow calculations for the 2-year and 100-year events regarding street encroachment, theoretical capacity, and allowable gutter flow 4. Storm inlet capacity including inlet control rating at connection(s) to storm sewer system 5. Open channel design 6. Check dam and/or channel drop design 7. Detention facility design including area/volume capacity, outlet capacity, soil analysis, and ground water table elevations 8. Downstream/outfall system capacity to the major drainageway system 9. Design of erosion protection measures for culverts, and storm sewer outlets. C. Letters of intent to acquire all necessary off-site easements D. Water quality design calculations E. Printed copies of input and output files for all computer models used in the analysis and design F. Digital copies of input and output files for all computer models used in the analysis and design 24 6.7.2 PDP Engineering Drawings for Drainage Reports The drawings must contain all the applicable information listed below and meet the requirements of Vol. 3, Chapter 7, “Construction BMPs.” All drawings shall be prepared by a Colorado licensed civil engineer and must be on a reproducible medium of one or more sheets with an outer dimension of twenty-four by thirty-four (22x34) inches. Please note that if feasible and legible the Grading Plan and Erosion Control Plan can be combined. The plan set should include the following sheets: a) Vicinity Map b) Drainage Plan c) Floodplain Plan d) Grading Plan e) Erosion Control Plan The Drainage and Erosion Control Report and associated drawings must include the following information in aggregate: a) The name of the subdivision or project. b) The date of preparation, the scale, and symbol designating true north. c) The boundary lines of the subdivision or project, right-of-way lines of streets, easements and other rights of way, irrigation ditches, detention ponds, watercourses, and lot lines, with accurate bearings and distances. d) Designations of all streets and other rights of way, including dimensions and names of such streets. e) The location and dimensions of any easements. f) All required floodplain information and studies as specified in the City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist for 50% Development Review Submittals. g) Existing and proposed contours at two foot intervals. Spot elevations or one foot contours where two foot contours do not show on the property or where needed to depict the grading. Spot elevations may be needed in critical areas, especially adjacent to existing developed property. h) The location, size, and type of all storm sewers. i) The location, size, and type of all inlets, cross pans, manholes, and other storm sewer appurtenances. j) Profile views for all subsurface drainage facilities showing their size, slope, lengths, design storm hydraulic grade lines (2-year and 100-year), cover, details of structures or City Standard details, and relationship with existing utilities. k) The location, size, and type of all culverts, including box culverts. l) The location, size, and type of all open channels, including irrigation ditches with profile views where applicable. m) The location, size, and type of all existing utilities. n) Cross-sectional views of all open channels, including irrigation ditches, trickle channels, spillway structures, etc. These views must include applicable easement/right-of-way boundaries and water surface elevations such as the 100- year storm depth, 2-year storm depth, major storm freeboard, and operating irrigation level. o) Capacity, discharge, outlet structure, spillways, permanent pool water level (if any), and 100-year high water level for all detention ponds, including both the 25 water quality and water quantity elevations. Cross-hatching of the area inundated by the 100-year water surface elevation is recommended. p) Water surface profiles for all major open channels, or as required. q) Show the lowest floor elevation (the basement floor elevation or the bottom of the crawl space) and grade at foundation elevations of all buildings. Grading away from the foundation within the first 5 feet adjacent to the building shall be a minimum of 5%. In residential developments, also provide lot corner elevations and any grade break elevations critical to the grading concept. The minimum opening elevations are also required for all lots that are adjacent to a major drainage channel, a detention pond, or a water body, or located in or adjacent to a floodplain. r) Spot elevations critical to describe drainage features and their function (e.g., inlets, cross pans, spillways, inlets/outlets of manholes, culverts, and storm sewers). s) Drainage sub-basin boundaries and concentration points for the developed site clearly delineated and labeled. t) A summary table of site hydrology, including offsite flows entering the site for the 2-year and 100-year design storms, basin numbers, basin areas, runoff coefficients, and onsite flows for the 2-year and 100-year design storms at the concentration points. u) A summary table for each detention pond on the site to include: Stage-Storage Curve Stage-Discharge Curve Detention pond volume required Detention pond volume provided Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Water Quality Elevation Spillway Elevation Pond Freeboard Outlet(s) size(s) v) A vicinity map showing the project location within the city. The project area shall be shaded, and major arterial streets labeled. The map shall be a minimum size of 6" x 6", with a scale ranging from 1"=1000' to 1"=3000’. w) Letters of intent to acquire all necessary offsite easements shall be included with the submittal x) If SWMM modeling is used, a sub-basin map and a SWMM schematic diagram are required to depict the sub-basins and conveyance elements represented in the model. y) General notes relating to the design of the drainage features of the development are required on the utility plan cover sheet. (Additional notes are required by other departments, such as Engineering and Water/Wastewater.) The required drainage notes are as follows: 1) All street, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water construction shall conform to City Standards and Specifications current at date of execution of the Development Agreement pertaining to this development. Any construction occurring three years after the execution of the development agreement shall require re-examination of the plans by the Director who may require that they be made to conform to standards and specifications current at that time. 26 2) The type, size, location, and number of all known underground utilities are approximate as shown on the drawings. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to verify the existence and location of all underground utilities along the route of the work. Before commencing new construction, the contractor shall be responsible for locating unknown underground utilities. 3) These plans have been reviewed by the City for concept only. The review does not imply responsibility by the reviewing department, the City Engineer, or the City for accuracy or correctness of the calculations. Furthermore, the review does not imply that the quantities of the items on the plans are the final quantities required. The review shall not be construed in any reason as acceptance of financial responsibility by the City for additional quantities of items shown that may be required during the construction phase. 4) Prior to the commencement of any construction, the contractor must give the City Engineering Department (970-221-6605) and the Erosion Control Inspector (970-221-6700) twenty-four (24) hours advance- notice. Initial erosion control measures must be installed and a site inspection by the Erosion Control Inspector is required before commencing construction activities. 5) Maintenance of onsite drainage facilities shall be the responsibility of the property owners. 6) All recommendations of the final drainage and erosion control study for this development by (Engineering Firm) must be met. 7) Prior to final inspection and acceptance by the City, certification of the drainage facilities by a Colorado registered professional engineer must be submitted to and approved by the City Stormwater Department. (including the applicable note as set forth below) For commercial and multi-family developments, certification of all drainage facilities shall be submitted to the City Stormwater Department at least two weeks prior to the release of a certificate of occupancy. Individual lot certification, elevation certification, or floodproofing certification, as specified in the development agreement, must be submitted to the City Stormwater Department at least two weeks prior to the release of a certificate of occupancy for such lot. For single family developments, certification of all drainage facilities must be submitted to the City Stormwater Department in accordance with all conditions as prescribed by the development agreement associated with this development. Individual lot certification, elevation certification, or floodproofing certification, as specified in the development agreement, must be submitted to the City Stormwater Department at least one week prior to the release of a certificate of occupancy for such lot. 8) If dewatering is used to install utilities, and discharge will be into the street, gutter, storm sewer, channel, irrigation ditch, or any waters of the State a State Construction Dewatering Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit is required. 9) All land disturbing activities greater than or equal to one acre must comply with the State of Colorado permitting process for Stormwater 27 Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. For more information contact the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, at 303-692-3500 or refer to the web site at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit/ . 10) Benchmark: City of Fort Collins Vertical Control located at the Elevation = ______feet, City of Fort Collins Datum. 11) If fill or dredged material is discharged into waters of the United States, a USACE 404 permit is required. 12) If construction affects any Colorado Highway, a Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way permit is required. (28) A new Section 6.8 is added to read as follows: 6.8 PDP Erosion Control Report and Plan An Erosion Control Report and an Erosion Control Plan must be prepared for all land disturbing activity subject to this Manual for areas that are greater than or equal to ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area and less than four to one (4:1) slopes except emergency work or where construction activities are within fifty (50) feet of the outer limits of sensitive areas. This includes but is not limited to floodplains, slopes, riparian corridors, wetlands, lakes, or irrigation ditches. Said report and plan must be prepared in accordance with the specifications set forth in Volume 3, Chapter 7, “Construction BMPs”, of this Manual. Land disturbing activity refers to any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography including but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavation, demolition, installation of new or improved haul roads and access roads, staging areas, stockpiling of fill materials, and borrow areas. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or the original purpose of the facility. (29) A new Section 6.9 is added to read as follows: 6.9 Final Plan (FP) Submittal Requirements After the PDP submittal has been approved, the applicant can present the FP submittal to the City. The FP is the site-specific development plan, which describes and establishes the type and intensity of use for a specific development. The FP submittal shall contain one set of the following: a) A statement of compliance to the approved PDP. b) All easements in final form (except City signatures) must be submitted with the FP submittal. c) Any necessary revisions to the PDP Drainage Report and drawings and to the Erosion Control Report and drawings. d) Final construction drawings. e) A statement of compliance with all floodplain requirements specified in chapter 10 of the City Code as well as the completion “City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist for 100% Development Review Submittals” Upon approval of the Final Plan, three final Drainage and Erosion Control Reports and one complete set of construction drawings must be sent to the City Stormwater Department. The Engineering Department will require additional copies for other 28 departments. One copy of the report must include digital copies of the input and output files for all computer models used for the analysis and design. In addition, one copy of the Erosion Control Plan with details must be submitted to the Erosion Control Inspector. (30) A new Section 6.10 is added, to read as follows: 6.10 Floodplain Modeling Reports All guidelines and requirements as specified in Chapter 10 of the City Code must be satisfied. All requirements identified in the document titled “Guidelines for Submitting Floodplain Modeling Reports” must be completed and submitted. (31) A new Section 6.11 is added, to read as follows: 6.11 Drainage Certification All new developments are required to submit for review and approval, an overall site certification of the constructed drainage facilities. The overall site certification must specify the proposed and the as-built conditions of the site’s drainage facilities. Any variation from the approved plans must be noted and proven to function properly within the standards in this Manual. Supporting calculations to justify any variation from the approved plans shall be provided, including but not limited to, detention volumes, detention discharge rates, pipe capacities, channel capacities, water surface and lowest opening elevations, and swale capacities. The City will review the certified record drawing information with the construction drawings. A Certification will only be accepted if: 1. The record drawing information demonstrates that the construction complies with the design intent. 2. The record drawings are certified by both a registered professional land surveyor and a registered professional engineer in the state of Colorado. 3. There is a compliance statement by the professional engineer. 4. Any discrepancies between the original drainage plan and the constructed system need to be discussed and shown to function within the criteria set forth in this Manual. If the construction does not comply with the criteria, the design engineer must redesign the drainage facilities and plan and revise the construction plan mylars to correct the deficiencies. 5. All Floodplain certifications required by the City’s Floodplain Administrator must also be included. These may include FEMA Elevation or Floodproofing Certifications and No-Rise Certifications and or other documents as specified in Chapter 10 of the City Code. 6.11.1 Overall Site Certifications This type of certification is for the overall site drainage facilities shown on the construction plan drawings. The construction plans together with the development agreement identify when and what facilities must be certified and how many building permits and/or Certificates of Occupancy (“Cos”) are allowed prior to certifying the facilities. Twenty-five percent of the building permits can be issued prior to acceptance of an overall site certification. In multi-family building projects the overall site certification must be accepted before or at the same time as the release of the first certificate of occupancy in that phase. 29 6.11.2 Certifications for Commercial and Multi-Family Developments Individual lot or building certification is required before the release of a Certificate of Occupancy (“CO”). Certification of all drainage facilities must be submitted to the City at least two weeks before the release of a CO. 6.11.3 Certifications for Single Family Developments Certification of all drainage facilities must be submitted to the City at least one week before the release of additional building permits to those allowed by the development agreement. The development agreement for single-family developments usually allows for the release of 25% of the total building permit. An overall site drainage certificate shall be submitted and approved by the City before the release of any remaining building permits in the development as specified in the development agreement. Individual lot certifications are required prior to the release of a Certificate of Occupancy (“CO”) for any lot. 6.11.4 Individual Lot Certifications Certification may be required for individual lots to ensure lot grading was completed according to the approved grading plan. Lots requiring certification will be specified in the development agreement. A lot certification must show the proposed and the “as-built” conditions of the lot grading, including corner lot elevations, high points, side-lot swales, drainage patterns, and minimum building opening elevations. It must include separate discussions of the intent of the grading on the previously approved grading plan as well as the final grading being certified. If the final grading matches the approved plan there must be a statement of compliance or if not an explanation of what is different and why. In the latter case, the changes must be justified or explained in order to obtain City approval and the release of the Certificate of Occupancy (“CO”). For properties within floodplains, a flood-proofing or elevation certificate is required for all structures prior to the release of the CO. (32) A new Section 6.12 is added, to read as follows: 6.12 Final Close-Out Inspection A Final Close-Out Inspection is required for all new developments and redevelopments. This inspection must be scheduled at the conclusion of all construction activities on the site and prior to transferring ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the site to a subsequent entity such as a Home Owners’ Association. The Owner must request the Final Close-Out Inspection from the City. The Final Close- Out Inspection must be scheduled with the City following a minimum two-week advance notice. At the time of the Close-Out Inspection the Owner must provide to the City contact information for the entity that will be assuming ownership and maintenance responsibilities and a plan for funding and carrying out these responsibilities. During the Final Close-Out Inspection, the Owner must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that: a) All permanent drainage facilities and BMPs have been constructed in compliance with the approved final plan documents and are functioning as designed. 30 b) All revegetation measures are complete and all soil surfaces are stable. c) All drainage facilities and appurtenances have been cleared of any debris and sediment. d) All temporary BMPs have been removed from the development site. (33) Section 7.0 is deleted in its entirety. (34) Section 7.1 is deleted in its entirety. (35) Section 7.2 is deleted in its entirety. (36) Section 7.3 is deleted in its entirety. (37) Section 7.4 is deleted in its entirety. (38) Table DP-1 is deleted in its entirety. (39) Table DP-2 is deleted in its entirety. (40) Table DP-3 is deleted in its entirety. (41) Table DP-4 “Required Maintenance Easements” is added. (42) Figure DP-1 is deleted in its entirety. 31 (B) Volume 1, Chapter 4 - Rainfall: (1) Section 1.0 is deleted in its entirety. (2) A new Section 1.1 is added, to read as follows: 1.1 General Design Storms All drainage system design and construction must take into consideration three separate and distinct drainage problems. The first is the eightieth (80th) percentile storm event or the rain event for which 80% of all rain events have an equal or smaller depth of rain. This storm event is used to design water quality features. The second is the “Minor” or “Initial Storm”, which is the 2-year storm in the city of Fort Collins. This is the storm that has a probability of occurring, on the average, once every two (2) years (or one that has a fifty percent chance probability of exceedance every year). The third is the “Major Storm”, which is the 100-year storm in the city of Fort Collins. This is the storm that has a probability of occurring, on the average, once every one hundred (100) years (or one that has a one percent probability of exceedance every year). In some instances the 100-year storm routing of runoff will not be the same as that for the 2-year storm. (3) A new Section 1.2 is added, to read as follows: 1.2 Minor (2-Year) Storm Provisions The objectives of such drainage system planning are to minimize inconvenience, to protect against recurring minor damage and to reduce maintenance costs in order to create an orderly drainage system at a reasonable cost. The 2-year storm drainage system may include such facilities as curb and gutter, storm sewer, open channels, drainageways, ponds, rivers, streams, and detention facilities. (4) A new Section 1.3 is added, to read as follows: 1.3 Major (100-Year) Storm Provisions The objectives of the 100-year storm drainage system planning are to eliminate substantial loss of life or property damage. Major drainage systems may include storm sewers, open channels, drainageways, ponds, rivers, streams, and detention facilities. The correlation between the minor and major storm system must be analyzed to ensure that a well coordinated drainage system is designed and constructed. (5) Section 2.0 is deleted in its entirety. (6) Section 2.1 is deleted in its entirety. (7) Section 2.2 is deleted in its entirety. (8) Section 3.0 is deleted in its entirety. (9) Section 3.1 is deleted in its entirety. 32 (10) Section 3.2 is deleted in its entirety. 33 (11) Section 4.0 is amended to read as follows: 4.0 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for Rational Method: The one-hour rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency tables for use the Rational Method of runoff analysis are provided in Table RA-7 and in Table RA-8. Table RA-7 -- City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table for Use with the Rational Method (5 minutes to 30 minutes) 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Duration (min) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) 5 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 2.52 4.31 8.8 8 2.4 4.1 8.38 9 2.3 3.93 8.03 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 2.05 3.5 7.16 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 16 1.81 3.08 6.3 17 1.75 2.99 6.1 18 1.7 2.9 5.92 19 1.65 2.82 5.75 20 1.61 2.74 5.6 21 1.56 2.67 5.46 22 1.53 2.61 5.32 23 1.49 2.55 5.2 24 1.46 2.49 5.09 25 1.43 2.44 4.98 26 1.4 2.39 4.87 27 1.37 2.34 4.78 28 1.34 2.29 4.69 29 1.32 2.25 4.6 30 1.3 2.21 4.52 34 Table RA-8 -- City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table for Use with the Rational Method (31 minutes to 60 minutes) 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Duration (min) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) 31 1.27 2.16 4.42 32 1.24 2.12 4.33 33 1.22 2.08 4.24 34 1.19 2.04 4.16 35 1.17 2.0 4.08 36 1.15 1.96 4.01 37 1.16 1.93 3.93 38 1.11 1.89 3.87 39 1.09 1.86 3.8 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 41 1.05 1.8 3.68 42 1.04 1.77 3.62 43 1.02 1.74 3.56 44 1.01 1.72 3.51 45 0.99 1.69 3.46 46 0.98 1.67 3.41 47 0.96 1.64 3.36 48 0.95 1.62 3.31 49 0.94 1.6 3.27 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 51 0.91 1.56 3.18 52 0.9 1.54 3.14 53 0.89 1.52 3.1 54 0.88 1.5 3.07 55 0.87 1.48 3.03 56 0.86 1.47 2.99 57 0.85 1.45 2.96 58 0.84 1.43 2.96 59 0.83 1.42 2.89 60 0.82 1.4 2.86 35 (12) A new Section 4.1 is added, to read as follows: 4.1 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves for SWMM: The hyetograph input option must be selected when creating SWMM input files. Hyetographs for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year City of Fort Collins rainfall events are provided in Table RA-9. Table RA-9 – City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table for Use with SWMM 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year Duration (min) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) 5 0.29 0.40 0.49 0.63 0.79 1.00 10 0.33 0.45 0.56 0.72 0.90 1.14 15 0.38 0.53 0.65 0.84 1.05 1.33 20 0.64 0.89 1.09 1.41 1.77 2.23 25 0.81 1.13 1.39 1.80 2.25 2.84 30 1.57 2.19 2.69 3.48 4.36 5.49 35 2.85 3.97 4.87 6.30 7.90 9.95 40 1.18 1.64 2.02 2.61 3.27 4.12 45 0.71 0.99 1.21 1.57 1.97 2.48 50 0.42 0.58 0.71 0.92 1.16 1.46 55 0.35 0.49 0.60 0.77 0.97 1.22 60 0.30 0.42 0.52 0.67 0.84 1.06 65 0.20 0.28 0.39 0.62 0.79 1.00 70 0.19 0.27 0.37 0.59 0.75 0.95 75 0.18 0.25 0.35 0.56 0.72 0.91 80 0.17 0.24 0.34 0.54 0.69 0.87 85 0.17 0.23 0.32 0.52 0.66 0.84 90 0.16 0.22 0.31 0.50 0.64 0.81 95 0.15 0.21 0.30 0.48 0.62 0.78 100 0.15 0.20 0.29 0.47 0.60 0.75 105 0.14 0.19 0.28 0.45 0.58 0.73 110 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.44 0.56 0.71 115 0.13 0.18 0.26 0.42 0.54 0.69 120 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.41 0.53 0.67 36 RAINFALL INTENSITY-DURATION-FREQUENCY CURVE 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 STORM DURATION (minutes) RAINFALL INTENSITY (inches/hour) 2-Year Storm 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Figure RA-16 City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves (13) Section 5.0 is deleted in its entirety. (14) Section 6.0 is deleted in its entirety. (15) Section 7.0 is deleted in its entirety. (16) Section 7.1 is deleted in its entirety. (17) Section 7.2 is deleted in its entirety. (18) Section 7.3 is deleted in its entirety. (19) Section 8.0 is deleted in its entirety. (20) Table RA-1 is deleted in its entirety. 37 (21) Table RA-2 is deleted in its entirety. (22) Table RA-3 is deleted in its entirety. (23) Table RA-4 is deleted in its entirety. (24) Table RA-5 is deleted in its entirety. (25) Table RA-6 is deleted in its entirety. (26) Table RA-7—City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table for use with the Rational Method (5minutes to 30 minutes) is added. (27) Table RA-8—City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table for use with the Rational Method (31 minutes to 60 minutes) is added. (28) Table RA-9—City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Table for use with SWMM is added. (29) Figure RA-1 is deleted in its entirety. (30) Figure RA-2 is deleted in its entirety. (31) Figure RA-3 is deleted in its entirety. (32) Figure RA-4 is deleted in its entirety. (33) Figure RA-5 is deleted in its entirety. (34) Figure RA-6 is deleted in its entirety. (35) Figure RA-7 is deleted in its entirety. (36) Figure RA-8 is deleted in its entirety. (37) Figure RA-9 is deleted in its entirety. (38) Figure RA-10 is deleted in its entirety. (39) Figure RA-11 is deleted in its entirety. (40) Figure RA-12 is deleted in its entirety. (41) Figure RA-13 is deleted in its entirety. (42) Figure RA-14 is deleted in its entirety. 38 (43) Figure RA-15 is deleted in its entirety. (44) Figure RA-16 is added Figure RA-16—City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves. 39 (C) Volume 1, Chapter 5 - Runoff: (1) Section 1.0 is deleted in its entirety. (2) A new Section 1.1 is added, to read as follows: 1.1 Runoff Methodologies (a) There are two runoff determination methodologies that are approved by the City, the Rational Method and the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). The City is the determining authority with respect to the appropriate methodology to use under different circumstances. Early contact with the City is encouraged for the timely determination of the appropriate runoff methodology to use. (b) The Rational Method may only be used to determine the runoff from drainage basins that are less than ninety (90) acres in size. The Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) must be used to model drainage basin areas of ninety (90) acres or more. (c) All runoff calculations made in the design of both 2-year and 100-year drainage systems must be included with the Storm Drainage Report and all storm drainage facilities designed must be shown on Storm Drainage Plans. (3) A new Section 2.8 is added, to read as follows: 2.8 Rational Method Runoff Coefficients (a) The runoff coefficients to be used in the Rational Method can be determined based on either zoning classifications or the types of surfaces on the drainage area. Zoning classifications may be used to estimate flow rates and volumes for an Overall Drainage Plan (ODP) submittal, if the types of surfaces are not known. Table RO-10 lists the runoff coefficients for common types of zoning classifications in the city of Fort Collins. (b) For a Project Plan or Final Plan submittal, runoff coefficients based on the proposed land surface types must be used. Since the actual runoff coefficients may be different from those specified in Table RO-10, Table RO-11 lists coefficients for the different types of land surfaces. The runoff coefficient used for design must be based on the actual conditions of the proposed site. 40 Table RO-10 Rational Method Minor Storm Runoff Coefficients for Zoning Classifications Description of Area or Zoning Coefficient R-F 0.3 U-E 0.3 L-M-In 0.55 R-L, N-C-L 0.6 M-M-N, N-C-M 0.65 N-C-B 0.7 Business: C-C-N, C-C-R, C-N, N-C, C-S 0.95 R-D-R, C-C, C-L 0.95 D, C 0.95 H-C 0.95 C-S 0.95 Industrial: E 0.85 I 0.95 Undeveloped: R-C, T 0.2 P-O-L 0.25 For guidance regarding zoning districts and classifications of such districts please refer to Article Four of the City Land Use Code, as amended. 41 Table RO-11 Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis Character of Surface Runoff Coefficient Streets, Parking Lots, Drives: Asphalt 0.95 Concrete 0.95 Gravel 0.5 Roofs 0.95 Recycled Asphalt 0.8 Lawns, Sandy Soil: Flat <2% 0.1 Average 2 to 7% 0.15 Steep >7% 0.2 Lawns, Heavy Soil: Flat <2% 0.2 Average 2 to 7% 0.25 Steep >7% 0.35 (4) A new Section 2.9 is added, to read as follows: 2.9 Composite Runoff Coefficient Drainage sub-basins are frequently composed of land that has multiple surfaces or zoning classifications. In such cases a composite runoff coefficient must be calculated for any given drainage sub-basin. The composite runoff coefficient is obtained using the following formula: t n i i i A C A C 1 * (RO-8) Where: C = Composite Runoff Coefficient Ci = Runoff Coefficient for Specific Area (Ai) Ai = Area of Surface with Runoff Coefficient of Ci, acres or feet2 n = Number of different surfaces to be considered At = Total Area over which C is applicable, acres or feet2 (5) A new Section 2.10 is added, to read as follows: 42 2.10 Runoff Coefficient Adjustment for Infrequent Storms The runoff coefficients provided in tables RO-10 and RO-11 are appropriate for use with the 2-year storm event. For storms with higher intensities, an adjustment of the runoff coefficient is required due to the lessening amount of infiltration, depression retention, evapo-transpiration and other losses that have a proportionally smaller effect on storm runoff. This adjustment is applied to the composite runoff coefficient. These frequency adjustment factors are found in Table RO-12. Table RO-12 Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis Storm Return Period (years) Frequency Factor Cf 2 to 10 11 to 25 26 to 50 51 to 100 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.25 Note: The product of C times Cf cannot exceed the value of 1, in the cases where it does a value of 1 must be used (6) Section 3.1 is deleted in its entirety. (7) Section 3.2 is deleted in its entirety. (8) Section 3.3 is deleted in its entirety. (9) A new Section 4.3 is added, to read as follows: 4.3 Computer Modeling Practices (a) For circumstances requiring computer modeling, the design storm hydrographs must be determined using the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). Basin and conveyance element parameters must be computed based on the physical characteristics of the site. (b) Refer to the SWMM Users’ Manual for appropriate modeling methodology, practices and development. The Users’ Manual can be found on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website (http://www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/models/swmm/index.htm). (c) It is the responsibility of the design engineer to verify that all of the models used in the design meet all current City criteria and regulations. 4.3.1 Surface Storage, Resistance Factors, and Infiltration Table RO-13 provides values for surface storage for pervious and impervious surfaces and the infiltration rates to be used with SWMM. Table RO-13 also lists the appropriate infiltration decay rate, zero detention depth and resistance factors, or Manning’s “n” values, for pervious and impervious surfaces to be used for SWMM modeling in the city of Fort Collins. 43 Table RO-13 SWMM Input Parameters Depth of Storage on Impervious Areas 0.1 inches Depth of Storage on Pervious Areas 0.3 inches Maximum Infiltration Rate 0.51 inches/hour Minimum Infiltration Rate 0.50 inches/hour Decay Rate 0.0018 inches/sec Zero Detention Depth 1% Manning’s n Value for Pervious Surfaces 0.025 Manning’s n Value for Impervious Surfaces 0.016 4.3.2 Pervious-Impervious Area Table RO-14 should be used to determine preliminary percentages of impervious land cover for a given land-use or zoning. The final design must be based on the actual physical design conditions of the site. Table RO-14 Percent Imperviousness Relationship to Land Use* LAND USE OR ZONING PERCENT IMPERVIOUS (%) Business: T CCN, CCR, CN E, RDR, CC, LC C, NC, I, D, HC, CS 20 70 80 90 Residential: RF,UE RL, NCL LMN,NCM MMN, NCB 30 45 50 70 Open Space: Open Space and Parks (POL) Open Space along foothills ridge (POL,RF) RC 10 20 20 *For updated zoning designations and definitions, please refer to Article Four of the City Land Use Code, as amended 44 4.3.3 Conveyance Element Methodology Embedded conveyance elements must begin at the midpoint of the sub-basin in order to appropriately represent the basin based on its actual physical characteristics. 4.3.4 Basin Width Basin width must be calculated as the area of the basin divided by the length of the basin. The basin length is defined as the length of the concentrated flow. 4.3.5 Dynamic Flow Analysis Conditions may arise where a steady flow hydraulic analysis may not provide sufficient information on the operation of drainage facilities. This is especially of concern when analyzing detention ponds inter-connected by culverts or storm sewers and where release rates and pond volumes may be affected. In such cases, if the Utilities Executive Director determines that additional analysis is required for an adequate evaluation of proposed drainage facilities, an unsteady flow hydraulic analysis using hydrographs generated from SWMM and the EXTRAN block of SWMM may be required. (10) Section 5.0 is deleted in its entirety. (11) Section 5.1 is deleted in its entirety. (12) APPENDIX A is deleted in its entirety. (13) Table RO-1 is deleted in its entirety. (14) Table RO-6 is deleted in its entirety. (15) Table RO-7 is deleted in its entirety. (16) Table RO-8 is deleted in its entirety. (17) Table RO-9 is deleted in its entirety. (18) Table RO-A1 is deleted in its entirety. (19) Table RO-10 Rational Method Minor Storm Runoff Coefficients for Zoning Classifications is added. (20) A new Table RO-11 Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis is added. (21) A new Table RO-12 Rational Method Frequency Adjustment Factors is added. (22) A new Table RO-13 SWMM Input Parameters is added. (23) A new Table RO-14 Land Use Versus percent Imperviousness is added. (24) Figure RO-9 is deleted in its entirety. (25) Figure RO-10 is deleted in its entirety. 45 (26) Figure RO-A1 is deleted in its entirety. (27) Figure RO-A2 is deleted in its entirety. (28) Figure RO-A3 is deleted in its entirety. (29) Figure RO-A4 is deleted in its entirety. (30) Figure RO-A5 is deleted in its entirety. (31) Figure RO-A6 is deleted in its entirety. (32) Figure RO-A7 is deleted in its entirety. (33) Figure RO-A8 is deleted in its entirety. (34) Figure RO-A9 is deleted in its entirety. (35) Figure RO-A11 is deleted in its entirety. 46 (D) Volume1, Chapter 6 - Streets/Inlets/Storm Sewers: (1) Section 2.2 is amended to read as follows: 2.2 Design Requirements (a) The Minor (or Initial) Storm is designated as the 2-year storm. The Major Storm is designated as the 100-year storm. (b) The encroachment of gutter flow on the street for the 2-year storm runoff must not exceed the criteria set forth in Table ST-2. A storm drainage system must begin where the encroachment reaches the limits found in this table. Table ST-2 Pavement Encroachment Standards for the Minor (i.e., 2-Year) Storm Street Classification Maximum Encroachment* ** Local (includes places, courts, and alleys) No curb-topping. Flow may spread to crown of street. Collector and Arterial (Without Median) No curb-topping. Maximum six (6) inch flow depth at the gutter. Flow spread must leave at least a six (6) foot wide clear travel lane on the one-half street section Arterial (with Median) No curb-topping. Maximum six (6) inch flow depth at the gutter. Flow spread must leave at least a twelve (12) feet wide clear travel lane in each direction *Where no curbing exists, encroachment must not extend over property lines. ** These criteria apply only to City streets where no floodplain has been designated. For areas with designated floodplains, please refer to Chapter 10 of the City Code for further guidance. (c) Standards for the Major Storm and cross-street flows are also required. The Major Storm needs to be assessed to determine the potential for flooding and public safety. Cross-street flows also need to be regulated for traffic flow and public safety reasons. The City has established street inundation standards during the Major Storm event and allowable cross-street flow standards for the Minor (2-year) Storm and the Major (100- year) Storm. (d) Table ST-3 sets forth the allowable street encroachment for the 100-year storm runoff. 47 Table ST-3 Street Inundation Standards for the Major (i.e., 100-Year) Storm Street Classification Maximum Encroachment ** Local, Collector and Arterial (without Median) The depth of water at the street crown shall not exceed six (6) inches to allow operation of emergency vehicles, the depth of water over the gutter flow line shall not exceed twelve (12) inches, and the flow must be contained within the right-of-way or easements paralleling the right-of-way. The most restrictive of the three criteria shall govern. Arterial (with Median) The depth of water must not exceed the bottom of the gutter at the median to allow operation of emergency vehicles, the depth of water over the gutter flow line shall not exceed twelve (12) inches, and the flow must be contained within the right-of-way or easements paralleling the right-of-way. The most restrictive of the three criteria shall govern. ** These criteria apply only to City streets where no floodplain has been designated. For areas with designated floodplains, please refer to Chapter 10 of the City Code for further guidance. (e) Table ST-4 sets forth the allowable cross-street flow for the Minor (2-Year) and the Major (100-Year) Storm events. Table ST-4 Allowable Cross-Street Flow Street Classification Minor (2-Year) Storm Flow Major (100-Year) Storm Flow Local Six (6) inches of depth in cross pan. Eighteen (18) inches of depth above gutter flow line. Collector Where cross pans are allowed, depth of flow should not exceed six (6) inches in cross pan Twelve (12) inches of depth above gutter flow line. Arterial None. No cross flow. Maximum depth at upstream gutter on road edge of twelve (12) inches. (f) Once an allowable spread (pavement encroachment) has been established for the Minor Storm, the placement of inlets can be determined. The inlets will remove some or all of the excess stormwater and thus reduce the spread. The placement of inlets is covered in Section 3.0 of this chapter. It should be noted that proper drainage design utilizes the full allowable capacity of the street gutter in order to limit the cost of inlets and storm sewers. (g) Another important design consideration is the frequency of occurrence of the Minor Storm. In other words, the design engineer must factor into his design how often the spread of stormwater will reach or exceed the maximum encroachment limit. This is addressed by assigning a frequency (or recurrence interval) for the Minor Storm for 48 various street classifications. The selection of a design frequency is based on many factors including street function, traffic load and vehicle speed. In the city of Fort Collins, the Minor Storm recurrence interval is the 2-year storm for all street classifications. (h) For street sump locations, provisions must be included to carry the 100-year runoff in a pipe or an overflow channel to an acceptable outfall while the maximum water surface depth criteria as designated in Table ST-2 and in Table ST-3 are not violated. (i) An access and maintenance easement for the overflow drainage facility must be provided if that facility is not contained within the public right-of-way. (j) Two additional design considerations of importance in street drainage are gutter (channel) shape and street slope. Most urban streets contain curb and gutter sections. Various types exist including spill shapes, catch shapes, curb heads, and roll gutters. The shape is chosen for functional, economic, or aesthetic reasons and does not dramatically affect the hydraulic capacity. Swales are common along some urban and semi-urban streets, and roadside ditches are common along rural streets. Their shapes are important in determining hydraulic capacity and are covered in the next chapter. (2) Table ST-2 Pavement Encroachment Standards for the Minor (i.e., 2-Year) Storm is amended (3) Table ST-3 Street Inundation Standards for the Major (i.e., 100-Year) Storm is amended (4) Table ST-4 Allowable Cross-Street Flow is amended (5) A new Section 3.5 is added, to read follows: 3.5 Inlet Design and Construction Standards (a) Storm inlets must be designed and installed where sump (low-spot) conditions exist or when allowable street capacities are exceeded. The outlet pipe of the storm inlet must be sized on the basis of the theoretical capacity of the inlet, with a minimum diameter of fifteen (15) inches, or a minimum dimension of twelve (12) inches if elliptical or arch pipe is used. (b) All curb openings must be installed with the opening at least two (2) inches below the flow line elevation. The minimum transition length allowed is five (5) feet (c) Any curb opening greater than six (6) inches in height must have a metal bar welded horizontally across the inlet for public safety purposes such that no opening height is greater than six (6) inches. (d) All inlet covers must be stenciled or stamped with the following designation: NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO POUDRE RIVER (6) A new Section 4.5 is added, to read as follows: 4.5 Storm Sewer System Construction Standards Construction of all stormwater facilities must be built in accordance the approved Water Utilities Development Construction Standards or the Water Utilities Capital Construction Standards as appropriate. 49 (E) Volume 1, Chapter 7- Major Drainage: (1) Section 3.2.8 is amended to read as follows: 3.2.8 Open Channel Design The minimum design criteria requirements listed below must be satisfied. 3.2.8.1 Natural Channels (Open Floodplain Design) For development sites located out of the 100-year floodplain, the following open channel requirements must be met: 1. If the total flow of the channel and floodplain is confined to an incised channel and erosion can be expected to endanger adjacent structures, 100-year check structures are required to control erosion and degradation of the channel area. See Volume 2, Chapter 8, “Hydraulic Structures”, of this Manual for more information. In addition, sufficient right-of-way must be reserved to install the equivalent of a trapezoidal grass-lined channel that satisfies the velocity criteria specified in Table MD-2. Extra width must be reserved where drop structures are needed, in which locations a twenty (20) foot-wide maintenance access bench must be provided along one side of the channel. 2. If the floodplain is wide and the low-flow channel represents a small portion of the floodplain area, low-flow check structures are usually required, unless it can be demonstrated that the channel will remain stable as the watershed urbanizes. 3. Consult the applicable City’s Master Drainage Plan document for guidance on the design event and stable stream or waterway longitudinal slope. 4. For either of the above cases, a maintenance access trail must be provided. It should be designed according to the guidelines for grass-lined channels in Section 3.2.8.3, below. 3.2.8.2 Open Floodway Design (Natural Channel with Floodplain Encroachment) Although floodplain preservation is preferable, when the development involves preserving the floodway while filling and building on the fringe area, the open channel design must meet the all the requirements in listed Section 3.2.8.1 of this chapter, as well as the following requirements listed below for fill. The fill slopes must be adequately protected against erosion with: 1. Fill slopes of four to one (4H:1V) or flatter that are vegetated in accordance with the criteria listed in the “Revegetation” chapter of this Manual (Volume 2, Chapter 12). 2. Fill slopes must be protected by rock (not broken concrete or asphalt) riprap meeting City criteria with up to two and a half to one (2.5H:1V) slopes.\ 3. Retaining walls must not be not taller than three and a half (3.5) feet, with adequate foundation protection. 3.2.8.3 Grass-Lined Channel Design The design for a grass-lined channel must meet the following criteria: 50 1. Side slopes must be four to one (4H:1V) or flatter. 2. Continuous maintenance access, such as with a trail, must be provided. The stabilized trail surface must be at least eight (8) feet wide with a clear width of twelve (12) feet. It must be located above the minor (2-year) event water surface elevation, but never less than two (2) feet (three feet for streams with perennial flow) above that elevation. Trail profiles need to be shown for all critical facilities such as roadway crossings, stream crossings and drop structures. All access trails shall connect to public streets. Maintenance trails need not be paved, but must be of all-weather construction such as aggregate base course, crusher fines, recycled concrete course or Aggregate Turf Reinforced Grass Pavement (RGP) described in Volume 3 of this Manual and capable of sustaining loads associated with large maintenance equipment. Paved trails are encouraged to allow for recreational use of the trails. When paved, pavement should be five (5) inches minimum thickness of concrete (not asphalt). Maximum longitudinal slope for maintenance-only trails is ten percent (10%), but less than five percent (5%) when used as multi-purpose recreational trails to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Utilities Executive Director may accept adjacent public local streets or parking lots as maintenance access in lieu of a trail, if he or she determines that a modification of this requirement is appropriate. 3. A low-flow or trickle channel is desirable. See Section 4.1.5 of this chapter for criteria. 4. Wetland bottom and bioengineered channels are acceptable when designed according to City wetland bottom channel criteria in Section 4.2 of this chapter. 5. The channel bottom minimum cross slope for dry bottom channels shall be one percent (1%). 6. Tributary inflow points shall be protected all the way to the low-flow channel or trickle channel to prevent erosion. Inflow facilities to wetland bottom channels shall have their inverts at least two (2) feet above the channel bottom to allow for the deposition of sediment and shall be protected with energy dissipaters. 7. All roadway crossings of wetland bottom channels shall incorporate a minimum of a stabilized two (2) foot drop from the outlet to the bottom of the downstream channel in order to preserve hydraulic capacity as sediment deposition occurs over time in the channel. 8. All drop structures must be designed in accordance with the “Hydraulic Structures” chapter of this Manual. Underdrain and storm sewer outlets located below the stilling basin’s end-sills are not acceptable. Construction plans must utilize City standard details. 9. Storm sewer outlets must be designed in accordance with the criteria in Sections 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 of this chapter. Alternatively, conduit outlet structures, including low tailwater riprap basins design described in Section 3.0 of the “Hydraulic Structures” chapter of this Manual must be used when appropriate. 51 10. Grouted boulder rundowns and similar features must be designed in accordance with Section 7.0 of the “Hydraulic Structures” chapter of this Manual. 11. Grass seeding specifications provided by the City (see the “Revegetation” chapter of this Manual) are recommended unless irrigated blue grass is used. The City will not maintain irrigated blue grass.. (2) Section 3.3.3 is amended to read as follows: 3.3.3 Environmental Permitting Issues Environmental permitting, in particular wetland permitting, must be considered in selection of the type of major drainage channel. To assist with the selection of type of channel or drainageway improvements to be used, a flow chart is presented in Figure MD-4. The flow chart contains a series of questions to be considered in light of the requirements in this Manual and the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (dredge and fill in jurisdictional wetlands and “Waters of the United States”). Following along with the chart, the first step is to determine whether channelization is needed or desired. In many cases, a well-established natural drainageway and its associated floodplain can be preserved and protected from erosion damage. Therefore, before deciding to channelize, assess whether the value of reclaimed lands will justify the cost of channelization and whether a new channel will provide greater community and environmental benefits than the existing drainageway. If the decision is to neither channelize nor re-channelize an existing drainageway, investigate the stability of the natural drainageway and its banks, design measures to stabilize the longitudinal grade and banks, if needed, and obtain any necessary, Section 404 permits and other approvals for these improvements. If the decision is to channelize, then determine whether the existing natural drainageway has a perennial flow, evidence of wetland vegetation, or is a well-established ephemeral channel. This will often require the assistance of a biologist with wetland training. If any of these conditions exist, then the project is likely to be subject to individual or nationwide Section 404 permitting requirements. Regardless, it is suggested that the designer check with the local United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) office early to determine which permit will be needed. Keep in mind that it is the responsibility of the proponent to comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. Approvals by the City do not supersede or waive compliance with these laws. (3) Section 3.3.4 is amended to read as follows: 3.3.4 Maintenance (a) All major drainage channels in urban areas will require maintenance to ensure that they are capable of conveying their design flow, such as the 100-year flow (as well as more frequently occurring flows) and to ensure that channels do not become a public nuisance and eyesore. Routine maintenance (i.e., mowing for weed control or annual or seasonal clean-outs), unscheduled maintenance (i.e., inspection and clean-out after large events) and restorative maintenance after some years of operation should be expected. (b) Native tall grasses may require mowing three to six times a year or on a less frequent schedule, depending on the type of channel and setting. Mowing cuts down the presence of standing dead grasses and places them on the ground where decomposition can take 52 place. Often mowing of dry-land native grasses during the growing season may not be necessary, except for weed control. (c) A maintenance access platform with a minimum passage width of twelve (12) feet shall be provided along the entire length of all major drainageways except at drop structures, where a twenty (20) foot maintenance platform is needed (d) When public or private drainage channels and associated facilities abut private property, it is the responsibility of the parties involved, whether they are public or private, to develop and implement a policy regarding fencing and safety. (4) Section 4.1.1.5 is amended to read as follows: 4.1.1.5 Design Discharge Freeboard All open channels shall be designed with a freeboard. Freeboard for major channels (defined as those with capacity in excess of one hundred (100) cfs) must be a minimum of one foot of extra depth. Freeboard for minor channels (defined as those carrying less than one hundred (100) cfs design flow) must be designed to handle a minimum of an additional 33 percent of runoff, over and above the 100-year design flow. (5) Table MD-2 is adopted with the following modification: The minimum riprap Manning’s-n value used to check for stability is 0.07. (6) Table MD-3 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “District Maintenance Eligibility” shall be deleted. (7) Table MD-4 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “District Maintenance Eligibility” shall be deleted. (8) Section 4.3.6 is deleted in its entirety. (9) Table MD-6 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “District Maintenance Eligibility” shall be deleted. (10) Table MD-7 is adopted with the following modification: All references to Type VL and Type L riprap designations shall be deleted. (11) Table MD-10 is adopted with the following modification: All references to Type VL and Type L riprap designations shall be deleted. (12) Table MD-12 is adopted with the following modification: All references to Type VL and Type L riprap designations shall be deleted. 53 (13) A new section 4.4.4.3 is added, to read as follows: 4.4.4.3 Riprap Specifications and Applicability (a) Riprap applications must be designed by a professional engineer familiar with the design of stormwater conveyance systems and structures. (b) The minimum mean particle size (intermediate dimension) by weight for riprap, commonly known as the D50, is twelve (12) inches. (c) All riprap must be angular in shape and clean; no round shaped rocks are allowed. (d) Riprap coloring must be specified to blend with the existing soil and environment where it will be placed in a manner that will present the smallest amount of visual contrast. (e) Riprap shall only be used when other methods of protection or stabilization are not appropriate or possible. Riprap alternates with the exception of gabions are recommended whenever practical. Manufactured channel lining or revetment treatments such as Turf Reinforcement Mats (TRMs), erosion control matting, geotextiles, Articulating Concrete Blocks (ACBs), partially-grouted riprap, and other flexible linings are encouraged in lieu of standard riprap applications. These alternates will be considered by the City on a case-by-case basis in order to determine the most appropriate material that should be specified under particular conditions and for different applications. (14) Table MD-13 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “District Maintenance Eligibility” shall be deleted. (15) Section 10.0 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Rosgen, D., 1996, “Applied River Morphology” shall be deleted. 