Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 04/03/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem Council Chambers Ben Manvel, District 1 City Hall West Lisa Poppaw, District 2 300 LaPorte Avenue Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Rita Harris, Interim City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Assisted hearing devices are available to the public for Council meetings. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-6001) for assistance. REGULAR MEETING April 3, 2012 Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring April 2012 as Fair Housing Month. B. Proclamation Declaring April 2012 as Local Music Appreciation Month. C. Proclamation Declaring April 2012 as Month of the Young Child. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. Page 2 3. AGENDA REVIEW: • City Manager Review of Agenda. • Consent Calendar Review. This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this Calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. N Council opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item No. 21) N Citizen opportunity to pull Consent Calendar items. (will be considered under Item. No. 23) 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 17. This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar consists of: ! Ordinance on First Reading that are routine ! Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine ! Those of no perceived controversy ! Routine administrative actions. Individuals who wish to make comments regarding items remaining on the Consent Calendar or wish to address the Council on items not specifically scheduled on the agenda must first be recognized by the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. Before speaking, please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz once when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. The timer will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes. If there are more than 6 individuals who wish to speak, the Mayor may reduce the time allowed for each individual. ! State your name and address for the record. ! Applause, outbursts or other demonstrations by the audience are not allowed ! Keep comments brief; if available, provide a written copy of statement to City Clerk Page 3 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be based upon the number of people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City Clerk to recommend any district boundary changes necessary to ensure there is no more than a ten percent deviation between the most populous and least populous District no less than one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of Fort Collins. The timing of the City Clerk’s recommendation has proved problematic as City staff has recently received information evidencing significant revisions to county voting precincts so that some City Council districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City Charter. The City Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time frame, due to these revisions to county precincts. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2012, will amend the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk to begin the process to determine if District boundary adjustments may be needed, rather than to make a recommendation to Council, within eighteen months following publication of the census data. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2012, authorizes conveyance of a non-exclusive permanent easement to Boxelder Sanitation District to install rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within the Archery Range Natural Area. The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood damage. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because: • there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies • the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of the project in 2012 • to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent dollars previously appropriated in 2011 In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2012 Adopted City Budget. Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Program was housed within the Capital Projects Fund; therefore, funds did not lapse from year to year. During 2004, in order to comply with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Natural Areas appropriations and the dedicated funding sources were moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Any unspent funds and excess revenue lapses into fund reserves at year-end. These reserves then need to be appropriated into the following year’s budget to use the funds for their intended purpose. The purpose of these appropriations is land conservation, construction of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural area program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. Page 4 10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. This Ordinance appropriates Non-Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building 6 Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010-029. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson; Abstain: Poppaw; Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444. Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate Outdated References. Over the years, portions of the City Code have not kept pace with the changing City organizational titles and department names that are included in the Code. Changes in the titles of individuals who have responsibilities outlined in the Code, as well as various department names have changed, but not been reflected in relevant Code sections. This Ordinance makes these housekeeping changes. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition, certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no longer consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are updated in the Ordinance. 14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property. In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD) holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I (north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This amendment to the easement grants permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE. Page 5 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer. The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer (the “Project”) is a road improvement project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on the north. In 2010, City Council passed Ordinance No. 085, 2010, authorizing the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right of way area containing approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) facility (State Highway 287) and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, this acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous acquisitions for the Project. It is required that City staff obtain authorization to use eminent domain proceedings for this additional acquisition since it was not included in Ordinance No. 085, 2010. 