54 (F) Volume 2, Chapter 8 - Hydraulic Structures: (1) Section 2.4.4 is deleted in its entirety. (2) Section 2.8.3 is deleted in its entirety. (3) Section 3.4.3.2 is adopted with the following modifications: a. Equation (HS-17) is amended to read as follows: T= 2D50 (HS-17) And: b. All references to Type L riprap shall be deleted from Table HS-9 (4) Section 4.1.2 is deleted in its entirety. (5) Section 8.1 is amended to read as follows: 8.1 General Maintenance of hydraulic structures includes removing debris, excessive vegetation and excessive sediment. Replacing or realigning erosion protection, stones, repairing grout and concrete, and replacing warning signs are items of maintenance that must be performed regularly under normal conditions. Other maintenance activities that can be reasonably expected for specific structures must also be performed on a regular basis. (6) Table HS-6 is deleted in its entirety. (7) Table HS-9 is adopted with the following modification: All references to Type L riprap shall be deleted (8) Figure HS-9 is deleted in its entirety. (9) Figure HS-10 is deleted in its entirety. 55 (G) Volume 2, Chapter 9 - Culverts: (1) Section 3.5.3 is amended to read as follows: 3.5.3 Culvert Diameter (a) The diameter of pipe that will meet the headwater requirements must be determined after the invert elevations have been assumed, using the design computation forms (e.g., Figure CU-8), the capacity charts (e.g., Figure CU-7), and the nomographs. (b) To help prevent plugging of small diameter pipes, the minimum allowable culvert diameter is fifteen (15) inches for round pipe. The minimum inside dimension will be no less than twelve (12) inches for elliptical and arch pipe. . (2) A new Section 3.5.5 is added, to read as follows: 3.5.5 Culvert Materials All culvert design and construction must comply with the same material and construction requirements as those specified in Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 4.5, “Storm Sewer System Construction Standards”, of this Manual and with the approved City Water Utilities Standard Construction Specifications. (3) A new Section 8.3 is added, to read as follows: 8.3 Grate Specifications (a) Where a structure presents a safety hazard such as when a siphon, a significant drop in elevation adjacent to a sidewalk or road, a long pipe with one or more manholes, or at pipes near playgrounds, parks and residential areas, a grate may be required. For most culverts through embankments and crossing streets, grates will not be required. The grate open area must be at least four times the open area of the pipe. (b) When called for, grates must meet the following requirements: 1. Grating must be constructed of smooth steel bars with a minimum diameter of five eighth of an inch. Reinforcing bars shall not be used. 2. Welded connections must be a quarter inch thick at the minimum. 3. Spacing between bars must normally be five (5) inch unless site conditions are prohibitive. 4. All exposed steel must be galvanized in accordance with AASHTO M 111. 5. Welded joints must be galvanized with a rust preventive paint. 6. Grates must be secured to the headwall or end section by removable devices such as bolts or hinges to allow maintenance access, prevent vandalism, and prohibit entrance by children. 7. Locks for hinged grates will be provided by the City. 8. Trash racks must be set at angles that are no steeper than three to one (3:1 H:V). (4) Photograph CU-6 is deleted in its entirety 56 (H) Volume 2, Chapter 10 - Storage: (1) Section 3.1.1 is amended to read as follows: 3.1.1 Use of Simplified On-Site Detention Sizing Procedures (a) There are two methodologies approved by the City for sizing detention storage basins, the Rational Formula-based Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) procedure and the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). The City is the determining authority regarding the appropriate methodology to use under different circumstances. Early contact with the City is encouraged for the timely determination of the appropriate detention storage sizing methodology. (b) In general, the Rational Formula-based FAA procedure may only be used in the design of detention storage facilities with tributary areas that are less than five (5) acres in size. The Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) must be used to model and size stormwater detention storage facilities with tributary areas of twenty (20) acres or more. Preliminary sizing of detention storage volume may be performed for site planning purposes using the Rational Formula-based FAA procedure in conjunction with a twenty (20) percent upward adjustment to account for the larger resulting storage volume that would be obtained from SWMM modeling. (c) For tributary areas between five and twenty (20) acres in size, either SWMM or the Rational Formula-based FAA procedure may be used to calculate detention storage volume. However, if the Rational Formula-based FAA procedure is chosen as the preferred method, the resulting storage volume must be increased by a factor of twenty (20) percent to better match the result that would be obtained from SWMM modeling. (2) Section 3.1.2 is amended to read as follows: 3.1.2 Detention Pond Hydrograph Sizing Procedure (a) Whenever the area limits described above in Section 3.1.1 are exceeded (for tributary catchments larger than twenty acres for the FAA Procedure) the City requires the use of hydrograph flood routing procedures (e.g., using SWMM reservoir routing calculations). In addition, if there are upstream detention facilities in the watershed that catch and route runoff for portions of the upstream tributary area, hydrograph routing methods must be employed. (b) If off-site tributary areas contribute runoff to an on-site detention storage facility, the total tributary area at existing development rate must be accounted for in the design of the storage facility by routing the flows generated by that off-site area around the proposed storage facility or, by fully accounting for these flows in the design of the spillway system for that storage facility. (3) Section 3.1.3 is amended to read as follows: 3.1.3 Water Quality Capture Volume in Sizing Detention Storage When detention storage volume is sized for a site that also incorporates a water quality capture volume (WQCV) defined in Volume 3 of this Manual, the 100-year volume required for quantity detention must be added to the entire WQCV. The WQCV must also be added in its entirety to the required 5- or 10-year volume. (4) Section 3.2.1 is deleted in its entirety. 57 (5) Section 3.2.2 is deleted in its entirety. (6) Section 3.2.3 is amended to read as follows: 3.2.3 Rational Formula-Based Modified FAA Procedure The Rational Formula-based Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (1966) detention sizing method (sometimes referred to as the “FAA Procedure”), as modified by Guo (1999a), provides a reasonable estimate of storage volume requirements for on-site detention facilities. This method provides sizing for one level of peak control only and not for multi-stage control facilities. The input required for this Rational Formula-based FAA volume calculation procedure includes: A = area of the catchment tributary to the storage facility (acres) C = runoff coefficient Qpo = allowable maximum release rate from the detention facility Tc = time of concentration for the tributary catchment (minutes) (see the Runoff chapter) Pi = 2-hour design rainfall depth (inches) at the site taken from the Rainfall chapter for the relevant return frequency storms The calculations are best set up in a tabular (spreadsheet) form with each 5-minute increment in duration being entered in rows and the following variables being entered, or calculated, in each column: 1. Storm Duration Time, T (minutes), up to 180 minutes. 2. Rainfall Intensity, I (inches per hour). 3. Inflow volume, Vi (cubic feet), calculated as the cumulative volume at the given storm duration using the equation: Vi = CIA (60T) (SO-6) 4. Outflow adjustment factor m (Guo 1999a): m = 1/2 (1+ Tc/T) 0.5 ≤ m ≤ 1 and T ≥ Tc (SO-7) 5. Calculated average outflow rate, Qav (cfs), over the duration T: Qav v = m Qpo (SO-8) 6. Calculated outflow volume, Vo, (cubic feet), during the given duration and the adjustment factor at that duration calculated using the equation: Vo= Qav (60 T) (SO-9) 7. Required storage volume, Vs (cubic feet), calculated using the equation: Vs = Vi – Vo (SO-10) 58 The value of Vs increases with time, reaches a maximum value, and then starts to decrease. The maximum value of Vs is the required storage volume for the detention facility. Sample calculations using this procedure are presented in Design Example 6.2. The modified FAA Worksheet of the UD-Detention Spreadsheet performs these calculations. (7) Section 3.2.4 is deleted in its entirety. (8) Section 3.2.5 is deleted in its entirety. (9) Section 3.2.6 is deleted in its entirety. (10) Section 3.2.7 is deleted in its entirety. (11) Section 3.3.3 is amended to read as follows: 3.3.3 Spillway Sizing and Design (a) The overflow spillway of a storage facility must be designed to pass flows in excess of the design flow of the outlet works. When the storage facility falls under the jurisdiction of the Colorado State Engineer’s Office (SEO), the spillway’s design storm is prescribed by the SEO. If the storage facility is not a jurisdictional structure, the size of the spillway design storm must be based upon analysis of the risk and consequences of a facility failure. Generally, embankments should be fortified against and/or have spillways that, at a minimum, are capable of conveying the total not-routed peak 100-year storm discharge from a fully developed total tributary catchment, including all off-site areas, if any. However, detailed analysis, of downstream hazards must be performed and may indicate that the embankment protection and, or spillway design needs to be sized for events much larger than the 100-year design storm. (b) The detention pond spillway crest must be set at the 100-year water surface elevation in the pond and the spillway shall be designed such that any spills shall be no more than six (6) inches in depth at the crest during the 100-year storm. The detention pond top of embankment shall be set at all points a minimum of one foot above the spillway crest elevation. (c) Emergency spillways must be protected from catastrophic erosion failure through the use of bank protection procedures downhill from the spillway to the toe of slope. The slope protection for spillway embankments shall be designed in accordance with all the specifications set forth in Volume 1, Chapter 7, Major Drainage, Section 4.4.4.3, “Riprap Specifications and Applicability”, of this Manual. (d) A concrete cutoff wall eight inches in thickness, three feet deep, extending five feet into the embankment beyond the spillway opening is required on private detention ponds larger than one acre-foot in volume and are also required on all publicly-owned regional detention ponds larger than that size. The emergency spillway crest elevation must be tied back to the top of the pond embankment at a maximum slope of four to one. (12) Section 3.3.4 is amended to read as follows: 3.3.4 Retention Facilities (a) A retention facility (a basin with a zero release rate or a very slow release rate) is used on a temporary basis when there is no available formal downstream drainageway, or one that is grossly inadequate. When designing a retention facility, the hydrologic basis of design is difficult to describe because of the stochastic nature of rainfall events. Thus, 59 sizing for a given set of assumptions does not ensure that another scenario produced by nature (e.g., a series of small storms that add up to large volumes over a week or two) will not overwhelm the intended design. For this reason, retention basins are not permissible as a permanent solution for drainage problems. When used, they can become a major nuisance due to problems that may include mosquito breeding, safety concerns, odors, etc. (b) When temporary use of a retention basin is proposed as a solution, the City requires that it be sized to capture, at a minimum, the runoff equal to two times the two hour, 100- year storm plus one foot of freeboard. The facility must be situated and designed so that when it overtops, no human-occupied or critical structures (e.g., electrical vaults, homes, etc.) will be flooded, and no catastrophic failure at the facility (e.g., loss of dam embankment) will occur. It is also required that retention facilities be as shallow as possible to encourage infiltration and other losses of the captured urban runoff. When a trickle outflow can be accepted downstream or a small conduit can be built, it shall be provided and sized in accordance with the locally approved release rates, and be preferably capable of emptying the full volume in seventy-two (72) hours or less. (c) All retention ponds must be built with a pump back-up system and with a concrete hard surface at the bottom of the pond that is capable of evacuating the full volume in seventy-two (72) hours or less. (d) All retention ponds must be built and operated in accordance with all applicable State and Federal laws and must respect all established water rights. (13) Section 3.4 is amended to read as follows: 3.4 Reservoir Routing of Storm Hydrographs for Sizing of Storage Volumes The reservoir routing procedure for the sizing of detention storage volumes is more complex and time consuming than the use the FAA procedure. Its use requires the designer to develop an inflow hydrograph for the facility. This is generally accomplished using SWMM computer models as described in the RUNOFF chapter of this Manual. The hydrograph routing sizing method is an iterative procedure that follows the steps detailed below (Guo 1999b). 1. Select Location: The detention facility’s location must be based upon criteria developed for the specific project. Regional storage facilities are normally placed where they provide the greatest overall benefit. Multi-use objectives (e.g. use of the detention facility as a park or for open space, preserving or providing wetlands and/or wildlife habitat, or others uses and community needs) influence the location, geometry, and nature of these facilities. 2. Determine Hydrology: Determine the inflow hydrograph to the storage basin and the allowable peak discharge from the basin for the design storm events. The hydrograph may be available in City’s published Master Drainage Plans or other basin-wide studies. The allowable peak discharge is limited by the local criteria or by the requirements spelled out in the City-approved Master Drainage Plan. 3. Initial Storage Volume Sizing: It is recommended that the initial size of the detention storage volume be estimated using the modified FAA method described in Section 3.2.3 or the hydrograph volumetric method detailed in Section 3.4.1. 60 4. Initial Shaping of the Facility: The initial shape of the facility must be based upon site constraints and other goals for its use discussed under item 1, above. This initial shaping is needed to develop a stage-storage-discharge relationship for the facility. The design spreadsheets of this Manual are useful for initial sizing. 5. Outlet Works Preliminary Design: The initial design of the outlet works entails balancing the initial geometry of the facility against the allowable release rates and available volumes for each stage of hydrologic control. This step requires the sizing of outlet elements such as a perforated plate for controlling the releases of the WQCV, orifices, weirs, outlet pipe, spillways, etc. 6. Preliminary Design: A preliminary design of the overall detention storage facility must be completed using the results of steps 3, 4 and 5, above. The preliminary design phase is an iterative procedure where the size and shape of the basin and the outlet works are checked using a reservoir routing procedure and then modified as needed to meet the design goals. The modified design is then checked again using the reservoir routing and further modified if needed. Though termed “preliminary design,” the storage volume and nature and sizes of the outlet works are essentially in final form after completing this stage of the design. They may be modified, if necessary, during the final design phase. 7. Final Design: The final design phase of the storage facility is completed after the hydraulic design has been finalized. This phase includes structural design of the outlet structure, embankment design, site grading, a vegetation plan, accounting for public safety, spillway sizing and assessment of dam safety issues, etc. (14) Section 4.3 is amended to read as follows: 4.3 Geometry of Storage Facilities (a) The geometry of a storage facility depends on specific site conditions such as adjoining land uses, topography, geology, preserving or creating wildlife habitat, volume requirements, etc. Several key features must be incorporated in all storage facilities located within the City (see Figure SO-6). These include: i. Four to one (4H : 1V) or flatter side slopes of all banks. ii. Low-flow or trickle-flow channel unless a permanent pool takes its place or the pond is designed to handle low flows through infiltration. iii. Forebay. iv. Pond bottom sloped at least one percent to drain toward the low-flow or trickle-flow channel or the outlet. v. Emergency spillway or fortification of the embankment to prevent catastrophic failure when overtopped, spillway shall be designed to safely convey the 100-year overtopping discharge for the entire area tributary to the storage facility. vi. The micro pool surface elevation must be set at an elevation equal to the invert of the pond which results in the value of DMP being set at 0 (DMP = 0) as shown in Figure SO-6 of this Manual. (b) For safety as well as maintenance considerations, the maximum allowable ponding depth of water in a detention storage facility during the 100-year, 2-hour storm event is ten (10) feet. (c) Detention storage facilities must be located at least twenty (20) feet away from an irrigation canal or ditch. Whenever a detention pond parallels a canal no more than twenty percent (20%) of the detention pond perimeter can be parallel to the irrigation canal. 61 (d) In ponds that contain a littoral zone, the littoral zone should be very flat (i.e. 40H:1V or flatter) with the depth ranging from six (6) inches near the shore and extending to no more than twelve (12) inches at the furthest point from the shore. (e) For more detailed guidance regarding pond shaping and geometry please refer to the document titled “Detention Pond Landscape Standards and Guidelines” dated November 2009 included as an addendum to this Manual. (15) Section 4.8 is amended to read as follows: 4.8 Trash Racks Trash racks must be of sufficient size such that they do not interfere with the hydraulic capacity of the outlet. See Figure SO-7 for minimum trash rack sizes. Trash racks must be designed in accordance with the specifications set forth in Volume 2, Chapter 9, Culverts, Section 8.3, “Grate Specifications” and with the City’s Water Utilities Development Construction Standards. (16) Section 4.9 is amended to read as follows: 4.9 Landscaping Detention storage facilities must be landscaped to provide a water quality benefit as well as an aesthetically pleasing amenity. Landscaping should be accomplished with native vegetation whenever possible to reduce the amount of irrigation required after establishment. All detention ponds must be designed and constructed in accordance with the “Detention Pond Landscaping Standards and Guidelines” dated November 2009 included as an addendum to this Manual. (17) Section 4.10 is amended to read as follows: 4.10 Operation and Maintenance The performance and reliability of detention storage facilities can be reduced by natural and man-made debris, as well as natural and man-induced sedimentation. These can, over a period of time, reduce the storage capacity of a detention basin and thereby reduce the degree of flood protection provided. The obstruction of outflow conduits by debris and sediment can reduce outlet capacity and cause the premature filling of the detention basin with stormwater, again reducing the flood protection provided by the structure. Consequently, adequate care must be exercised in design to provide for protection of the outlet works from debris and for the control and regular removal of sedimentation in the basin. Maintenance requirements during design include the following: 1. Use of flat side slopes along the banks and the installation of landscaping (thick, thorny shrubs) that will discourage entry along the periphery near the outlets and steeper embankment sections are advisable. Use of a safety railing at vertical or steeper than four to one structural faces is required to promote public safety. If the impoundment is situated at a lower grade than, and adjacent to a highway, installation of a guardrail is in order. Providing features to discourage public access to the inlet and outlet areas of the facility must be considered. 2. The facility must be accessible to maintenance equipment for removal of silt and debris and for repair of damages that may occur over time. Easements and/or rights-of-way are required to allow access to the impoundment by the owner or agency responsible for maintenance. 62 3. Bank slopes, bank protection needs, and vegetation types are important design elements for site aesthetics and maintainability. 4. Permanent ponds must have provisions for complete drainage for sediment removal or other maintenance. The frequency of sediment removal will vary among facilities, depending on the original volume set aside for sediment, the rate of accumulation, rate of growth of vegetation, drainage area erosion control measures, and the desired aesthetic appearance of the pond. 5. For facilities designed for multipurpose use, especially those intended for active recreation, the play area might need special consideration during design to minimize the frequency and periods of inundation and wet conditions. It may be advisable to provide an underground tile drainage system if active recreation is contemplated. 6. Adequate dissolved oxygen supply in ponds (to minimize odors and other nuisances) can be maintained by artificial aeration. Use of fertilizer and EPA approved pesticides and herbicides adjacent to the permanent pool pond and within the detention basin must comply with all State and Federal regulations. 7. Secondary uses that would be incompatible with sediment deposits should not be planned unless a high level of maintenance will be provided. 8. French drains or the equivalent are almost impossible to maintain, and should be used with discretion where sediment loads are apt to be high. 9. Underground tanks or conduits designed for detention should be sized and designed to permit pumping or multiple entrance points to remove accumulated sediment and trash. 10. All detention facilities should be designed with sufficient depth to allow accumulation of sediment for several years prior to its removal. 11. Permanent pools should be of sufficient depth to discourage excessive aquatic vegetation on the bottom of the basin, unless specifically provided for water quality purposes. 12. Often designers use trash racks and/or fences to minimize hazards. These may become trap debris, impede flows, hinder maintenance, and, consequently, fail to prevent access to the outlet. On the other hand, desirable conditions can be achieved through careful design and positioning of the structure, as well as through landscaping that will discourage access (e.g., positioning the outlet away from the embankment when the permanent pool is present, etc.). Creative designs, integrated with innovative landscaping, can be safe and can also enhance the appearance of the outlet and pond. Such designs often are less expensive initially. 13. To reduce maintenance and avoid operational problems, outlet structures should be designed with no moving parts (i.e., use only pipes, orifices, and weirs). Manually and/or electrically operated gates should be avoided. To reduce maintenance, outlets should be designed with openings as large as possible, compatible with the depth-discharge relationships desired and with water quality, safety, and aesthetic objectives in mind. One way of doing this is to use a larger outlet pipe and to construct orifice(s) in the headwall to reduce outflow rates. Outlets should be robustly designed to lessen the chances of damage from debris or vandalism. Avoid the use of thin steel plates as sharp-crested weirs to help prevent potential accidents, especially with children. Trash/safety racks must protect all outlets. 14. Clean out all forebays and sediment traps on a regular basis or when routine inspection shows them to be a quarter to half full. 63 15. For all landscaped storage facilities the minimum amount of biodegradable, nontoxic fertilizers and herbicides needed shall be used to maintain the facility. All landscape debris must be collected and disposed of off-site. 16. All detention facilities must be designed to minimize required maintenance and to allow access by equipment and workers to perform maintenance. The City will generally maintain regional facilities and facilities on public lands. Maintenance responsibility for facilities located on private land shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 17. The entire detention basin including all appurtenances necessary for the operation and maintenance of the detention facility and the area within the required freeboard for the detention storage must be within a dedicated drainage easement. 18. All detention ponds with a water ponding depth of over four (4) feet must have a water depth gauge. The depth gauge must be referenced to the deepest point in the pond. The numbers on the gauge shall be visible from the detention pond access point or the nearest street. See Volume 3 of this Manual for additional requirements regarding operation and maintenance of water quality-related facilities, some of which also apply to detention facilities designed to meet other objectives. (18) Section 4.11 is amended to read as follows: 4.11 Access (a) An all-weather stable maintenance access must be provided to the bottom of detention ponds. The surface of this maintenance access shall constitute a solid driving surface of gravel, rock, concrete, or gravel-stabilized turf and should allow maintenance access to the inflow forebay, and the outlet works areas. Maximum grades for equipment access shall be no steeper than ten percent. For ponds less than one acre-foot in volume, access may be allowed from an adjacent drivable surface that is not within the detention pond area as long as equipment can safely reach and maintain all of the facility’s features and appurtenances. (b) When detention storage facilities abut private property, it is the responsibility of the parties involved to develop and implement a policy regarding fencing and safety. (19) A new Section 4.14 is added, to read as follows: 4.14 Trickle Channels in Storage Facilities (a) Measures must be taken to control standing water and to control nuisance flows. Detention basin bottoms are recommended to have a minimum cross slope (measured perpendicular to the trickle channel) of two percent for grassed surfaces and one percent for pavement surfaces where possible. For cross slopes less than these please refer to the detailed guidance provided regarding the appropriateness of the use of trickle channels in the addendum to this Manual titled “Detention Pond Landscape Standards and Guidelines” dated November 2009. (b) Whenever trickle channels are called for these must be designed to carry approximately one percent of the 100-year design flow with a minimum longitudinal slope of half a percent. 64 (20) A new Section 4.15 is added, to read as follows: 4.15 Detention Ponds in Parking Areas (a) The maximum permissible detention pond depth within parking areas is twelve (12) inches. (b) For commercial properties an exception may be granted by the Utilities Executive Director or his designee for ponding depths of up to eighteen (18) inches, if the percentage of spaces with ponding depths of greater than twelve (12) inches is less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total parking spaces provided. (c) In all circumstances, one foot of freeboard must be provided between the high water elevation and the minimum opening elevations of adjacent buildings. (d) If a water quality detention is included in a parking lot detention pond, the water quality portion of the total detention volume must be located in vegetated areas not on pavement. (21) A new Section 4.16 added, to read as follows: 4.16 Underground Detention The use of underground detention is generally discouraged. Underground BMPs should not be considered for detention storage when surface-based systems are practicable. For most areas of new urban development or significant redevelopment, it is feasible and desirable to provide the required storage on the surface. The responsible party must demonstrate that surface-based detention or other BMPs have been thoroughly evaluated and found to be infeasible before an underground system is proposed. In the event where an underground storage system is proposed, a written request for approval of such a system must be submitted by the Owner describing the system in detailing. The Utilities Executive Director may approval such a system upon a determination that the requirements of this provision have been met and that no adverse impacts are expected to result from the proposed system. For any underground detention, runoff must flow through a pre-treatment facility before it enters the underground detention facility. A standard operating procedures manual must be submitted and approved by the City for all underground facilities. A final copy of the approved standard operating procedures manual must be provided to City and must be maintained on-site by the entity responsible for the facility maintenance. Annual reports must also be prepared and submitted to the City discussing the results of the maintenance program (i.e. inspection dates, inspection frequency, volume loss due to sedimentation, corrective actions taken, etc.). (22) A new Section 4.16 is added, to read as follows: 4.17 Rooftop Detention The use of rooftop detention is prohibited. (23) A new Section 4.18 is added, to read as follows: 4.18 On-Stream Storage Facilities The use of on-stream detention is strongly discouraged. Off-stream detention is the preferred detention storage method in the City. On-stream detention locates the detention facility on a drainageway that collects runoff from the upstream watershed and flows through the proposed development site. The on-stream facility will treat runoff from the proposed development site and runoff generated further upstream from off-site areas. An off-stream storage facility collects and treats runoff from the proposed development site 65 before entering the drainageway. Off-site flow is conveyed by the drainageway through the proposed development site without treatment. (24) A new Section 4.19 is added, to read as follows: 4.19 Spill Control for Gas Stations and Vehicle Maintenance Facilities Spill control structures are required for all new and redeveloping gas stations and vehicle maintenance facilities. In addition to emergency spill response procedures, such as the use of absorbent booms, structural spill controls must be used to protect creeks and tributaries from petroleum products and other pollutants that are stored and handled at gas stations and vehicle maintenance facilities. The spill control structure must have a minimum capacity of 150 gallons. (25) Section 5.0 is deleted in its entirety. (26) Section 6.1 is deleted in its entirety. (27) Table SO-1 is deleted in its entirety. (28) Figure SO-8 is deleted in its entirety. 66 (I) Volume 2, Chapter 12 - Revegetation: (1) A new Section 3.1.1 is added, to read as follows: 3.1.1 Cattail Plantings Cattail plantings are generally not recommended for use as wetland plantings in the city of Fort Collins. These may be allowed as part of an overall wetlands mitigation plan, when they are part of a more diversified ecological system upon review and approval by the City. (2) Section 3.3 is amended to read as follows: 3.3 Seeding and Planting (a) Seed mixtures must be sown at the proper time of year specified for the mixture. (b) Recommended seeding rates specified as “pounds pure live seed per acre” (lbs PLS/acre) should be used. (c) Seed should be drill seeded, whenever possible. (d) Broadcast seeding or hydro-seeding may be substituted on slopes steeper than 3(H):1(V) or on other areas not practical to drill seed. (e) Seeding rates must be doubled for broadcast seeding or increased by 50% if using a Brillion drill or hydro-seeding. (f) Broadcast seed must be lightly hand raked into the soil. (g) Seed depth must be ⅓ to ½ inch for most mixtures. (h) All seeded areas must be mulched, and the mulch should be adequately crimped and or tackified. (i) If hydro-seeding is conducted, mulching must be conducted as a separate, second operation. (j) All containerized nursery stock must be kept in a live and healthy condition prior to installation. (k) Containerized trees and shrubs must be installed according to the planting details provided in Section 4.4 of this chapter. (l) Live stakes, poles and willow bundles must be installed when dormant (late winter and early spring) according to the planting details in Section 4.7. (m) Beaver protection must be provided for trees and shrubs for species known to be attractive to beavers if beavers are known to be in the area (see Figure RV-6). (3) Section 3.3 is amended to read as follows: 3.4 Maintenance (a) Sites must be routinely inspected following planting to implement follow-up measures to increase success. Immediate attention to a problem (e.g., weed infestation, failure of seed to germinate) can prevent total failure later. 67 (b) Areas that have been planted or seeded must be monitored at least one spring and one fall season to ensure that physical evidence growth has been adequately established. Physical evidence of growth shall include no more than 6 inches of bare spots and a minimum of seventy percent of vegetative cover over the entire seeded or planted area. If these minimums are not attained after one fall and one spring season, planted areas shall be re-seeded appropriately as soon as practical. (c) Access to and grazing on recently re-vegetated areas should be limited with temporary fencing and signage while plants are becoming established (normally the first year). (d) Weed infestations should be managed using appropriate physical, chemical, or biological methods as soon as possible. See Vol. 2, Ch. 12, Sec. 6.0, “References” for more detail on weed management options.) (e) Stakes and guy wires for trees should be maintained and dead or damaged growth should be pruned. (f) Beaver protection cages should be used around tree plantings. (g) Mulch should be maintained by adding additional mulch and redistributing mulch, as necessary. (h) Areas of excessive erosion should be repaired and stabilized. (i) Planted trees and shrubs should be watered monthly or as needed from April through September until established. (4) Section 4.2 is amended to read as follows: 4.2 Soil Amendments Soil amendments must comply with all requirements set forth in sections 12-130, 12-131 and 12-132 of the City Code as well as Section 3.8.21 of the City Land Use Code or other related provisions. When soil is amended the following provisions must be complied with: (a) The soil in such areas must be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches. (b) Soil amendments must be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of such areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, disking or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of area to be planted, unless at least four (4) inches of loose top soil has been placed on the area after completion of construction activity on top of not less than four (4) inches of loosened sub grade soils. (5) Section 4.5 is amended to read as follows: 4.5 Mulching All planted areas must be mulched within twenty-four (24) hours after planting. Mulch conserves water and reduces erosion. The most common type of mulch used is hay or grass that is crimped into the soil to hold it. However, crimping may not be practical on slopes steeper than three to one (3H: 1V). 68 The following guidelines must be followed when mulching: (a) Only weed-free and seed-free straw mulch may be used (grass hay often contains weedy exotic species). Mulch should be applied at two (2) tons per acre and adequately secured by crimping, tackifier, netting, or blankets. (b) Crimping is appropriate on slopes of three to one (3H : 1V) or flatter and must be done so as to tuck mulch fibers into the soil three to four inches deep. (c) Tackifier or netting and blankets anchored with staples must be used on slopes steeper than three to one (3H : 1V) (d) Hydraulic mulching may also be used on steep slopes or where access is limited. In these circumstances, wood cellulose fibers mixed with water at two thousands to two thousands five hundreds to pounds per acre and organic tackifier at one hundred (100) pounds per acre to four hundred (400) pounds per acre, depending on slope, must be applied with a hydraulic mulcher. (e) Wood chip mulch must be applied to planted trees and shrubs, as shown in Figures RV-2 and RV-3. Additional details on mulching can be found in Volume 3 of this Manual. (6) Table RV-1 is adopted with the following modification: All references to wildflowers are deleted. (7) Table RV-2 is adopted with the following modification: All references to wildflowers are deleted. (8) Table RV-3 is adopted with the following modification: All references to wildflowers are deleted. (9) Table RV-4 is adopted with the following modification: All references to wildflowers are deleted. (10) Table RV-5 is adopted with the following modification: All references to wildflowers are deleted. (11) Table RV-6 is adopted with the following modification: All references to wildflowers are deleted. (12) Table RV-7 is deleted in its entirety. (13) A new Section 5.1 is added, to read as follows: 5.1 Land Disturbing Activity and Security (a) No land disturbing activity subject to this Stormwater Criteria Manual is permitted to commence until an Erosion Control Plan has been approved by the City and the responsible party has provided security designated to ensure the rehabilitation of the disturbed land. Land disturbing activity refers to any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography including but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavation, demolition, installation of new or improved haul roads and access roads, staging 69 areas, stockpiling of fill materials, and borrow areas. It does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility. A performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or cash escrow, acceptable to the Utilities Executive Director, and naming the City as the protected party, is required. Such performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or cash escrow shall further guarantee the continued maintenance and replacement of any installed erosion control measures shown on the approved plan. (b) The amount of the security must be based on one and one-half times the estimate of the cost to install the approved measures, or one and one-half times the cost to re-vegetate the disturbed land to dry land grasses based upon unit cost determined by the City's Annual Revegetation and Stabilization Bid, whichever is greater. In no instance, will the amount of security be less than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for residential development or three thousand dollars ($3,000) for commercial development. (c) If the requirements of an approved Erosion Control Plan are not be complied with, the City may apply such portion of the security deposit(s) as may be necessary to pay all costs incurred by the City in undertaking the administration, construction, and, or the installation of the erosion control measures required by any plan and these criteria. In addition, the City shall have the option to pursue any other legal remedy available to it under any development agreement or as it deems necessary in order to ensure that the required erosion control measures are implemented. (d) In the event that the City exercises its rights under the security or pursues any other legal remedy, the City is not thereafter obligated to routinely administer the construction of the measures shown on the Erosion Control or SWMP Plan. However, the City reserves the right to enter upon the land and take whatever actions are necessary to stabilize and re-vegetate all disturbed areas, or to have the plan constructed and to make repairs as necessary. (e) Upon acceptance by the City of the initial installation of all erosion control and sediment transport measures, the security may, at the request of the owner, be reduced to twenty-five percent (25%) of the original amount. This remaining amount will be retained by the City until erosion control and sediment transport measures on the project are no longer necessary (when all permanent erosion control measures are complete and/or all required re-vegetation measures installed and established through two growing seasons). If the City determines after completion of the Close-Out Inspection as defined in Section 6.12, Volume 1, Chapter 1, that the responsible party has met all of the applicable requirements and the security will be released. (14) A new Section 5.2 is added, to read as follows: 5.2 Warranty (a) The responsible party must warrant that the measures shown on the approved Erosion Control Plan are properly constructed, installed, and are free from defective materials and/or workmanship, with said warranty to continue for the terms set forth below. 70 (b) The responsible party must warrant and maintain all vegetative measures for two growing seasons after installation or until seventy percent (70%) vegetative cover has been established. Any acceptance of installed measures shall not be construed to relieve the responsible party of the duty to warrant and maintain the installed vegetative measures as aforesaid. 71 (J) Volume 3, Chapter 2 - BMP Selection: (1) Section 1.1 is amended to read as follows: 1.1 Physical Site Characteristics The first step in BMP selection is identification of physical characteristics of a site including topography, soils, contributing drainage area, groundwater, base flows, wetlands, existing drainageways, and development conditions in the tributary watershed (e.g., construction activity). A fundamental concept of Low Impact Development (“LID”) is preservation and protection of site features including wetlands, drainageways, soils that are conducive to infiltration, tree canopy, etc., that provide water quality and other benefits. LID stormwater treatment systems are also designed to take advantage of these natural resources. For example, if a portion of a site is known to have soils with high permeability, this area may be well-suited for rain gardens or permeable pavement. Areas of existing wetlands, which would be difficult to develop from a Section 404 permitting perspective, could be considered for polishing of runoff following BMP treatment, providing additional water quality treatment for the site, while at the same time enhancing the existing wetlands with additional water supply in the form of treated runoff. Some physical site characteristics that provide opportunities for BMPs or constrain BMP selection include: (a) Soils: Soils with good permeability, most typically associated with Hydrologic Soil Groups (“HSGs”) A and B provide opportunities for infiltration of runoff and are well- suited for infiltration-based BMPs such as rain gardens, permeable pavement systems, sand filter, grass swales, and buffers, often without the need for an underdrain system. Even when soil permeability is low, these types of BMPs may be feasible if soils are amended to increase permeability or if an underdrain system is used. In some cases, however, soils restrict the use of infiltration based BMPs. When soils with moderate to high swell potential are present, infiltration should be avoided to minimize damage to adjacent structures due to water-induced swelling. In some cases, infiltration based designs can still be used if an impermeable liner and underdrain system are included in the design; however, when the risk of damage to adjacent infrastructure is high, infiltration based BMPs may not be appropriate. In all cases, consult with a geotechnical engineer when designing infiltration BMPs near structures. Consultation with a geotechnical engineer is necessary for evaluating the suitability of soils for different BMP types and establishing minimum distances between infiltration BMPs and structures. (b) Watershed Size: The contributing drainage area is an important consideration both on the site level and at the regional level. On the site level, there is a practical minimum size for certain BMPs, largely related to the ability to drain the WQCV over the required drain time. For example, it is technically possible to size the WQCV for an extended detention basin for a half-acre site; however, designing a functional outlet to release the WQCV over a 40-hour drain time is practically impossible due to the very small orifices that would be required. For this size watershed, a filtering BMP, such as a rain garden, would be more appropriate. At the other end of the spectrum, there must be a limit on the maximum drainage area for a regional facility to assure adequate treatment of rainfall events that may produce runoff from only a portion of the area draining to the BMP. If the overall drainage area is too large, events that produce runoff from only a portion of the contributing area will pass through the BMP outlet (sized for the full drainage area) without adequate residence time in the BMP. As a practical limit, the maximum drainage area contributing to a water quality facility should be no larger than one square mile. For treatment facilities serving tributary areas that are larger than one (1) acre in size, an extended water quality detention basin is the preferred and recommended water quality treatment device. 72 (c) Groundwater: Shallow groundwater on a site presents challenges for BMPs that rely on infiltration and for BMPs that are intended to be dry between storm events. Shallow groundwater may limit the ability to infiltrate runoff or result in unwanted groundwater storage in areas intended for storage of the WQCV (e.g., porous sub-base of a permeable pavement system or in the bottom of an otherwise dry facility such as an extended detention basin). Conversely, for some types of BMPs such as wetland channels or constructed wetland basins, groundwater can be beneficial by providing saturation of the root zone and/or a source of baseflow. Groundwater quality protection is an issue that should be considered for infiltration-based BMPs. Infiltration BMPs may not be appropriate for land uses that involve storage or use of materials that have the potential to contaminate groundwater underlying a site (i.e., "hot spot" runoff from fueling stations, materials storage areas, etc.). If groundwater or soil contamination exists on a site and it will not be remediated or removed as a part of construction, separation from the groundwater must be provided. As an example, it may be necessary to use a durable liner to prevent infiltration into contaminated areas. (d) Base Flows: Base flows are necessary for the success of some BMPs such as constructed wetlands ponds, retention ponds and wetland channels. Without base flows, these BMPs will become dry and unable to support wetland vegetation. For these BMPs, a hydrologic budget should be evaluated. Generally, water rights are also required for these types of BMPs in Colorado. Constructed wetland ponds are allowed provided adequate documentation is submitted to establish the presence of a sufficient and sustained flow of water to support the proposed vegetation in the planned constructed wetlands. Hydrologic documentation must be supplied to the City during the initial planning phase. The City must also receive adequate documentation to establish that the responsible party has secured the required water rights to sustain the proposed constructed wetlands ponds. The City is the final determining authority regarding whether the amount of water flow is deemed sufficient to support the wetlands. For some BMPs such as sand filters, base flows are not desirable since they may lead to bio-fouling and failure. If base flows are present, care should be taken to treat the runoff with an appropriate type of BMP that can better handle such conditions. (e) Watershed Development Activities (or otherwise erosive conditions): When development in the watershed is phased or when erosive conditions such as steep slopes, sparse vegetation, and sandy soils exist in the watershed, a treatment train approach may be appropriate. BMPs that utilize filtration should follow other measures to collect sediment loads (e.g., a forebay). For phased developments, these measures must be in place until the watershed is completely stabilized. When naturally erosive conditions exist in the watershed, these measures should be permanent. The designer should consider existing, interim and future conditions to select the most appropriate BMPs. (2) Section 1.9 is amended to read as follows: 1.9 Integration with Flood Control In addition to water quality, most projects will require detention for flood control, whether on- site, or in a sub-regional or regional facility. In many cases, it is efficient to combine facilities since the land requirements for a combined facility are lower than those for two separate facilities. Wherever possible, it is recommended WQCV facilities be incorporated into flood control detention facilities The City requires the following approach be followed, as applicable: 73 (a) Water Quality: The full WQCV is to be provided according to the design procedures documented in this Manual for water quality facilities. (b) Minor Storm: The full WQCV, plus the full minor storm detention volume, is to be provided for facilities designed for flows associated with minor storm events. (c) 100-Year Storm: The full WQCV plus the full 100-year storm event volume must be provided for volumes obtained using the FAA Method or any hydrograph routing methods including SWMM for facilities designed for flows associated with 100-year storm events. When the analysis is done using hydrograph routing methods, each level of control needs to be accounted for and the resultant 100-year flood control volume in addition to the full WQCV should be used in final design. Finally, designers should also be aware that water quality BMPs, especially those that promote infiltration, could result in volume reductions for flood storage. These volume reductions are most pronounced for frequently occurring events, but even in the major event, some reduction in detention storage volume can be achieved if volume-reduction BMPs are widely used on a site. Additional discussion on volume reduction benefits, including a methodology for quantifying their effects on detention storage volumes, is provided in Volume 3, Chapter 3 of this Manual, “Calculating the WQCV and Volume Reduction”. 1.9.1 Sedimentation BMPs Combination outlets are relatively straightforward for most BMPs in this Manual. For BMPs that utilize sedimentation (e.g. EDBs, constructed wetland ponds, and retention ponds) see BMP Fact Sheet T-12. This Fact Sheet shows examples and details for combined quality and quantity outlet structures. 1.9.2 Infiltration/Filtration BMPs For other types of BMPs (e.g. rain gardens, sand filters, permeable pavement systems, and other BMPs utilizing processes other than sedimentation), design of a combination outlet structure generally consists of multiple orifices to provide controlled release of WQCV as well as the minor and major storm event. Incorporation of full spectrum detention into these structures requires reservoir routing. The UD-Detention worksheet available at www.udfcd.org can be used for this design. When incorporating flood control into permeable pavement systems, the design can be simplified when a near 0% slope on the pavement surface can be achieved. The flatter the pavement the fewer structures required. This includes lateral barriers as well as outlet controls since each pavement cell typically requires its own outlet structure. When incorporating flood control into a rain garden, the flood control volume can be placed on top of or downstream of the rain garden. Locating the flood control volume downstream can reduce the total depth of the rain garden, which will result in a more attractive BMP, and also benefit the vegetation in the flood control area because inundation and associated sedimentation will be less frequent, limited to events exceeding the WQCV. 74 (3) Section 1.10 is amended to read as follows: 1.10 Land Use, Compatibility with Surroundings, and Safety Stormwater quality areas can add interest and diversity to a site, serving a multitude of purposes in addition to providing water quality functions. Gardens, plazas, rooftops, and even parking lots can become amenities and provide visual interest while performing stormwater quality functions and reinforcing urban design goals for the neighborhood and community. The integration of BMPs and associated landforms, walls, landscape, and materials can reflect the standards and patterns of a neighborhood and help to create lively, safe, and pedestrian-oriented districts. The quality and appearance of stormwater quality facilities should reflect the surrounding land use type, the immediate context, and the proximity of the site to important civic spaces. Aesthetics will be a more critical factor in highly visible urban commercial and office areas than at a heavy industrial site. The standard of design and construction should maintain and enhance property values without compromising function. Public access to BMPs should be considered from a safety perspective. The highest priority of the City is to protect public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins. Stormwater quality facilities must be designed and maintained in a manner that does not pose health or safety hazards to the public. As an example, steeply sloped and/or walled ponds should be avoided. Where this is not possible, emergency egress, lighting and other safety considerations should be incorporated. Facilities should be designed to reduce the likelihood and extent of shallow standing water that can result in mosquito breeding, which can be a nuisance and a public health concern (e.g., West Nile virus). The potential for nuisances, odors and prolonged soggy conditions should be evaluated for BMPs, especially in areas with high pedestrian traffic or visibility. 