16. Items Relating to State Grants for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. A. Resolution 2012-021 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement (CDAG #12-FNL-01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of Equipment and Improvements Pertaining to the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. B. Resolution 2012-022 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement (CDAG #12-FNL-I01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of an Intern Position Pertaining to the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. Resolution 2012-021 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $400,000. This State Aviation Discretionary Grant will be used to match the FAA 2012 Entitlement Grant for Design Services for the capital construction project that will be completed in 2013 and an additional Snow Removal Equipment, a Utilities Master Plan, a Runway Weather Instrument System and an Airport Service Vehicle. Resolution 2012-022 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $14,560. This second State grant will fund 50% of the Airport’s Intern Program for 12 months. 17. Routine Easement. Easement Deed and Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Line from Hyde Living Trust, to grant a sanitary sewer easement at no cost to the City for the purpose of a new City-owned sanitary sewer line that will serve three nearby residences, located at 2500 North Overland Trail. END CONSENT 18. Consent Calendar Follow-up. This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar. Page 6 19. Staff Reports. a. Presentation of the “Storm Ready Community” Award by the National Weather Service. 20. Councilmember Reports. 21. Consideration of Council-Pulled Consent Items. DISCUSSION ITEMS The method of debate for discussion items is as follows: ! Mayor introduces the item number and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff ! Staff presentation (optional) ! Mayor requests citizen comment on the item (five-minute limit for each citizen) ! Council questions of staff on the item ! Council motion on the item ! Council discussion ! Final Council comments ! Council vote on the item Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure all citizens have an opportunity to speak. Please sign in at the table in the back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time. 22. Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305- 1319 South Shields Street. (staff: Levingston, McWilliams; 15 minute staff presentation, 2 hour discussion) In January 2012, Charles A. Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd (Appellant) submitted two stand-alone modification of standard requests: one relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation; and one for the demolition of an individually eligible structure (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellant requested to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street by demolishing two existing single family residences and associated outbuildings and constructing five multi-family buildings with approximately ten units per building. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two Stand-Alone Modification of Standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied (6-0) the two modification of standard requests. On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office, seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and the Board failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standard requests. Page 7 23. Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items. 24. Other Business. 25. Adjournment. Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, which guarantees fair housing for all residents of the United States, was signed into law in April 1968; and WHEREAS, the month of April is nationally recognized as Fair Housing Month and a time to reflect on and reaffirm our national commitment to the ideal that fair housing opportunity is available to everyone in the United States without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status and disability; and WHEREAS, this year’s theme, “Creating Equal Opportunity in Every Community”, indicates a collaborative effort of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and its housing partners in realizing increased housing opportunities for every individual; and WHEREAS, the State of Colorado, which passed its own Fair Housing Act in 1959, recognizing and affirming that all persons in the State of Colorado are free to purchase, rent, finance and insure their homes without regard to their race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, familial status, sexual orientation, marital status or disability; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins welcomes this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the principal of fair housing for all and is committed to all efforts that address discrimination in our communities, supports all programs that will educate the public concerning their rights to equal housing opportunity and wants to assure every person their right to live free of the fear of housing discrimination. NOW THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby declare April 2012 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Interim City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, music is an important element in the creative fabric that envelops Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, local musicians work hard to provide entertainment for people from all walks of life, and help to bring about a better quality of life in those who experience it; and WHEREAS, musicians help stimulate the local economy by bringing citizens out of their homes and into the community where they enjoy the arts in relaxed settings and spend money at local establishments; and WHEREAS, more and more musicians in Northern Colorado are gaining national recognition for the music that they have created here, and have inspired musicians from many other parts of the world to come to Fort Collins to experience what makes this city so special; and WHEREAS, local music brings our community together to celebrate creativity and diversity. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby declare my appreciation to the musicians and music lovers in this city and proclaim April 2012 as LOCAL MUSIC APPRECIATION MONTH and I urge all citizens to join me in recognizing the great contributions made by local musicians to help make Fort Collins and important cultural center. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Interim City Clerk PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Larimer County District of the Colorado Association for the Education of Young Children, the Early Childhood Council of Larimer County, the Poudre School District Early Childhood Education Program, Thompson School District Integrated Early Childhood Program, Poudre River Public Library District, United Way Early Education Initiative, Licensed Family Child Care Association, in conjunction with the National Association for the Education of Young Children, are celebrating the Month of the Young Child, April 2012; and WHEREAS, these organizations are working to improve early learning opportunities, including early literacy programs, that can provide a foundation of learning for children in Larimer County; and WHEREAS, “Early Years are Learning Years”; and WHEREAS, by calling attention to the needs for quality early childhood care and education for all young children and families within our community we can hope to improve the quality and availability of such services, and WHEREAS, teachers and others who make a difference in the lives of young children deserve thanks and recognition; and WHEREAS, public policies that support early learning for all young children are crucial to young children’s futures. NOW THEREFORE, I, Karen Weitkunat, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim April 2012, as the MONTH OF THE YOUNG CHILD IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Interim City Clerk DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Steve Roy Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 6 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be based upon the number of people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City Clerk to recommend any district boundary changes necessary to ensure there is no more than a ten percent deviation between the most populous and least populous District no less than one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of Fort Collins. The timing of the City Clerk’s recommendation has proved problematic as City staff has recently received information evidencing significant revisions to county voting precincts so that some City Council districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City Charter. The City Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time frame, due to these revisions to county precincts. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2012, will amend the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk to begin the process to determine if District boundary adjustments may be needed, rather than to make a recommendation to Council, within eighteen months following publication of the census data. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 20, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: March 20, 2012 STAFF: Steve Roy Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2012, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Relating to Redistricting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Charter requires the method used to adjust City Council district boundaries be based upon the number of people residing in each district. The City Code requires the City Clerk to recommend any district boundary changes necessary to ensure there is no more than a ten percent deviation between the most populous and least populous District no less than one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of Fort Collins. The timing of the City Clerk’s recommendation has proved problematic as City staff has recently received information evidencing significant revisions to county voting precincts so that some City Council districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by the City Charter. The City Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one year time frame, due to these revisions to county precincts. This Ordinance will amend the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk to begin the process to determine if District boundary adjustments may be needed, rather than to make a recommendation to Council, within eighteen months following publication of the census data. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION At the April 5, 2011 regular City election, voters approved an amendment to the City Charter changing the method for adjusting City Council district boundaries so that the size and configuration of Council districts is based upon the number of people residing in each district rather than the number of registered electors. The Charter amendment required the Council to establish by ordinance the process for adjusting district boundaries. On June 7, 2011, the Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 063, 2011, which provides, in part, as follows: “Not less than one (1) year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of the City of Fort Collins, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a ten (10) percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous District.” According to the U.S. Census Bureau website, small area census population data was released to individual states February 3, 2011 through March 24, 2011. As such, the City Clerk, under the language above, would be required to make a recommendation to Council for any necessary boundary changes no later than March 24, 2012. Staff began calculating updating current population estimates early in 2012, and had formed a draft recommendation for one minor adjustment to achieve a deviation of less than 10 percent. However, staff just recently received from Larimer County information regarding changes made to County precincts – a result of reapportionment of House and Senate districts and changes to County Commissioner districts required prior to reapportionment. County precincts are established taking into consideration (1) natural and artificial boundaries that meet the requirements of the U.S. Census Bureau; (2) district boundaries of each representative and senatorial district (precinct boundaries cannot cross over representative and senatorial district boundaries); and (3) the number of active eligible electors within each proposed precinct. In addition, potential growth is taken into consideration. The reconfiguration of County precincts has resulted in some precincts being divided by Council district boundaries, in direct conflict with the Charter requirement that districts consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts. As such, City precinct boundaries need to be redrawn to match County precinct boundaries, and District boundary lines must be adjusted to maintain whole County precincts. Once staff has completed those adjustments, population estimates need to recalculated to determine the deviation