75 (K) Volume 3, Chapter-3 - Calculating the WQCV and Volume Reduction: (1) Section 1.0 is amended to read as follows: 1.0 Introduction This chapter presents the hydrologic basis and calculations for the Water Quality Capture Volume (“WQCV”) and discusses the benefits of attenuating this volume. This chapter also describes various methods for quantifying volume reduction when using LID practices. Use of these methods should begin during the planning phase for preliminary sizing and development of the site layout. The calculations and procedures in this chapter allow the engineer to determine effective impervious area, calculate the WQCV, and more accurately quantify potential volume reduction benefits of BMPs. (2) Section 2.4 is deleted in its entirety. (3) Section 4.2 is amended to read as follows: 4.2 Watershed-Level Volume Reduction MethodFor a given value of total imperviousness, and depending on overall site imperviousness and typical development patterns there are two levels of LID implementation: (a) Level 1: The primary intent is to direct the runoff from impervious surfaces to flow over grass-covered areas and/or permeable pavement, and to provide sufficient travel time to facilitate the removal of suspended solids before runoff leaves the site, enters a curb and gutter system, or enters another stormwater collection system. Thus, at Level 1, to the extent practical, impervious surfaces are designed to drain over grass buffer strips or other pervious surfaces before reaching a stormwater conveyance system. (b) Level 2: As an enhancement to Level 1, Level 2 replaces solid street curb and gutter systems with no curb or slotted curbing, low-velocity grass-lined swales and pervious street shoulders, including pervious rock-lined swales. Conveyance systems and storm sewer inlets will still be needed to collect runoff at downstream intersections and crossings where stormwater flow rates exceed the capacity of the swales. Small culverts will be needed at street crossings and at individual driveways until inlets are provided to convey the flow to storm sewer. The primary difference between Levels 1 and 2 is that for Level 2, a pervious conveyance system (i.e., swales) is provided rather than storm sewer. Disconnection of roof drains and other lot-level impervious areas is essentially the same for both Levels 1 and 2. Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 can be used to estimate effective imperviousness for Level 1 and Level 2. Because rainfall intensity varies with return interval, the effective imperviousness also varies, as demonstrated by the separate curves for the 2-, 10- and 100-year return intervals (see Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8). The effective imperviousness determined from Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 can be used as input for calculation of the WQCV, as the basis for looking up runoff coefficients based on imperviousness in the Runoff chapter in Volume 1. Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 are intended for use at the planning level when specifics of the development patterns are not yet well established. It is notable that the reductions in effective imperviousness shown in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 are relatively modest, ranging from little to no benefit for large events up to approximately 12% for Level 2 for a total imperviousness of roughly 50% (reduced to about 38% for the 2-year event)., When site-specific disconnected areas, receiving pervious areas, flow paths, and other design details are available, the site-level methods 76 in Section 4.3 can be used to better quantify volume reduction, and results will typically show greater reductions in effective imperviousness for aggressive LID implementation. Even so, it is unlikely that conveyance-based BMPs alone will provide adequate pollutant removal and volume reduction for most project sites, and a storage-based BMP (i.e., WQCV) will also be required. (4) Section 4.3.1 is amended to read as follows: 4.3.1 SWMM Modeling Using Cascading Planes Because of complexities of modeling LID and other BMPs using SWMM, the cascading planes alternative for site-level volume reduction analysis is recommended only for experienced users. The following guidance for conveyance- and storage-based modeling must be followed: (a) Each sub-watershed should be conceptualized as shown in Figure 3-6. Two approaches can be used in SWMM to achieve this: Create two SWMM sub-catchments for each sub-watershed, one with UIA 100% routed to RPA and the other with DCIA and SPA independently routed to the outlet, or Use a single SWMM sub-catchment to represent the sub-watershed and use the SWMM internal routing option to differentiate between DCIA and UIA. This option should only be used when a large portion of the pervious area on a site is RPA and there is very little SPA since the internal routing does not have the ability to differentiate between SPA and RPA (i.e., the UIA is routed to the entire pervious area, potentially overestimating infiltration losses). (b) Once the sub-watershed is set up to represent UIA, DCIA, RPA and SPA in SWMM, the rainfall distribution should be directly input to SWMM. (c) Parameters for infiltration, depression storage and other input parameters must be selected in accordance with the guidance in the Runoff Chapter ,Volume 1 - Chapter 5, of this Manual. (d) For storage-based BMPs, there are two options for representing the WQCV: i. The pervious area depression storage value for the RPA can be increased to represent the WQCV. This approach is generally applicable to storage-based BMPs that promote infiltration such as rain gardens, permeable pavement systems with storage or sand filters. This adjustment should not be used when a storage-based BMP has a well-defined outlet and a stage-storage-discharge relationship that can be entered into SWMM. ii. The WQCV can be modeled as a storage unit with an outlet in SWMM. This option is preferred for storage-based BMPs with well defined stage-storage- discharge relationships such as extended detention basins. These guidelines are applicable for EPA SWMM Version 5.0.018 and earlier versions going back to EPA SWMM Version 5.0. EPA is currently developing a version of EPA SWMM with enhanced LID modeling capabilities. This Manual will be updated as newer SWMM modeling capabilities are developed and adopted. (5) Section 4.4 is deleted in its entirety. 77 (L) Volume 3, Chapter 4- Treatment BMPs: (1) Fact Sheet T-5 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Excess Urban Runoff Volume or (EURV)” and “Full Spectrum Detention” are deleted. (2) Figure EDB-3 is adopted with the following modification: “Micropool” Depth = 0 (3) Table EDB-4 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Micropools” are deleted. (4) Fact Sheet T-7 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Retention Pond” are replaced with the term “Wet Pond”. (5) Fact Sheet T-11 is amended to read in its entirety as follows: Description Underground stormwater BMPs include proprietary and non-proprietary devices installed below ground that provide stormwater quality treatment via sedimentation, screening, filtration, hydrodynamic separation, and other physical and chemical processes. Conceptually, underground BMPs can be categorized based on their fundamental treatment approach and dominant unit processes. Some underground BMPs combine multiple unit processes to act as a treatment train. Historically, underground stormwater quality treatment devices have not been recommended based on City policies and criteria. This is due to several factors including problems with unmaintained or poorly maintained devices, remobilization by wash-out (scour) of accumulated pollutants during larger events, lack of performance data for underground devices in the region, and other issues discussed in this Fact Sheet. While underground flood-control detention is still discouraged, this section provides criteria for determining when the use of underground BMPs may be considered for water quality. When surface BMPs are found to be infeasible, underground BMPs may be the only available strategy for satisfying regulatory water quality requirements, especially in highly built-up urban areas where water quality measures must be implemented as a part of a retrofit to meet regulatory requirements. Underground BMPs should not be considered for standalone treatment when surface-based BMPs are practicable. For most areas of new urban development or significant redevelopment, it is feasible and desirable to provide the required WQCV on the surface. It is incumbent on the design engineer to demonstrate that surface-based BMPs such as permeable pavements, rain gardens, extended detention basins and others have been thoroughly evaluated and found to be infeasible before an underground system is proposed. Surface-based BMPs provide numerous environmental benefits including infiltration, evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, aquatic habitat, mitigation of "heat island effect", and other benefits associated with vegetation for those that are planted. Additionally surface-based BMPs are much easier to monitor and maintain. 78 Site Selection The most common sites for underground BMPs are "ultra urban" environments with significant space constraints. These could include downtown lot-line-to-lot-line development projects, transportation corridors, or small (less than 0.5 acre) redevelopment sites in urban areas. Important site features that must be considered include the following: Depth to Groundwater: Due to the potentially large displacement caused by an underground vault, if there is seasonally high groundwater, buoyancy can be a problem. Vaults can be sealed to prevent infiltration of groundwater into the underground system and these systems can be anchored to resist uplift. If seasonally high groundwater is expected near the bottom of an underground system, the engineer should evaluate the potential for infiltration of groundwater and uplift forces and adjust the design accordingly. Proximity to Public Spaces: As material accumulates in an underground system, there is potential for anoxic conditions and associated odor problems. Gravity versus Pumped Discharge: The ability to drain to the receiving storm drainage system via gravity is an important consideration. In the city of Fort Collins a gravity outfall system is required for all underground BMPs. Access: Equipment must be able to access all portions of the underground BMP, typically at multiple locations, to perform maintenance. As the size of the underground system increases, so must the number of access points. Traffic Loading: Due to space constraints, in some situations, underground BMPs may be located in a right-of-way or other location where there may be traffic loadings. Many underground BMPs are or can be constructed for HS-20 traffic loading. Take additional measures when necessary to ensure that the BMP is designed for the anticipated loading. Potential for Flooding of Adjacent Structures or Property: For underground BMPs, it is important that the hydraulic grade line be analyzed to evaluate the potential for backwater in the storm sewer system. In addition, some types of underground BMPs, such as catch basin inserts, have the potential to clog and cause flooding if not frequently maintained. Designing for Maintenance All underground BMPs must be sized so that routine maintenance is not required more than once per year. The only exception to this is inlet inserts which may need to be cleaned as frequently as following each runoff producing event. Because underground BMPs are generally less visible and more difficult to access than surface-based BMPs, regular maintenance and early detection of performance issues can be a challenge. When developing a design for an underground BMP, the engineer should ensure that all portions of the underground facility can be accessed with maintenance equipment. For multi-chambered systems, access should be provided to each chamber, and openings should be of sufficient size to accommodate the equipment recommended by the manufacturer or designer for maintenance. 79 Underground BMPs are generally considered confined spaces and OSHA confined space training typically will be required if a person must enter the underground BMP to perform maintenance. In all cases, a maintenance plan should be developed at the time that the underground BMP is designed. The maintenance plan should specify, at a minimum, quarterly inspections with maintenance performed as needed based on inspections. The required inspection frequency may be reduced to biannually if, after two or more years, the quarterly regimen demonstrates that this will provide adequate maintenance. Owners of underground BMPs must provide written inspection and maintenance documentation to the City to ensure that required inspection and maintenance activities are taking place. All maintenance records must be kept on file by the owner and must be provided to the City promptly upon request. Owner must demonstrate that maintenance activities are occurring on an annual basis or on other frequencies as specifically required. Design Procedure and Criteria Two primary options are available for underground BMPs: 1. Underground BMPs Based on a Surface BMP design: BMPs that satisfy the requirements for capture and slow release of the WQCV and that are based on and designed in substantial conformance with the criteria for surface-based BMPs described in this Manual. 2. Underground Proprietary BMPs: Proprietary BMPs that satisfy the requirements for capture and slow release of the WQCV. The owner needs to demonstrate that the BMP will at a minimum treat the design storms flow rates and volumes as stated in this Manual as well as the slow release of the WQCV and provide a level of treatment for targeted pollutants that is comparable to that of the surface-based BMPs provided in this Manual. 1. Underground BMPs Based on a Surface BMP Design This class of underground BMP includes sand filter basins and retention facilities designed for below grade installation. The design must provide the WQCV and empty it over a time period of 12 hours or more. Not all of the surface-based BMPs that provide the WQCV can be adapted for underground use. For example, the vegetative components of a constructed wetland pond render it unsuitable for underground use. Underground extended detention basins are also problematic due to historical problems with remobilization of collected sediment. The most commonly used underground BMP to date in the City is the underground sand filter. In addition to the criteria for an above ground sand filter, underground sand filters should meet the following criteria: a) A pretreatment chamber for removal of coarse sediments with a volume equivalent to 0.10 times the WQCV should be provided. The pretreatment chamber must be separated from the underground BMP sand filter chamber by baffles, and serves as the sediment forebay to reduce the frequency of maintenance required in sand filter. Also consider incorporating a vertical baffle to trap oil and grease. This can be easily incorporated into the forebay and should be included where oil and grease are target constituents. Absorbent mats or booms could also be used for this purpose. b) For flows in excess of the water quality design event, a diversion must be sized so that excess flows bypass the sand filter chamber and the sand filter is not surcharged (in terms of depth or hydraulic grade line) beyond the WQCV maximum elevation. 80 c) Maintenance access must be provided to each chamber. Access must be sufficient to allow complete removal and replacement of the filter material. Allow for at least 6 feet of headroom (from the surface of the filter) to facilitate maintenance. All areas need to be designed to facilitate human access. 2. Underground Proprietary BMPs In some situations, the use of an underground manufactured or proprietary BMP may be the only practicable solution due to site or engineering constraints. In such cases the use of a proprietary BMP may be appropriate. There are numerous proprietary BMPs with wide variability in performance, design flow rates, unit processes, and volume of storage provided (if any). Sizing methodologies for proprietary devices vary from device to device—some are flow based, some are volume based, some consider surface/filter hydraulic loading, etc. As a result, this Manual does not seek to provide a one-size-fits-all sizing methodology for proprietary BMPs. Instead, this Manual provides criteria for determining what type of proprietary BMP should be used and whether a specific proprietary BMP is acceptable for use. Once it has been determined that use of this BMP category is warranted due to site or engineering constraints, the proprietary BMP must meet the following requirements: a) Technology Verification: The proprietary BMP must be verified for use by a nationally recognized technology verification program. For the two main categories of proprietary BMPs, these programs are: For hydrodynamic separators: The New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) Technology Verification Program (http://www.njcat.o0rg/verification/protocol.cfm) Tier II (Field Testing) verification is required. For filters or other technologies receiving standalone treatment designation: The NJCAT Tier II (Field Testing) verification or completion and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology (2002) TAPE protocol and General Use Level Designation for TSS are required. Reference: Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies, Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (TAPE), October 2002 (Revised June 2004), Publication Number 02-10-037. (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0210037.html). Verification by both programs is preferred. If the specific design flow rates for the filters differ, then the most conservative flow rate should be used since sediment loads within the Fort Collins region tend to be fine. To receive an approval for use by the City, the manufacturer must also provide final verification statements for the technology in consideration. b) Performance Standards: Once accepted for use, the sizing of the BMP must be done in accordance with the verification and also achieve the treatment level required by the City. In general, the proprietary BMP approved for standalone treatment should be capable, on an annual basis, of producing an effluent quality with a median TSS concentration of no more than thirty (30) mg/L, Event Mean Concentration (EMC), for the WQCV within a twelve (12) 81 hour drawdown time for influent TSS concentrations of one hundred forty (140) mg/l or less. This level of treatment is comparable to the long-term effluent median concentrations from the International Stormwater BMP Database for surface-based BMPs. For influent TSS concentrations of one hundred forty (140) mg/l or more an eighty (80) percent load removal rate by the proprietary BMP is required. Depending on long-term median effluent concentrations and whether or not the BMP provides the required WQCV, a proprietary underground BMP will fall into one of three categories: 1. Not recommended: This category is for underground BMPs that have not demonstrated the ability to capture the required WQCV or meet the performance expectation of thirty (30) mg/l TSS effluent for influent TSS concentrations that are less than one forty (140) mg/l or an eighty (80) percent removal rate for influent TSS concentrations of one forty (140) mg/l or more. Even for underground BMPs that meet these conditions, these are not recommended if they are deemed by the City to be too difficult and, or too expensive to maintain compared to a surface BMP alternative. The City is the final determining authority regarding whether these are considered too difficult or too expensive to maintain over the long term. 2. Pretreatment: This category is for underground BMPs that generally provide little, if any, surcharge storage WQCV. BMPs in this category may be useful as an initial step in a treatment train approach to water quality. A BMP meeting these criteria could be used in conjunction with a downstream BMP that provides slow release of the WQCV. For pretreatment applications, verification programs remain the same however since the volume storage and fine fraction of the TSS are addressed through separate unit processes, the primary design criteria are that the BMP be sized to meet the peak hydraulic flow association with the entire treatment train. To avoid washout, the peak treatment flow will be the same as verified by NJCAT associated with the eighty (80) percent removal rate of the NJCAT PSD. Flows in excess of the water quality design event Flows in excess of the water quality design event need to be bypassed to avoid re-suspension and washout of accumulated sediments. 3. Standalone: This category is for underground BMPs that demonstrate the ability to meet the performance expectation of thirty (30) mg/l TSS EMC effluent for influent concentrations that are less than one forty (140) mg/l or an eighty (80) percent removal rate for influent TSS concentrations of one forty (140) mg/l or more. "Standalone" devices must be designed to provide for the release of the WQCV in no less than twelve (12) hours. Furthermore, this category of BMP can only be used where it is determined that surface BMPs are not feasible. In some situations such as in highly urbanized areas with existing infrastructure, right of way issues, achieving this level of treatment for the entire WQCV using a twelve (12) hour drawdown period may not be practicable. In such cases the design of the proprietary BMP must be done to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). The MEP design approach for underground manufactured BMPs will only be allowed when this is the only practicable alternative available to achieve any level of water quality treatment. In such cases, the design engineer must to present sufficient information to: 82 Gain acceptance of a specific proprietary BMP, using the verifications described above Demonstrate that due to site and engineering constraints that this approach is the most viable solution Demonstrate that the technology is sized and designed in accordance with the applicable verification Show that the MEP approach was used to approach to the maximum extent practicable the treatment levels and volumetric goals required above. See Figure UG-1 for typical underground BMPs that may fall into each category. The City does not maintain a list of specific devices that fall into each of these categories. It is the responsibility of the designer to identify the appropriate category for the BMP based on whether the required treatment level can be provided in the underground BMP. The City, reserves the right to prohibit altogether the use of underground BMPs, proprietary or not. In addition, the City may require the presentation of the proprietary underground BMPs’ performance and maintenance records, in locations where they have been previously installed, and more particularly in areas with climatic conditions similar to the Colorado Front Range area. Additionally, the City may require agreements that run in perpetuity attached to the property served by the BMPs, assuring that they will be inspected and maintained by the owner as required by the City (or recommended by the manufacturer). Finally, a standard operating procedures manual must be submitted and approved by the City for all underground facilities. A final copy of the approved Standard Operating Procedures manual must be provided to the City and must be maintained on-site by the entity responsible for the facility maintenance. Annual reports must be prepared and submitted to the City discussing the frequency and results of the maintenance program. Construction Considerations Improper installation will cause poor performance of proprietary underground BMPs. This problem has been noted not only by manufacturers, but also by a number of Colorado municipalities who have observed that the "as built" BMPs often vary significantly from the design. Most underground BMPs already face challenges due to limited vertical fall and because of head losses, so they may be sensitive to slight changes in elevation. In addition, many of the proprietary underground BMPs require assembly of special baffling or patented inserts that may not be familiar to contractors. For these reasons, it is important to discuss the installation of the underground BMP with the manufacturer prior to selecting a contractor so that the installation requirements are clearly understood. Construction observation by the design engineer, and, if possible, a manufacturer's representative is essential for proper installation. At a minimum, the installation must be inspected by the manufacturer's representative once completed. Any deficiencies of the installation identified by the manufacturer's representative inspection must be immediately corrected. (6) Table UG-1 is deleted. (7) Fact Sheet T-12 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Micropools”, “EURV”and “Full Spectrum Detention” are deleted. 83 (8) Table OS-4 is adopted with the following modification: All references to Figure OS-2 and Figure OS-7 are deleted (9) Figure OS-2 is deleted in its entirety. (10) Figure OS-3 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Permanent Water Surface Elevation (WSE)” are deleted. (11) Figure OS-4 is adopted with the following modification: Add Note: Lowest opening must be set at the invert of the pond. (12) Figure OS-5 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Micropools” are deleted. (13) Figure OS-6 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Micropools” are deleted. (14) Figure OS-7 is deleted in its entirety. (15) Figure OS-8 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “Micropools” are deleted. (16) Figure OS-9 is added. 84 Figure OS-9, City of Fort Collins Water Quality Outlet Structure Details 85 (M) Volume 3, Chapter 5 - Source Control BMPs: (1) Section 1.0 is deleted in its entirety. (2) Section 2.0 is amended to read as follows: 2.0 Structural Source Control BMPs Site operations and potential pollution source control needs should be considered early in the planning and design process. This will reduce the load of pollutants into stormwater and may also facilitate site operations and reduce maintenance requirements for on-site treatment BMPs. A discussion must be provided specifying the permanent structural source control BMP that is used in relation to the planned use of the project. Representative questions that must be considered prior to finalizing the site layout include: 1. What materials are stored on-site? 2. How are these materials handled and moved through the site? 3. What on-site operations take place that could potentially cause materials to enter the storm sewer system? 4. Where and how might these materials enter the storm sewer? 5. How can storage and handling areas and drainage facilities be designed to reduce pollutant loading? Is it feasible to cover these areas? 6. When a spill occurs, how and where will it be controlled and contained? Are structural spill containment measures needed? (3) Section 3.0 is deleted in its entirety. (4) Section 4.0 is deleted in its entirety. (5) Section 5.0 is deleted in its entirety. (6) Source Control BMP Fact Sheets are deleted in their entirety. (7) Table 5.1 is deleted in its entirety. (8) Table 5.2 is deleted in its entirety. (9) Table 5.3 is deleted in its entirety. 86 (N) Volume3, Chapter 6 - BMP Maintenance: (1) Section 2.0 is adopted with the following modification: All references to “UDFCD maintenance” are deleted. (2) Section 7.7 is amended to read as follows: 7.7 Sediment Removal from the Forebay, Trickle Channel and the BMP Bottom Remove sediment from the forebay and trickle channel annually. If portions of the watershed are not developed or if roadway or landscaping projects are taking place in the watershed, the required frequency of sediment removal in the forebay may be as often as after each storm event. The forebay should be maintained in such a way that it does not provide a significant source of re-suspended sediment in the stormwater runoff. Ensure that the sediment is disposed of properly and not placed elsewhere in the basin. Potential accumulation of sediment in the area directly upstream of the outlet structure at the bottom of the BMP must be checked for on a regular basis as well as after every significant storm event. Removal of accumulated sediment or debris must be done immediately when such sediment or debris blocks any portion of the outlet structure and must be done at least on a monthly basis between the months April and September as well as during any rainy period. 87 (O) Volume 3, Chapter 7 - Construction BMPs: (1) A new Section 1.1 is added, to read as follows: 1.1 Purpose and Scope The Stormwater Criteria Manual provides the minimum design and technical criteria for the design and analysis of drainage and erosion control plans. The erosion-related requirements of this Manual are intended to reduce erosion to an acceptable level, emphasizing the control of erosion and sediment transport from the surface of disturbed land by water. Channel erosion control for temporary channels (diversions, gullies) and major channel stabilization are addressed as erosion control matters in this Manual. The requirements of Volume 3, Chapter 7, as amended, apply to all land disturbing activities covered by this Manual, except for the following: (1) Emergency work; and (2) Single Family Residential lots less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area and less than four to one slopes except when construction activities are within 50 feet of the outer limits of sensitive areas including floodplains, slopes, riparian corridors, lakes, irrigation ditches, or other features subject to natural areas buffer requirements under the City Land Use Code (2) A new Section 1.2 is added, to read as follows: 1.2 Review and Acceptance The City will review all erosion control submittals for general compliance with this Manual. An acceptance by the City does not relieve the owner, engineer, or designer from responsibility of ensuring that calculations, plans, and specifications are in general compliance with the criteria. (4) A new Section 1.3 is added, to read as follows: 1.3 Policy, Standards and Submittal Requirements 1.3.1 Policy Erosion and sedimentation are natural processes, the intensity of which is increased by land disturbing activities. Clearing and stripping of land can cause localized increased erosion rates with subsequent deposition of sediments and damage to adjacent downstream and leeward properties. Erosion can reduce or destroy the aesthetic and practical values of neighboring properties, streams and lakes. The City is committed to the enhancement and protection of existing development, streams, lakes, wetlands and rivers that may be impacted by sediment laden runoff resulting from land-change activities. Therefore, it is the policy of the City to encourage maintenance of the natural balance between sediment supply and transport. It is also the City's policy to encourage water erosion control by leaving land undisturbed as long as possible (by project phasing) and using temporary and permanent erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs). 88 1.3.2 Elements of an Erosion Control Plan Erosion control plans must consist of the elements noted below. For developments subject to the subdivision review process, these must be submitted with the final drainage reports. All reports must be typed on 8-1/2" x 11" paper and bound. Drawings, figures, plates, and tables must be bound with the report. The report must include a cover letter presenting the plan for review and must be prepared by or supervised by and engineer licensed in Colorado. Information used for the Erosion Control Plan must be consistent with the Drainage Report and the grading and drainage plans. For City projects, the Erosion Control Plan must be submitted and reviewed through the Construction Coordination process, or through the specific department’s review process. 1.3.3 PDP Erosion Control Report and Drawings Submittal Requirements Erosion Control Report and Plans are required at time of PDP Submittal. The Erosion Control Report must contain or comply with the following: a. A written analysis of the area proposed for construction in reference to developed conditions, rainfall erodibility, and proposed rainfall erosion and sediment control methods. Control of rainfall erosion and sediment transport shall be analyzed in a manner that clearly demonstrates an understanding of how temporary and permanent mitigation methods will be used, including a discussion of the timing of construction phases and the sequential installation of all erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) proposed in the plan. b. Stormwater Management Controls: Include a description of all stormwater management controls that will be implemented as part of the construction activity to control pollutants in stormwater discharges. The appropriateness and priorities of stormwater management controls should reflect the potential pollutant sources identified at the facility. The description of stormwater management controls should address the following components, at a minimum: i.) Identify SWMP Administrator: Identify a specific individual(s), position, or title that is responsible for developing, implementing, maintaining, and revising the SWMP. This designated individual(s) should address all aspects of the facility's SWMP. ii ) Identification of Potential Pollutant Sources: Identify and describe sources that may contribute pollutants to runoff, and provide means of control through BMP selection and implementation. At a minimum, evaluate each of the following potential sources of pollution: 1. All disturbed and stored soils; 2. Vehicle tracking of sediments; 3. Management of contaminated soils; 4. Loading and unloading operations; 5. Outdoor storage activities (building materials, fertilizers, chemicals, etc.); 89 6. Vehicle and equipment maintenance and fueling; 7. Significant dust or particulate generating processes; 8. Routine maintenance activities involving fertilizers, pesticides, detergents, fuels, solvents, oils, etc; 9. On-site waste management practices (waste piles, liquid wastes, dumpsters, etc.); 10. Concrete truck/equipment washing, including the concrete truck chute and associated fixtures and equipment; 11. Dedicated asphalt and concrete batch plants; 12. Non-industrial waste sources such as worker trash and portable toilets; and 13. Other areas or procedures where potential spills can occur. c. For the establishment of dryland vegetation, the discussion must include soil types, seed mix, soil amendments, and mulches. d. Detailed sequence of construction activities must be submitted as part of the erosion and sediment control plan. The plan identifies the sequence for all the major construction and erosion and sediment control activities, including overlot grading, soil and aggregate stockpiling, construction of permanent drainage facilities, and maintenance activities. The construction sequence will be used as a basis for inspection of construction sites for compliance with the erosion and sediment control plan. The sequencing plan must clearly indicate the timing, extent and location where temporary BMP measures are installed and/or removed, depending on the type of construction activities undertaken, e.g. site grading, utilities installation, paving, flatwork, or vertical construction. The construction sequence must include at least the following: 1. Installation of temporary erosion and sediment control measures 2. Sequence of all land disturbing activity 3. Drainage facility construction 4. Sediment basins, temporary channel stabilization 5. Seeding 6. Mulching 7. Required maintenance activities (e.g. expected frequency of sediment pond cleaning, after-storm checks of all BMPs, etc.) e. Erosion control security calculations. The Erosion Control Drawing must contain or comply with the following: The Erosion Control Drawing must use same base used for drainage study. The erosion and sediment control plan may be combined with the grading plan, providing all the required information can be shown, and the combined plan is not so cluttered with 90 information that all the elements cannot be readily seen and deciphered. All drawings must be twenty-two by thirty-four (22x34) inches in size. A General Location Map shall be provided in sufficient detail to identify drainage flow entering and leaving the development and general drainage patterns. The map should be at a scale of 1" = 1000' to 1" = 8000' and show the path of all drainage from the upper end of any off-site basins to major drainageways. The map must identify any major construction (i.e., development, irrigation ditches, existing detention facilities, culverts, storm sewers) along the entire path of drainage. Basins and divides are to be identified and topographic contours are to be included. The Erosion Control Plan drawings of the proposed development or redevelopment must have a scale of 1" = 20' to 1" = 200' on 22" x 34" drawings. a. Standard and job-specific construction details of erosion and sediment control measures, and standard and job specific erosion and sediment control notes. b. List vegetative specifications from this Manual if standard vegetation is to be used. Include alternate specifications and justification if they are to be used. c. List structural specifications from this Manual if standards are to be used. Include other specifications and justifications if they are to be used. d. A construction detail for all proposed construction BMPs. e. The following standard erosion and sediment control notes: 1) The City Stormwater Department erosion control inspector must be notified at least 24 hours prior to any construction on this site. 2) All required perimeter silt fencing shall be installed prior to any land disturbing activity (stockpiling, stripping, grading, etc). All of their required erosion control measures shall be installed at the appropriate time in the construction sequence as indicated in the approved project schedule, construction plans, and erosion control report. 3) Pre-disturbance vegetation shall be protected and retained wherever possible. Removal or disturbance of existing vegetation shall be limited to the area required for immediate construction operations, and for the shortest practical period of time. 4) All soils exposed during land disturbing activity (stripping, grading, utility installations, stockpiling, filling, etc.) shall be kept in a roughened condition by ripping or disking along land contours until mulch, vegetation, or other permanent erosion control is installed. No soils in areas outside project street rights of way shall remain exposed by land disturbing activity for more than thirty (30) days before required temporary or permanent erosion control (e.g. seed/mulch, landscaping, etc.) is installed, unless otherwise approved by the Stormwater Department. 91 5) The property must be watered and maintained at all times during construction activities so as to prevent wind-caused erosion. All land disturbing activities shall be immediately discontinued when fugitive dust impacts adjacent properties, as determined by the City Engineering Department. 6) All temporary (structural) erosion control measures must be inspected and repaired or reconstructed as necessary after each runoff event and every 14 days in order to assure continued performance of their intended function. All retained sediments, particularly those on paved roadway surfaces, shall be removed and disposed of in a manner and location so as not to cause their release into any drainageway. 7) No soil stockpile shall exceed ten (10) feet in height. All soil stockpiles shall be protected from sediment transport by surface roughening, watering, and perimeter silt fencing. Any soil stockpile remaining after 30 days shall be seeded and mulched. 8) City Ordinance prohibits the tracking, dropping, or depositing of soils or any other material onto city streets by or from any vehicle. Any inadvertent deposited material shall be cleaned immediately by the contractor. 9) Additional notes can (should) be added to reflect the erosion/sediment control plan of the individual development. (4) A new Section 1.4 is added, to read as follows: 1.4 Security for Erosion Control No land disturbing activity subject to this Stormwater Criteria Manual can begin until an Erosion Control Plan has been approved and the Owner has submitted proof of security to ensure rehabilitation of the disturbed land. A performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or cash escrow, acceptable to the Utilities Executive Director, and naming the City as the protected party, is required. Such performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or cash escrow shall further guarantee the continued maintenance and replacement of any installed erosion control measures shown on the approved plan. The amount of the security is based on one and one-half times the cost to revegetate the disturbed land to dryland grasses (soil preparation, seed, and mulch) based upon unit cost determined by the City Stormwater Department’s Annual Revegetation and Stabilization Bid. In no instance, shall the amount of security be less than one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for residential and three thousand dollars ($3,000) for commercial projects Should the Owner be out of compliance with provisions of the approved Erosion Control Plan, the City may exercise its rights under the security provided. In the event that the City exercises such rights, it is not the City's intention to routinely administer the construction of the measures shown on the erosion control plans, however, the City reserves the right to enter upon the land and take whatever actions are necessary to stabilize and revegetate all disturbed areas, or to have the plan constructed and make repairs as necessary. 92 The erosion control security will normally be retained by the City until the project has been completed and there is no further possibility of erosion or sediment transport from the site. This includes the time for two full growing seasons for the establishment of grasses on any revegetated areas. At that time, the security will be released. However, if a part or phase of the site has been completed (including any revegetated areas which are established but have not yet reached the two growing season warranty limit), and if it can be determined by the City that there is no further erosion or sediment transport risk from that part or phase as it relates to the entire project, then the portion of the erosion control security that would apply to that part or phase can be released, whether or not the entire project has been completed. Any partial release of the erosion control security must be requested by the responsible party. (5) A new Section 1.5 is added, to read as follows: 1.5 Warranty The Owner must warrant that the measures shown on the approved erosion and sediment control plan are properly constructed, installed, and are free from defective materials and/or workmanship, with said warranty to continue for the terms set forth below. The Owner shall warrant and maintain all structural measures for such period of time as construction on the site continues and/or said measures are necessary to protect against erosion and sediment transport. The Owner must warrant and maintain all vegetative measures for two growing seasons after installation. Any acceptance of installed measures shall not be construed to relieve the Owner of the duty to warrant and maintain as aforesaid. (6) A new Section 1.6 is added, to read as follows: 1.6 Enforcement No land disturbing activity subject to this Stormwater Criteria Manual can begin on any project unless it is associated with an approved Erosion Control Plan, a signed Development Agreement, and a submitted erosion control security. All erosion control measures must be installed when they are necessary as indicated by the approved Erosion Control Plan and Report, and maintained in accordance with these Criteria. In order to ensure that all required measures have been correctly installed and are in proper order and repair, no building permit will be issued on any project until an inspection of the site and its required erosion control measures has been made and deemed acceptable by the City. If, at any time during construction activities, the Owner fails to adhere to the approved Erosion Control Plan and Report, the construction phase sequence, or any of the erosion control criteria, the City may employ any or all of the following: Stop all or any part of the work on the project. Withhold building permits. Withhold certificates of occupancy. Exercise the City’s rights under the security provided Issue summons and or fines. 93 (7) Section 2.4 is added, to read as follows: 2.4 Fundamental Erosion Control Principles The intent of erosion control design is to protect adjacent properties and downstream properties from the detrimental effects of land disturbing activity. Water erosion is always directional, i.e., always down-slope. This directional nature of water erosion can be used to design resistance to sediment movement near the downstream edge of the disturbed property. The erosion control design may govern slope placement so that sediment-laden runoff is not directly tributary to an adjacent property. The slope may need to be built to accommodate a temporary diversion channel, which keeps water on the disturbed parcel. Control measures are necessary for each phase of development (each phase of a development must have a “stand alone” erosion control plan), and it is understood that initial grading and construction will require certain control measures, which will change or be replaced as development progresses. Temporary control measures such as silt fences or diversion structures may be used during the initial grading and construction phase and later either removed completely or replaced with grass or permanent sediment basins. Erosion control measures can be arranged to perform in sequence so that sediment reduction caused by one measure releases less sediment to the next. In this manner, series resistance to sediment movement can be built into a project so that stormwater released to adjacent properties or streams is carrying the allowable amount of sediment. The resistance to released sediments can be designed to minimize costs and minimize interference with on-site construction activities. The construction and maintenance of erosion control measures is critical to ensure proper performance. Erosion Control Plans must include construction details and maintenance guidelines. (8) Section 3.0 is deleted in its entirety (9) Section 3.1 is deleted in its entirety (10) Section 3.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 3.2.1 Inspection Frequency Documented inspections are required on a biweekly basis and within twenty four (24) hours of a storm event, with some limited, temporary exceptions for inactive sites. The City recommends spot-checking BMPs every workday. This is typically reasonable to achieve and can help to ensure that the BMPs remain in good working condition. For example, vehicle tracking of sediment onto the roadway is a common problem that often requires maintenance more frequently than weekly. Curb socks, inlet protection and silt fence are other BMPs that are prone to damage and displacement, also benefiting from more frequent inspections. When the site or portions of the site are awaiting final stabilization (e.g., vegetative cover), where construction is essentially complete, the recommended frequency of inspection is at least once every week. Be sure that this change is documented and in accordance with relevant permit requirements prior to reducing the inspection schedule. When snow cover exists over the entire site for an extended period, inspections are not always feasible. Document this condition, including date of snowfall and date of melting 94 conditions, and be aware of and prepare for areas where melting conditions may pose a risk of surface erosion. Inspections of disturbed sites must be done by the responsible party, at the minimum, on a bi-weekly basis. Records of inspections including date and time of inspection, corrective action(s) taken and future planned maintenance activities must be kept at the construction site by the responsible party and submitted to the Erosion Control Inspector upon request. (11) Section 4.2 is amended to read as follows: 4.2 Sediment Control Measures Sediment control measures limit transport of sediment off-site to downstream properties and receiving waters. Sediment controls are the second line of defense, capturing soil that has been eroded. Sediment control generally rely on treatment processes that either provide filtration through a permeable media or that slow runoff to allow the settling of suspended particles. A third treatment process that is used in some parts of the country includes advanced treatment systems employing chemical addition (flocculent) to promote coagulation and settling of sediment particles. The City does not recommend the use of chemical treatment as the improper application of chemicals can be more detrimental than simply removing the sediment. “Sediment Control” (SC) BMPs Fact Sheets in this chapter are: SC-1 Silt Fence (SF) SC-2 Sediment Control Log (SCL) SC-4 Brush Barrier (BB) SC-5 Rock Sock (RS) SC-6 Inlet Protection (IP) (multiple types) SC-7 Sediment Basin (SB) SC-8 Sediment Trap (ST) SC-9 Vegetated Buffers (VB) SC-10 Chemical Treatment (CT) (also known as Advanced Treatment Systems [ATS]) No Fact Sheet is included for “SC-3 Straw Bale Barriers” (SBB) as these are prohibited from use as a post-construction sediment control measure in the City. (12) Fact Sheet SC-3 is deleted in its entirety. (13) Figure SBB-1 is deleted. DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 23 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 175, 2011, Designating the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage, 160 Yale Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owner of the property, Judith Goeke, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage at 160 Yale Avenue. The residence is eligible for designation as a Landmark under Designation Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. A 1950s Split-Level home, it is a early example of this housing type within Fort Collins, and exhibits a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Constructed in 1958, this Split-Level home exhibits many character-defining features, including the one-and-one-half story form paired with a one-story bay; the central entry; window pattern; use of new types of exterior building materials; the use of decorative 4 x 10 and 4 x 12 purlins under the eaves; and two car attached garage. This housing type was marketed to families with older children and was designed to create zones for noisier living and service areas, such as the kitchen and TV room, and quieter activities, such as the living room, and sleeping areas. This home, like most Split-Levels, features a below grade basement with small slider windows. The upper story windows on the central bay indicate the bedrooms. The window and entry pattern on the non-garage bay support the existence of a living room, kitchen, and stairway located near the front door. The location of the two car garage in the separate bay on the facade gives this home a more sprawling appearance than most. The property at 160 Yale Avenue has been home to a number of local professionals over its fifty-three year history. The original owners were Marty F. Koolen, a pharmaceutical salesman for Pitman Moore, his wife Aletha, and their son, also Marty F. During the 1960s, dentist Cecil L. Bartlett and his wife Carolyn R. Bartlett, a registered nurse, lived in the house. From the 1970s to the mid 1990s, Delbert McGuire, his wife, Virginia, and their son, Delbert Jr., lived in the house. Delbert McGuire was responsible for establishing the Department of Journalism at Colorado State University. He died in 1993, and at that time his widow sold the home to Dennis R. and Julie Drake. The Drakes in turn sold the house to Amy L. and Mark A. Talbot in 1997. The current owner, Judith Goeke, purchased the home from Mark Talbot in 2005. A Licensed Professional Counselor, Ms. Goeke is a behavioral health and social service provider, with a specialization in mental health. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At a public hearing held on November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standard (3), Architecture, as an early example of Split- Level Architecture in Fort Collins. ATTACHMENTS 1. Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form and Agreement 2. Staff Report 3. Resolution 6, 2011, Landmark Preservation Commission, Recommending Landmark Designation of the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage at 160 Yale Avenue. 4. Photos Revised 09-2004 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 160 Yale Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80525 Legal Description: All of Lot 67 and a Portion of Lot 66 in South College Heights Second Subdivision, Fort Collins, according to Plat filed November 10, 1955 in Plat Book 6, page 106 contained within boundary lines described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly Front Corner of said Lot and running thence S 57 degrees 50 minutes East along the Southwesterly side line to the most Southerly corner of said Lot, and running thence N 25 degrees 10 minutes E 3.44 feet along the rear line of said Lot, thence N 58 degrees 19 minutes West 112.22 feet to the front line of said Lot, thence Southwesterly along said front line along the arc of a 297 feet radius curve to the right 2.51 feet, the long chord of which bears S 31 degrees 55.5 West 2.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Property Name (historic and/or common): Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Judith Goeke Phone: 970-493-2530 Email: toheyjude@yahoo.com Mailing Address: 160 Yale Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6078 Email: kmcwilliams@fcgov.com Based upon information contained in “Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, 160 Yale Avenue,” by Dr. Mary Therese Anstey, Historitecture, LLC, December 14, 2010. Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ATTACHMENT 1 Revised 09-2004 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property contains the historic residence with attached garage. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Bartlett/Goeke House, at 160 Yale Avenue, is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. A late 1950s Split-Level home, it is a rare early example of this housing type within Fort Collins, and exhibits a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. Constructed in 1958, this Split-Level home exhibits many character-defining features, including the one-and-one-half story form paired with a one-story bay; the central entry; window pattern; use of new types of exterior building materials; the use of decorative 4 x 10 and larger purlins under the eaves; and two car attached garage. This housing type was marketed to families with older children and was designed to create zones for noisier living and service areas, such as the kitchen and TV room, and quieter activities, such as the living room, and sleeping areas. This home, like most Split-Levels, features a below grade basement with small slider windows. The upper story windows on the central bay indicate the bedrooms. The window and entry pattern on the non-garage bay support the existence of a living room, kitchen, and stairway located near the front door. The location of the two car garage in the separate bay on the facade gives this home a more sprawling appearance than most. Revised 09-2004 Page 3 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1958 (Larimer County Assessor’s Records) Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Blond brick and wood siding Architectural Style: Split-Level Description: Located on a curvilinear street and oriented to the northwest, this late 1950s Split- Level type home rests on a concrete foundation. The rectangular shaped home features a combination of blonde brick and vertical siding, painted yellow. Other wooden trim on the house is painted light brown to match the tone of the bricks. The house has three discrete gabled roof sections: the one-and-one-half story center is front gabled and there are two single story flanking bays with shallow side gabled roof. The entire roof is covered in built-up rock and has overhanging eaves with large exposed rafter ends visible at the gable faces. A single step brick stoop leads to the primary entry which features a wooden storm door painted forest green, with three large, rectangular, horizontally oriented fixed pane windows. Near the southwest corner of the facade there are two large double hung windows. A dominant rectangular brick chimney runs along the ridgeline of the side gabled portion of roof. The facade of the home’s central bay features four windows. There are two slider windows allowing light into the below grade basement. The other two windows, which appear to be pairs of double-hungs, are located on the upper portion of the facade nearer the roofline, and both feature green and white fabric awnings. Three wooden trellis plant supports are leaned against this central portion of the facade. A large two car attached garage comprises the third bay of the home located on the northwest corner of the facade. The garage door appears to be wood and is painted the same light brown as other trim on the home. Both the south and north elevations appear to be solid brick with no window openings. The yard is xeriscaped, with minimal grass and most of the landscaping turned over to rock and mulched beds. Character defining features of this property include: the flat roof with rectangular supports, the one-and-one-half story form, central entry, window pattern and rectangular windows, and two car attached garage. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The property at 160 Yale Avenue has been home to a number of local professionals over its fifty- three year history. The original owners were Marty F. Koolen, a pharmaceutical salesman for Pitman Moore, and his wife Aletha L. Koolen. The couple had a son, also Marty F. The Koolens lived in this home for only a single year. During the 1960s, dentist Cecil L. Bartlett and his wife Carolyn R. Bartlett, a registered nurse, lived in the house. Bartlett’s dental office was located in downtown Fort Collins at 210 Mason Street. From the 1970s to the mid 1990s, members of the McGuire family lived in the home. Delbert McGuire was born on August 24, 1917, in Altus, Oklahoma. He earned an undergraduate and masters degree from the University of Texas and a doctorate from Iowa State University. He married Virginia Wright on February 6, 1942, and the couple had one son, Delbert, Jr. Delbert McGuire, Sr. served in the US Army during World War II and taught at Texas A&M University before accepting a position in 1968 at Colorado State University. There, he was responsible for establishing the college’s journalism department. He died on April 9, 1993. At that time Virginia McGuire sold this home to Dennis R. and Julie A. Drake, and moved to Sherman, Texas. She died there, at her son’s home, on August 5, 1996. The Drakes lived here for four years, before selling the house to Amy L. Talbot and Mark A. Talbot in 1997. The current owner, Judith Goeke, purchased the home from Mark Talbot in 2005. A Licensed Professional Counselor, Ms. Goeke is a behavioral health and social service provider with a specialization in mental health. Revised 09-2004 Page 4 REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION City of Fort Collins, Public Record Database. http://www.fcgov.com “Colorado Cultural Resource Survey, Architectural Inventory Form, 160 Yale Avenue,” prepared December 14, 2010 by Dr. Mary Therese Anstey, Historitecture, LLC. Fort Collins City Directory. Fort Collins: Mauer & Mauer; Omaha: R.L. Polk & Co.; Colorado Springs and Loveland: Rocky Mountain Directory Co.; Loveland: Johnson Publishing Co., and others. 1959 through 1994. Larimer County Tax Assessor Property Records for 160 Yale Avenue Obituary: Delbert McGuire, Larimer County Genealogical Society. http://www.lcgsco.org/obits/mcgude93.jpg Obituary: Virginia M. McGuire. Larimer County Genealogical Society. http://www.lcgsco.org/obits/Mcguvi96.jpg Google search: Judith Goeke Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 9, 2011 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage, 160 Yale Avenue STAFF CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Judith Goeke, Owner BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Landmark designation of the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage, at 160 Yale Avenue. This property is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. A late 1950s Split-Level home, it is a rare early example of this housing type within Fort Collins, and exhibits a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. Constructed in 1958, this Split-Level home exhibits many character-defining features, including the one-and-one-half story form paired with a one-story bay; the central entry; window pattern; use of new types of exterior building materials; the use of decorative 4 x 10 and larger purlins under the eaves; and two car attached garage. This housing type was marketed to families with older children and was designed to create zones for noisier living and service areas, such as the kitchen and TV room, and quieter activities, such as the living room, and sleeping areas. This home, like most Split-Levels, features a below grade basement with small slider windows. The upper story windows on the central bay indicate the bedrooms. The window and entry pattern on the non-garage bay support the existence of a living room, kitchen, and stairway located near the front door. The location of the two car garage in the separate bay on the facade gives this home a more sprawling appearance than most. The property at 160 Yale Avenue has been home to a number of people over its fifty- three year history. The original owners were Marty F. and Aletha L. Koolen. During the 1960s, dentist Cecil L. Bartlett and his wife Carolyn R. Bartlett, a registered nurse, lived in the house. Bartlett’s dental office was located in downtown Fort Collins at 210 Mason Street. From the 1970s to the mid 1990s, the Delbert and Virginia McGuire family lived in the home. Delbert McGuire, Sr. is credited with establishing Colorado State University’s journalism department. Following Delbert’s death in 1993, Virginia McGuire sold this home to Dennis R. and Julie A. Drake. The current owner, Judith Goeke, purchased the home from Mark Talbot in 2005. A Licensed Professional Counselor, Ms. Goeke is a behavioral health and social service provider with a specialization in mental health. She operates her counseling office at this location. ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage meets Standard 3 of Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code, and approve a resolution of the Landmark Preservation Commission recommending to City Council the designation of the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage, 160 Yale Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. 175, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE BARTLETT/GOEKE HOUSE AND ATTACHED GARAGE, 160 YALE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") has determined that the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage have significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standard (3), as an early example of the split-level housing type within Fort Collins, with a high level of physical integrity; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the City Code and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property has requested such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property's significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate said property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the property known as the Bartlett/Goeke House and Attached Garage, and the adjacent lands upon which the historical resources are located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: All of Lot 67 and a Portion of Lot 66 in South College Heights Second Subdivision, Fort Collins, according to Plat filed November 10, 1955 in Plat Book 6, page 106 contained within boundary lines described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly Front Corner of said Lot and running thence S 57 degrees 50 minutes East along the Southwesterly side line to the most Southerly corner of said Lot, and running thence N 25 degrees 10 minutes E 3.44 feet along the rear line of said Lot, thence N 58 degrees 19 minutes West 112.22 feet to the front line of said Lot, thence Southwesterly along said front line along the arc of a 297 feet radius curve to the right 2.51 feet, the long chord of which bears S 31 degrees 55.5 West 2.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, County of Larimer, State of Colorado be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter l4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 2. That the criteria in Section 14-48 of the City Code will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 24 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 176, 2011, Designating the Chestnut/ Wombacher Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace, 331 South Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street, as Fort Collins Landmarks Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Chestnut/Wombacher Property, at 331 South Shields Street, is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. The house and attached three-car garage embody distinctive characteristics of the Tudor Revival style, prevalent in the 1920s and 1930s. Notable features include the stucco exterior, with randomly placed decorative large rock; the large chimney; steep, multi-gabled roof lines; a classic sloped gable or “cat-slide” entryway; and two and three light casement windows. The house contains two separate apartments in the basement. The property also contains a freestanding historic brick and stone fireplace, dating to the period of construction. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Chestnut/Wombacher House has additional architectural and historical significance for its construction originally as a “basement house.” Basement houses were a low-cost approach to housing in pre-World War II America. Generally rectangular in shape, basement houses had masonry walls extending two to three feet above grade level, and low to moderately pitched roofs. Access to the underground living area was gained through a gabled vestibule entrance containing a flight of stairs leading down. The owners expected to use the structure of the basement house as the foundation for a standard residence at a later time. Four families have made this residence at 331 South Shields Street their home since its construction. The original owners were Donald and Marjorie Chestnut, who built the basement house and enlarged it to the existing 1 1/2 story Tudor Revival. Mr. Chestnut had a plumbing business, and one of the garage bays was used as his workshop. Doctors George and Olga Brown practiced in Fort Collins, and occupied the house from 1948 until 1972. The home was owned for a brief period by Frank and Connie Marthinsen, before Margaret and Karl Wombacher purchased the house in 1978. The Wombachers met in 1953 in Cameroon, West Africa when both were in the Peace Corps. The couple married in 1964 and had three children. They both taught in Saudi Arabia, and after Mr. Wombacher’s death in 1984, Margaret continued to teach in Korea, Kuwait, and Thailand. Now retired, Margaret Wombacher continues to substitute teach in the Poudre School District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At a public hearing held on November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standard (3), Architecture. ATTACHMENTS 1. Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form 2. Staff Report 3. Resolution 5, 2011, Landmark Preservation Commission, Recommending Landmark Designation of the Chestnut/Wombacher House, 331 South Shields. 4. Photos Revised 09-2004 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 331 South Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street, Fort Collins, Colorado Legal Description: Lot One (1) and vacated portion of West Magnolia Street adjoining Lot One (1) described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Block Eight (8) of Scott- Sherwood Addition to the City of Fort Collins, thence South 30 feet; thence West 190 feet; thence North 30 feet; thence East 190 feet to the point of beginning; of Block Eight (8) of Plat of Block Eight (8) and Eleven (11), Scott-Sherwood Addition to the City of Fort Collins, according to the recorded Plat thereof, County of Larimer, State of Colorado. Property Name (historic and/or common): Chestnut/ Wombacher Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Margaret Wombacher Phone: 970-493-5497 Email: maggiew666@comcast.net Mailing Address: 331 South Shields Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80524 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Lisa Steiner, Historic Preservation Intern Address: City of Fort Collins, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6078 Email: lsteiner@fcgov.com Relationship to Owner: None Date Prepared: February, 2011 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 ATTACHMENT 1 Revised 09-2004 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property consists of a historic one-and-one half-story home with two basement apartments and attached three-car garage, a historic freestanding brick and stone fireplace, and a non-historic wood gazebo. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Chestnut/Wombacher Property, at 331 South Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street, is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. Constructed in 1938, the historic resources exhibit a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. The house and attached three-car garage embody distinctive characteristics of the Tudor Revival style, which reached its highest level of popularity in the 1920s and 1930s. Notable stylistic features include the stucco exterior, with randomly placed decorative large rock; the large chimney; steep, multi-gabled roof lines; a classic sloped gable or “cat-slide” entryway; and two and three light casement windows. The house contains two apartments in the basement, configured in the 1940s. The property also contains a historic freestanding brick and stone fireplace located in the back yard, dating to the period of construction. The Chestnut/Wombacher House has additional architectural interest for its construction originally as a “basement house.” Basement houses were a low-cost approach to housing in pre- World War II America. Generally rectangular in shape, basement houses had masonry walls extending two to three feet above grade level, and low to moderately pitched roofs. Access to the underground living area was gained through a gabled vestibule entrance containing a flight of stairs leading down. The owners expected to use the structure of the basement house as the foundation for a standard residence at a later time. Revised 09-2004 Page 3 ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1934/1938 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Brick, Stucco and Concrete, with Rock Architectural Style: Tudor Revival The Chestnut/Wombacher house has the Tudor Revival characteristics of masonry exterior; very large chimney; steep, multi-gabled roof lines; a notable sloped or cat-slide entryway; and two and three light casement windows. The home dates to 1934, when Don and Margaret Chestnut began construction of their foundation as a “basement house.” Basement houses were a low-cost approach to housing in pre-World War II America. Generally rectangular in shape, basement houses had formed masonry or concrete walls extending two to three feet above grade level, and low to moderately pitched roofs. Access to the underground living area was gained through a gabled vestibule entrance containing a flight of stairs leading down. The Chestnut/Wombacher basement house was brick and concrete, with a raised basement configuration, rectangular plan, two at-grade stairway entrances and a slightly pitched gable roof. The basement measured 32 feet x 42 feet. The Chestnut family occupied this basement home for four years. In 1938, the family upgraded the basement house into a one and one-half story Tudor Revival, with the same footprint as before. The 1938 building permit called for a solid brick residence. The brick exterior was clad in beige stucco, with very large decorative field or moss rocks randomly placed from the basement windows to the top of the main floor windows. The home’s façade, or east elevation, presents a moderately pitched, side-gabled roof of grey asphalt shingles. A front dormer, centered on the front façade, with a moderately pitched gabled roof, creates a half story above the main floor. The front door is approached by nine cement steps flanked by wrought iron railings. The steps lead to an enclosed vestibule with a swept gable roof. It is slightly off-center, and, for symmetry, is flanked by a three-over-three light window to the north. The natural colored wood door, with dark brown painted wood surround, is rounded at the top, another typical Tudor Revival feature. A single rectangular light replaces a panel in the upper portion of the door, and the door’s handle and lock are brass. Also, the entrance is trimmed with dark brick, in a rowlock pattern, and the adjacent window has a sill of brick headers. There is a bronze plaque between the window and doorway with the address. The house has a variety of casement windows with different patterns of lights, most commonly two or three light. The main floor windows have sills of dark brick in a header pattern. The stucco and rock chimney on the south side of the house juts out from the house proper. It is rectangular in shape, with shoulders that angle in just above the main floor windows. From there it rises to a tall stack with metal end-cap. On the south side, off of Magnolia Street, are three wooden doors with aluminum storm doors. One door, accessed by way of four concrete steps with a wrought iron railing, provides entry to the main floor of the house via the kitchen. During the 1940s, the former basement house portion of the home was converted into two separate apartments, with individual entrances off of Magnolia Street, and the other two entrances lead to these basement level apartments. These are currently addressed as 1200 West Magnolia Street, Apartments A and B. Also entered from West Magnolia is the three-car attached garage. This garage is constructed of stucco with rocks above the doors, matching the house. The garage has two external garage doors, a single car door located on the east, and the double car door to the west. The parapet of the front wall of the garage has a slight pitch in the middle. The parapet is formed with decorative, slightly raised castellations in the center and at the outside edge. The tops of the south and west walls are outlined with a course of dark brick headers. The garage roof slopes from front to back and the west wall parapet steps down as it follows this slope. An unadorned stucco chimney is located on the north side of the attached garage. It was used, presumably, as part of the plumbing workshop. Revised 09-2004 Page 4 The rear yard contains a historic freestanding fireplace and a non-historic gazebo. The fireplace, on the north side of the back yard, is built of rough fieldstone with a slab mantel and a short stone and brick chimney. A decorative tile is centrally located on the chimney, and matching tiles are found at the front side of each of two arms extending forward from the fireplace. These two arms are of dressed stone, with slab tops. Two slab seats on concrete block supports are placed perpendicular to the fireplace. While these seats do not appear to be original, the fireplace reputedly was constructed at, or shortly after, the date of the home’s construction. A hexagonal wood gazebo is located in the south side of the back yard. It sits slightly above ground level on narrow feet resting on concrete supports, and surrounded by a crushed-rock pad. Eight posts support the hexagonal asphalt-clad roof, and the half walls are comprised of decorative cut-out panels. The gazebo was added in 1997 by Margaret Wombacher. HISTORICAL INFORMATION Four families have made this Tudor Revival residence at 331 South Shields Street their home since its construction. The original owners were Donald and Marjorie Chestnut. Prior to their residence in this home, from 1928 until 1935 Marjorie and Donald Chestnut lived at 1124 West Magnolia, directly across the street from the lot at 331 South Shields Street. Donald Chestnut was a plumber and the couple had two children, Barbara and Gene. In April 1934, the Chestnuts obtained a building permit for the construction of a $2500 residence at 331 South Shields Street. The house was originally constructed as a basement house, a low-cost approach to housing pre World War II. The concept was to ease the cost of building a new house by constructing it in two or more phases, often several years apart. On September 22, 1938, four years after the Chestnuts’ Basement House was constructed, a permit was issued for a $1500 addition to complete the construction, creating the one and one-half story home as it now stands. A three-car attached garage, unusual for the time, and the backyard fireplace were believed to have been added at the same time. One of the garage bays served as Mr. Chestnut’s plumbing workshop. In 1948, the Chestnuts sold the house to Drs. George and Olga Brown. Dr. Olga Nitra was born in Nitra Hungary, on June 13, 1901. She graduated from Prague medical School in 1927, and later received a degree in dentistry. She and Dr. George Brown met and married in Prague in 1928. The couple practiced in Hungary until 1939, when they immigrated to the United States, briefly settling first in New York, before moving to Pueblo and then to Fort Collins. Olga Brown worked with George in his eye-ear-nose-throat practice from 1942 to 1947. The 1968 Fort Collins City Directory describes Dr. George Brown as an ophthalmologist, with offices at 125 South College Avenue. George Brown died in 1972, in Fort Collins. Following his death, Olga Brown moved to Walla Walla, Washington to be near their only daughter, Ruth. According to Margaret Wombacher, the house was then sold to Frank and Connie Marthinsen, about whom little is known. They lived there until the Wombachers purchased it in 1978. Margaret and Karl Wombacher met in 1962 in Cameroon, West Africa, when both were in the Peace Corps. They married in 1964, and shortly thereafter returned home to Minnesota, where their first two children, Julie and Teresa, were born. In 1967, Karl Wombacher, an English teacher and teacher of English as a Second Language, was offered a position in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with TWA (Trans World Airlines). In Jeddah, Margaret Wombacher taught at the Parents’ Cooperative School, where the students were from 40 – 50 different countries. The Wombachers lived in Jeddah for seventeen years, during which time their third child, Leila, was born. Needing a home base, they settled on Fort Collins, purchasing this home in 1978 on one of their trips back to the United States, before returning to Jeddah. When overseas, the Wombachers rented the home out. Karl Wombacher died in December, 1985. Margaret continued to travel and teach overseas, in Korea, Kuwait, and Thailand. During this time, she rented out the house and two basement apartments. In addition to her considerable travels, Margaret Wombacher has been a long distance runner of note. Since her retirement, she continues to work as a substitute teacher for the Poudre R-1 School District. Revised 09-2004 Page 5 REFERENCES City of Fort Collins Public Record Database Fort Collins City Directories (1934-2010) Fort Collins History Connection, Building Inspector Job Record Larimer County Assessor Property Information for 331 South Shields Street Obituary for Olga Brown, 6-10-84 A Guide to Colorado’s Historic Architecture and Engineering, Second Edition, (Colorado Historical Society, 2008) McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984) Interview with Margaret Wombacher, April, 2010. Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 9, 2011 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Chestnut/Wombacher Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace, 331 South Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street STAFF CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Margaret Wombacher, Owner BACKGROUND: Staff is pleased to present for your consideration the Landmark designation of the Chestnut/Wombacher Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace, 331 South Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street. This property is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. Constructed in 1938, the historic resources exhibit a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. The house and attached three-car garage embody distinctive characteristics of the Tudor Revival style, including its masonry exterior; very large chimney; steep, multi-gabled roof lines; a notable sloped or cat-slide entryway; and two and three light casement windows. The Chestnut/Wombacher House has additional architectural interest for its construction originally as a “basement house.” In 1934, Don and Margaret Chestnut began construction of the foundation as a “basement house.” Basement houses were a low-cost approach to housing in pre-World War II America. Generally rectangular in shape, basement houses had formed masonry or concrete walls extending two to three feet above grade level, and low to moderately pitched roofs. Access to the underground living area was gained through a gabled vestibule entrance containing a flight of stairs leading down. The Chestnut/Wombacher basement house was brick and concrete, with a raised basement configuration, rectangular plan, two at-grade stairway entrances, and a slightly pitched gable roof. The basement measured 32 feet x 42 feet. The Chestnut family occupied this basement home for four years. In 1938, the family upgraded the basement house into a one and one-half story Tudor Revival, with the same footprint as before. The 1938 building permit called for a solid brick residence. The brick exterior was clad in beige stucco, with very large decorative field or moss rocks randomly placed from the basement windows to the top of the main floor windows. The house contains two apartments in the basement, configured in the 1940s. These are addressed as 1200 West Magnolia Street. The property also contains a historic freestanding brick and stone fireplace located in the back yard, dating to the period of construction. ATTACHMENT 2 The home is owned by Margaret Wombacher, who purchased the property with her husband, Karl, in 1978 to use as a home-base while they worked overseas. Margaret and Karl Wombacher met in 1962 in Cameroon, West Africa, when both were in the Peace Corps. They married in 1964, and shortly thereafter returned to Minnesota, where their first two children, Julie and Teresa, were born. In 1967, Karl Wombacher, an English teacher and teacher of English as a Second Language, was offered a position in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with TWA (Trans World Airlines). In Jeddah, Margaret Wombacher taught at the international Parents’ Cooperative School. The Wombachers lived in Jeddah for seventeen years, during which time their third child, Leila, was born. When overseas, the Wombachers rented the home out. Karl Wombacher passed away in December, 1985. Margaret continued to travel and teach overseas, in Korea, Kuwait, and Thailand. In addition to her considerable travels, Margaret Wombacher has been a long distance runner of note. Since her retirement, she continues to work as a substitute teacher for the Poudre R-1 School District. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the Chestnut/Wombacher Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace, 331 South Shields Street/1200 West Magnolia Street, meets Standard 3 of Section 14- 5 of the Municipal Code, and approve a resolution of the Landmark Preservation Commission recommending to City Council the designation of the Chestnut/Wombacher Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. 176, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE CHESTNUT/WOMBACHER RESIDENCE, ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE, AND HISTORIC FREESTANDING FIREPLACE, 331 SOUTH SHIELDS STREET/1200 WEST MAGNOLIA STREET, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO AS FORT COLLINS LANDMARKS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") has determined that the Chestnut/Wombacher property has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standard (3), as an excellent example of a Tudor Revival residence and attached garage, with historic freestanding outdoor fireplace; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the City Code and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property has consented to such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property's significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate said property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the property known as the Chestnut/Wombacher Residence, Attached Three-Car Garage, and Historic Freestanding Fireplace, and the adjacent lands upon which the historical resources are located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Lot One (1) and vacated portion of West Magnolia Street adjoining Lot One (1) described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Block Eight (8) of Scott- Sherwood Addition to the City of Fort Collins, thence South 30 feet; thence West 190 feet; thence North 30 feet; thence East 190 feet to the point of beginning; of Block Eight (8) of Plat of Block Eight (8) and Eleven (11), Scott-Sherwood Addition to the City of Fort Collins, according to the recorded Plat thereof, County of Larimer, State of Colorado be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter l4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 2. That the criteria in Section 14-48 of the City Code will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 25 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 177, 2011, Designating the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, 2500 South College Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The owner of the property, Joanne Gallagher, is initiating this request for Fort Collins Landmark designation for the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, at 2500 South College Avenue. The residence with attached garage is significant under Designation Standard (2) for its association with Mae, Lewis, and Bill Tiley, Fort Collins developers who platted and developed several post-World War II residential subdivisions, including the South College Heights subdivision where this property is located; and under Designation Standard (3), as an architecturally significant example of a mid-1950s Ranch type home. This property retains a very high level of integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The original owners of this home were Lewis and Mae Tiley, and their two children. Moving to Fort Collins at the beginning of the Great Depression, the Tileys were true entrepreneurs. In the 1930s and 1940s, they operated a grocery store at 338 East Elizabeth Street. During the 1940s, the couple purchased and renovated homes, which they then sold for a profit. Most significantly for Fort Collins, both Lewis and Mae Tiley and their son Bill were involved with postwar subdivision development in Fort Collins. In 1956, Mae and Bill partnered with local lumberman turned developer Robert Everitt, to plat the South College Heights subdivision. All three Tileys worked again with Everitt in 1962, to develop the University Acres subdivision. Mae Tiley was involved in real estate beyond Fort Collins, purchasing the Doud House, formerly belonging to the parents of Mamie Doud Eisenhower, in Denver in 1961. Mae was also half of the inspiration for Lemay Avenue in Fort Collins: Bob Everitt and Bill Tiley renamed Hospital Road “LeMae,” after Everitt’s father, Les, and Tiley’s mother, Mae; the street name was, however, mislabeled as Lemay. Constructed in 1956, this residence is also architecturally significant as an excellent example of a mid-1950s Ranch type home. Character-defining features include its larger size as compared to early Ranch homes, the horizontal orientation, picture window, prominent chimney, and attached two-car garage. The flared eaves, color-scheme of the home, bay window on the facade, and numerous diamond pattern windows all contribute to the Tudor appearance of the house. Joanne F. Gallagher, the current owner of the property, purchased the home in 1994. Ms. Gallagher, a former elementary teacher with a Masters degree in Social Work, established Adoption: Advocacy & Alternatives in 1992. The nonprofit adoption placement agency has been located at 2500 South College Avenue since 1994, where Ms. Gallagher serves as both Executive Director and a birth parent counselor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At a public hearing held on November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standard (2), for its historical association with Mae, Lewis, and Bill Tiley, and Designation Standard (3), for its architecture. December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 25 ATTACHMENTS 1. Historic Landmark Designation Nomination Form 2. Staff Report 3. Resolution 7, 2011, Landmark Preservation Commission, Recommending Landmark Designation of the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, at 2500 South College Avenue. 4. Photos Revised 09-2004 Page 1 Fort Collins Landmark Designation LOCATION INFORMATION: Address: 2500 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80525 Legal Description: Lot 35, South College Heights Addition, 1st Filing Property Name (historic and/or common): Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Joanne F. Gallagher Phone: 970-493-5868 Email: jfgallagher25@comcast.net Address: 2500 South College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO, 80525 CLASSIFICATION Category Ownership Status Present Use Existing Designation Building Public Occupied Commercial Nat’l Register Structure Private Unoccupied Educational State Register Site Religious Object Residential District Entertainment Government Other FORM PREPARED BY: Name and Title: Grace Dixon, Historic Preservation Intern Address: City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office, Community Development & Neighborhood Services Department, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522 Phone: 970-224-6078 Email: kmcwilliams@fcgov.com DATE: November 1, 2011 Planning, Development & Transportation Services Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 Revised 09-2004 Page 2 TYPE OF DESIGNATION and BOUNDARIES Individual Landmark Property Landmark District Explanation of Boundaries: The boundaries of the property being designated as a Fort Collins Landmark correspond to the legal description of the property, above. The property contains the historic residence and attached garage. SIGNIFICANCE Properties that possess exterior integrity are eligible for designation as Fort Collins Landmarks or Fort Collins Landmark Districts if they meet one (1) or more of the following standards for designation: Standard 1: The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; Standard 2: The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in history; Standard 3: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Standard 4: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, at 2500 South College Avenue, is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standard 2, for its association with Fort Collins developers Mae, Lewis, and Bill Tiley, and the role they played in the growth of Fort Collins, including the platting and developing of several post-World War II residential subdivisions. The Tileys were Fort Collins entrepreneurs, operating a grocery store in the 1930s and 1940s; purchasing and renovating homes in the 1940s; and platting and developing new residential subdivisions in Fort Collins during the postwar period. In addition, this home is located within the South College Heights subdivision, platted by the Tileys. The Tiley Residence also qualifies for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. Constructed in 1956, this residence is also architecturally significant as an excellent example of a mid-1950s Ranch type home. The building exhibits a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. Character-defining features include its larger size as compared to early Ranch homes, the horizontal orientation, picture window, prominent chimney, and attached two-car garage. The flared eaves, color-scheme of the home, bay window on the façade, and numerous diamond pattern windows all contribute to the Tudor appearance of the house. HISTORICAL INFORMATION The original owners of the home at 2500 South College Avenue were Lewis and Mae Tiley, owners of Tiley Real Estate. Lewis Harley Tiley was born in Iowa on March 29, 1894, to parents William and Nellie Tiley. Mae Agnes Churchill Tiley was born on April 3, 1898, in Nebraska, to parents Luther and Blanche Churchill. The couple married on December 9, 1920, in North Platte, Revised 09-2004 Page 3 Nebraska. By the 1930 Census they were living at 338 East Elizabeth Street in Fort Collins, with their two children, seven-year-old Annabell (Anne) and two-year-old King William (Bill). Both Lewis and Mae were quite entrepreneurial. In the 1930s, the Tileys operated a grocery from their home on East Elizabeth, and Mae Tiley owned Tiley’s Dress Shop at 146 South College Avenue. Throughout the 1940s, numerous building permits indicating they were purchasing and remodeling homes. The family lived at 338 East Elizabeth Street through the early 1040s. By 1948 they had moved to 1301 South College Avenue. Both Tileys and their son Bill were involved with postwar subdivision development in Fort Collins. In 1956 Mae and Bill partnered with local lumberman turned developer Robert Everitt, to plat the South College Heights subdivision. All three Tileys worked again with Everitt in 1962, to develop the University Acres subdivision. Mae was involved in real estate beyond Fort Collins, purchasing the Doud House (formerly belonging to the parents of Mamie Doud Eisenhower) in Denver in 1961. Mae was also half of the inspiration for Lemay Avenue in Fort Collins: Bob Everitt and Bill Tiley renamed Hospital Road “LeMae,” after Everitt’s father, Les, and Tiley’s mother, Mae; the city misspelled the street name as Lemay, however. Lewis Tiley passed away in April 1974, and Mae Tiley died on May 4, 1997. The next owners of this home were Charles O. and Virginia C. Henderson, living here during the 1960s. Charles, also known as “China,” was born in Fort Collins on August 31, 1922. He served in the Navy during World War II and married Virginia Cunningham on May 31, 1948. While living at 2500 South College Avenue, Charles worked first as a flight instructor at Fort Collins Aviation and later as chief pilot and machinist at Forney Industries. Charles also worked as a crop duster, while Virginia was a teacher. They had a daughter, Carrie. Charles Henderson passed away, in Denver, on July 29, 1991. During the 1970s members of the Worthington family lived at this house. In 1972 Gary Worthington, a manager at Interstate Ecco, was in residence. By 1979 Robert and Terry Worthington lived at 2500 South College Avenue. The City Directory listed Robert as the President of Northern Colorado Equipment Company, where Gary Worthington worked as the parts manager. Members of the Caputo family, chiropractors Dr. Jack P. and Dr. Frank P., owned the house during the 1980s. In 1992 Dr. Frank Caputo sold the home to Dowell S. and Garnette M. Stiles. In 1994 the Stileses sold the property to Joanne F. Gallagher, the current owner. Ms. Gallagher, a former elementary teacher with a Masters degree in Social Work, established Adoption: Advocacy & Alternatives in 1992. The nonprofit adoption placement agency has been located at 2500 South College Avenue since 1994 and Ms. Gallagher serves as both Executive Director and a birth parent counselor. ARCHITECTURAL INFORMATION Construction Date: 1956 Architect/Builder: Unknown Building Materials: Blond brick siding Architectural Style: Ranch type, with Tudor influences This Ranch type home with Tudor influences is located on the South College Avenue frontage road, at the intersection of South College Avenue and Harvard Street. Character-defining features of the modern Ranch evident at 2500 South College Avenue include the horizontal orientation, picture window, prominent chimney, and attached two-car garage. The flared eaves, color-scheme of the home, bay window on the façade, and numerous diamond pattern windows all contribute to the Tudor appearance of the house. Oriented to the west, it rests on a concrete foundation. The rectangular-shaped house features blonde brick siding and a side gabled roof with flared eaves. The roof is covered in asphalt shingles. The primary entry, a wooden door with a storm door featuring a large fixed pane window, is nearly centered on the façade. South of the front door is a large picture window, likely looking out from the house’s living room. The home’s numerous multi-light “diamond” windows are very evocative of the Tudor style. Nearly all windows are flanked by wooden decorative shutters painted dark brown. There is a front gabled bay featuring a double hung window just south of the picture window. North of the front door there is a bay window featuring the Tudor diamond pattern; this is one of few windows without decorative shutters. Beside the bay window, on the northwest corner of the façade, there is a second front-gabled bay, this one featuring Revised 09-2004 Page 4 a Tudor diamond pattern window with shutters. The north side of the house features an attached two-car garage with what appears to be a replacement door, two fixed pane windows flanking a secondary entrance, two diamond pattern windows (one with shutters), and a dominant chimney. There also is a second chimney along the ridgeline of the house. A concrete brick wall and large decorative wooden gate are on the north side of the property. There is also a secondary building/shed located at the southwest corner of the home, with cream painted vertical siding and a side-gabled roof covered in asphalt shingles. REFERENCE LIST or SOURCES of INFORMATION City of Fort Collins, Public Record Database. http://www.fcgov.com “Colorado Cultural Resource Survey, Architectural Inventory Form, 2500 South College Avenue,” prepared August 30, 2010 by Dr. Mary Therese Anstey, Historitecture, LLC. Fort Collins City Directory. Fort Collins: Mauer & Mauer; Omaha: R.L. Polk & Co.; Colorado Springs and Loveland: Rocky Mountain Directory Co.; Loveland: Johnson Publishing Co., and others. 1957 through 1985. Larimer County Tax Assessor Property Records for 2500 South College Avenue (online). Local History Archives Search: Lewis Harley Tiley, Mae Agnes Tiley, K. Bill Tiley. http://history.fcgov.com [Accessed 22 December 2010]. 1930 US Census: Lewis Harley Tiley. Obituary Charles O. Henderson. Larimer County Genealogical Society. http://www.lcgsco.org/obits/hendch91.jpg - [Accessed 22 December 2010]. Google Search: Joanne Gallagher. http://adoptionaa.org/aboutus.aspx [Accessed 22 Dec 2010]. Advance Planning 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6376 970.224.6111 - fax fcgov.com/advanceplanning LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 9, 2011 STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Fort Collins Landmark Designation of the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, 2500 South College Avenue STAFF CONTACT: Karen McWilliams, Historic Preservation Planner APPLICANT: Joanne Gallagher, Owner BACKGROUND: The Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, at 2500 South College Avenue, is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standard 2, for its historical significance to Fort Collins. The property is significant for its association with Fort Collins developers Mae, Lewis, and Bill Tiley, and the role they played in the growth of Fort Collins, including the platting and developing of several post-World War II residential subdivisions. The Tileys were Fort Collins entrepreneurs, operating a grocery store in the 1930s and 1940s; purchasing and renovating homes in the 1940s; and platting and developing new residential subdivisions in Fort Collins during the postwar period. Significantly, this home is located within the South College Heights subdivision, platted by the Tileys. The Tiley Residence also qualifies for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standard 3, for its architectural significance to Fort Collins. Constructed in 1956, this residence is also architecturally significant as an excellent example of a mid-1950s Ranch type home. The building exhibits a high level of physical integrity relative to the seven aspects of integrity: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling. Character- defining features include its larger size as compared to early Ranch homes, the horizontal orientation, picture window, prominent chimney, and attached two-car garage. The flared eaves, color-scheme of the home, bay window on the façade, and numerous diamond pattern windows all contribute to the Tudor appearance of the house. The original owners of the home were Lewis and Mae Tiley, owners of Tiley Real Estate. Lewis Harley Tiley was born in Iowa on March 29, 1894. Mae Agnes Churchill Tiley was born on April 3, 1898, in Nebraska. By the 1930 Census the couple was living at 338 East Elizabeth Street in Fort Collins, with their two children, seven-year-old Annabell (Anne) and two-year-old King William (Bill). In the 1930s, the Tileys operated a grocery from their home on East Elizabeth, and Mae Tiley also owned Tiley’s Dress Shop, at 146 South College Avenue. Throughout the 1940s, numerous building permits indicating they were purchasing and remodeling homes. The Tiley family lived at 338 East Elizabeth Street through the early 1940s. By 1948 they had moved to 1301 South College Avenue. Both Tileys and their son Bill were involved with postwar subdivision development in Fort Collins. In 1957 Mae and Bill partnered with local lumberman turned developer Robert Everitt, to plat the South College Heights subdivision. ATTACHMENT 2 All three Tileys worked again with Everitt in 1962, to develop the University Acres subdivision. Mae was involved in real estate beyond Fort Collins, purchasing the Doud House (formerly belonging to the parents of Mamie Doud Eisenhower) in Denver in 1961. Mae was also half of the inspiration for Lemay Avenue in Fort Collins: Bob Everitt and Bill Tiley renamed Hospital Road “LeMae,” after Everitt’s father, Les, and Tiley’s mother, Mae; the city misspelled the street name as Lemay, however. Joanne F. Gallagher, the current owner of the property, purchased the home in 1994. Ms. Gallagher, a former elementary teacher with a Masters degree in Social Work, established Adoption: Advocacy & Alternatives in 1992. The nonprofit adoption placement agency has been located at 2500 South College Avenue since 1994 and Ms. Gallagher serves as both Executive Director and a birth parent counselor. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, at 2500 South College Avenue, meets both Standards 2 and 3 of Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code, and approve a resolution of the Landmark Preservation Commission recommending to City Council the designation of the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. 177, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DESIGNATING THE LEWIS AND MAE TILEY/JOANNE F. GALLAGHER RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED GARAGE, 2500 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AS A FORT COLLINS LANDMARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14-2 of the City Code, the City Council has established a public policy encouraging the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of landmarks within the City; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated November 9, 2011, the Landmark Preservation Commission (the "Commission") has determined that the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage has significance to Fort Collins under Landmark Designation Standard (2), for its historical association with Lewis, Mae and Bill Tiley; and Designation Standard (3), for its architecture as an excellent example of a mid-1950s Ranch-type home, with a high level of physical integrity; and WHEREAS, the Commission has further determined that said property meets the criteria of a landmark as set forth in Section 14-5 of the City Code and is eligible for designation as a landmark, and has recommended to the City Council that said property be designated by the City Council as a landmark; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property has requested such landmark designation; and WHEREAS, such landmark designation will preserve the property's significance to the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and desires to approve such recommendation and designate said property as a landmark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the property known as the Lewis and Mae Tiley/Joanne F. Gallagher Residence and Attached Garage, and the adjacent lands upon which the historical resource is located in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, described as follows, to wit: Lot 35, South College Heights Addition, 1st Filing be designated as a Fort Collins Landmark in accordance with Chapter l4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Section 2. That the criteria in Section 14-48 of the City Code will serve as the standards by which alterations, additions and other changes to the buildings and structures located upon the above described property will be reviewed for compliance with Chapter 14, Article III, of the City Code. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 26 SUBJECT Resolution 2011-104 Adopting the Annual Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort Collins’ Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority Budget for the Year 2012 for Operations and Maintenance EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for operating and maintenance of the Poudre Fire Authority. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In December 1981, the Council entered into an agreement with the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, creating the Poudre Fire Authority (“PFA”). The agreement was amended in 1987. According to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, the City will contribute funding for maintenance and operating costs to PFA based on a Revenue Allocation Formula (“RAF”). The RAF is to be set annually, but paid monthly, based upon a percentage of sales and use tax revenues, excluding dedicated sales and use tax revenues that must be spent on specific projects, and a portion of the operating mill levy of the City’s property tax. The City calculates the RAF at a sum equal to .253 of one cent of the 2.25 cent sales and use tax applicable to all taxable sales and uses, plus 67.09% of the property tax available for operations and maintenance. Based on these calculations, the City’s 2012 contribution to the PFA for operations and maintenance is $17,104,190. In addition to the operation and maintenance contribution, the 2012 Budget authorizes one mill of the City’s property tax mill levy to fund the PFA’s capital needs. This mill levy was approved by the Council in 1991 to provide additional funding necessary for anticipated capital improvements, including land acquisition, construction of additional stations, and acquisition of major fire fighting apparatus. The revenue from this dedicated mill is to be managed according to the property tax levy and revenue limitation provisions of TABOR. It is anticipated that the one mill tax levy will generate an estimated $1,786,261. This Resolution does not include the City’s contribution of $158,009 for the Southwest Annexation. That money was not appropriated in the 2012 Budget (Ordinance No. 156, 2011) and will need to be appropriated in 2012. The City will also make a debt payment on behalf of PFA in 2012 in the amount of $234,353. This is related to the capital expansion fees to be used for Station 4. This debt payment is not included in the RAF calculation nor in the total indicated as the City’s Contribution to PFA for 2012. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Adoption of the Resolution will establish a Revenue Allocation Formula, thereby defining the City’s contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority in 2012. Additionally, one mill levy of the City’s Property tax mill levy fund PFA’s capital needs. The total City contributions to PFA for operations, maintenance and capital needs in 2012 will be $18,890,451. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2011-104 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE ANNUAL REVENUE ALLOCATION FORMULA TO DEFINE THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ CONTRIBUTION TO THE POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2012 FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WHEREAS, on December 22, 1981, the City entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (the “IGA”) with the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District creating the Poudre Fire Authority (the “Authority”), which IGA was amended in 1987; and WHEREAS, the Authority provides fire protection services to all properties within the City limits and the City has a continuing commitment to provide funding to the Authority for its public safety services; and WHEREAS, the IGA provides that the City’s contribution for maintenance and operation costs is based on a “revenue allocation formula” (“RAF”) which is set annually based upon a percentage of sales and use tax revenues, excluding sales and use tax revenue which must be spent on specific projects, and a portion of the operating mill levy of the City’s property taxes available; and WHEREAS, the City’s RAF contribution to the Authority for 2012 operations and maintenance costs has been so calculated and adjusted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the following formula is hereby adopted to set the City’s RAF contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority for the year 2012: REVENUE ALLOCATION FORMULA The City will contribute to the Poudre Fire Authority a sum equal to .253 of one cent of the City’s 2.25 cent sales and use tax rate applicable to sales and use tax revenues (excluding sales tax revenue which must be spent on specific projects) and a sum equal to 67.09 percent of the operating mill levy of the City’s property taxes to provide for maintenance and operation costs of the Poudre Fire Authority. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of December A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Janet Miller AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 27 SUBJECT Resolution 2011-105 Extending the Time Period for Completion of the Annual Performance Review of the City Attorney. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council has not yet conducted with the 2011 annual performance evaluation of the City Attorney because the City Attorney has been out on medical leave and temporarily unavailable. In order to provide additional latitude for completion of the performance evaluation process, the Resolution authorizes the Council Leadership Team to work with the City Attorney to determine an appropriate time for that process to move forward. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In December 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 2006-124, updating the process for City Council evaluation of the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge. In recent months, the City Council has undertaken the 2011 annual performance evaluations of the City Manager and the Municipal Judge, as generally described in Resolution 2006-124. However, the City Council has not yet conducted the 2011 annual performance evaluation of the City Attorney, because the City Attorney has been on medical leave and temporarily unavailable during this time. The Resolution formally extends the period of time within which the performance evaluation of the City Attorney for 2011 must be conducted. It provides that the 2011 performance evaluation of the City Attorney shall be conducted at such time as the Council Leadership Team, in consultation with the City Attorney, may determine based upon appropriate scheduling and availability considerations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Not applicable RESOLUTION 2011-105 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS EXTENDING THE TIME PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF THE CITY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, in December 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 2006-124, updating the process for City Council evaluation of the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge; and WHEREAS, in recent months, the City Council has undertaken the 2011 annual performance evaluations of the City Manager and the Municipal Judge, as generally described in Resolution 2006-124; and WHEREAS, the City Council has not yet conducted the 2011 annual performance evaluation of the City Attorney, because the City Attorney has been on medical leave and temporarily unavailable during this time; and WHEREAS, accordingly, this Resolution formally extends the period of time within which the performance evaluation of the City Attorney for 2011 must be conducted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the 2011 performance evaluation of the City Attorney shall be conducted at such time as the Council Leadership Team, in consultation with the City Attorney, may determine based upon appropriate scheduling and availability considerations. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of December A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Courtney Rippy Levingston AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 28 SUBJECT Resolution 2011-106 Adopting the 2011 Update to the Three Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the annual update to the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins. The Three-Mile Plan is a policy document that is required to ensure that the City complies with the regulations of the Colorado Revised Statutes. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The current Three-Mile Plan has been in use since it was last amended by Council on February 1, 2011. According to the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Plan should be updated and revised annually. Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that the City complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: “Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area, that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area.” The Three-Mile Plan describes each of the items listed in the Statute in four categories as follows: Transportation-related items: • Streets • Subways • Bridges • Parkways • Aviation Fields • Other Public Ways • Terminals for Transportation Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related items: • Waterways • Waterfronts • Playgrounds • Squares •Parks • Grounds • Open Spaces Utilities and related items: • Public Utilities • Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 28 Proposed Land Uses: • Inside Growth Management Area (GMA) • Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) The Three-Mile Plan lists the plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City Council which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. In addition, there are some plans and policies that have been adopted not by the City, but by Larimer County, CSU or adjoining municipalities, as these are also located within the boundaries of the Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There are no direct financial, economic or environmental impacts tied to the adoption of the 2011 update to the Three- Mile Plan. The Three-Mile Plan simply lists the plans, policies, maps, and other documents that have been adopted by the City Council which generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics listed above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BOARDS / COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION At its November 17, 2011, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Three-Mile Plan update. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, November 17, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION 2011-106 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE 2011 UPDATE TO THE THREE-MILE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, Colorado law provides at Section 31-12-105, C.R.S., that each municipality in the State must prepare a plan for the geographic area within three miles in any direction from the municipality’s boundaries (a “Three-Mile Plan”), which Plan must generally describe the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation and power to be provided by the municipality, and the proposed land uses for the area; and WHEREAS, the City’s original Three-Mile Plan was adopted in 1998, which Plan again is in need of being updated; and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared and presented to the City Council a proposed update of the Three-Mile Plan for the City which the City Council has determined should be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the updated Three-Mile Plan for the City, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved and adopted. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day December A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF FORT COLLINS THREE-MILE PLAN 2011 UPDATE Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................ 2 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan?........................................................... 3 What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? .............................................................. 3 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan .............................................................................. 5 Transportation-related Items .................................................................................... 5 Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items.............................................. 6 Utilities and Related Items ....................................................................................... 8 Proposed Land Uses................................................................................................ 9 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary.............................................................. 10 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary....................................................................................................................... 11 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary ................................ 12 City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 2 I. Introduction What is the Purpose of the Three-Mile Plan? The Three-Mile Plan for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, is a policy document that complies with the regulations set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. This 2011 document updates the 2010 version of the Three Mile Plan to reflect changes to supporting documents and plans. Section 31-12-105 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires that the City complete a plan within three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary as follows: Prior to the completion of any annexation within the three-mile area, the municipality shall have in place a plan for that area that generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. What Does the Three-Mile Plan Describe? This Three-Mile Plan describes each of the items listed in the Statute in four categories, as follows: Transportation-related Items: Streets Subways Bridges Parkways Aviation Fields Other Public Ways Terminals for Transportation Parks, Natural Areas and Open Lands-related Items: Waterways Waterfronts Playgrounds Squares Parks Grounds Open Spaces Utilities and Related Items: Public Utilities Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, and Power Provided by the Municipality Proposed Land Uses: City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 3 Inside Growth Management Area (GMA) Outside Growth Management Area (GMA) Under each of these categories the plans, policies, maps, and other documents are listed that have been adopted by the City of Fort Collins City Council and other municipalities, organizations and service providers within the three-mile area that generally describe the proposed location, character and extent of the specific characteristics. City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 4 II. Elements of the Three-Mile Plan Transportation-related Items 1. Streets: City Plan City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan City of Fort Collins Street Standards City of Fort Collins Bicycle Plan and Program City of Fort Collins Bicycle Safety Education Plan City of Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan Fort Collins Transportation Master Plan Harmony Road Access Control Plan I-25/392 Interchange Improvement Plan Larimer County Transportation Master Plan Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Mason Corridor Master Plan North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan North College and Highway 14 Access Control Plan Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan South College Access Control Plan Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan Transfort Standard Operating Plan Transit Plan: Fort Collins, Loveland, and Larimer County (1996-2002) City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 5 2. Subways: None 3. Bridges: Master Street Plan North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan 4. Parkways: None 5. Aviation Fields: Airport Master Plan Update The attached map entitled “Airports within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all the airports within the plan area 6. Other Public Ways: None 7. Terminals for Public Transportation: Mason Corridor Master Plan Parks, Natural Areas, and Open Lands-related Items 1. Waterways: Cache La Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Stormwater master Plan and Floodplain Regulations The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area Watershed Approach to Stormwater Quality 2. Waterfronts: The attached map entitled “Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three-Mile Area Plan Boundary” locates all significant waterways within the plan area 3. Playgrounds, Squares, Parks: City Plan Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan Parks and Recreation Policy Plan Poudre School District Master Plan Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 6 o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan Thompson School District Master Plan 4. Grounds, Open Spaces: Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Management Plan – outside Growth Management Area (GMA) Cache La Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan City Plan City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Program Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan Colorado State University (CSU) Master Plan (Foothills Campus) Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan Foothills Study Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plans Fossil Creek Natural Areas Management Plan Fossil Creek reservoir Regional Open Space Management Plan Larimer County Open Lands Master Plan Larimer County Comprehensive Parks Master Plan Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland Regional Community Separator Study Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan – outside GMA Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 7 o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan Timnath and Windsor Community Separator Study Utilities and Related Items 1. Public Utilities: 2007 East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) Master Plan Update 2009 Energy Policy 208 Plan Boxelder Sanitation District Long Range Management Plan Boxelder sanitation District Long Term Financial Plan Boxelder Sanitation District Capabilities Management Plan Boxelder Sanitation District Wastewater Utility Plan City Plan Drinking Water Quality Policy Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan South Fort Collins Sanitation District Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management Water Conservation Plan 2. Terminals for Water, Light, Sanitation, Transportation, and Power Provided by the Municipality: 2009 Energy Policy 208 Plan City Plan City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan City of Fort Collins Electric Long Range Plan Drinking Water Quality Policy Fort Collins-Loveland Water District Master Plan Fort Collins Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Fort Collins Wastewater Master Plan Update Fort Collins Revised Water Treatment Facility Master Plan South Fort Collins Sanitation district Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Stormwater Master Plan and Floodplain Management Water Conservation Plan City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 8 Proposed Land Uses 1. Land Uses Defined within the Growth Management Area (GMA): 2009 Buildable Lands Inventory and Capacity Analysis City Plan City of Fort Collins Structure Plan Fort Collins and Windsor Intergovernmental Agreement Fort Collins and Timnath Intergovernmental Agreement Foundation for a New Century CSU Campus Master Plan, 2004, including: o Agricultural Research Development and Educational Center (ARDEC) Master Plan o Foothills Campus Master Plan o South Campus Master Plan Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements Subarea Plans o Campus West Community Commercial District Planning Study Report o CDOT US392 Environmental Overview Study o CDOT North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement o CDOT US287 Environmental Overview Study o Downtown Plan o Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program Summary Report o Downtown Strategic Plan o East Mulberry Corridor Plan o East Side Neighborhood Plan o Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan o Harmony Corridor Plan o I-25 Subarea Plan o Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Update o North College Corridor Plan o Northside Neighborhood Plan o Northwest Subarea Plan o Old Town Area Plan o Prospect Road Streetscape Program o South College Corridor Plan o State Highway 392 Access Control Plan o West Central Neighborhoods Plan o West Side Neighborhood Plan 2. Land Uses Outside the GMA: A Plan for the Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland City of Loveland Three-Mile Area Plan LaPorte Area Plan Larimer County Master Plan Loveland Comprehensive Master Plan Northern Colorado Community Separator Study Northern Colorado Regional Communities I-25 Corridor Plan Town of Windsor Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Town of Timnath Comprehensive Plan Town of Wellington Comprehensive Master Plan City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 9 ATTACHMENT A: Three-Mile Plan Boundary City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 10 ATTACHMENT B: Significant Waterways and Waterfronts within the Three‐Mile Plan Boundary City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 11 ATTACHMENT C: Airports within the Three-Mile Plan Boundary City of Fort Collins Three-Mile Plan……………………………………………………….. 12 DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Darin Atteberry AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 29 SUBJECT Resolution 2011-107 Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Resolution amends the rules of procedure that govern the conduct of City Council meetings by moving consideration of items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a member of the City Council to earlier in the Order. In addition, the Resolution clarifies the point in the Order of Business at which items may be pulled off of the Consent Calendar for individual consideration. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Since 2003, the Council has conducted its meetings under rules of procedure that govern the length of meetings, citizen comment, Council questions and debate, and basic rules of order. These Rules have been amended on occasion to reflect changes, refinements and clarifications to the procedures. The Resolution changes the Order of Business so that items pulled from the Consent Calendar by a member of the City Council will be considered prior to the first item scheduled for individual consideration. The Resolution also clarifies the specific timing and sequence for the opportunity for City Council members and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. The Resolution specifies that after the City Manager’s Agenda Review, first the City Council, and then citizens, will have an opportunity to pull items from the Consent Calendar, prior to Citizen Participation. These changes are intended to allow more efficient use of time and resources in connection with items identified by the City Council at the meeting as requiring individual discussion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 2011-107 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted rules of procedure governing the conduct of City Council meetings (the “Rules of Procedure”); and WHEREAS, in order to better manage the timing and resources required in connection with items pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion, the City Council wishes to modify the Order of Business set out in the Rules of Procedure so that consideration of items pulled by City Councilmembers from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration will take place before the first item scheduled for individual consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to add clarifying language describing in more detail the timing and sequence for pulling items from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the following revised rules governing the conduct of all regular City Council meetings are hereby adopted by the City Council: Section 1. Order of Business. Council business shall be conducted in the following order: Proclamations and Presentations. (Prior to the meeting) Pledge of Allegiance Call Meeting to Order Roll Call City Manager’s Agenda Review Opportunity for City Council to Pull Consent Items Opportunity for Citizens to Pull Consent Items Citizen Participation Citizen Participation Follow-up Consent Calendar Consent Calendar Follow-up Staff Reports Councilmember Reports Council-Pulled Consent Items Items Needing Individual Consideration Citizen-Pulled Consent Items Other Business Adjournment Section 2. Length of Meetings a. Council meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m. Proclamations will be presented prior to the meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m. or such earlier time as may be necessary in order for the presentation of proclamations to end by 6:00 p.m. b. No more than two (2) short breaks will be planned per meeting. All Councilmembers and staff will return to their seats in the Council Chambers at the conclusion of each ten-minute break. The Mayor will resume the meeting at the prescribed time. c. Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. Section 3. Citizen Comment. a. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the following: (1) items to be considered by the City Council under the discussion agenda for that night’s meeting; (2) matters that are the subject of an application that has been filed with the City when the approval or disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council. A maximum of five (5) minutes will be allowed per speaker. In order to determine the actual amount of time to be allotted to each speaker, the Mayor will ask for a show of hands by all persons intending to speak. If the number of persons intending to speak is more than six (6), the Mayor will shorten the allotted time in order to allow as many people as possible to address the Council within a reasonable period of time given the scheduled agenda. -2- b. Citizen input will be received with regard to: (i) each item on the discussion agenda, (ii) each item pulled from the consent agenda, and (iii) any item that is addressed by formal Council action under the “Other Business” segment of the meeting that may directly affect the rights or obligations of any member of the general public. Such citizen input will be permitted only once per item regardless of the number of motions made during Council’s consideration of the item. c. The time limits for individual citizen comments regarding agenda items will be established by the Mayor prior to each such item. In order to determine the amount of time to be allotted to each speaker, the Mayor will ask for a show of hands by all persons intending to speak to the item. If the number of persons indicating an intent to speak to an item is twelve (12) or less, each speaker will generally be allowed five (5) minutes. If the number of persons indicating an intent to speak to an item is thirteen (13) or more, each speaker will generally be limited to three (3) minutes per item. However, the Mayor may increase or decrease the time limits per speaker as he or she deems necessary to facilitate the City Council’s understanding of the item, or to allow the Council to consider and act upon the item in a timely fashion. d. Any determination of the Mayor with regard to the foregoing time limits may be overridden by a majority vote of the Council. Section 4. Council Questions and Debate. Council questions and debate regarding an agenda item will occur immediately following citizen input and prior to entertaining any main motion related to the item. Except when raising a point of order, Councilmembers seeking to ask questions or participate in debate will do so only when called upon by the Mayor. The Mayor may limit or curtail questions or debate as he or she deems necessary for the orderly conduct of business, except as overridden by a majority of Councilmembers present and voting, pursuant to a point of order. No Councilmember will speak to an item more than once until all other Councilmembers have had an opportunity to be heard. Section 5. Basic Rules of Order. The following commonly used rules of order will govern the conduct of City Council business. Except as specifically noted, all motions require a second. These rules of order are based upon Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and have been modified as necessary to conform to existing practices of the Council and to the requirements of the City Charter. For example, while a two-thirds vote is necessary for the passage of some of the motions listed below under Robert’s Rules of Order, all motions of the Council, except a motion to go into executive session or a motion to adopt an emergency ordinance, may be adopted upon approval of a majority vote of the members present at a Council meeting, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 11 of the City Charter. If there is a question of procedure not addressed by these rules, reference shall be made to -3- Robert’s Rules of Order for any needed clarification or direction. In the event of any conflict between these rules of order and Robert’s Rules of Order, these rules of order shall prevail. In the event of any conflict between these rules of order or Robert’s Rules of Order and the City Charter or City Code provisions, the City Charter or City Code provision shall prevail. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of December A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk -4- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Peter Barnes, Steve Dush Bruce Hendee, Ginny Sawyer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 33 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 178, 2011, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding Digital Signs and Pole Signs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In response to Council feedback, staff has prepared an ordinance amending current Land Use Code regulations for digital signs and freestanding pole signs. With respect to digital signs, the recommended Code changes address such things as brightness, color, design, and location. Additional design criteria to enhance the appearance of pole signs are also proposed. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The continuing proliferation of digital signs within the community may begin to impact the overall aesthetic environment. Given these concerns, staff conducted an evaluation of the existing sign code regulations pertaining to digital signs. Fort Collins has been a leader in regulating signage to create a visually pleasing urban environment and staff determined that while the current standards provide a framework for effective regulation, improvements can be made. A principle of the City’s sign code is to protect health, safety, and welfare by regulating the design, construction, and placement of signs in the city in a manner that provides a reasonable balance between the right of a business or an individual to identify itself and to convey its message and the right of the public to a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment. The City’s first comprehensive sign code was adopted in 1971 and required that all signs not in compliance with the new regulations be made conforming by 1977. Many sign code amendments have been adopted since 1971, most of them minor in nature. However, major amendments were adopted in 1994, and because of the comprehensive nature of the changes the City Council allowed a 15 year amortization period for business owners to bring their signs into compliance. That amortization period ended in 2009, with numerous businesses electing to replace their previously existing nonconforming signs with conforming digital signs or conforming pole signs. At the August 9, 2011 City Council work session, City staff presented an overview of issues regarding the following: • the adequacy of the City’s current sign regulations to address the increasing number of digital signs in the community now and into the future, and • adding design criteria to improve the aesthetic appearance of pole signs. After considering various options at the work session, Council requested staff come return with an ordinance for consideration that continues to allow digital signs, but with additional regulations, and an ordinance that includes additional design criteria for pole signs. Digital Signs Digital signs (signs that display words, symbols, figures or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means) began appearing in Fort Collins in the early 2000s and it was appropriate at that time to consider regulating this form of sign in the community to protect the visual welfare of the city. In response, the City adopted a digital sign ordinance in 2006 to regulate the size, brightness, method of display, and color of such signs. There are approximately 1,500 permitted on-premise freestanding signs (signs not attached to a building) currently in the city. In 2009 at the conclusion of the amortization period, about 40 of the non-conforming signs were converted to digital signs. This number has doubled to approximately 80, and represents 30% of all new freestanding signs December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 33 erected since 2009. Looking ahead over the next twenty years, based upon this rate of increase, many additional signs could be converted to digital. To address the anticipated proliferation and the renewed concerns about brightness and aesthetics, it is appropriate to evaluate this type of sign and its relationship to the economic and aesthetic environment of Fort Collins now and into the future. Staff believes that the current standards provide a framework for effective regulation, but improvements can be made that will help to more effectively balance the right of a business to convey its message with the right of the public to enjoy an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. City staff held a series of meetings with stakeholders before and after the August 9, 2011 City Council work session. These meetings have resulted in a number of proposed changes to the current digital sign regulations. Key elements of the changes are: • Brightness levels The current regulations do not contain specific maximum brightness levels. The proposed ordinance requires that automatic dimming software and solar sensors maintain a maximum brightness of 0.3 foot candles over the ambient light conditions at any time of day or night. The permit application must contain written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory pre-set not to exceed this level. Additionally, something that will be unique to Fort Collins is that the permit holder and the business manager, business owner, or property manager must be present at the time the City inspects the sign for compliance. This will offer an opportunity for City staff to explain the regulations and how the brightness level will be inspected for future compliance and enforcement. • Color Staff believes full-color displays limited to just the logo or ‘brand’ of the business could be acceptable given the proposed brightness controls and other proposed regulations. However, the City Attorney advised staff that only allowing the logo or brand without allowing pictures of products or other images would be unlawful. Staff believes that allowing full color displays of products and images that could change as frequently as once per minute would be detrimental; therefore, staff is recommending that the current full-color ban be kept. Also with regard to color, staff is recommending that red should once again be allowed as an acceptable color for monochrome displays. The proposed brightness controls and tighter pixel spacing for new signs make red an acceptable color. • Design criteria In order to ensure that digital signs do not detract from the aesthetic appearance of streetscapes, the recommended ordinance requires that an electronic module not exceed 50% of the area of the sign face, that it is integrally designed as a part of the larger sign face or structure, that it is not the predominant element or uppermost portion of the sign, and that it is not allowed on a pole sign. Another significant criterion is that there would be a maximum pixel spacing of 16 mm for all new digital signs capable of allowing a selection of more than one color (but not more than one color displayed at a time) and a maximum spacing of 19 mm for signs that are manufactured as monochrome-only. The industry is moving toward closer pixel spacing and this is a cutting-edge criteria intended to ensure that future signs will display a sharper image of higher quality. Most existing digital signs in the City have pixel spacing between 19 mm and 35 mm. • Location and number of signs The ordinance limits the number of digital signs to not more than one wall sign or one monument sign per street abutting any property or development, requires that such signs be at least 100 feet apart, and prohibits them on walls of downtown buildings that are located within the boundaries of the Portable Sign Placement Area Map (See Attachment 9). Signs that are located inside a building and visible from a street or sidewalk will be subject to compliance with all of the regulations pertaining to method of display, flashing, color, etc. • Compliance dates The current code allows a fifteen year period in which signs made nonconforming by code amendments must be brought into compliance. This fifteen year period was enacted as part of the 1994 sign code revisions. December 6, 2011 -3- ITEM 33 Because those revisions were very comprehensive, affecting most signs that existed in the city at that time, the City Council determined that a very generous compliance period was appropriate. The proposed amendments recommended with this ordinance affect only a small portion of all existing signs. Therefore, staff believes that it is not appropriate to apply the fifteen year time limit to existing digital signs. Instead, this ordinance establishes several compliance dates of different duration for signs that are made nonconforming by the new regulations. Staff is proposing that signs which can be corrected by simply flipping a switch (e.g., interior window signs), will have thirty days in which to comply with the new regulations. Signs that will require more substantial modifications, but not removal or structural modifications, will have four years. Signs that require removal or structural changes will have eight years. However, as required by existing code provisions, such signs will have to be brought into compliance sooner than the applicable date if the use of the property changes or if the premises promoted by the sign comes under new ownership or tenancy and the sign is proposed to be changed for the purpose of displaying the new name or other new identification of the premises. Pole Signs The sign code allows for two types of freestanding signs (signs not attached to a building). A ground sign (also known as a monument sign), is a type of freestanding sign that consists of a sign face or cabinet that is mounted on top of a base, the width of which is at least 80% of the width of the sign cabinet, i.e, a 10-foot wide sign cabinet mounted on a base that is at least 8-foot wide. A pole sign, on the other hand, is often a sign cabinet mounted on top of one or two exposed poles, with considerable air space between the sign and the ground. Pole signs are generally not as attractive as ground signs, and in fact the sign code contains regulations that are intended to encourage the use of ground signs as the preferred type of sign. (See Attachment 10 for pictures of monument signs and pole signs). The completion of the 2009 sign compliance project resulted in a number of the previous nonconforming pole signs being replaced with ground signs. However, some existing pole signs were simply lowered rather than replaced. The number of pole signs in the city really didn’t decrease as a result of the 15 year compliance period, and there may have actually been a slight increase in the number of such signs since some of the nonconforming signs that were ground signs were replaced with new pole signs. As a result, opportunities to increase the number of more aesthetically pleasing ground signs in the city through replacement did not materialize. In order to ensure that there will be fewer new or remodeled signs supported by simply one or two exposed poles, a Code amendment is necessary. The amendment will require that pole signs be designed in a manner that will result in a more substantial and interesting design, helping to ensure that they will contribute to the aesthetic appearance of the streetscape. This can be accomplished by limiting the amount of air space between the top of the sign and the ground to not more than 40%. This added design criteria for pole signs will further the purpose of the sign code to enhance the visual streetscape of the city. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Business owners have strongly expressed that the advertising flexibility offered by digital signs is an important factor that contributes to increased sales and the success of local businesses. Owners installed digital signs at great expense in reliance on the regulations adopted in 2006 and the proposed revisions will allow many of these signs to remain without the need for expensive modifications or removal. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The primary environmental concern associated with signs in the community is their impact on the visual environment of Fort Collins. With regard to digital signs, it is important to be proactive in considering regulations in order to manage the potential expansion of these signs throughout the city. Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board believe that the recommended changes will improve upon the existing standards through better and more enforceable brightness standards and through standards that will improve the design and visual appearance of digital signs and pole signs. December 6, 2011 -4- ITEM 33 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. Staff believes that the new regulations provide additional standards necessary to contribute to an aesthetically pleasing environment while allowing businesses to continue to effectively utilize digital and pole signs to convey their message. Continued monitoring of the effectiveness of the regulations is very important and Staff is proposing that a monitoring program to analyze their effectiveness after two years be added to the Policy and Plan Review Schedule. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its regular meeting on November 17, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to recommend that City Council adopt the Ordinance amending the Land Use Code. The Board’s motion to recommend approval contained a provision that the design criteria in Sec. 3.8.7(M)(4)(e) be amended by removing the words “or uppermost portion”. This change has the effect of allowing an electronic message center to be placed as the uppermost portion of the sign as long as it is an integral part of the overall design of the sign. Staff agrees with this change, and the language in the recommended ordinance has been amended. PUBLIC OUTREACH A number of outreach meetings have been held with stakeholders and the public to seek feedback on the issues. Staff focused outreach on five main stakeholder groups: sign industry representatives, Chamber of Commerce, sign owners, small business owners, and the general public. Feedback regarding pole sign design criteria was also solicited at the meetings, but the major focus and interest was on digital signs. Most of the outreach meetings were conducted prior to the August 9, 2011 City Council work session, with an additional 4 meetings held after the work session. Prior to August 9, 2011, feedback was also solicited on the City of Fort Collins’ Facebook and Your Voice websites (70 total responses). Outreach included basic overviews of the current sign code, open-ended questions about the use and effectiveness of digital signs, thoughts on current and potential new regulations, sign trends, and the impact of digital signs on the streetscape both now and in the future. The majority of these respondents believed that current standards did a good job of regulating these signs and that continued allowance of them wouldn’t have a negative impact. (See Attachment 7 for individual responses). In general, the sign industry representatives, Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee, and sign owners do not support significant change to the City’s current Code. The groups strongly stressed the benefit to businesses that digital signs offer, including ease of promoting on multi-tenant locations, employee safety, less reliance on banners, and the ability to be timely with messaging. There was also comment that the City’s current Code does not allow for more attractive signs by only allowing monochrome pixel type signs. It was noted that industry trends and technology improvements are leading to more digital signs in the future, and they will have higher resolution and messaging capabilities. (See Attachments 2, 3, and 4 for summary minutes of the meetings). The Cityworks Alumni group and the members of the Planning and Zoning Board generally agreed that there is not much of a problem with the digital signs as currently allowed. However, they were supportive of adjustments to the Code to ensure quality standards with the anticipated increase in the number of such signs. They felt that continued use would not have a detrimental affect on the streetscapes into the future as long as the signs are regulated with regard to frequency of change, no animation, limits on the percent of a sign that can be digital, etc. The majority of both groups expressed that such signs offered businesses additional flexibility. Some suggested that the City should allow the use of full-color displays rather than just restricting to monochrome. (See Attachment 6 for summary minutes of the CityWorks meeting). What little feedback there was on the pole sign issue was about evenly split between those who believe the signs are fine the way they are and those that believe the additional design criteria would be beneficial. December 6, 2011 -5- ITEM 33 Meetings: April 5 and July 7 – Industry representatives April 22 – Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs April 27 – Sign owners May 11 – Two public open houses July 7 – CityWorks alumni group July 22 – Planning & Zoning Board work session August 9 – City Council work session September 27 – Digital sign demonstration display September/October – Four meetings with the Chamber of Commerce/Fort Collins Sign Coalition (representatives from the Chamber, sign industry, and business owners) November 10 – Planning & Zoning Board work session November 17 – Planning & Zoning Board public hearing Web tools: Your Voice City’s Facebook page ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session summary, August 9, 2011 2. Sign industry meetings, April 5 and July 7, 2011 3. Chamber of Commerce LLAC meeting, April 22, 2011 4. Sign owners meeting, April 27, 2011 5. Open house meetings, May 11, 2011 6. CityWorks Alum meeting, July 7, 2011 7. Your Voice and Facebook Web Comments 8. Peer City Research Table 9. Portable Sign Placement Area Map 10. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, November 17, 2011 11. PowerPoint presentation 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Summary minutes of sign industry meeting – April 5, 2011 The group invited to this meeting consisted of licensed Fort Collins sign contractors. Also in attendance was one business owner who attended this meeting because he will be unable to attend the April 27th meeting (which is intended for owners of businesses that currently have digital signs). Staff presentation given, including PowerPoint slides Attendees repeatedly asked the following: Who is complaining? Concerned citizens How many complaints? The City Manager’s office is often the recipient of emails and phone calls from the public regarding various issues. We don’t know the exact number. What is the main concern? Brightness and aesthetics, as well as concern about affect of digital sign proliferation on streetscape in coming years. To which they responded that the newer signs erected since the 2006 digital sign code changes are very well done. They also explained that the dimming software technology is getting better all the time. Does the community really see this as a problem? We will be conducting a community wide open house later, and will have internet and facebook outreach as well. Opinions/results from all meetings and other methods of outreach will be included in information that is given to City Council for work sessions or public hearings. Why are we doing this? The City staff was directed to evaluate the effects of this type of sign on the streetscape as a result of the recent large increase in the number of such signs. Can't the City make up its mind? Businesses that just spent thousands of dollars on new signs in order to comply with the 2009 amortization now will have to pay again. The one business owner in attendance received his invitation letter for the April 27th business owners meeting over the weekend. He said the letter ruined his weekend and his Monday as his anger built about the City’s timing (coming shortly after the last amortization period) and the City once again proposing to do something that he perceives as being anti-business. He owns a local health club, and explained that his digital sign has proven to be extremely effective. They survey prospective members when they come in for tours and information, asking “what brought them in?” He said that 75% of the respondents explained that it was a message on the digital sign that peaked their interest. He also explained that since he’s had the sign, he has never put up a banner, and therefore these signs help to reduce the number of banners that are displayed. The upcoming meeting schedule is: April 22nd the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee April 27th with owners of businesses that have digital signs May 11th community-wide meeting 2 Summary minutes of 2nd sign industry meeting – July 7, 2011 Discussion: Overall the group felt we have a good sign code (more restrictive than others, but good.) They would like to see full color allowed. With newer technology full-color signs would look like existing back-lit signs (maybe even better.) They would prefer a message change every 6 seconds. They realize staff will stay with a one minute change recommendation (minimum.) The group felt strongly that they want an opportunity to present to Council beyond 3 minutes each. They feel this important so they can educate and better explain sign trends and technology. (Staff will check.) Group discussed dimming software available on sign technology. If the City should invest in a NIT meter (reads brightness) if they put levels into a code. Group agreed that the digital boxes set atop existing signs don’t look good. 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Summary minutes of Chamber of Commerce LLAC meeting – April 22, 2011 The meeting was very civil and there was a great deal of input received and concern expressed. Overall, the audience felt this hurts businesses and is a topic that does not need to be addressed. One interesting comment came from a sign company who stated that most of their digital sign clients are Church’s and Schools. The following is a synopsis of the comments: We should actually go with full color as the monochromatic signs look dated and sub-par and that the new LCD technology is very attractive. Digital signs are great for our businesses. The existing regulations are too restrictive, let’s not change them. Digital signs help promote community better as they are used for CSU Game Day and other community events. Digital signs help prevent banner signage clutter as those who use digital signs do not use as many banners. The timing of this is unfortunate as many have recently changed due to recent amortization and it seems that the city is changing things every 5 years. Many including David May asked for data on how many concerns we had received. Staff stated that we did not have a number and he kept pressing for one. I said I would check to see if we could get this. One person stated she felt betrayed as a business person as “we just changed” (referencing the recent amortization). There were a number who echoed this statement. A number of people compared this effort to the floodplain issue. A couple of people compared this effort to a “Nanny State” and that the City just a few years ago went through this process change and that this effort is a waste of their tax dollars. Again, the meeting was very civil with some spirited comments and an overall concern that this is not an issue the city should be working on. They reiterated the need for data in terms of how many concerns have been received and really want this information. The next step in this process is a meeting with the owners of digital signs on Wednesday April 27 from 4-6 at the community meeting room. 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Summary minutes of Digital Sign Meeting #3 – Sign Owners - April 27, 2011 The digital sign meeting for business owners and managers of businesses that have an existing digital sign was held on Wednesday, April 27, 2011. 40 people attended. Like previous outreach meetings, the tone was generally civil but there was a great deal of input received and concern expressed. Also like the previous meetings, those in attendance felt that this hurts business and is an issue that should not be pursued further. An often repeated comment was that they want specific data regarding how many complaints have been received, the nature of the complaints, and who is it that is complaining. There was also a comment that the City Manager should meet with them. Following are other comments: Signs are already reasonably regulated with regard to aesthetics. Digital signs are a revenue producer. They allow the business to be reactive to changing conditions and be product specific. Digital signs reduce the need for banners, therefore there are fewer banners cluttering the streetscape. They allow for individual tenant exposure for multi-tenant buildings by means of easy message rotation. Landlords have long-term tenant leases based on use of the digital sign. If the sign needed to be removed, the tenant could break the lease. Some buildings are setback a considerable distance and have landscaping that obscures tenant wall signs. A digital sign with rotating tenant messages helps to overcome the lack of sign and storefront visibility. Happy tenants mean fewer vacancies. The existing regulations as amended in 2006 have resulted in signs that are not obnoxious. The regulations are already among the most restrictive. Many of the digital signs aren't any brighter than conventional, illuminated cabinet signs. It would be a huge expense to change signs. The City is continually changing the code and the rules of the game. Council amended the digital sign regs in 2006 and businesses relied on that. Then the 2009 amortization concluded with numerous businesses replacing their nonconforming signs with expensive digital signs in reliance on existing regulations. The City can't be trusted if they keep changing their minds. The vitality of a city is dependent on commerce. Rotating tenant messages has been great for Scotch Pines. Their new sign replaced a previously existing nonconforming sign. 2 The new automatic dimming software should take care of the brightness issue. Generally, nighttime brightness levels are set at 7% of daytime levels. Manual changeable copy signs are subject to vandalism. i.e., letters are stolen or letters rearranged to form obscenities, etc. It seems like complainers have more say about this than the businesses do. Sign twirlers are worse than this. Why doesn't the City prohibit them? Digital signs are safer than manual signs because you don’t have to go in the snow/wind/rain and make changes. Some owners still haven't paid off their existing signs that they purchased to meet the City code. Tenants have prepaid for certain amounts of display time. What happens to these agreements? Digital signs allow convenience stores to have fewer staff (no one has to leave the store to go outside and change the sign.) The digital signs are all LED which are far more efficient and sustainable than traditional lighted signs. This feels very anti-business. Pole covers can be expensive (this comment was with regard to proposed design criteria for pole signs). Is the City doing this so they can make money from permits and taxes that would be collected for the new, replacement signs? The City is nit-picking on signs over and over, and spending money and staff resources. Landlords will lose tenants if they can't have street exposure. National corporations have sign requirements for their franchises, and landlords have been told by prospective tenants that if they can't have certain signage exposure, they won't come here. It's not just the businesses that depend on signs, it's also the landlords. Digital signs replace older, dilapidated signs. It's a digital world now. Why wouldn't we want businesses to avail themselves of new technology? The City is a user of digital signs (on buses, inside the Lincoln Center, at the downtown transit center, etc). Are they going to be removed? 3 The City of Boulder, CO is going to or already has made allowances for full color as they think that these full color are better than monochromatic and look more vibrant and current. (this comment from the audience is being researched by staff) 1 ATTACHMENT 5 Summary minutes of Digital and Pole Sign Meetings, #4 and #5 – General Public May 11, 2011 Two digital sign meetings for the general public were held on May 11, 2011. The 5:00 p.m. meeting was attended by 6 people. 4 of the six were from the sign industry and had attended at least one of the previous stakeholder meetings. One of the new attendees was a sign contractor and the other new attendee was a non-sign industry person who had not attended any of the previous meetings. No one attended the second meeting, held at 6:00 p.m.. Following are the comments from the 5:00 p.m. meeting: Who is complaining about pole signs? The questions that staff is asking should include a question about what people think is the economic impact of digital signs, not just the aesthetic impact. If brightness is a concern, why can’t the code simply be amended to more strictly regulate ‘dimming’? Are there new technologies? Proliferation could lead to a loss of a “Mayberry-ish” community feel. On the other hand, proliferation could add excitement. Reverse display (i.e. amber background with black message instead of the other way around) can be ok if brightness is controlled. There is technology to shade the pixels that will help control brightness. Can existing signs be retrofitted with this and what would the cost be? 1 ATTACHMENT 6 Summary minutes of CityWork Alum meeting – July 7, 2011 Staff: Pater Barnes, Ginny Sawyer Attendees: Dan Lenskold, Diane Smith, Scott Quayle, Linda Vrooman, Jerry and Claudia Kiltz, , Jason Smith, Steve Nelson, Keith and Carol Hopkins, Dana DeRouchey Staff invited CityWork alums to this meeting after not getting any response at a previously scheduled public meeting. The email invitation is included at the bottom of the page. The meeting began with an overview and history of the Fort Collins sign code including photos from the 1970’s to present. Discussion: No one wants Las Vegas. There was lengthy discussion on personal preferences and which signs folks liked best. Overall people agreed there should not be any animation or flashing and that one minute message sound like a good minimum. People tried to envision how many potential message changes a driver might see while at one red light. Given the current regulations (size, set backs, landscaping, etc) the group felt that full color signs could be considered. They felt businesses needed certain capabilities and flexibility in their advertising. One person had concerns regarding people with seizure disorders and the potential for bright, rapidly, changing signs to trigger an episode. They agreed with the stakeholder group that the digital box on top of an existing sign is not very attractive. Overall the group was very complementary of where we are at today and our community aesthetics. They did not voice a need for dramatic changes or additional regulation on digital signs. CityWork Invite Hello CityWork Alum! The Planning and Zoning Departments are seeking your help and input. Currently, there is policy discussion regarding the current and future design and desire of digital signs and signage in Fort Collins. If you’re like me, signs and our sign code are not something I paid much attention to…until I learned more about the history and thoughts behind the sign code!! If you look at the before and after pictures of downtown you will see how impactful regulations can be. Unfortunately, this can be a difficult topic to interest the general public in, which is why we are asking CItyWork alums to participate in the conversation. Please join us on Thursday, July 7 from 6:00-7:30 pm in the Community Room. Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor, will take us through some of the history (with visuals!) of the sign code and how it came to be. We will then seek your thoughts on the near and long-term future of the digital sign code. With new 2 and changing technology signs are becoming more sophisticated and the City wants to ensure it meets the needs and desires of both businesses and residents. This is not an Alumni Forum, so food will not be provided (sorry!) but your opinions are highly appreciated. Please contact Ginny with questions or to RSVP. Thank you! 1 ATTACHMENT 7 Your Voice and Facebook Feedback 1 Comments: I like the current regulations for both digital displays and for pole signs. They makes sense and must work as I don't recall being bothered by any signage in town. I would not like to see these regulations relaxed. Name: Teresa Kahle Email: teresa@kahle.org 2 Comments: The signs are a great way for businesses,churches, and schools, to market themselves. It is a way for them to advertise programs, and community functions, without the use of unsightly banners. The owners of these signs have invested a great deal of time and money in these signs, and they were all approved by the city. All signs that have been approved by the city should remain. Name: Selena Shannon Email: skinbyselena@live.com 3 Comments: Please prohibit digital signs--this is light pollution and is also unattractive. Also, please prohibit the lit bus stop signs--it is one thing to have the stops lit for safety, another just so the ad shows up. All of this light pollution makes our city look tacky. It is key to our asethics and economic success to keep our city's standards high. Thank you for asking. Name: Trudy Haines Email: trudyh1@comcast.net 4 Comments: I favor banning them outright. I travel for work a lot and see many cities that have more and larger digital signs than Fort Collins. It makes coming back here even better, because I don't have to look at those digital signs anymore. It's easy to quantify what they add to sales, etc. It's not so easy to quantify what their absence brings to the city. You really have to stay in a hotel with one of those signs next door, drawing animations in bright red throughout the night to appreciate how nice it is not to have them. They're a major distraction when driving also. Perhaps someone has studied their impact, if any, on traffic accidents. This is a cost passed on to drivers in the city where they're the signs are located. Name: Ted Rakel Email: tedrakel@yahoo.com 5 Comments: The overall benefit to a local business owner having a digital message center is that the business owner has options to generate revenue by running a "special" or "sale" to attract customers who may not have known otherwise from looking at just the Business name and logo on a sign. The revenue generated by this message on the sign also equals sales tax to the city. Do we really want to be that town that limits local small business owners from possibly generating additional business. The statistics of revenue generated from a digital message center are if nothing else amazing. The technology available today allows us to control what message we bring to our customers. Why limit this? Digital signs are some of the best looking signs this town has. Why don’t we look at some of the old signs in town that are not maintained, half lit, falling apart and enforce the code in these areas to make our town look better. This city is great at making up new codes when we do not enforce the codes already in place. Monument signs are often more expensive then a pole sign so again the business owner is the one to have to come up with additional money to buy a sign. Should we push all of the business owners to look elsewhere because of costs and codes for something as simple but as essential as a sign? Before we become a city of Wal-Mart, let’s look at what is right for everyone. 2 Name: Ian Senesac Email: affordablesolutionsdj@gmail.com 6 Comments: I think that the City should stop being anti business and do everything we can to attract new business and keep existing. Forcing rediculous sign restrictions is not doing this! Name: Dave Email: drmccleave@pga.com 7 Comments: I think they are fine and I'm curious about those that have issues? There should be NO prohibiting these signs and in fact the City Council should drive to Cheyenne- they have digital billboards that are classy and great for businesses to advertise on. I'm proud of our city and how it looks and the signage issues here are not a problem. I'm curiuos if this is once again the 1% of the population complaining about something they just needed to find to complain about. Name: Connie Hanrahan Email: Connie@mantoothcompany.com 8 Comments: Don't you guys have something better to do than go after businesses that have spent good money on these signs, How about working on not letting the city of Ft. Collins go bankrupt. Name: Tim Hunt Email: thunt@lextron-inc.com 9 Comments: I like the creativity of the signs. Please DO NOT prohibit them outright. Let's not go backwards. I think the less regulation the better. I believe the signs' current regulations not have a negative impact on our city's future. In fact, I don't like the way the digital signs are regulated in thier color limitations, message changing timees, etc. A city sign code would mean more uniformity and that takes away from the uniqueness of our city. Let's not bore it up and keep in mind we live in a digital age. We have to assume the distactions that a sign would cause, would be less distracting than talking or texting on the phone. Do not babysit the city. Let us be responsible citizens. Name: Tracy Walker Email: twalkervols@comcast.net 10 Comments: Businesses need signs. As long as people have conformed with the zoning rules in place at the time the sign was installed, they should be allowed to keep the signs and recoup their investments. Digital messages can be distracting, but also very helpful to both consumers and businesses. Name: Kevin Houchin Email: kevin.houchin@houchinlaw.com 11 Comments: I think the signs are tastfully done. I would like to see this continue as small and medium size businesses need as much support as we can give them. I do not believe any more regulations should take place. It is very expensive and difficult to do as it is. I think if there was an artistic councel of a sort to do a final approval of upcoming signs that would be a good idea. I think existing signs should stay. I Hope this helps. Name: Wendy Foster Email: wendy@thefineartandframecompany.com 3 12 Comments: I like the digital signs in fort collins, it is a great way for business owners to change information without have to build new signs. They absolutely should not be prohibited. I don't know what additional regualations should be done, since there does not appear to be a problem with them. I think once the city has approved the sign and the use for the sign, it should not be allowed to go back and change the rules. Need to get it right the first time. the word "some" does not mean the majority. My family history goes back to the 1890's here in Fort Collins and I think the signs in Fort Collins has always been great. It's really all some have right now to promote their business. Really....is there more important things that time and money could be wasted on? Name: Cayenne Kerbs Email: ckerbs@cowisp.net 13 Comments: Leave it alone!!!!!!!! Let businesses advertise. No more regulations! Name: Leon Green Email: hardyclassic@yahoo.com 14 Comments: Dear City Council, If the City wants to pick up the tab for replacing all of the new digital signs that local business owners have installed within the past several years, I'm in favor of the change. However, if the City is asking the small business owners that have played by the City's rules while installing digital signs to replace the signs at their own expense, I would not be in favor of this change to the code. Is there any opportunity for grandfathering the existing digital signs and the change to the code to apply only to "new" signs being installed? Name: John Hintzman Email: johnh@mypfsinsurance.com 15 Comments: Don't you as a council have more important things to consider than a sign code that has worked, with out further requlation. I'am not sure why this is even on your radar. It is anti business and petty cosidering the budget problems and the unemployment issues that face the city today. I would like to know what brought this up in the 1st place,is there actualy a group against digital signs in Fort Collins? I'am sure if there is they are not business people that need to drive businees to thier door step to pay salaries and taxes. Lets move on to the more important issues at hand. Michael Trinen PS How do you mis judge the Mason Street operating budget by 400% (really). PSS Do we need more people dancing on the street corners with signs? Name: Michael Trinen Email: michael_trinen@msn.com 16 Comments: I think guidelines for new signs is a good idea, but businesses shouldn't be penalized for current approved signage. That wouldn't help Fort Collins' economy. Name: Nicole Email: strategicnutr@aol.com Comments: 4 I believe the digital signs in Fort Collins only add to the visual appeal.of the street. I think that the regulations already in place do enough to keep Fort Collins the great city that it is. The digital signs are a great way for business people to market, get their word out, and to make their building look beautiful. Digital signs require much more up keep than any other type of sign and will therefore require the owners to maintain there signs. This will help the future aesthetics of Fort Collins rather than a run down sign that requires no up keep. Allow the digital signs to remain and keep neing built. It only adds to Fort Collins. Name: Patrick Soukup Email: patjsouk@gmail.com 17 Comments: i think that is unfair to prohibit or regulate digital signs that are already in place.. these sighns cost the business lots if money..i would say let them keep then or if not, reimberse the companies their money. Name: david sholl Email: davidsholl@aol.com 18 Comments: The current business owners that have signs that were conforming should be allowed to keep them and any new businesses should follow the new guidelines. I am personally in favor of lower signs that do not obstruct the view of the buildings. It seems that the pattern of anti-business decisions results in less tax revenue and then the City asks everyone else for more money. We don't want to look like downtown Las Vegas but City Council needs to be more pro-business and maybe some of the money that left town will come back. Name: Doug Perry Email: dperrypga@msn.com 19 Comments: I think that digital signs are aesthetically undesirable. They cannot lend themselves to a "city identity" that is otherwise being so aggressively pursued through the Art in Public Places program and other attempts to give our city a pleasing artistic identity. Furthermore, they offer nothing to differentiate individual businesses from each other. This is only compounding the already difficult business environment that small businesses face in Ft. Collins. Aside from time and temp signs (which provide a public service), I would like to see digital signs banned. Regarding pole signs I have no opinion. Name: brian oliver Email: paxtonsigns@gmail.com 20 Comments: The current sign regulations are already too restrictive. These regulations hurt our community's business vitality. As a consequence, we suffer a needless loss of sales tax revenues and we continue to drive many businesses to other communities. With regulations like these it is no wonder that Fort Collins is perceived as anti business. Name: Charlie Email: Flashcc@gmx.com 21 Comments: I have little problem with the current monument designs. I would like to see (if not in existence) size limitations as well (50% of a HUGE monument sign is still huge). Does the dimming regulation cover maximum luminance? If not, it should. White and blue signs can be very bright at night. 5 I am in favor of restrictions against the use of pole signs. I am also in favor of restrictions banning street-side digital signs in certain zones (ie. Old Town) Name: Michael Feinberg Email: mfeinberg01@msn.com 22 Comments: I think leaving the sign code as is for the digital signs would have no impact on the community. Name: Email: 23 Comments: I think there are just fine. I like getting info from them. Can't see any reason to change regulations. Name: Jay Email: jgerdes@q.com 24 Comments: The signs are a wonderful source of information. They should be allowed as long as they fit inside the regulations of current code No additional regulations should be added. The existing regulations are too strict as they are. Especially in this economy. I think continued use of the signs will help serve the community and visitors. They are not a distraction from the beauty of our city. I don't think design criteria should be added to the existing sign code. Name: Steve Miget Email: stevemiget@gmail.com 25 Comments: 1. The examples are all quality, attractive signs. 2. Continue to allow. 3. Current regulations are sufficient and allow for quality, attractive signs. Please do not add any additional regulations, as that only adds unnecessary expense and wastes private funds. 4. Continue use as currently regulated ADDS to the community appearance now and in the future. 5. No. No more regulations or criteria. In the end, this is not truly beneficial to the town as a whole. These types of measures are superficial and don't add TRUE value to the citizens. Name: David Email: 26 Comments: I think that there are adequate regulations in place, sometimes too much, as in the limitation on allowable LED colors. There should not be a ban on these kinds of signs, just the existing limits on size, timing of changes in the message, etc. There is no impact on community appearance from continuing to allow them. Name: David Lingle Email: dlingle@aller-lingle-massey.com 26 Comments: Digital signs are effective in conveying marketing information to potential clients without creating a negative asthetic appearance. 6 Information on the importance of signs in regard to business success can be referenced at the Small Business Administration website. www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/feb03.pdf. This article from the February 2003 edition of the Small Business Advocate states "Some sign regulations may unduly burden small businesses, they may need to be revised, first to facilitate small business success, and at the same time to benefit state and local governments and economies". The article goes on to state that "Many fledgling small businesses are totally dependent on commercial signage for their customers or retail sales". Numerous data sources suggest that digital signs are exponentially more effective than non digital signs in creating consumer traffic. This typically results in increased sales for the retailer. Digital message signs are a cost effective marketing tool. The addition of regulations, or outright ban on digital signs unfairly adds undo hardship to businesses that are trying to compete in these difficult economic times. Aesthetically there are considerably more unattractive items in the community than digital signs. In comparing signs alone, I notice there are many non digital signs that lack cleanliness and curb appeal. Some of the best appearing signs in the community are digital signs. Digital signs convey the image that the retailer and the city are progressive in utilizing todays technology to share information effectively. Is Fort Collins a progressive, small business friendly community? Let free enterprise thrive. Show existing small businesses that they matter. Show new businesses that are considering start up in Fort Collins that they are welcome here. The current regulations already restrict land use and regulate content. Additional regulation is unnecessary and counterproductive. Name: Matt Everhart Email: opocx@hotmail.com 27 Comments: 1. THe blindingly bright glare from signs like this (at night) are VERY dangerous for drivers and pedestrians (possibly obscure drivers' vision with the glare and keep them from seeing pedestrians and cyclists). 2. Regulation is all that's needed. Control the type of sign to avoid the super bright glare. 3. Require business to comply with safer signs with a reasonable time period, for existing LED and digital signs. 4. These obnoxious signs are NOT in keeping with the image and esthetics of Fort Collins. Leave signs like this in Vegas. 5. I am not opposed to pole signs. In fact, in some locations, a pole sign makes the business actually visible to drivers BEFORE they are right in front of it. Name: Kathleen Hollerbach Email: khollerbach@gmail.com 28 Comments: I like them and I wish we had more of them. The regulations should be relaxed to encourage more of them. Name: Aaron Harris Email: aaron.g.harris@gmail.com 29 Comments: Understand if modifications are needed to the code but unreasonable to eliminate signs altogether since so many buisnesses have spent alot of money on them. Shutting them down is not an option. Grandfather existing signs in and do regulate there after. 7 Name: Ken Email: kforzley@comcast.net 30 Comments: I think the current regulations are appropriate. The only kind of digital screens that I don't like are the ones that glare brightly at night like the on in front of the Budweiser Event Center. Also on a another note you guys have Cafe Vino's sign listed twice one saying is complies and the other saying it doesn't. Unless you're informing that white letters w/blue background are ok and multi colors are not. Name: Steven Email: wild_life35@yahoo.com 31 Comments: The regulations seem fine to me. I like the fact that the signs do change and give me info I can use. A lot of the businesses use them to show their daily specials. In a time when saving every penny counts I am confused as to why the city would want to take that away. I'm sure these signs help the businesses do more in sales so I am also confused as to why the city would do anything to reduce the potential sales tax being collected. Again in a time when every penny counts why is the city wasting time on this subject. I would bet there are much more productive things that could be done with the time. Name: John Rush Email: johnrush1@me.com 32 Comments: Digital signs are part of a modern society. I am not not sure what someone find offensive about them but it will be very hard on businesses who have invested in this technology to ban it now. It would be my guess that if asked most of the citizens of Fort Collins are fine with the current law. Please stand up to a vocal few and continue to allow a harmless modern product to work for local business. Name: Jack Fetig Email: Jack@fossilcreeknursery.com 33 Comments: I like most of the digital signs I see around the city. I don't see the issue with multiple colors per sign. No additional regulations should be added. If anything, they should be relaxed. I think the current regulations are too restrictive. I don't see the issue with limiting the number of colors as long as the sign is readable (granted, red done wrong is illegible). The Fossil Creek Nursery Sign was a waste of money because it's not readable, but if that was done properly, what is wrong with that? In the grand scheme of things, the continued use of digital signs has no impact on community appearance. Name: Jim Malone Email: jajmalone@comcast.net 34 Comments: Yes, we should continue to allow regulated digital signs. I feel the current regulations are adequate (for the time being.) I don't think continued use of digital signs would detract from our city. As for "design criteria for pole signs", design criteria that addresses safety is certainly reasonable. Other "criteria" would need to be considered on an individual basis. Name: Lynn Courtney Email: lynnccs@gmail.com 35 Comments: Why is this even a queston? There is nothing wrong with them as they are. I abhorr city employee time consumed by trivial things like this. Some people will not be happy no matter what you do. They have too much time and money on their hands. 8 If you want businesses to locate here and provide good paying jobs (rather than the focus of minimum wage jobs that seems to be prevelant), quit making it difficult for businesses to exist. It is ultimately from them that the City receives money to function. If anything, the sign code needs to be less restrictive. It is difficult to find businesses under the existing regulations. Signs too small and bland to be seen. One color signs in a strip making the signs ineffectual. Increase money to the City coffers by being a friend to business to create a healthy business environment, and stop acting as an adversary. Name: Curtis Shepherd Email: shepcr3@q.com 36 Comments: 1. They are too bright, waste electricity and lack character. 2. Make them smaller or non-existant. 3. Yes, more restrictive regulations. 4. They do not have a genuine feel and thus do not add to the beauty of FC. 5. Yes. Thank you! Name: David Bernoudy Email: sbernoudy@openapproach.com 37 Comments: By and large, I think the COFC has done a good job with getting the sign code to where it is. I think the existing digital/LED signs are very acceptable and I do not believe there should be any further changes or requirements. I don't think we need any further changes in the sign code, as they have become as neutral as I would care to see them. The intent of a sign is to give directions, and/or to advertise. They are there for a reason. Name: John Howe Email: johnhowe@schraderoil.com 38 Comments: I think they are distracting and unattractive. Continue current regulations No more allowances Current use is not a plus for community appearance Yes. Only low monument signs should be allowed. Name: Anne Messner Email: ampwray2@msn.com 39 Comments: I really like the larger Digital Information signs. As an example, the one set up on Horsetooth Road east of college avenue gives the driver ample time to change lanes before having to stop at the sign itself and impeding traffic due to a blocked lane. And the larger lane arrows really help me a lot too. I am in favor of the larger Digital Traffic Signs. Name: Ron Vail Email: rgv1947@gmail.com 40 Comments: City of Fort Collins staff and Council members, 9 Digital signs provide a great service to the City of Fort Collins residents. Gas prices, time and temperature, City bus schedules, retail advertising, church meeting times, and important information for schools,such as times for PTO meetings. High School scoreboards for football, soccer and other sports are some of the biggest users of this technology, not to mention Hughes Stadium and Moby Gym . Interior uses are numerous as well, the Lincoln Center, movie theatres, and other uses provide real time up to date messages. The restrictions on digital signs are many already, only 50% of the entire display maximum, regulated to color other than red, dimming software reduces the brightness at night. Height and setback are also very regulated . Most other cities, including Boulder, Colorado Springs, Loveland, Thornton and Greeley have or are in the process of decreasing the regulation for this type of sign, not increasing the regulations. Organizations who use these type of signs provide valuable real time information, many of these signs are much more attractive than the mechanical readerboard style. The use of digital signs decreases the need for banners which can be very unsightly to the eye. In addition, the city just reworked the sign code very recently and any change in this area will put an additional heavy burden on businesses or organizations who recently purchased these. Sincerely, John J. Shaw - President DaVinci Sign Systems, Inc Name: John J. Shaw Email: john@davincisign.com 41 Comments: I find digital signs around town to be very appropriate, generally well maintained and informative. If anything, it would seem the City has made much ado about nothing in regard to its sign codes. While I am not a business owner or have any connections to any business that does have a sign, I do take great interest in supporting small business. Large and multinational corporations are able to overcompensate for restrictive codes such as those our City has adopted, while it seems independents find it increasingly difficult match those resources while also battling bureaucrats with little or no appreciation for the challenges of making our community unique. Rather than imposing more arbitrary constraints with minimal impact to our quality of life, let's embrace a more business-friendly atmosphere by relaxing the sign code. Name: Joe Rowan Email: olelauren@comcast.net 42 Comments: As an owner of Whistle Clean Car Wash and having paid $27,000. for our digital sign which conforms to your sign code and for which we are highly dependent;I want to vehemently oppose any further restrictions on the use of digital signs. We also use the sign for public service announcements for non profits. It is really our primary method of communicating with our market. We are already suffering financially and can't take another hit. Paul Heffron Name: J. Paul Heffron Email: jpheffron@comcast.net 43 Comments: 10 I am not a fan of digital signs but we have current regulations, and if people are in compliance, the signs should be considered acceptable. I believe that there are more pressing issues that the city should be focusing on. Live with the current guidelines, don't waste time or money with the issue. Name: Cathy Norman Email: rcnorman11@gmail.com 44 Comments: 1. Digital signs that include advanced animations and are basically large television screens are extremely distracting to drivers and dangerous to everyone else. Signs that use a wide range of colors and change in rapid succession can also cause problems for viewers. I think the majority of digital signs are respectfully built, but the ones that aren't create a serious issue. 2. I think digital signage can provide a great value to business and an extra level of convenience to potential customers. These signs should be allowed and strictly regulated. 3. I think as advanced building technologies for signs develop there will have to be additional regulations on how they are used. For example, if there is no regulation for active 3D signs, how long will viewers have to watch products and taglines jump at them before it is regulated properly. How far out of 3D signs should objects be able to appear to protrude? Currently I think an additional regulation to digital signs could be a rule addressing proximity to the business it represents. If business are using digital signage to convey an immediate and changing message to customers, I believe they should have to do it with some close proximity to their business. 4. I think imposing a specific set of regulations will have a positive impact on community appearance. Simply by keeping consumers, drivers and pedestrians from being distracted, unpleasantly surprised, or confused by new signage. 5. I believe that if pole criteria were implemented it would be more difficult for businesses to create outdoor signage simply in terms of affordability. I also think current pole signs should be grandfathered in to any against any new regulations. Name: Chris Lenfert Email: chris@lenfertdesign.com 45 Comments: I like the digital signs just as the rules allow at this time. They allow for smaller sign area but still reach our customers. It is imperative that sign code recognizes we are in business to attract customers. I still would be interested in who and how many complaints were received regarding LED signs. From our perspective, we have continued to be caused to reduce our sign advertising area through the years. I do not support additional sign restrictions beyond current code, not in any fashion. Let's leave the code alone. Every time the code is changed, it costs we the taxpayers and businesses more money that we then cannot use to promote our businesses and thus, afford to pay taxes. Name: Steve Schrader Email: socsjs@aol.com 46 Comments: Regarding the use of digital signs in Fort Collins, I feel that there is already an adequate and sufficient sign code currently in place with the Land Use Code and further regulation is not needed and would only be a waste of time for our limited city staff resources and tax payer dollars. I am an architect and have designed several projects within the city and feel that I have a good understanding of the current standards that are in place. I personally feel that existing digital signs have no relevant impact on the community appearance. Name: Ian Shuff, AIA, LEED AP 11 Email: ianshuff@gmail.com 47 Comments: I like that it can give instant information; change in gas price, temp, time, etc. I dislike the signs that are associated with FAST FOOD! I'm ok with regulated signs I like the current regulations. No scrolling, flashing, bright colors, it's just tacky that way! I think they have little impact. The current regulations, must continue to be enforced! NO POLE SIGNS!!!! They are gross, tacky, and cheesy looking! Don't let FTC go down that road, please! Name: Jayne Email: jaynemohar@gmail.com 48 Comments: I don't mind the digital signs as long as they are small, and NOT RED. Good call. Whatever genius(es) came up with the idea of no animation desserves credit. Actually, I think all the current regulations are appropriate, so I don't really mind the signs I see now. And I, too, prefer monument signs. Name: Anne Berry Email: aberry1973@gmail.com 49 Comments: I think digital signs are fine the way they are and should be allowed per current sign code. Name: Email: 50 Comments: They are annoying and distracting. There is nothing I like about them. Get rid of them. Appearance - ugly. #5 - stop being stupid - design criteria - they are poles - leave them alone. Name: K Neith Email: kan47@mywdo.com 51 Comments: 1) I have not dislikes about the current digital signs in Fort Collins, I like most of them. Of those I don't like, my dislike is for the permanent part of the sign, not the digital part. 2)Fort Collins SHOULD allow digital signs and continue to regulate them. 3)NO additional regulation is needed. 4) I think the continued use of digital signs adds to the community appearance. Current signs are tasteful and the digital sign is a good and progressive manner to deliver information to the public. 5)No additional criteria should be added to the Sign Code. Name: Mike Brown Email: mikeabrown@q.com 52 Comments: 12 Why do we have signs? Marketing and advertising or addressing and location? The job of the government is to protect and serve the people. From this point of view many signage issue can be brought into prospective. Marketing and advertising distracts drivers and should be minimized. Digital signs that overly animated, bright, colorful should be limited. I think signs should be for addressing and location. Street number should be required and on-par with largest font on the sign. Should contain business name and/or logo. For saftey, signs should not be within 0-12' above street/ground level. Blocks view for cars/bikes/pedestrians. Single-plane monument signs provide a place for criminals to hide and jump out. V-shaped monuments with angle to street of 30-60 degrees 45 nominal. Low sign also subject to vandalism and damage from landscaping. However, low signs don't need cherry picker to change. Using digital technology to display today's price or lunch special are good. I might stop by for a 2:1 special instead of waiting until I get home. One color makes a sign useless. I think you mean two colors, one foreground color and one background color. Is that at one time. Can a sign's foreground be green this minute and blue the next minute? Why restrict red? Seems like the most popular color and a ploy to get rid of signs. If you are going to restrict colors, restrict any color that is used by construction or emergency vehicle/signs. Should also apply to the city -- no more multi-color flashing "your speed is" signs. I've heard teens like to "play" with this signs. How much power do digital signs use? Where is the cost/environment trade-off? What about signs in store windows that are visible from the street? In general, I think some digital signs are good, others are bad, but the difference is so subjective that any law would be too harsh or too lenient. So let's error on the side of freedom, not Nazism. Maybe allow the petition process to be used to deem a sign a public nuisance and allow one year for the nuisance to be resolved. Name: Michael Pruznick Email: mikepruz@comcast.net 53 Comments: Based on my experience of having recently relocated here from Colorado Springs, I find the signage in Fort Collins to be well regulated and tasteful. As I understand it, Colorado Springs is in the process of moving toward more attractive digital signage similar to that typical in Fort Collins. When I attended the first meeting regarding this issue, there were several very logical reasons enumerated as to why there should not be any additional changes to the sign codes, including; cost, negative impact on current landlords and their tenant/lease contracts, relatively recent 2006 update to the sign code (which many businesses are still experiencing expenses related to those changes) and the challenging business environment currently facing our business citizens. The unknown proponent for possible change, "Some in the community" needs to be better defined and identified to see if that represents enough constituents to require signficant City resources to be utilized to research and "address" this issue. I certainly think the City has more important priorities and needs to be cognizant of the possibility of being perceived as "unfriendly" to small business. Given the economic times, we need to be promoting 13 job growth and commerce while balancing quality of life and our environment. Based on what I see in the City, the current sign code achieves those goals. Name: Doug Woods Email: dwoods@cwnbank.com 54 Comments: you have withheld the most important question - cost impact on the taxpayer - how many additional city emplyees will end up on the payroll as a result? Name: taxpayer Email: taxpayer@gmail.com 54 Comments: I feel the digital signs have added a positive, creative, informational, Community awareness programs and a professional touch to our city streets. As these companies are rewarded with higher customer volume ...dosent that mean the city could financially benefit as well? Upon purchasing these signs we have to meet sign codes, guidelines for placement, use only specific colors, as well as the overall timed verbage/content of the sign as well as your approval. The regulations that will take effect in 2013...majority of the new digital signs recently placed are following the 2013 regulations already with minimal to no complaints. Why is brining our city up to date in technology so wrong? We cannot continue to strive in this Community by not being able to modernize!! Technology is constantly changing as is our Community...Fort Collis is a fast paced, young innovative College Community...Isn't growth a good thing for the expansion and future of Fort Collins? No one has been able to verbalize who is objecting to a more modern professional look to our city streets...why is that? Are we protecting a specific group or person of affulence in this town? These signs are not cheap, as a company makes the decision to have a digital sign installed we have to consider many different aspects...One that we certainly did not ever consider was the possiblility of losing the $$$$$ on our investment. In the event you "decide" to have these signs removed, some of the smaller business groups could potentially have a loss so great that it could put them out of business....over a SIGN! Now thats criminal! Name: Email: wilsonl@turningpnt.org 55 Comments: It is ridiculous to have so many rules. You nickel and dime small businesses to death by demanding all these specifications. All these regulations do is encourage the obnoxious, hazardous, and annoying people standing on street corners like hobos with big advertisement boards for businesses that can't afford to put the right color sign up on their property. Just let businesses advertise with stationary signs so a bunch of meth addicts are no longer littering our street corners dancing and dangerously waving signs in your face. It is so ugly and distracting, I hate driving to work in this town because I know I'll always be harassed by some weirdo shaking their butt at me to advertise something I wish I could have just read about on a red sign flashing at me every 25 seconds, at least it wouldn't risk stepping off the sidewalk in front of my car. I’ve lived in cities all over America and the stupid rules about signs this city has are inconvenient for businesses and consumers and ensure only that Fort Collins will always show its true colors as a backwater cow town. Couldn’t we just bring this city into the 21st century so we can make a name in northern Colorado as a sophisticated city? At this point Loveland has better commerce and places to shop than Fort Collins, maybe it is time to realize that the city’s stupid rules have something to do with the fact that we could be as fun as a city like Austin but never will be because we deny progress and change at every turn. Name: Daisy Miller Email: ddaisymiller@gmail.com 56 Comments: 14 When you say "Some in the community have expressed comcern about digital display boards" I guess I would like to know more about the sum of some. "Some" doesn't register as a substantial number with me in a population of 140,000. The digital signs in Fort Collins are antiquated compared to the TV signs lined up along I-25. I have a $30,000 investment in the digital sign at Richie's and to make us change colors is hard enough. Now you want imput on whether they should be banned altogether? Does the public really understand what it takes to stay in business these days? We have to be able to expose our businesses to the public if we are to succeed. Richie Frank Richie's Express Carwash 57 Comments: 1) I like the use of electronic digital signs in Fort Collins. It makes the city business friendly and makes it feel like the city is alive with activity. 2) Yes, the city should continue to allow for digital signs. 3) The sign regulations should be loosened to allow for full color LED signs. 4) Continued use of digital signs would benefit Ft Collins and the community. 5) I don't think we need to add additional design criteria for pole signs. I would like to see the sign regulations loosened to allow more than 4 colors. The technology with electronic signs keeps advancing and you can now get full color electronic signs for about the same price as monochrome signs. I would like the standard loosened so that full color is allowed. We own a full color sign, but are only allowed to use amber, green, blue, or white color. Why only these colors? It's like having a color TV, but only being able to have one color displayed at a time. Full color would allow companies to display their company logo or other graphics that contain other colors besides these 4. I would like to display the colors of the US Flag on our sign on the 4th of July, but can't, because it is more than one color and has red in it. It seems like the code was written at a time when there were only monochrome electronic signs available. The resolution on full colored signs are also getting a lot better. Let's get the code updated to accept the current sign technology that is available to businesses. In regards to the brightness of the signs at night. If the city sees a sign that is too bright, they can notify the owner to make sure their sign's dimming function is working. Current electronic signs all have dimming software that can be easily adjusted if they are too bright. Name: Greg Richard Email: gregrichard@summitview.com 58 Comments: Digital signs should be prohibited outright because they are a dangerous distraction to drivers. They are also unsightly. Name: Tim Sagen Email: tsagen@juno.com 59 Comments: I think the city code for digital signs is just fine the way it is. I think there should be more time spent on looking at all the trees that are blocking street signs and causing traffic hazards. There are also a lot of street corners that are blocked because of trees and shrubs and you have to pull out into the street before you can see if it is safe to pull out onto the street. Name: Leo Braun Email: lbman22000@yahoo.com 60 Comments: 15 Simple, one or two lines are OK but large multi line, signs are too attractive to the eye and therefore dangerous distractions for drivers. Large bill board type signs, with changing messages are extremely dangerous and should be banned. Keep driver distraction down, it's bad enough with cell phones. Name: Doug Moench Email: effrider@frii.com 61 Comments: Just passing by and I saw the current issues.. Why the hell are we wasting money on these too lame to be a joke issues? Raising issues about SIGNS? Of all the tiny things that don't matter... What's next, the font on signs? Do people forget that this is America and it's not our jobs to try to control every persons tiny action? Seriously, people are trying to control the style of SIGNS put up by others??? How about you do something about all the homeless in old town? Or maybe get rid of that annoying turn arrow to get to petsmart? Perhaps repeal that impossible "don't get within x amount of feet of a bike rider, even though the lanes aren't even X wide!" Perhaps repaint that dangerous pinch of a bike lane north on shields right past drake.. Or better yet, cut back on waste by cutting votes and discussions ABOUT SIGNS. This is the stupidest government issue I've seen in my life. I can see all the meeting at town hall wasted on this. The web designers paid to add this to the site. The people paid to read these emails and the costs of future ballots. /sigh Name: Email: 62 Comments: The digital parts of the signs are great- the pole-style signs, however, are unattractive and remind me of nearly abandoned mid-kansas towns from years past. Digital signs are a thing of the future, and are still more attractive than the manually changed "letter signs" (for lack of a better term.) Pole signs should be required to be shorter, to avoid "height wars" and should be required to be closer to the buildings they advertise. Name: Shaun Salyards Email: shaun.salyards@gmail.com 63 Comments: It was great to see in the Coloradoan today, a huge artical about the PRO SIGN SHAKER!!! If the City manager is so concerned with digital signs, where does he stand on the Sign shakers at every corner. Darren saw a sign at the corner of harmony & boardwalk and he didn't like it so now he wants them all gone! And he is telling us the community is concerned, LIE!If the community is sooooo concerned, why were there only 3 citizens at the community meeting regarding these terrible signs that are such a detriment to our safty and community. REALLY!!Once again our city government hard at work! How much time each day does our city mamagement sit around trying to figure out new ways to suppress local businesses. Fort Collins is the only town on the front range considering this ban, this is the biggest waste on time, why don't you guys spent more time attempting to get the expense numbers on the Mason Sreet Corridor even close to realistic! $500,000 for the buses, OOPS, sorry it's really $2,500,000 dollars, laughable!! Keep up the good work, hopefully Darrin will continue to recieve those 8% raises every year,and hire all his buddies, while the hard working, tax paying business owners in this town continue to get the shaft! Name: Todd Heenan Email: todd@ftcclub.net 64 Comments: I like the digital signs in our area. They are much more attractive than the ones that use individual letters to change their message. I love the ones on I-25 around the outlet malls. YES YES YES - Do not prohibit them outright they are a great resource of information for the consumer and the retailer. 16 NO - we over-regulate as it is. Our sign code detracts the potential these signs have...it's a great example of having multiple tools but only using one or two out of the group. Let the merchants/owners use these signs as they were intended. The older signs that are in compliance are not attractive. At least digital signage can be altered and changed with the message being delivered, tenancy of the property and event seasons. It's a benefit to have that option. I do not see anything ugly or unsafe about the digital signs. They do not distract me from driving. If the city is going to regulate the number of trees and whether or not a merchant can trim the trees then we also need to allow for the building owner the potential to increase the sign height so that the sign can be viewed. Name: Joan Chase Email: joan@realtec.com 65 Comments: 1. I like the digital signs becuase they provide quick and up-to-date information such as time and temp or informs me of a business that I previously may have been unaware of. 2. Continue to allow 3. I think the current regulations seem all encompassing and do not see the need for additional regulation. 4. The use of these signs (as currently regulated) is a benefit to the community and the businesses of this community. 5. There already is criteria for pole signs (no more than 18 ft. etc. and gross area). I'm not sure the wording of the question is completely fair. Thanks for providing this place for residents to express their opinions. Name: Nate Heckel Email: nheckel@realtec.com 66. Comments: 1. Current signs are fine and likely over-regulated. 2. Continue to allow for digital signs. 3. NONE 4. No impact upon community appearance now and in the future. 5. NO. Name: Bob Vomaske Email: bob.vomaske@vistasolutions.net 67. Comments: Busineses are under enough pressure without having to deal with another change in regulations that might increase their overhead. I think the current code is adequate and do not see a reson for a change at this time. Name: Mark Bradley Email: 68. Comments: I like the information found on digital signs. They are flexible and not a distraction. I think we have enough regulations around them. They are nuetral in impact to the community appearance in my opinion. I don't see any new for new pole sign regulations. Name: Peter Kast Email: pkast@realtec.com 69. Comments: 17 Houska Automotive has had a digital sign for 2 years. Over the past two years we have been able to inform passersby the time and temp, services we perform and upcoming community events. It has also been a way for us to show what affiliations we have such as AAA and ASE, which some consumers are interested in when getting their vehicle repaired. In the past year Houska Automotive has become a Goodyear, Michelin and BF Goodrich Tire dealer. By using our digital sign to promote tires, we have increased our tire sales over 3 times what they were before the sign. Houska Automotive and the Houska Family are big supporters of giving back to the community. This sign has help promote our different events, such as the Houska Houska 5k race. The race alone has raised almost $54,000 over the past two years to support the bone marrow registry and PV Cancer Center. We also had over 110 people get on the bone marrow registry since our sign was installed, which actually saves lives. Other events Houska Automotive promotes are the Halloween blood drive and two free women’s car care clinics. For both events the main advertising is our digital sign. If the rules are changed for these digital signs the impact would not be isolated to the cost we had to pay for the sign to be built and installed but also the revenue lost from promoting our products and services. Also the community would lose if we cannot advertise our charity events. With less awareness we raise less money which directly benefits the residents of our community. Name: LJ Houska Email: lj@houskaautomotive.com 70. Comments: I think our current sign code, in regards to digital signs should be left alone. Several businesses that I have talked to really benefit from the advertising on their signs, which in turn increases the sales tax they pay to the City. The are appropriately regulated now and I feel further restrictions or prohibiting them all together does not demonstrate a business-friendly community. I don't feel that the digital signs, as they are currently, are distracting. The corner sign wavers however are. My guess is that monument signs tend to be much more expensive than pole signs. We can't force every business into the most expensive methods of promoting their business. We need to keep some choices in the ordinance. Name: Jackie O'Hara Email: jackie@jetmarketing.net ATTACHMENT 8 City Allowed? % of Sign Face Animation, Blinking, Flashing, Scrolling Dimming Software Color Regulation Frequency of Change Any Study or Potential Changes? Other Ann Arbor, MI Yes; gas signs only. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Admitted need for sign code overhaul, but it is very low priority. Arvada, CO Yes; not allowed in Olde Town Depends of pixel spacing. For signs using more than 25mm pixel spacing, 33%. Between 20‐25 mm spacing, 66%. 20mm pixel spacing or less, 100% No ‐ changes only allowed through dissolve or fade transitions not to exceed 1 second Yes No 8 seconds No Updated June 14, 2011. Lighting can not exceed 600 nits (candelas per square meter) between sunset and sunrise; can not exceed 5,000 nits between sunrise and sunset. Berkeley, CA Yes; except if located across from residential zone No more than 8 sq ft No No No ‐ try to avoid red 60 seconds No 2009 updated overall sign code, but didn't change electric portion. Boulder, CO Yes Subject to same area limitations as other non‐ electronic signs No No No 60 seconds No Some citizens have complained about EMC's, that they're obnoxious, but there are no changes planned. Colorado Springs, CO Yes No more than 5 characters No No No 24 hours for text on gas signs; time, temp. and date are excluded. Yes Currently re‐writing sign code, anticipated completion by end of 2011. The City is being pressured from sign companies and businesses wanting to embrace the new technology, and their new code will likey allow and further regulate digital signs. Eugene, OR Yes; public agencies are exempt 3 sq feet in area, nothing more than 5 characters No No No 3 seconds No Have chosen to leave the signs prohibitive because of the complexity involved in regulating. Fort Collins, CO Yes 50% No Yes Yes; blue, green, amber, white, monochrome ATTACHMENT 10 Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 1 1 Proposed Digital Sign and Pole Sign Regulations December 6, 2012 Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor Steve Dush, CDNS Director Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator 2 South College, south of Prospect, circa 1975 Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 2 3 South College, south of Prospect, 1978 4 South College, south of Prospect, circa 1975 Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 3 5 South College, south of Prospect, 1978 6 100 Block of North College, circa 1975 Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 4 7 100 Block of North College, 1978 8 Issue: Adequacy of existing digital sign regulations now and into the future • In 2006, Council adopted standards to regulate the use and appearance of digital signs. • Since 2006, the number of digital signs has increased significantly and the number continues to increase. • Sign regulations need to balance the needs of businesses with the public right to an aesthetically pleasing environment. Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 5 9 Digital Sign Regulations Adopted in 2006 • No flashing, moving, blinking, or animation. • Frequency of message change limited to 60 sec. • Automatic dimming software for nighttime viewing. • Monochrome message in amber, green, blue or white. • Digital area limited to maximum of 50% of sign face. • Pre-2006 digital signs must comply by 2013. 10 Conforming Signs Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 6 11 Conforming Signs 12 Conforming Signs Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 7 13 Non-Conforming Signs (red lettering not allowed) 14 Non-Conforming Signs (full color display not allowed) Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 8 15 Without Digital With Digital 16 Key elements of recommended changes • establishment of very specific brightness levels that are measurable and enforceable, • allowing the use of red as a permitted color in monochrome message displays, • continuing the ban on full-color displays, • establishment of design criteria, • requiring that new displays have a maximum pixel spacing of 16 mm with an exception for 19 mm. Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 9 17 Key elements continued • prohibiting digital signs on the walls of buildings in certain areas of the downtown, • limiting the number of future digital signs allowed per property, • regulating digital signs inside a building when visible from the street or sidewalk, and • establishing dates by which nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance. 18 Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 10 19 20 Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 11 21 Pole Signs - Background • Pole signs constructed with the sign cabinet mounted on top of only one or two exposed poles are viewed as being less attractive. • The sign code has always contained regulations intended to encourage the use of monument signs instead of pole signs. • Opportunities to increase the number of more aesthetically pleasing signs in the city through 2009 replacement didn’t materialize. 22 Proposed Pole Sign Regulations • Add design criteria to enhance appearance of pole signs. • Freestanding pole signs will be limited to containing no more than 40% of air space. • Existing signs made nonconforming need to come into compliance by 2019. Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 12 23 Typical Monument Sign 24 Typical Monument Sign Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 13 25 Non-Conforming Under Proposed Change 26 Non-Conforming Under Proposed Change Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 14 27 Conforming Signs with Proposed Change 28 Signs Conforming with Proposed Change Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 15 29 Existing = 35% Possible at 40% Allowed now, but not in future 30 Existing Possible at 40% Possible at 30% Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 16 31 Existing Possible at 40% Possible at 30% 32 Existing Possible at 40% Possible at 30% Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 17 33 Allowed now Possible at 40% Possible at 30% 34 Existing 20% Possible 40% Originally 50% Digital Sign and Pole Sign Discussion – December 6, 2011 ATTACHMENT 11 18 35 Sign Outreach Meetings: April 5 and July 7 – Industry representatives April 22 – Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs April 27 – Sign owners May 11 – Two public open houses July 7 – CityWorks alumni group July 22 – Planning & Zoning Board work session August 9 – City Council work session September 27 – Digital sign demonstration display September/October – Four meetings with the Chamber of Commerce/Fort Collins Sign Coalition Web tools: -Your Voice - City’s Facebook page ORDINANCE NO. 178, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE LAND USE CODE REGARDING DIGITAL SIGNS AND POLE SIGNS WHEREAS, commencing in 1971 and continuing thereafter, the City Council has adopted various provisions regulating the size and appearance of signs within the City all of which regulations were designed and adopted in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City by regulating the design, construction and placement of signs in a manner that provides a reasonable balance between the right of a business and/or individual to identify itself and to convey its message, and the right of the public to an aesthetically pleasing environment; and WHEREAS, in 2006, the City Council adopted Code provisions further regulating the use and appearance of on-premise digital signs which regulations controlled brightness, color, size and method of display; and WHEREAS, since 2006, the number of on-premise digital signs has increased significantly and, in response to this increase, and to concerns about brightness and aesthetics, the City Council directed City staff to evaluate the possibility of further regulation of digital signs to protect the economic and aesthetic environment of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has also requested that City staff present a proposal for additional design criteria for pole signs for the purpose of limiting the amount of air space between the top of the sign and the ground to make the signs more substantial and aesthetically interesting with a view toward enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the streetscapes of the City; and WHEREAS, City staff has prepared new regulations for the City Council to consider regarding digital signs and pole signs; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has examined the regulations proposed by City staff and has recommended that the City Council adopt said regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the adoption of the regulations proposed by City staff with regard to digital signs and pole signs are in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the City and should be adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 3.8.7(G) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new subparagraph (12) which reads in its entirety as follows: (G) Freestanding and Ground Sign Requirements . . . (12) Freestanding signs (pole signs) shall contain no more than forty (40) percent free air space between the top of the sign and the ground, vertically, and between the extreme horizontal limits of the sign extended perpendicular to the ground. A base or pole cover provided to satisfy this requirement shall be integrally designed as part of the sign by use of such things as color, material, and texture. Freestanding signs that existed prior to December 30, 2011 and that do not comply with this regulation shall be removed or brought into compliance as required by Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(b) of this Land Use Code, except that the fifteen (15) year period contained in said Section shall be changed to eight (8) years. Section 2. That Section 3.8.7(M) of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3.8.7 Signs (M) Electrical Signs and electronic message center signs. (1) Flashing, moving, blinking, chasing or other animation effects shall be prohibited on all signs, except time-and-temperature signs. (2) Illuminated signs shall avoid the concentration of illumination. The intensity of the light source shall not produce glare, the effect of which constitutes a traffic hazard or is otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. (3) Every electric sign shall have affixed thereon an approved Underwriters' Laboratories label, and all wiring connected to such sign shall comply with all provisions of the National Electrical Code, as adopted by the city. (4) Electrical sSigns that contain an electronic message center changeable copy shall be subject to the following limitations. (a) The electronic message center must be programmed so that the displayed message does not change more frequently than once per minute and so that the message change from one static display to another occurs instantaneously without the use of scrolling, flashing, fading or other similar effects. The message or image displayed must be complete in itself without continuation in content to the next message. Electronic message centers that display ONLY time and temperature do not need to comply with the above-described time limitations, but shall not change more frequently than once per three seconds. (b) The electronic message center must be provided with automatic dimming software or solar sensors to control brightness for nighttime viewing and variations in ambient light. Lighting from the message center shall not exceed three tenths (.3) foot candles over the ambient light as measured using a foot candle meter at the following distances from the face of the message center: thirty-two (32) feet for a sign face greater than zero (0) square feet and not more than ten (10) square feet per side; thirty-nine (39) feet for a sign face greater than ten (10) square feet and not more than fifteen (15) square feet per side; forty-five (45) feet for a sign face greater than -2- fifteen (15) square feet and not more than twenty (20) square feet per side; fifty (50) feet for a sign face greater than twenty (20) square feet and not more than twenty-five (25) square feet per side; fifty-five (55) feet for a sign face greater than twenty-five (25) square feet and not more than thirty (30) square feet per side; fifty-nine (59) feet for a sign face greater than thirty (30) square feet and not more than thirty-five (35) square feet per side; sixty-three (63) feet for a sign face greater than thirty-five (35) square feet and not more than forty (40) square feet per side; and sixty-three (63) feet for a sign face greater than forty (40) square feet and not more than forty-five (45) square feet per side. Lighting measurements shall be taken with the meter aimed directly at the message center face, with the message center turned off, and again with the message center turned on to a full white image for a message center capable of displaying a white color, or a full amber or red image for a message center capable of displaying only an amber or red color. The difference between the off and the white, amber or red message measurements shall not exceed three tenths (.3) footcandles. All such signs shall contain a default mechanism that will cause the message center to revert immediately to a black screen if the sign malfunctions. Prior to the issuance of a permit for a sign containing an electronic message center, the permit applicant shall provide written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory pre-set not to exceed the levels specified above. Prior to acceptance of the installation by the City, the permit holder shall schedule an inspection with the City Zoning Department to verify compliance. The permit holder and the business owner, business manager or property manager shall be in attendance during the inspection. (c) A displayed message The message must be monochrome in an amber, green, blue, red or white color, (d) The maximum allowed size area of the an electronic message display center shall be fifty (50) percent of the total area of the sign face. not exceed fifty (50) percent of the total area of the sign face. (e) Electrical signs that contain an electronic changeable copy module which do not comply with the provisions of the Section shall be removed and made to conform by December 29, 2013. Electronic message centers shall be integrally designed as part of a larger sign face or part of the structure, shall not be the predominant element of the sign, and shall not be allowed on a freestanding pole sign. (f) With respect to sign permits issued after December 30, 2011, the pixel spacing of an electronic message center shall not exceed sixteen (16) mm, except that the maximum pixel spacing for a message center that is manufactured as a monochrome-only sign shall not exceed nineteen (19) mm. -3- (g) In the D – Downtown zone district, wall signs with electronic message centers are not permitted on properties located within the boundaries of the Portable Sign Placement Area Map. (h) With respect to sign permits issued after December 30, 2011, no more than one electronic message center sign shall be allowed to face each street abutting or within any property and/or site specific development plan. The minimum horizontal distance between electronic message center signs located on the same side of a street shall be one hundred (100) feet measured in a straight line. (i) An electronic message center located inside a building but visible from a public sidewalk or public street is subject to all of the regulations contained in Section 3.8.7(M). (j) Signs that contain an electronic message center which do not comply with the provisions of this Section shall be removed or made to conform as required by Section 3.8.7(A)(3)(b) of this Land Use Code, except that the fifteen (15) year period contained in said section shall be changed to a date certain as follows: 1. Electronic message centers that contain dimming software or solar sensors capable of meeting the brightness levels described in Section 3.8.7(M)(4)(b) shall be required to comply with such levels by January 31, 2012, and all electronic message centers located inside a building but visible from a public sidewalk or public street shall be required to comply with Sections 3.8.7(M)(1) and 3.8.7(M)(4)(a) and (c) by January 31, 2012. 2. Except as otherwise required in subsection (j)(1) above, all signs that do not comply with the requirements of Sections 3.8.7(M)(4)(a), (b), and/or (c) shall be made to comply with those requirements by December 31, 2015. 3. Structural changes or sign removal that may be required in order to comply with the requirements of Sections 3.8.7(M)(4)(d),(e), and or (g) shall be completed by December 31, 2019. Section 3. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Electronic message center” which reads in its entirety as follows: Electronic message center shall mean the portion of an on-premise ground or wall sign that is capable of displaying words or images that can be electronically changed by remote or automatic means. -4- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -5- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Kurt Ravenschlag, Jeremy Yonce, Mark Clitnovici, Jerry Schaiger AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 34 SUBJECT Items relating to the Safe Ride Home Program. A. Resolution 2011-108 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System for the Benefit of the Associated Students of Colorado State University to Create the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 179, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Reserves in the Transit Fund For the Operation of a Late Night Bus Service. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has had recent discussions with the Associated Students of Colorado State University (ASCSU) about creating an additional transportation option for people leaving the downtown area on weekend nights. In this partnership Police Services hopes to accomplish important goals of reducing the number of people and the associated problems in the downtown area and increasing traffic safety by giving people an additional option for leaving downtown safely and decreasing the number of drivers who have been drinking during this timeframe. The available transportation is unable to meet the demand for transportation during this timeframe. ASCSU has an interest in providing this service for students and is willing to invest funds from student fees to address this need. By combining available funding, these parties are able to provide this service to all members of our community for a modest fare. The proposal is to enter into a one year contract between ASCSU and Transfort to provide two fixed bus routes on Friday and Saturday nights, every weekend during the term of the Agreement, from 11:30 PM to 2:30 AM. An ongoing assessment will be conducted to determine the effectiveness of this project, any potential improvements, and explore opportunities for long-term funding. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION One of the most challenging issues for the District One officers of FCPS is the safe management of approximately 4,000 people who exit the many liquor licensed businesses in the downtown area at bar closing time. The existing transportation options for people leaving the downtown area at this time primarily consist of taxis and the Ram Ride program supported by ASCSU. These available transportation options do not meet the demand at this time. This creates a situation where people either stay in the area, which contributes to the difficulty of managing the behavior of this number of people, or may choose to drive after drinking. Additionally, ASCSU has an interest in providing safe transportation for students during this timeframe. FCPS and ASCSU have developed a positive relationship in addressing issues where complementary interests exist, such as with the Party Registration program and the Community Welcome. Discussions about transportation options downtown began recently, and mutual interests were identified. This proposal involves providing four buses that will run two dedicated routes to areas where a high volume of students and other residents who frequent the downtown area live. The pilot program will operate on Friday and Saturday nights between the hours of 11:30 PM and 2:30 AM. Extensive surveying conducted by ASCSU and FCPS has indicated strong support for this service. In addition, many of the bars downtown have expressed an interest in this program and have proposed purchasing tickets for this service in advance and providing them to bar patrons. The funding for this pilot program for 2012 will include $50,000 from FCPS Camera Radar funds, $34,000 from ASCSU student fees, fares generated by a proposed one-dollar per ride fare and potential advertising revenues generated by this service. FCPS generates revenue from Camera Radar, which is used to support traffic safety initiatives and other police-related needs. This project is a good use of this non-tax funding source as it provides safe transportation for people leaving the downtown area who may have been consuming alcohol. In addition, this service provides an environmentally beneficial public transportation option during this high traffic timeframe. Even with the preliminary surveying that shows a very positive response to this service, it is difficult to estimate the actual ridership. For this December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 34 reason, the contract for this service will be written to allow for the cancellation of the contract before the year is completed. FCPS has committed to making up any shortage in the cost of this service from the same funding source if funds generated do not pay the remaining costs for the contract. This Resolution authorizes the City Manager to enter into a contract with ASCSU to provide this service and the Ordinance appropriates $34,000 in revenue from ASCSU in two payments during 2012. The service will be provided by a private company under contract with Transfort and using existing Transfort buses. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS FCPS will contribute $50,000 from existing funds that have been generated by fines paid for Camera Radar tickets with the understanding that additional funds may be necessary to complete the payment of the contract. This partnership includes funding from ASCSU student fees in the amount of $34,000 to be paid in two payments. Additional funding will be generated from fares paid by users of this service and advertising revenues generated. This service will provide employment for drivers from a private company that will be contracted by Transfort for this purpose. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The environmental impacts of this pilot project are expected to be positive by providing mass transportation service to hundreds of people who may otherwise be traveling by automobiles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its November 16, 2011 meeting, the Transportation Board unanimously supported the proposal. PUBLIC OUTREACH A survey of people leaving the downtown area during this timeframe was conducted by ASCSU and FCPS. In addition, a Student Voice Survey was conducted electronically by ASCSU. These surveys showed that 94% of the people surveyed liked the idea of providing public transportation during this timeframe. This survey data also helped to determine the best routes for this service. At a meeting with bar owners and managers this concept was presented, and there was strong support. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of the proposed service 2. Transportation Board minutes, November 16, 2011 3. Survey data 4. PowerPoint presentation Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT 2 1 Results from Student Voice Survey and Old Town Survey’s For Late Night Transfort Bus Service: 84% of the respondents to our Student Voice survey were 21 years of age and older. (238 Respondents) 70% of the respondents to the Old Town Survey were students. How students choose to get home after they have visited Old Town. (238 people responded to this question). This is based on our Student Voice Survey. 32.17% (71) people choose to have their friends drive them home. 28.36% (56) either walk home or bike home 20.81% (46) drive themselves home 9.5% (21) Take a Taxi 8.6% (19) Call RamRide Notes: It seems like students prefer driving with or without friends to go home. This raises an increased risk in drunk driving, as the number of people who are driving under the influence seem to drive rather than taking safer modes of transportation home. It can be assumed that the late night ASCSU/ Transfort service can help decrease the risk of drunk driving by providing a safer option to the Fort Collins community. When students typically leave Old Town on a usual Friday or Saturday night (221 students responded). Notes: If the late night Transfort route were to start from 11:30 and end at 2:30, 76.01% of the estimated population would be able to get a ride from the bussing service, according to the student survey results. The peak time students surveyed is from 1:30am‐2:00am. This is also when most of the bars in Old Town close. Student opinion on whether or not a late night Transfort Service is needed: Over 94% of those surveyed by our in person surveys in old town and our Student Voice Survey on campus would agree or strongly agree that a late night bus service of this magnitude is needed and should be provided. (571 responses) How much students would be willing to pay for a late night bus route: ATTACHMENT 3 2 The results are split. Given the options, about 90% of the student voice survey respondents are willing to pay $1, $2, or $3. However, students stated that they would pay upwards to $5 (even ten dollars) for a bus ride. The Old Town data also indicated that students would be willing to pay at the time of service for a ride home. 6% would only use their CSU bus pass and nothing on top of that. 11% answered that they would pay $0. 36% would pay either $1 or $2 at the time of service. 14% would pay $3 to $4 and 20% would pay $5. There were also 6% that responded they would pay $10. *it is important to note that while our suggestion of charging $1 to run this route falls on the low end of what many would pay, it is important to remember that there is significant drop off between each price range. The more we raise the cost, the less effect the route becomes at dispersing large numbers of people from old town. It is always possible to raise the cost as the program moves forward. We feel that it is important to establish that a fee will be charged at the time of service but also keep it low to ensure use. As we monitor the pilot period, we can make adjustments. Student Opinion on a late night Transfort service offered year round: Of 216 respondents, 87.04% either agree or strongly agree that the late night bussing service should be offered year round. Survey data to support route placements. Both surveys asked participants to tell us where they would be going after they left Old Town on Friday and Saturday nights. Based on those responses, we determined the route alignments that we are proposing. In addition to the Old Town and Student Voice Surveys we also looked at Ramride’s pick up’s from last year to determine places and intersections that we were consistently dropping students off at. Summary and opinion of ASCSU: Overall, the student voice survey and old town data overwhelmingly indicates a student and residents want for a late night Transfort route. Students and residents are looking for another safe ride home that emulates other safe ride systems across the nation, such as Boulder. Opinion on pricing is divided, but students are willing to pay at least a dollar for the late night Transfort service. It seems like most of the traffic in Old Town leaves between 11:30pm and 2:30am. Most of the students want this service offered year round. In ASCSU’s opinion, this low percentage of RamRide users in Old Town can be skillfully increased with effective advertising of existing transportation alongside the launch of the late night Transfort service both on and off the CSU campus. Advertising can include the new RamRide Return program, deterring students from driving their cars while intoxicated. If ASCSU effectively advertises the RamRide Return program as well as RamRide, students will be able to arrive home safely and retrieve their car the next day. Based on the results above ASCSU would like to co‐fund this proposal and would strongly encourage council to support the one year pilot program. ‐Compiled by Chase Eckerdt and Rachael Schrader, Associated Students of Colorado State University 1 1 Jerry Schiager Captain Fort Collins Police Services Chase Eckerdt Director of Governmental Affairs Associated Students of Colorado State University December 6, 2011 Safe Ride Home Program 2 Safe Ride Home Program • Partnership between ASCSU and Police Services • Downtown Patrons and CSU students voiced a strong interest in this service • Police Services has been working on solutions to the bar closing time problems downtown – Crowd management issues – Reducing disturbances and property damage – Providing an alternative to driving after drinking – Lack of available transportation ATTACHMENT 4 2 3 Safe Ride Home Program • Data Collection – Surveying by FCPS and ASCSU – Student Voice Survey – Ram Ride data – Downtown call load data – Bar owners and managers 4 Student Voice Survey Highlights • Total respondents: 238 • 76.2% leave Old Town Between 11:30pm-2:30am • 94% think a late night service should be provided • 88% would be willing to pay something (options were $1, $2 or $3) • 88% want it offered throughout the year 3 5 Old Town Surveying • Conducted on Friday and Saturday nights during peak times by ASCSU and FCPD. • ASCSU collected 160 responses, FCPD collected 195. • 70% of respondents were students. • 94% “like” the idea of a late night bus route to take them home. • 6% would prefer to use their CSU bus pass and 11% would pay nothing • The other 83% would pay some fee at the time of service. 6 Safe Ride Home Program • Data Analysis – Destinations of people leaving – Riders’ willingness to pay – Hours of operation – Routes and timing – Pick up locations – Capacity of buses 4 7 Safe Ride Home Program • One Year Pilot proposal – Four buses running two routes – 15 minute frequency – Service to dense residential areas – Fridays and Saturdays during term of contract – Hours from 11:30 PM to 2:30 AM – One dollar per ride – Complementary Paratransit provided per ADA requirements during hours of operation – Starts in January 2012 8 5 9 Safe Ride Home Program • Funding Sources – Cost estimate for one year pilot is $119,500 – ASCSU pays $34,000 – Police Services pays $50,000 from photo radar – Fares estimated to generate $25,500 – Advertising revenue of $10,000 – Police Services commits to fulfilling contract – Contract safeguards – Future funding possibilities 10 Safe Ride Home Program Questions? RESOLUTION 2011-108 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY TO CREATE THE SAFE RIDE HOME WEEKEND BUS SERVICE WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services has had discussions with the Associated Students of Colorado State University (“ASCSU”) about creating an additional transportation option for students leaving the downtown area on weekend nights; and WHEREAS, approximately four thousand people exit the downtown area during the late night hours in connection with the closing of the downtown liquor licensed establishments; and WHEREAS, the existing transportation options for people leaving the downtown area during the late night hours is limited to taxis and the Ram Ride program and is insufficient to accommodate the need for transportation services during those hours; and WHEREAS, in order to increase traffic safety by giving people an additional option for leaving the downtown area without the necessity of driving automobiles after having been drinking, ASCSU and Fort Collins Police Services have developed the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service for the purpose of operating two fixed bus routes on Friday and Saturday nights every weekend during the term of the agreement, from 11:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m.; and WHEREAS, funding for the program will include Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) from the Fort Collins Police Services Camera Radar Funds; Thirty Four Thousand Dollars ($34,000) from ASCSU Student Fees, and fares generated by a proposed One Dollar ($1) per ride fare as well as potential advertising revenues that might be generated by this service; and WHEREAS, ASCSU has conducted extensive public outreach and has received a favorable response to the proposed service; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Board of the City has recommended that the Council enter into the intergovernmental agreement for the provision of the proposed service; and WHEREAS, Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the City Manager enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System on behalf of the ASCSU to create the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System for the use and benefit of the Associated Student of Colorado State University for the establishment and operation of the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service Program upon the terms and conditions contained in the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement for Transportation Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” subject to such modifications or amendments as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney deems appropriate to protect the interests of the City and to carry out the purposes of this Resolution. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th day of December A.D. 2011. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. 179, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR TRANSFER TO THE TRANSIT SERVICES FUND AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE TRANSIT SERVICES FUND FOR THE SAFE RIDE HOME WEEKEND BUS SERVICE WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services has had discussions with the Associated Students of Colorado State University (“ASCSU”) about creating an additional transportation option for students leaving the downtown area on weekend nights; and WHEREAS, approximately four thousand people exit the downtown area during the late night hours in connection with the closing of the downtown liquor-licensed establishments; and WHEREAS, the existing transportation options for people leaving the downtown area during the late night hours is limited to taxis and the Ram Ride program and is insufficient to accommodate the need for transportation services during those hours; and WHEREAS, in order to increase traffic safety by giving people an additional option for leaving the downtown area without the necessity of driving automobiles after having been drinking, ASCSU and Fort Collins Police Services have developed the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service for the purpose of operating two fixed bus routes on Friday and Saturday nights every weekend during the term of the agreement, from 11:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m.; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2011-108, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City that the City Manager enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System , acting on behalf of the ASCSU, to create the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service; and WHEREAS, in Ordinance No. 114, 1999, and in subsequent City budgets, the City Council authorized the use of excess revenue from camera radar funds for other programs intended to address other City traffic problems; and WHEREAS, funding for the program will include Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) from the Camera Radar Reserve in the General Fund; Thirty Four Thousand Dollars ($34,000) from ASCSU Student Fees; an estimated Twenty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($25,500) from fares generated by a proposed One Dollar ($1) per ride fare; and an estimated Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) from potential advertising revenues that might be generated by this service; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance appropriates the total amount of $119,500 in the Transit Services Fund for the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Transit Services Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund to another fund, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) for transfer to the Transit Services Fund and appropriated therein for the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the Transit Services Fund the sum of SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($69,500) for the Safe Ride Home Weekend Bus Service. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Brian Janonis, Patty Bigner Bill Switzer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 35 SUBJECT Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This residential energy rate is used to bill about 55,000 residential customers. These customers include single-family dwellings, individually metered apartments and home occupations. This rate class also includes a small group (220) of multi-family customers with a single meter. Seventeen of these customers occupy four-plex or larger units. This rate ordinance increases the residential energy rate by an average of 6%; however, the percentage of increase varies by season and customer usage. Option B of the Ordinance was adopted on First Reading on November 15, 2011 by a vote of 4-2 (Nays: Troxell, Weitkunat; Kottwitz absent). If adopted on Second Reading, the rate will be effective with meter readings after February 1, 2012. The residential electric rate has three components: (1) a fixed charge, the monthly charge that recovers the cost of metering, billing, collecting and providing customer service, and all other customer-related costs; (2) a distribution facilities charge that recovers the cost of operating and maintaining the distribution substations, poles, wires, conductors, and transformers required to deliver power to customers, applied on a $/kilowatt hour (kWh or unit of electricity) basis; and (3) an energy charge that recovers the cost of fuel, purchased power, and all other variable costs associated with the production of electricity. The energy charge includes both energy and demand components of purchase power. The new rate will change the structure of the energy charge in two ways: (1) creating specific pricing for three tiers or blocks of energy use; and (2) creating seasonal pricing in the summer season billing months of June, July and August. The fixed charge will increase to $4.48 per bill from the 2011 charge of $3.91. The distribution facilities charge will increase to $0.0256/kWh from the 2011 charge of $0.0220/kWh. The current 2011 energy charge is $0.0248. The Ordinance creates three inclining blocks or tiers that will differ in the summer months of June, July and August from the remaining months of the year. 1. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge per kWh will be tiered with the following charges: a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0531 / kWh. b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0689 / kWh. c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.1005 / kWh. The meter reading date will generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates. 2. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December, the energy charge per kWh will be tiered with the following charges: a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0482 / kWh. b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0520 / kWh. c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0603 / kWh. Accommodation for customers with medical needs is planned. Also a pilot time-of-use rate for electric vehicles will be developed for Council consideration in mid-2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. December 6, 2011 -2- ITEM 35 ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) 2. Powerpoint presentation COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Brian Janonis Patty Bigner, Bill Switzer AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 31 SUBJECT Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 2011, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code to Revise Electric Rates, Fees and Charges. (Option A or Option B) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has prepared two Residential Energy Rate Options for Council consideration. This electric rate is used to bill about 55,000 residential customers. Option A is a seasonal rate form, Option B is a three-tiered seasonal rate. Both options increase the residential energy rate by an average of 6% over the current 2011 rate, however, the increase varies by season and customer usage. Both options are proposed to be effective for billings with meter reading dates on or after February 1, 2012. In three City Council work sessions, staff presented electric rate design principles, four residential rate options, a change to the residential demand rate and a pilot Time of Use rate for electric vehicles. At the September 13 Work Session, City Council also discussed a change to the General Service (GS) or commercial rate proposed by staff that will result in two rate classes, a GS (up to 25 kW) and GS 25 (25 – 50 kW). With the exception of proposed changes to the residential electric rate structure, these changes were adopted by Council on Second Reading November 1, 2011, along with proposed rate increases. At the October 11, 2011 Work Session, Council further reviewed four residential electric rate options and answers provided by staff. Based on feedback from this work session, two rate ordinances have been drafted for Council consideration and public notification has been completed. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Approximately 55,020 residential customers comprise this rate class. These customers include single-family dwellings, individually metered apartments and home occupations. This rate class also includes a small group (220) of multi- family customers with a single meter. Seventeen of these customers occupy four-plex or larger units. As noted above, City Council has discussed options for changes to the electric rate structure at three previous work sessions. Previous presentations and discussions have included information about national trends related to utility rate structures, comparisons of City of Fort Collins rates compared to other utilities within Colorado and nationally, customer rate impacts on various levels of use, potential for impacts on low-income customers, expected customer response (price elasticity) and impacts on the distribution system. Based on City Council discussion, staff and consultants from SAIC have prepared background information on the two options. The current electric rate (single tier) has three components: (1) a fixed charge, the monthly charge that recovers the cost of metering, billing, collecting and providing customer service, and all other customer-related costs; (2) a distribution facilities charge that recovers the cost of distribution substations, poles, wires, conductors, and transformers required to deliver power to customers, applied on a $/Kilowatt Hour (kWH or unit of electricity) basis; and (3) an energy charge that recovers the cost of fuel, purchased power, and all other variable costs associated with the production of electricity. The energy charge includes both energy and demand components of purchase power. This energy charge currently does not vary based on the season or the amount of electricity used by the customer. Through the end of 2011, the fixed charge is $3.91/bill (month); the distribution/facilities charge is $0.0220 per kWh; and the energy charge is $0.0532 per kWh. Based on the current tier structure, the 6% rate increases adopted November 1, 2011 and effective January 1, 2012, these charges would be: fixed charge, $4.48/bill; distribution/facilities charge, $0.0252/kWh; and energy charge, $0.0540/kWH. These charges are shown for comparison only and are not among the proposed options. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 31 Option A, Seasonal Rate Option A, the Seasonal Rate structure, changes the current single tier or flat structure to a rate structure that results in a higher rate per kWH in the summer months of June, July and August. This structure mirrors the rate structure adopted by Platte River Power Authority (PRPA), the City’s wholesale electric provider, and passes through the price charged by PRPA to residential customers. If adopted, Option A will have a fixed charge of $4.48/bill; and a distribution/facilities charge of 0.0256/kWh. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge will be $0.0640/ kWh. During the non- summer season billing months of January through May and September through December, the energy charge will be $0.0506/kWH. As provided in the Ordinance(Option A), the meter reading date will generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates. Option A, the Seasonal Rate, is consistent with the current practice of directly passing through PRPA costs to customers. Seasonal rates also are a simple time of use rate. A potential advantage of seasonal rates, in addition to recovering costs, may be a reduction in overall electricity demand during the summer months due to reduced use of air conditioning (in response to higher priced electricity during that period). A simple time of use rate may also serve as a step toward a more standard or traditional time of use rate that will be available by 2014, once the City’s Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) program is completed and residential customers have an advanced meter. Data from AMI meters could then be used to determine an appropriate time-of-use residential rate. A disadvantage of the Seasonal Rate is that it is a more limited price signal during the non-summer months, resulting in a weak conservation signal to customers. Although it is not as complex as Option B, the Seasonal Rate is a shift from the current single tier rate structure and robust customer communication is planned for early 2012 with additional outreach prior to the summer months. Option A is planned to increase revenue from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%, which is consistent with the projected increased revenue requirement for this customer class. The average increase will be 16.8% in the three summer months and 2% in the non-summer months. Option B, Seasonal, Three-tier Rate Option B, the Seasonal Three-tier rate combines the rate recovery aspect of the Seasonal Rate with an inclining block or tiered rate structure. If adopted, Option B will have the same fixed charge of $4.48/bill; and distribution/facilities charge of 0.0256/kWh as Option A, the Seasonal Rate. The inclining blocks or tiers will differ in the summer months of June, July and August from the remaining months of the year. 1. During the summer season billing months of June, July and August, the energy charge per kWH will be tiered with the following charges: a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0531. b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0689. c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.1005. As with the proposed Seasonal Rate, the meter reading date will generally determine the summer season billing months; however, no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rates. 2. During the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December, the energy charge per kWH will be tiered with the following charges: a. For the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0482. b. For the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0520. c. For all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: $0.0603. Option B, the Seasonal Three-tiered rate, retains the cost recovery benefits of the Seasonal rate, passing through costs from PRPA to the customer. It also sends a strong signal to large users of electricity to incentivize conservation, and with the seasonal component, serve as a step toward further implementation of a time-of-use rate, once the City’s AMI project has been completed. The rate is more complex and significantly different from the current single tier rate structure. As a result, communication to all customers will be important throughout the year, with emphasis on the summer months. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -3- ITEM 31 Option B also is planned to increase revenue from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%, similar to Option A above. The average increase will be 16.8% in the three summer months and 2% in the nine non-summer months. With this option, customer that use more than 700kWh monthly will see larger percentage increases than most customers who use less than average. Future Time-of-Use Rates With the implementation of the Advanced Meter Fort Collins project underway, the amount of information available from the new meters will improve the ability of the City’s electric customers to understand when and how much electricity is being used in significantly greater detail, opening the door for a more efficient pricing signal. Installation of the advanced water and electric meters is expected to be completed by mid-2013. Once completed and supporting time- of-day data has been gathered and analyzed, progression to time-of-day pricing (with or without tiers) can be implemented utilizing the new information. As discussed at the October 13 Work Session, staff is planning to develop and recommend a pilot time-of-use rate specifically targeted to plug-in electric vehicle owners in 2012. Conclusion As discussed in previous meetings, the City’s utility rates are designed to generate the revenue needed for operations, capital requirements, and the purchase of electricity from PRPA. As a municipal utility, rates are not designed to recover revenue above current requirements. This is sometimes referred to as a zero-sum strategy. Regardless of the structure of the rate, the utility does not design a rate to generate a profit. The proposed rate changes are designed to assist in achieving City Council goals and support customer choice in behavior related to their use of energy . These changes remain true to the City’s long-held values of fairness, equitability and financial responsibility. As mentioned above, staff anticipates the need for a robust communications to support the implementation of the new residential rate forms, beyond the annual rate increase communication. Final planning will be developed once the rate option is chosen. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Both options are designed to increase revenues from the Residential Energy Rate by 6%. When combined with the Residential Demand and commercial rate increases approved by Council on November 1, 2011 total Light and Power operating revenues are planned to increase 8.3%. Residential Energy customers will experience an average increase of 6%, however, the impact of Option B will be much higher for larger users and will be higher in the three summer months. The Utilities provides many programs to assist our customers to reduce their energy usage and thereby reduce their monthly electric bill. Proposed changes to the Residential Energy Rate are designed to be revenue neutral. Since the change to rate structure is likely to have a customer response, over or under collection of revenue will be evaluated each year and incorporated into any needed rate changes on an annual basis. The option adopted by City Council will determine individual customer impacts. Because there is a new Seasonal component to the rate structure, financial impacts on customers will be greatest in the three summer months. If the Seasonal Three-tier rate is adopted, financial impacts will be greatest on large electricity users, especially in the summer months. In some cases, customers generally use less electricity and do not have air conditioned homes or use their air conditioner in the summer. This group of low users may experience minimal impact to their monthly bills from a changed rate structure. Customers may choose to conserve electricity by changing their use of electricity (adjusting the thermostat up or down, turning off lights, etc) or by implementing efficiency measures such as insulation, high efficiency appliances. The City offers a variety of conservation and efficiency programs to help customers reduce their electricity use and may help lower bills. Financial impacts on low income customers are also a consideration. Existing programs that assist this group of customers will be expanded in 2012, including an expanded efficiency financing program. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -4- ITEM 31 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Overall reduction in electricity use, whether from conservation of energy efficiency measures result in reduced Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel generation. As noted previously, tiered rate structures are used designed to help lower overall electricity use, especially among large users. A seasonal rate may result in less electricity use in the summer months, but does not provide a strong conservation message during the rest of the year. Customer response to the new rate structure will determine the impact of reducing electricity use and overall environmental impacts from generation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of Option B of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The City’s Electric Board provided a letter outlining their conclusions related to electric rate options (Attachment 5). PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff has completed required public notification. Public Outreach includes a Coloradoan notice to out-of-city electric customers, published on Sunday, October 30, 2011. Postcard notification to out-of-city electric customers was mailed the week of October 30, 2011. Typically, more information about rate increases is included in the Utilities end of year letter to customers. Since the letter will be published prior to adoption of the residential energy rate ordinance, customer communication to residential customers will be delayed to the end of the year. Communication will continue throughout 2012 as needed. ATTACHMENTS 1. May 10, 2011 Work Session Summary 2. September 13, 2011 Work Session Summary 3. October 11, 2011 Work Session Summary 4. Electric Board Memo on Electric Rate Options 5. Powerpoint presentation 1 1 Residential Electric Rates, Fees and Charges CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 6, 2011 2 Residential Electric Rate • Adopted by City Council on First Reading on November 15, 2011 • Rate changes: – Incorporate the 6% rate increase to Residential Class – Pass through the seasonal price change adopted by Platte River Power Authority and passed along to the City; and – Add three tiers to the Energy Charge per Kilowatt Hour (kWh) ATTACHMENT 2 2 3 Summary of Changes • Fixed charge increases to $4.48/bill (from $3.91/bill) • Facilities distribution charge increases to $0.0256/kWh (from $0.0220/kWh) • Charge per kWh higher in summer months of June, July, August • The Energy Charge per kilowatt hour (kWh) increases in three blocks of energy use – 0 – 500 kWh – 501 – 1000 kWh – Above 1000 kWh • New rate will be effective February 1, 2012 4 Impact of Changes • Designed to encourage conservation and energy efficiency • Stronger conservation message during the three summer months of June, July and August • Greater impact on higher users of electricity throughout the year • Greater impact on users of air conditioning during the summer months • Accommodation for medical needs is planned 3 5 Questions? ORDINANCE NO. 166, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO REVISE ELECTRIC RATES, FEES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered and directed by Article XII, Section 6, of the City Charter to fix, establish, maintain and provide for the collection of such rates, fees or charges for utility services furnished by the City as will produce revenues sufficient to pay the costs, expenses and other obligations of the electric utility, as set forth therein; and WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority costs are increasing due to reduced surplus sales, increased operating costs for aging plants and environmental mitigation, increased natural gas expenses for peaking plants, increased financing costs, and continuing capital investment; and WHEREAS, Platte River Power Authority will increase the City’s wholesale cost of power approximately 6.4% in 2012; and WHEREAS, the revenues in the Light and Power Fund have not been sufficient to fund capital projects and system replacements and reserves have been utilized to make up for the shortfall; and WHEREAS, the reduction in reserves was accelerated due to reductions in interest revenue and development fee revenue; and WHEREAS, without additional rate increases, reserves are projected to fall below minimum policy levels as early as 2013; and WHEREAS, a 6% rate increase to the residential energy service rate will adequately fund additional purchase power and the necessary capital improvements and system replacements and stem the decline in reserves; and WHEREAS, City Council desires to enact rate structures to encourage additional energy conservation measures in order to meet Energy Policy and Climate Action Plan goals; and WHEREAS, the proposed rate structure will change the current flat rate structure into a seasonal, three-tier rate structure that results in a higher rate per kilowatt hour in the summer months combined with a tiered rate structure; and WHEREAS, the proposed increases are to be effective on all billings issued with meter readings on or after February 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, it is the desire of the City Council to amend Chapter 26 of the City Code to revise the residential energy rate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Sections 26-464(c), (j) and (o) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-464. Residential energy service, schedule R. . . . (c) Monthly rate. The monthly rates for this schedule are as follows: (1) fixed charge, per account: four dollars and forty-eight cents ($4.48). (2) distribution facilities charge, per kilowatt-hour: two and fifty-six hundredths cents ($0.0256). (3) energy and demand charge, during the summer season billing months of June, July and August, with the summer season billing month determined by the month the meter is read, and provided that no customer shall be billed more than three (3) full billing cycles at the summer rate. The energy and demand charge shall be billed as follows: a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and thirty-one one-hundredths cents ($0.0531). b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and eighty-nine one-hundredths cents ($0.0689). c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: ten and five one-hundredths cents ($0.1005). (4) energy and demand charge, during the non-summer season billing months of January through May and September through December: a. for the first 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: four and eighty-two one-hundredths cents ($0.0482). b. for the next 500 kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: five and twenty one-hundredths cents ($0.0520). c. for all additional kilowatt hours per month, per kilowatt hour: six and three one-hundredths cents ($0.0603). -2- (5) in lieu of taxes and franchise: a charge at the rate of six and zero-tenths (6.0) percent of all monthly service charges billed pursuant to this Section. . . . (j) Parallel generation. Operation or connection of any electric generator in parallel with the utility system is not permitted under this schedule unless authorized by the General Manager. See appropriate alternate schedules for this service. The credit for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at applicable Platte River Power Authority avoided cost rates. If a customer is receiving net metering service, such customer's service shall also be governed by the net metering service terms and conditions described in Subsection (o) below. . . . (o) Net metering. . . . (5) The customer-generator's consumption of energy from the utility shall be measured on a monthly basis and, in the event that the qualifying facility has produced more electricity than the customer-generator has consumed, the customer-generator shall receive a monthly credit for such production. During the second calendar quarter of each year, the customer-generator shall receive payment for the net excess generation accrued for the preceding twelve (12) months. The credit per kilowatt hour for the energy delivered to the electric utility under this provision shall be provided at the summer season energy charge charge as specified in Subsection (c). Section 2. That the amendments to Chapter 26 of the City Code contained herein shall go into effect for all bills issued based on meter readings on or after February 1, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -4- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Marty Heffernan AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 36 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Articles IX and X of the City Code to Update Language Related to the Use of Motorized Devices on City Trails by People with Disabilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On First Reading, the City Council amended Ordinance No. 167, 2011 to eliminate the provisions pertaining to implementation of a one year trial period to allow electric assisted bicycles on City trails. Provisions in the Ordinance to change the City Code to clarify that people with temporary or permanent mobility disabilities are allowed to operate ebikes and other power driven mobility devices on trails, and in parks and natural areas, in accordance with City regulations, were retained. This Ordinance was adopted with these revisions, on First Reading on November 15, 2011 by a vote of 4-2 (Nays: Troxell, Weitkunat). Changes were made to the Ordinance between First and Second Readings to shorten the title of the Ordinance, add information about recent ADA regulations, and remove a definition that is no longer needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 15, 2011 (w/o attachments) 2. Powerpoint presentation COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 15, 2011 STAFF: Marty Heffernan AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 32 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Articles IX and X of the City Code to Allow Electrical Assisted Bicycles on the City’s Paved Trails for a One Year Trial Period. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council has expressed interest in considering a trial period to allow electric assisted bicycles (ebikes) on City paved trails. In response, the City Manager formed a cross-departmental team to: investigate the relevant issues; gain input from associated boards and commissions; conduct a public opinion survey; and find out how other cities are managing ebikes. City staff presented this information to the Council at the June 28, 2011 Work Session. After reviewing the information provided at the work session, the City Manager’s recommendation, and other input received from citizens, Council supported consideration of a change to the City Code to implement a one year trial period to allow electrical assisted bicycles on the City’s paved trail system. Council requested that staff prepare an ordinance to make the needed changes to the City Code to implement the trial period and return to Council at a regular meeting for a determination on whether or not the trial period should be implemented. Adoption of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, implements a one year trial period allowing ebikes on City paved trails from April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION Council expressed interest in considering a trial period to allow ebikes on City paved trails. In response, the City Manager formed a cross-departmental team to: investigate the relevant issues; gain input from associated boards and commissions; conduct a public opinion survey; and find out how other cities are managing ebikes on their trails. City staff presented this information to the Council at its June 28, 2011 Work Session. (Attachment 2). After reviewing the information provided at the Work Session, the City Manager’s recommendation, and other input received from citizens, Council supported consideration of a change to the City Code to implement a one year trial period to allow electrical assisted bicycles (ebikes) on the City’s paved trail system. Council requested staff prepare an ordinance to make the needed changes to the City Code to implement the trial period and return to Council at a regular meeting for a determination on whether or not the trial period should be implemented. Council requested that the trial period expire after one year unless renewed, be limited to paved trails, and encompass an uninterrupted warm weather season. Council also indicated the trial period should be limited only to ebikes, which should be defined to exclude other electric vehicles or devices like mopeds, motorcycles, skateboards and scooters. Council also requested that staff prepare a plan to educate the community about the rights of people with mobility impairments to use ebikes on the trails and also help educate the community about trail etiquette, warnings, safety and the recreational purpose of the trail system. Additionally, Council asked staff to develop a plan to gather information and assess the impacts of ebike use during the trial period. Issues regarding safety, conflicts with other trail users, impacts to wildlife, public opinion and related issues were to be addressed. CODE CHANGES Adoption of Ordinance No. 167, 2011, implements a one year trial period allowing ebikes on the City’s paved trails and clarifies that people with mobility disabilities can use ebikes and other power-driven mobility devices on the trails (as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)) by making the following changes to Chapter 23 of the City Code: COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -2- ITEM 32 1. Defines a “bicycle” by adopting the definition used in the Fort Collins Traffic Code. 2. Defines an “Electrical Assisted Bicycle: Electrical assisted bicycle shall mean a vehicle having two (2) tandem wheels, or two (2) parallel wheels and one (1) forward wheel, fully operable pedals, an electric motor not exceeding seven hundred fifty (750) watts of power and a top motor-powered speed of twenty (20) miles per hour, which also has a tire size of not more than three (3) inches in width, a wheel diameter of not less than fourteen (14) inches, and a weight of not more than seventy-five (75) pounds. A bicycle with an electric-powered bike trailer that meets the power and speed limitations listed above is also considered an electrical assisted bicycle. The electric-powered bike trailer need not meet the above wheel and tire requirements. 3. Defines “Mobility Disability” and “Other Power-Driven Mobility Device” by adopting the definitions in the ADA. 4. Modifies the prohibition against operating a motor vehicle or other motorized means of conveyance in or on a natural area, park, or trail by allowing ebikes to be ridden on paved trails from April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013. 5. Clarifies that a person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability is allowed to use a motorized wheelchair or other power-driven mobility device in City natural areas, parks and trails, in accordance with City regulations. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION City staff has launched the education campaign to inform citizens that people with mobility disabilities are allowed to use ebikes and other power-driven mobility devices on City trails. Articles in City News, Fort Shorts and Neighborhood News are being published and the information is also posted on the City’s web page and social media outlets. In the spring of 2012, staff will launch an outreach campaign on trail etiquette to remind citizens to share the trail, give audible warnings, stay to the right, ride at controlled speed, stay alert! and similar messages. The campaign will include: press releases, videos on Cable 14 and on-line; posters; partnerships with bike shops; FC Bikes materials, the Recreator, Natural Areas Tracks and Trails publication, and social media. If Council approves the ebike trial period, the trail etiquette campaign will be expanded to publicize the trial period, including the on-line feedback form to gather citizen input. In mid-summer staff will engage in additional outreach to promote the on-line ebike feedback form and reinforce the trail etiquette message, with additional reminders deployed in the fall. Finally, staff will be improving the signage along the trail system. Signage will be standardized and will include stop signs, warnings about sharp curves or steep grades, trail etiquette reminders, wayfinding and distances and directions to parks, natural areas and public facilities. SURVEYS Staff has been conducting trail use surveys to gather information on how the trails are being used. The surveys record the number of users in a 30 minute time frame, what they are doing (walking, running, biking, rollerblading, skateboarding etc.) and related information. Trail maintenance staff and rangers also have good information on trail use from the time they spend on the trails. This information provides a general baseline of trail use information that can be compared against information gathered during the ebike trial period, if it is implemented. Staff will conduct trail use surveys (using volunteers and paid hourly workers) during the trial period and will include information on ebike use, user conflicts, safety issues and impacts on wildlife. Trail maintenance staff and rangers will also be asked to report on ebike use they observe on the trails. The public will also be encouraged to report their observations and experiences with ebikes on the trails through the City’s on-line feedback form. FURTHER COUNCIL ACTION If the ebike trial period is implemented, and prior to the expiration of the trial period, staff will provide Council with all the information gathered during the trial period. Council can then determine if the trial period should be extended, made permanent, or be allowed to expire. COPY COPY COPY COPY November 15, 2011 -3- ITEM 32 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Minimal funding may be needed to pay hourly staff to conduct trail use surveys. The cost is estimated at less than $5,000 and is currently budgeted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Environmental impacts from ebikes on the trails is unknown but will be assessed during the trial period. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Board and Commission recommendations were summarized and included in the June 28th Work Session materials (Attachment 2). PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff conducted a citizen survey on the topic of allowing ebikes on City paved trails. Over 200 responses were received with 49% opposed and 47% in favor of allowing ebikes on the trails. The results of the outreach effort were included in the June 28 Work Session materials (Attachment 2). ATTACHMENTS 1. Work Session Summary, June 28, 2011 2. Agenda Item Summary (and attachments) from the June 28, 2011 Work Session 3. Powerpoint presentation 1 1 CITY CODE CHANGES REGARDING THE USE OF POWER DRIVEN MOBILITY DEVICES IN PARKS, NATURAL AREAS AND ON TRAILS 2 Introduction • On first reading of Ordinance No. 167, 2011 on November 15th, Council amended the Ordinance to remove provisions that would have modified the City Code to implement a trial period allowing electric assisted bicycles on City trails. • The remaining code changes in Ordinance No. 167 pertain to the use of power driven mobility devices in natural areas, parks and on trails by people with mobility disabilities. ATTACHMENT 2 2 3 Introduction • By adopting Ordinance No. 167, 2011 the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regarding the use of power driven mobility devices by people with mobility disabilities will be incorporated into the City Code. 4 City Code Changes • The Ordinance clarifies that a person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability is allowed to use a motorized wheelchair or other power-driven mobility device (which includes ebikes) in City natural areas, parks and on trails, in accordance with City regulations. • Power-driven mobility devices also include mopeds, Segways and similar devices. 3 5 CITY REGULATIONS • City regulations are in place which regulate the use of power-driven mobility devices to address safety and resource damage issues. • The regulations allow only electric powered devices, limit their weight to 500 pounds, noise levels to 55 dBA, and width to 32 inches. • The mobility devices must be operated in a safe manner, between dusk and dawn and must not cause damage to park, natural area or trail infrastructure or facilities. ORDINANCE NO. 167, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 23, ARTICLES IX AND X OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO UPDATE THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE USE OF MOTORIZED DEVICES BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENT FEDERAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TO UPDATE LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE USE OF MOTORIZED DEVICES ON CITY TRAILS BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WHEREAS, Article IX of Chapter 23 of the City Code regulates behavior on City natural areas properties, and Article X of Chapter 23 of the City Code regulates behavior in City recreation areas, which includes parks and trails; and WHEREAS, both the natural areas and parks Code provisions currently prohibit the use of motorized vehicles or other motorized means of conveyance in natural areas and recreation areas, except that motorized wheelchairs or similar assistive devices may be used by a person with a mobility impairment; and WHEREAS, in 2010 the U.S. Department of Justice released revised regulations implementing the accessibility provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which regulations went into effect on March 15, 2011 (the “2011 Regulations”); and WHEREAS, among other changes, the 2011 Regulations redefine the scope of mobility devices that public entities must allow individuals with disabilities to use in areas where pedestrians are allowed, subject to legitimate safety requirements that an entity may adopt; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend various provisions of Chapter 23, Articles IX and X in order to update the language regarding the use of motorized devices by people with disabilities on City trails in order to be consistent with recent federal regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act the 2011 Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 23-192 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of three two new definitions, which read in their entirety as follows: Sec. 23-192. Definitions. ... Bicycle shall have the same meaning as defined in the Fort Collins Traffic Code. ... ... Mobility disability shall mean a disability, as defined in Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that limits an individual’s mobility within a natural area. ... Other power-driven mobility device shall have the meaning ascribed to it by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 2. That Section 23-193(d)(18) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-193. Prohibited acts; permits. . . . (d) Except as authorized by a permit obtained for such use from the Service Area, it shall be unlawful to: . . . (18) Operate or park a motor vehicle or other motorized means of conveyance anywhere in a natural area other than on established roadways and in designated parking areas; provided, however, that a motorized wheelchair may be used by any person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability anywhere in a natural area that public access is allowed, and an other power-driven mobility device may be used in a natural area by any person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability, in accordance with City regulations regarding such use of other power-driven mobility devices Section 3. That Section 23-202 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of three two new definitions, which shall read as follows: Sec. 23-202. Definitions. . . . Bicycle shall have the same meaning as defined in the Fort Collins Traffic Code. . . . -2- . . . Mobility disability shall mean a disability, as defined in Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that limits an individual’s mobility within a recreation area. . . . Other power-driven mobility device shall have the meaning ascribed to it by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. . . . Section 4. That Section 23-203(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-203. Prohibited acts; permits. (a) It shall be unlawful to: (1) Operate or park a motor vehicle or other motorized means of conveyance anywhere in a recreation area other than on established roadways and in designated parking areas; provided, however, that a motorized wheelchair may be used by any person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability anywhere in a recreation area that public access is allowed, and an other power-driven mobility device may be used in a recreation area by any person with a temporary or permanent mobility disability, in accordance with City regulations regarding such use of other power- driven mobility devices. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of November, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk -4- DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Janet Miller Amy Sharkey AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 37 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 180, 2011, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the City Manager. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council met in executive session on November 9, 2011, to conduct the performance review of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 180, 2011, establishes the salary of the City Manager. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the coming year. In 2011, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following: 2011 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS Salary Medical Insurance Dental Insurance Life Insurance Long Term Disability ICMA (457) ICMA (401) Car Allowance $ 190,571 8,400 552 332 696 5,717 19,057 9,000 Vacation (30 days per year) Holidays (11 days per year) Total Monetary Compensation $ 234,325 Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect City Manager Darin Atteberry’s 2012 salary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. ORDINANCE NO. 180, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-596 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND SETTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY MANAGER WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is responsible for fixing the compensation of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable; and WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes not only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and amounts paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and WHEREAS, the City Council met with the City Manager to conduct a review and establish next year’s goals; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the base salary of the City Manager should be established at the amount of $ effective January 9, 2012, so that the total compensation paid to the City Manager in 2012 will be in the amount of $ . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-596. Salary of the City Manager. The base salary to be paid the City Manager shall be one hundred ninety thousand five hundred seventy-one dollars ($190,571 .) per annum, payable in biweekly installments. Forty (40) percent of such sum shall be charged to the city electric utility, twenty (20) percent to the city water utility and forty (40) percent to general government expense. Section 2. That the effective date of the salary adjustment referred to in Section 1 above shall be January 9, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Janet Miller Amy Sharkey AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 38 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 181, 2011, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council met in executive session on November 9, 2011, to conduct the performance review of Municipal Judge Kathleen Lane. Ordinance No. 181, 2011, establishes the 2012 salary of the Municipal Judge. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the Municipal Judge meet twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the coming year. In 2011, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following: 2011 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS Salary (0.8 FTE) Medical Insurance Dental Insurance Life Insurance Long Term Disability ICMA (457) ICMA (401) $ 93,045 8,400 552 164 339 2,791 9,305 Vacation (26 days per year) Holidays (11 days per year) Total Monetary Compensation $ 114,596 Resolution 2006-124, which establishes the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. The Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect Judge Lane’s 2012 salary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. ORDINANCE NO. 181, 2011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-606 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND SETTING THE SALARY OF THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VII, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council (the “Council”) is responsible for fixing the compensation of the Municipal Judge; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is committed to compensating its employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and understandable; and WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes not only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and amounts paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and WHEREAS, each year the Council conducts a review of the past year's performance and the next year’s goals of the Municipal Judge; and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the base salary of the Municipal Judge should be established at the amount of $ , effective January 9, 2012, so that the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge in 2012 will be in the amount of $ . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2-606 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-606. Salary of the Municipal Judge. The base salary to be paid to the Municipal Judge for working 0.8 FTE shall be ninety-three thousand forty-five dollars ($93,045 ) per annum, payable in biweekly installments, which sum shall be charged to general government expense. Section 2. That the effective date of the salary adjustment referred to in Section 1 above shall be January 9, 2012. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of December, A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of December, A.D. 2011. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk urban renewal authority Karen Weitkunat, President City Council Chambers Kelly Ohlson, Vice-President City Hall West Ben Manvel 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz Wade Troxell Gerry Horak Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, Executive Director Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, Secretary The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY WORK SESSION December 6, 2011 (after the Regular Council Meeting) 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures; Best Approach for Tax Increment Financing. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Christina Vincent; 45 minute discussion) The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board approved a thorough revision to the Policies and Procedures (Policies) in May 2010 from the original Policies created in 2006. At the May 17, 2011 URA Board meeting, it was discussed that the Policies should have more detail regarding green building practices and therefore should come back to the URA Board for more revisions. Staff received feedback from June 14, 2011, and October 4, 2011 work sessions to modify the language as proposed by the URA Board. These Policies are intended to give guidance to the eligible developments and objectives of the URA to applicants, staff, citizens and the URA Board for decision making purposes. At the last work session in October, the conversation was continued to a later date to discuss the Policies in the greater context of tax increment financing and the best approach for awarding grant monies. 3. Other Business. 4. Adjournment. DATE: December 6, 2011 STAFF: Bruce Hendee Christina Vincent Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Urban Renewal Authority Policies and Procedures; Best Approach for Tax Increment Financing. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board approved a thorough revision to the Policies and Procedures (Policies) in May 2010 from the original Policies created in 2006. At the May 17, 2011 URA Board meeting, it was discussed that the Policies should have more detail regarding green building practices and therefore should come back to the URA Board for more revisions. Staff received feedback from June 14, 2011, and October 4, 2011 work sessions to modify the language as proposed by the URA Board. These Policies are intended to give guidance to the eligible developments and objectives of the URA to applicants, staff, citizens and the URA Board for decision making purposes. At the last work session in October, the conversation was continued to a later date to discuss the Policies in the greater context of tax increment financing and the best approach for awarding grant monies. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Is the URA Board comfortable bringing these revisions back for formal consideration in January? 2. Does the URA Board have concerns regarding staff’s approach to tax increment financing? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The URA Board approved the first version of the Policies in August 2006. Originally, the URA Board formed an ad-hoc committee to create a mission statement and develop general policies. Those Policies have since guided the URA in the initial stages of preparing for future URA projects. There are now several approved URA projects that both the URA team and staff felt needed further clarification and direction when guiding applicants through the process. In 2010, the URA Board approved the Policies document that is used today. The changes from the original 2006 version were significant in comparison. December 6, 2011 Page 2 2010 changes: • Clear introduction with explanation of the purpose of the Policies and Procedures. • Clear distinction of the objectives, goals, and eligible development and costs. • Inclusion of green building techniques. • Establish evaluation criteria. N Financial feasibility (establishment of a threshold for projects that need proforma analysis). N Policy assessment. N Local ownership criteria changed from Larimer County to 40 mile radius from the City of Fort Collins Growth Management boundary. N All payments will be issued on a reimbursement basis at the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, unless otherwise determined by the URA Board. • Inclusion of the URA application questions. • Step-by-step process illustration. This document has been highly successful in setting clear expectations of the type of application and project the URA will consider. That said, further clarification of the process and expectations was directed to staff by the URA Board. Those additional requirements and expectations were captured in the 2011 revision. The 2011 revision contains the following changes: • Assuring development is consistent with City Plan and the Urban Renewal Plans, and adopted codes, ordinances, and resolutions. • Promote green building and above-code energy and water efficiencies. • Clarification of the acceptable affordable housing requirements to meet existing standards defined in the Land Use Code. • Inclusion of revised mission statement from 2006. • Applicant must be in the City’s development review process. More specifically must have received first round of review staff comments through a PDP, FDP, major/minor amendment. • State intended waste diversion and/or deconstruction methods of the project. • Require a Construction Waste Management Plan for both existing development and new construction projects to ensure proper methods of waste reduction, reuse and recycling will occur for all URA projects. • Creation of New Building and Existing Building criteria. N New buildings greater than 15,000 square feet must achieve LEED silver certification. N New buildings less than 15,000 square feet must use the LEED checklist but are not required to be certified. N Existing buildings must have an Efficiency Assessment completed. (Attachment 3) Demonstration of completed action items from the report must be achieved to the satisfaction of the URA staff with measurable simple pay back of less than 2 years. Staff is seeking direction on the proposed revisions to be included in the 2011 revised Policies and Procedures. (Attachment 1) December 6, 2011 Page 3 Best Practices for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for the URA Across the nation, policies for TIF vary. The URA has created Policies that are intended to guide the expectations for applicants and provide transparency for the public as to the requirements. There are several reoccurring themes within the Policies when benchmarked against other communities, that reveal the Policies to be high quality and intentional about participation. Those themes are: • Transparency • Deliberate and desired use of TIF • Foundation of expectations • Financial need and analysis requirements • City policy alignment A strong determination of financial assistance must be proven in order to be considered for TIF. This is referred to as the “but for’ test where the project would not otherwise occur at the desired level, but for the use of TIF assistance. Additional factors that are common in other TIF agencies when deciding to use TIF include: • Length of time an area/parcel has remained undeveloped/underdeveloped • Public Infrastructure needs, as determined by the City • Severity of the existing blight, hazards to public health, safety and welfare • Developer’s ability to finance the entire project, as mentioned above • Previous failed attempts to develop (could be for a variety of reasons) • Spur redevelopment and economic development activities • Market studies reveal a gap in services for the public • Environmental remediation. Sizing/Structuring TIF contributions The appropriate level of TIF assistance continues to be a topic of conversation to ensure that taxpayer funds are spent prudently based on substantiated financial need, instead of an arbitrary reward. When the “but for” test is appropriately applied, the TIF contribution will be the difference between a feasible and infeasible project. There are three main legitimate sources when evaluating the financial need. • Public Infrastructure or Public Improvements: These are improvements that are required of the project in excess of the level that the private market could reasonably be expected to support financially. • Extraordinary Costs: The site has defects or unique charactistics that burden the project financially to remediate. Examples could be: poor soils, environmental clean up, building rehabilitation costs, floodway/plain removal, etc. • The Proposed Project is “above market” or “non-market”: This could be two types of projects. One would be where markets are unproven and needed to catalyze additional development and create momentum with the hope that subsequent projects will require less December 6, 2011 Page 4 public participation, if any. Two, the project is on a parcel that underperforming or underutilized and potential public project should occur in these locations. These three factors set the framework for the financial analysis and negotiation of TIF assistance. The chart below illustrates the method applied for the appropriate level of TIF contributions. Chart: Appropriate TIF contribution Each project must retain its individuality with consideration to the variety of limitations it may face. Staff does not recommend a determined percentage of TIF nor a percentage of project cost that would limit the participation at a certain level. This type of decision making with TIF will influence the proforma analysis and most certainly secure an entitled perception for the applicant. Additionally, the URA should be catalyzing projects and not necessarily participating in each development project that occurs. The criteria within the Policies have been developed to evaluate each project on a case by case basis. State statute does not limit the amount of participation the URA chooses when considering a project for TIF. It is a balancing act between eligible costs according to statute and the desires of the City as stated in City Plan. Staff would like to continue applying the tool in the same way that is consistent with the Policies which evaluates each project on a case by case basis based on the applicable objectives and proven financial need. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2011 Redlined URA Policies and Procedures 2. Work session Summary, October 4, 2011 3. Tax Increment Finance Best Practices Reference Guide 4. Power Point presentation Demonstrated TIF Need for feasibility ("but for" test) Financing Capacity of URA for project TIF Eligible Costs $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 Appropriate level of TIF participation In millions 1 2011 URA Policies and Procedures (unformatted version) SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION This policy is to provide guidance for the Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority (URA) staff, Citizen Advisory Group (North College) recommending bodies, the URA Team and URA Board (Board) in considering, reviewing and processing applications that seek to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance for development activities within the designated plan areas. The URA Board will have the option of amending or waiving sections of this document when determined necessary or appropriate. “The mission of the URA is to remedy blight, using Tax Increment Financing, to leverage private capital investment and stimulate sustainable development and public improvements projects.” The fundamental purpose for application to the URA for TIF assistance is to facilitate desirable development/redevelopment projects within the URA plan that would not otherwise occur “but for” the assistance provided through TIF. Examples of costs eligible for TIF assistance are listed in Section 4 – Eligible Costs. It is the intent of the Board where financial assistance is needed The Board intends to provide the minimum amount of TIF assistance needed to make the project viable. The provision of financial assistance is at the sole discretion of the Board. The Board reserves the right to reject or approve projects on a case‐by‐case basis, taking into account: – Established policies; – Specific project criteria; and – Demands on City services in relation to the versus potential public benefits received from the proposed project. Meeting policy guidelines and other criteria does not guarantee the award of TIF assistance. Furthermore, approval or denial of one project is not intended to set a precedent for approval or denial of another project. SECTION 2 ‐ OBJECTIVES The URA exists to accomplish the following objectives: Eliminating blight. Improving the public infrastructure (streets, storm drainage, sewer, utilities, etc.) in areas where deficiencies exist. Creating a significant number of new primary jobs. Removing impediments to desired development. Retaining, expanding or attracting businesses for the purpose of improving the City’s economic base as demonstrated by increased jobs, creation of primary jobs, higher paying employment, installing manufacturing base, etc. ATTACHMENT 1 2 Encouraging development projects that enhance the streetscapes and pedestrian experience and improve the vitality of commercial corridors by adding interest and activity. Providing a variety of quality affordable housing choices. Encouraging development that is consistent with City Plan and approved Urban Renewal Plans. Providing Promoting “green” building standards and/or “above code” energy and water efficiencies within buildings and developments. North College Plan area priorities (specific to the North College Urban Renewal Plan area): – Enhancing transportation infrastructure; – Providing stormwater drainage or floodplain improvements; – Expanding or upgrading utility infrastructure; and – Providing amenities that benefit the public including but not limited to streetscapes, enhanced architecture and building materials, facade renovations, special site improvements, etc. that contribute to a positive identity and image for the North College area. SECTION 3 – ELIGIBLE DEVELOPMENT The Board may consider TIF funding for Projects that could include the following: Business Development: the retention, expansion, and attraction of business in the plan area. Creation of a significant number of new primary jobs. Creation of a destination location that will capture additional revenue to the area. Residential Mixed‐use Ddevelopment: new construction or rehabilitation of existing structures with more than one land use. Residential portions of mixed‐use development may include the following: single family and/or multi‐family housing. – Affordable Hhousing (must meet exceed the minimum City Code definition of an affordable housing project). requirement of 20% 10% of the total units with 80% Area Median Income (AMI) or less). – Student housing, defined as multi‐unit residential structures that are leased in whole or in part to students attending post‐secondary educational institutions. Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures. Early childhood care and education centers. Green development which exceeds adopted code minimums (e.g. design, construction, or retrofitting of buildings and sites to be certified through an approved green building rating system). Protection of natural habitats and features both on the development’s site and in the vicinity of that site. SECTION 4 – ELIGIBLE COSTS The following are eligible costs that may be considered for TIF assistance: 3 Removal of hazardous materials or conditions (sites where remediation or mitigation are required). Site clearance or site acquisition. Land assemblage. Parking/structured parking for the public. Infrastructure that is extraordinarily costly to the project and/or serves other development and redevelopment facilitating further improvements in the area. to remedy (streets, stormwater, water/wastewater, light & power, gas, etc.). Infrastructure that serves other development and redevelopment facilitating further improvements in the area. Sustainable and renewable energy features that greatly reduce the negative environmental impact of any project. Public amenities such as parks, plazas, community gathering areas and streetscapes to enhance the aesthetics of the area. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) as identified by the City of Fort Collins. Projects listed in Infrastructure Plans related to the Plan area, e.g., North College Infrastructure Funding Plan. SECTION 5 – EVALUATION CRITERIA The following basic evaluation criteria will be used to review applications seeking TIF funding. Since every project is unique, additional evaluation criteria may become necessary and will be determined on a case‐by‐case basis. Financial feasibility: – TIF assistance will not be considered for projects that have the financial feasibility to proceed without TIF assistance. Assistance will not be provided solely to increase the developer’s profit margin on the project. Prior to consideration of a TIF assistance request, the URA will undertake a financial analysis of the project costs to ensure that the developer’s internal rate of return (IRR) is reasonable request for assistance is appropriate. – An independent financial analysis will be required for projects that meet at least one of the following conditions: The new or reconstructed building is greater than 15,000 square feet in size; The project will generate more than $1 million in TIF; or The applicant is seeking more than 50% of the property tax increment generated from the project. The independent analysis will be contracted for by the URA and the cost will be paid by the applicant. For projects that will generate more than $1 million in TIF or create a project that is more than 10,000 sq. ft. in size there may be an independent financial analysis. The independent analysis will be contracted for by the URA and the cost 4 will be paid for by the applicant. Additionally, if the project is seeking more than 50% of the property tax increment generated from the project, or if the applicant is asking for requesting more than $150,000 in financial assistance, an independent financial analysis of the project may be required by the URA. – Individuals requesting TIF assistance must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the URA, sufficient equity investment in the project prior to seeking TIF. Equity is defined as cash or un‐leveraged value in land or prepaid costs attributable to the project. Examples of equity may include personal cash, letter of credit, personal investment, awarded grant monies, etc. Policy assessment: – A qualitative and/or quantitative analysis should be completed in order to identify the costs associated with the project which benefit the public and achieve the broader community benefits and goals by alleviating an existing, defined and described problem of City‐wide concern. Analysis of the benefits of the project will be measured against the expectations set in the relevant plans that may include, but not be limited by, City Plan (the City’s Comprehensive Plan), Urban Renewal Plan, Community sub area plan, or in an adopted policy, ordinance, or resolution of the City Council. – Projects that do not provide sufficient public benefits may, after review, be asked for revisions such as: Greater Developer contribution; Reduced TIF participation; and/or Redefiningtion of the scope of the project. Revision may lead to approval or final denial of URA participant in the project. The applicant must be able to demonstrate to the URA and Board’s satisfaction, an ability to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project based upon past experience, general reputation, and credit history. The level of TIF assistance will be determined on the merits of the project. The URA will give additional consideration to the following: – Affordable housing projects that exceed the minimum City Land Use Code definition of 10% of the total units for households earning 80% or less of AMI. – Projects that have local ownership, which is defined to mean any home location, business, developer located within a 40 mile radius from the City of Fort Collins Growth Management boundary. Section 6 – Building Requirements In 2006, City Council adopted a resolution stating that all new construction of city‐owned buildings will achieve LEED Gold certification. In keeping with that standard, the URA requires certain conditions for development/redevelopment projects containing buildings that are seeking TIF assistance. Conditions are listed by category below: 5 New Buildings: – All New Buildings that exceed 15,000 square feet must achieve US Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED Silver certification, at minimum. It is recommended that applicants hire an accredited LEED development team. – All New Buildings that are less than 15,000 square feet must be able to demonstrate that the building could meet or exceed the above requirement through the use of the LEED checklist, without official submittal to the USGBC. Existing Buildings: – All development/redevelopment projects with an existing building seeking TIF must agree to an Efficiency Assessment of the existing building. This process will be conducted by trained professionals through the City of Fort Collins. The Efficiency Assessment provides historical use analysis, reviews current facility operations, and identifies opportunities to reduce operating costs and environmental impacts. – Once the Efficiency Assessment is completed, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the URA staff the measures which have a simple payback of less than two years. Infrastructure: – Applicants seeking assistance with public infrastructure must agree to an Efficiency Assessment of their existing building or business, even if no construction is occurring to a building structure. Section 7 – Other General Policies TIF assistance for land/property purchase costs will not be provided in an amount exceeding the fair market value of the property. When considering the purchase of land, tThe fair market value will be determined by an independent appraiser hired by the Board or the City of Fort Collins. The cost of the appraisal will be paid for by the applicant. TIF will not be used to retroactively reimburse projects or make payments to cover costs associated with any actions already incurred by a development or redevelopment prior to a request for financial assistance being considered by the URA final approval by the Board. TIF assistance will be on a reimbursement basis and only after the project valuation is verified and the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or Letter of Completion (LOC) is issued at completion of construction. The funds will be paid upon actual costs with verifiable receipts. Consideration for payments prior to obtaining the CO or LOC and valuation may be made on a case‐by‐case basis and will require approval by the Board prior to commencement of construction. To be eligible to apply for TIF, the applicant must have submitted the proposed project to the City as a Project Development Plan (PDP), Final Development Plan (FDP), or a 6 major/minor amendment and completed the first round of review with comments from City staff. A City of Fort Collins Construction Waste Management Plan must be submitted for both new construction projects (including, but not limited to, rehabilitation and additions) as well as existing projects that may have deconstruction onsite. Specific requirements are stated in the plan and must be accompanied in the application. Section 8 – Application Requirements The applicant must complete the TIF application in its entirety, including the following documentation: A location map Site plans or project drawings/perspectives/elevations Project Pro‐forma Owner/Business resume Executive Summary with answers to the following questions: – What is the nature of the project? – Why is TIF assistance needed and how will the funds be used? – What sources of financing will the project secure other than TIF? – How will the project help improve/upgrade public infrastructure (streets, utilities, drainage, etc.)? – How will the project enhance the property tax base (and sales tax base, if applicable) of the area? – How will the project help achieve the goals of the North College Urban Renewal Plan and City Plan? – How will the project help eliminate slum and blight conditions? – How will this project help achieve the URA goals of sustainability through green building techniques? Please be specific how this project uses energy and water efficiency exceeding code requirements, renewable resources, natural resource conservation techniques, or stormwater low impact design methods. – A Construction and/or Deconstruction Waste Management Plan that identifies how waste will be reduced, reused, and/or recycled appropriately. – An efficiency Assessment (please provide any summary report if one has been done in the past.) – Documentation and quantifiable results stating the proven methods and effectiveness of the proposed sustainable features within the project. – What is the A proposed project timetable (what is indicating the estimated time frame for major steps including the City’s planning decision, completion of financial commitments, start of construction, and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (CO)? Section 9 – Process (see illustration for condensed version) Applications may be submitted to URA staff at any time during regular business hours. After URA staff has done a preliminary analysis and made suggested edits or modifications to the application, there will be a final submittal. 7 Additional community‐based input from affected groups may will be required. – If the application is for a project located within the North College Urban Renewal Plan, the North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) must make a recommendation by a majority vote. – The CAG meets on a monthly basis and the proposed project TIF application will be scheduled on the agenda once the financial analyses are completed and the URA staff has adequate information and achieved a staff recommendation to present. – Feedback from community‐based input (e.g., North Fort Collins Business Association, South Fort Collins Business Association) may require modifications that delay approval and even require additional financial analysis. The final application will be reviewed by the URA Team. If the fundamental goals of the URA are not clearly met, and staff doesn’t make a favorable recommendation to the Board, the application will be denied by staff and will not move forward to the Board for approval. The applicant may re‐apply again if there is a significant financial change affecting the project’s financial feasibility, or if the project changes extensively from the original application and should be considered on its own merit. project changes financially, present a different project than previously submitted or with a change in the TIF calculation based on project differences. Once If the URA staff and any community‐based organization have recommended recommends the application, URA staff will work with the applicant to create a project specific Redevelopment Agreement (RA) that will define the terms of URA participation and TIF assistance, if any, for the project. Once a final RA is agreed to URA staff will schedule the application for consideration at a hearing before the Board. The Board typically meets bimonthly on Tuesday evenings after City Council meetings. Approval of the project at any point in the process, short of the Board’s approval, is no guarantee that the project will receive any TIF assistance. The Board will consider the application at the scheduled meeting. The Board will decide whether or not to support the application. The support may include: – Adoption of the RA, – Denial of the application, or – Conditional approval of the RA and the Board will provide clear direction on suggested terms. The Board will also clearly indicate if the conditions are mandatory for approval or optional enhancements. If denied, the URA Board will not allow re‐application to the URA for TIF unless there are significant changes from the original denied application. All Redevelopment Agreements are valid for a 12 month period beginning on the date the agreement was executed, unless otherwise stated in the agreement. urban renewal authority 300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6505 TDD 970-224-6002 renewfortcollins.com DT: October 7, 2011 TO: President and URA Board members TH: Darin Atteberry, Executive Director FM: Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager Christina Vincent, Redevelopment Program Administrator RE: October 4, 2011 Work Session Summary – URA Policies and Advisory Group Options Board members present: President Weitkunat, Vice‐President Ohlson, Ben Manvel, Lisa Poppaw, Gerry Horak, Wade Troxell Staff present: Bruce Hendee, Christina Vincent, Josh Birks Discussion/Follow‐up points: The URA policies were revised from both the discussion during the June 14 worksession and further revised from the discussion from the URA project The Commons, by Capstone Development Corporation. The Board requests that consideration be given to the Affordable Housing requirement to exceed the stated Land Use Code minimum. The Board gave suggestions to improve the language in several sections and remove the redundancies. The Board questioned the need for the additional consideration for local ownership. Regarding the advisory group options, some Board members wanted to see an option six created to reflect no recommending advisory group option. Some members of the Board would also like to consider an advisory group that could serve in an ad‐hoc capacity. Staff will attempt to create that structure. Next Steps: December 6 – The URA Board will consider adopting the updated URA Policies and Procedures. January 31 – The URA Board will discuss the Policies and Procedures in the greater context of tax increment financing and the best approach for awarding grant monies. ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT #4 1 1 Urban Renewal Authority Policies & Procedures URA Board WWoorrkksseessssiioonn December 6, 2011 2 POLICIES: PURPOSE •• Provide Guidance •• State the Objectives •• Specify Eligible Development •• Identify Eligible Costs •• Evaluation Criteria •• Building Requirements •• Application Requirements •• Formalize Process & Timeline ATTACHMENT #4 2 3 POLICIES: EVALUATION CRITERIA •• Financial Feasibility ““But But For”” For test Financial analysis of the project pro forma Proven equity investment in the project •• Policy Assessment Project meets goals of various plans If goals are not met, additional criteria may be required •• Land purchase will not exceed fair market value 4 POLICIES: EVALUATION CRITERIA •• Cannot be retroactively reimbursed •• Application must be complete •• Applicant must provide past experience •• TIF is based on project merit •• TIF assistance on reimbursement basis ATTACHMENT #4 3 5 2011 REVISIONS •• Inclusion of revised mission statement. •• Applicant must be in the City’’s City s Development review process. –– Specifically complete first round of review with staff comments •• Require Construction Waste Management Plan for both new construction and deconstruction. •• Clarify the LUC Affordable Housing minimum and suggest exceeding the requirement. 6 2011 REVISIONS •• Require the project be consistent with City Plan and the Urban Renewal Plans. •• Promote green building; exceed adopted code minimums using LEED as a guide. •• New Buildings > 15,000 ssqqfftt. . achieve LEED silver certification •• Existing Buildings must complete an Efficiency Assessment. •• Infrastructure with buildings on property must complete an Efficiency Assessment. ATTACHMENT #4 4 7 KEY BENEFITS OF TIF • Elimination of blight • Reinvestment of incremental tax revenues specific to that area • Can create significant “gap financing” to make priority projects feasible • Flexible – pairs well with other financing tools • After plan area ends = result is increased tax base • TIF participation is aligned with City Plan policies 8 TIF PARTICIPATION Demonstrated TIF Need for feasibility ("but for" test) Financing Capacity of URA for project TIF Eligible Costs $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 Appropriate level of TIF participation 60 seconds Yes Study underway of current regs and other options to Council re: possible changes or prohibition Gainesville, FL No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Prior to 2008 they were allowed under limited circumstances, but the code changed and they were not permitted because of their distraction. When the change occurred, there was a provision that the prohibition would be reviewed in 3 years. That review is occuring for their entire code, and no changes are being proposed to remove the prohibition. Greeley, CO Yes 50% No Yes No 30 seconds No New sign code was adopted October 2010; committee, research, old code was too prohibitive, technologies change open door to look at it again Iowa City, IA Yes; only within commercial or public zones. Only time and temp signs allowed in residential zone. 40%, monument sign 50% No Yes Limited to just one color 60 minutes; time and temperature signs are not regulated No Code was revised about 5 years ago to allow these signs. Norman, OK Yes Only regulate for institution signs, 50% No No No Gas signs are allowed to change because of assumed infrequency, all others are not No Code has been in effect with minor changes since '92. Provo, UT Yes N/A Flashing/Scrolling in commercial zones Yes No 10 seconds No Recently amended the shopping center area, adopted new zones for downtown area that sign code has changed. Downtown needs rejuvenation, large shopping center wanted to do signage that wasn't permitted, so Provo accommodated their request and revised other sections of sign code. Santa Barbara, CA Yes; only for theater marquee signs, business directories, church and museaum signs, gas price signs. N/A No No No N/A No Last month, City Council approved gas stations to allow electronic message advertisements. Was surprised City Council allowed this ‐ they're trying to be business friendly. Since it's so new, not many are taking advantage, so it hasn't been a problem so far. Tempe, AZ Yes; only for theaters, places of worship, museams, and gas stations Gas price sign ‐ 50%; others are not limited Yes No No N/A No Code was revised in 2005. Churches have been the most common user of digital signs. Peer City Review ‐ Digital Sign Regulations