between the most populous district and the least populous district from the “ideal” district size. COPY COPY COPY COPY March 20, 2012 -2- ITEM 11 The language in Ordinance No. 063, 2012, which seemed reasonable at the time staff proposed it, has proven problematic when the reapportionment process and the redrawing of County precinct boundaries are factored in. This will likely be the case following every census. Therefore, staff is proposing an amendment to the redistricting provisions to require the City Clerk make a recommendation to Council within 18 months, rather than one year, following publication of the census data. As already provided in the redistricting provisions, any changes to district boundaries must occur no less than 120 days prior to a regular municipal election. This amendment should provide staff with adequate time to obtain precinct boundary changes from the County and investigate possible scenarios for District boundary changes (if necessary) before a recommendation must be made to Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 023, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATING TO REDISTRICTING WHEREAS, by the approval of the voters at the regular City election held April 5, 2011, Article II, Section 1 of the City Charter was amended to change the method for adjusting City Council district boundaries so that the size and configuration of Council districts is now based upon the number of people residing in each district rather than the number of registered electors; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011, the City Council adopted on second reading Ordinance No. 63, 2011, which, in relevant part, requires the City Clerk to make a recommendation to the City Council, within one year after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of the City, as to whether any district boundary changes are necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than ten (10) percent deviation between the most populous and the least populous district; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Census Bureau small area population data was released to individual states between February 3, 2011 and March 24, 2011; and WHEREAS, in response to that census data, City staff had begun to formulate a recommendation to Council to make a minor adjustment to the City Council districts; and WHEREAS, City staff then received information from Larimer County indicating that significant revisions had been made to County voting precincts and that, as a result, some City Council districts no longer consist of contiguous, undivided general election precincts as required by Section 1, Subsection (c), Article II of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, because of this new information, the City Clerk’s office and other City staff have found it difficult to meet the one-year time frame currently required by Section 7-87 (b) of the City Code; and WHEREAS, City staff has therefore recommended that the period of time specified in City Code Section 7-87(b) be changed from one year to 18 months to allow more time for the City Clerk to formulate a recommendation to the City Council with regard to any district boundary changes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 7-87 of Article III of Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7-87. Redistricting; notice. (a) The City Council shall, by ordinance, amend the boundaries of the foregoing districts as necessary to comply with the provisions of Article II, Section 1(c) of the Charter. The City Clerk shall cause to be published twice, in a local newspaper of general circulation in the City, notice of the date, time and place of the City Council's consideration of any such redistricting ordinance. The first such notice shall be published no less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of first hearing of the redistricting ordinance, and the second notice shall be published no less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the first reading of the same. (b) Not less than eighteen (18) months after the official decennial publication of the United States Census concerning the population of the City of Fort Collins, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible, there is no more than a ten percent (10%) deviation between the most populous and the least populous district. (c) Not less than once every five (5) years after making the determination required under Subsection (b) above, the City Clerk shall again review the district boundaries to determine whether the maximum deviation between the most populous and the least populous district meets the standard described in Subsection (b) above. If the standard in Subsection (b) above is not met, the City Clerk shall recommend to the City Council any district boundary changes necessary to ensure that the districts conform to such standard. (d) Any changes to district boundaries shall be established by ordinance no less than one hundred twenty (120) days before a regular municipal election. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: John Stokes Daylan Figgs AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 7 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 20, 2012, authorizes conveyance of a non-exclusive permanent easement to Boxelder Sanitation District to install rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within the Archery Range Natural Area. The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood damage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - March 20, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: March 20, 2012 STAFF: John Stokes Daylan Figgs AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Archery Range Natural Area. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Easement on Portions of Archery Range Natural Area to Boxelder Sanitation District. B. Resolution 2012-016 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to Boxelder Sanitation District on the Archery Range Natural Area to Repair Flood Damage to the Riverbank. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Boxelder Sanitation District is seeking a non-exclusive permanent easement and a revocable permit to access and install rock rip rap armoring along the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River within the Archery Range Natural Area. The river bank armoring is being installed to protect the Boxelder Wastewater Treatment Facility from further flood damage. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In August 1999, City Council approved two ordinances that granted temporary and permanent non-exclusive easements for flood control structures to be constructed by the Boxelder Sanitation District (Boxelder) on the Archery Range Natural Area. The purpose of the structures was to reduce the risk of flood damage to the wastewater treatment facility. The flood control structures were not constructed. During the spring runoff event in 2011, the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River eroded back towards Boxelder’s treatment facility. In response, Boxelder installed rip rap armoring in the general area of the 1999 easements on the Archery Range Natural Area. Boxelder completed the roughly 100 feet by 25 feet armoring project in the fall of 2011. Natural Areas Department staff was contacted by Boxelder after the completion of the project to discuss site restoration. At that time it was determined the project, completed in 2011, was constructed, at least in part, outside of the easements authorized in 1999. Additionally, Boxelder had not acquired all necessary floodplain permits and project design approvals from the City. To meet the floodplain requirements and gain project design approval from the City, Boxelder will remove the majority of the rip rap placed in 2011 and reconstruct the project following a newly approved design. Based on the location of the 2011 work relative to the 1999 easements and the need to remove much of the work performed in 2011, staff determined to pursue a new non-exclusive easement for the project. Boxelder has worked to secure all permits and gain approval on the redesign for the project to comply with City floodplain requirements. Further, Boxelder has agreed to complete mitigation and restoration as outlined in the 2012 Natural Areas and Conserved Lands Easement Policy. City Council recently authorized a revocable permit for Lafarge West, Inc. to access and conduct the work necessary to repair a breach in the river bank within the Archery Range Natural Area (Resolution 2012-012). The Lafarge project occurs along the south bank of the Poudre River, just upstream of the Boxelder project. Repair of the river breach will redirect the river flow back into river channel where Boxelder will be working. To help reduce the overall cost of the project, Boxelder requested a revocable permit to complete the redesigned rip rap project before the river flow is restored to the channel. The Lafarge project is currently scheduled to be completed on approximately April 1, 2012. The Resolution authorizing a revocable permit is to allow Boxelder access to complete the rip rap project in March 2012, prior to the April completion of the Lafarge riverbank breach repair, and while approval and execution of the proposed permanent easement is pending. The Boxelder project area is approximately 100 feet by 25 feet. Construction will consist of excavating a portion of the riverbank, placing erosion fabric and rock rip rap onto the bank, and covering the rock riprap with topsoil. The site will be seeded with a native grass mix approved by Natural Areas staff. In addition, coyote willows will be planted on four foot centers within the lower sections (wetter soils) of the project area. COPY COPY COPY COPY March 20, 2012 -2- ITEM 12 Mitigation for the project will occur on site. Coyote willow will be established immediately upstream and downstream of the project area. This will help protect the bank from further erosion as well as provide additional wildlife habitat along this portion of the Poudre River. A second phase of the mitigation project will occur at the confluence of Boxelder Creek and the Cache la Poudre River, just downstream of the project area. Treated water from the Boxelder facility is released into Boxelder Creek and enters the Poudre River at this confluence. Banks along Boxelder Creek lack a strong shrub and willow community and are exposed to water erosion. Native willows will be established along both banks of Boxelder Creek above the confluence. Mitigation efforts will increase wildlife habitat values and help protect stream banks from erosion along Boxelder Creek and the Cache la Poudre River. The area included in the revocable permit would be larger than the area of the permanent easement in order to allow for this mitigation work. The project will be subject to the Natural Areas and Conserved Lands Easement Policy and all of its requirements, including the Natural Areas Department General Resource Protection Standards, mitigation requirements, and public outreach. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The administration fee was paid to the City under the previous easement policy. As such, an administration fee of $500 has been paid and the cost to administer the easement is being tracked; Boxelder will reimburse the City for all costs in excess of $500. The value for the easement will be calculated as outlined in the 2012 Easement Policy. The value of the non-exclusive easement will be provided by Real Estate Services based on standard appraisal techniques. The value of the ecological goods and services has been calculated to be $355, as established by methods outlined in the Easement Policy. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The project will be restored as outlined by the Easement Policy. Natural Areas will be compensated for the loss of ecological goods and services by habitat mitigation that will occur in close proximity to the project. Mitigation will consist of native willow establishment along the riverbanks of Cache la Poudre River and along the banks of Boxelder Creek. The location of this work is shown in Attachment 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its March 14, 2012 meeting, the Land Conservation Stewardship Board voted to recommend approval of the easement conveyance and the revocable permit. Draft minutes will be provided to Council in its read before packet on March 20, 2012. PUBLIC OUTREACH Boxelder Sanitation District held a public meeting regarding the project on March 8, 2012. No one from the public attended. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Easement and Mitigation Map ORDINANCE NO. 024, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT ON PORTIONS OF ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA TO BOXELDER SANITATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City is the owner of that certain parcel of real property located west of Interstate 25 and north of Horsetooth Road known as the Archery Range Natural Area (the “Natural Area”); and WHEREAS, Boxelder Sanitation District (“Boxelder”) owns and operates a wastewater treatment facility on land north of and adjacent to the Natural Area; and WHEREAS, in 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 113, 1999 and Ordinance No. 186, 1999, the City granted to Boxelder several easements for flood control structures on the Natural Area (the “1999 Easements”) for the purpose of reducing the risk of flood damage to the wastewater treatment facility; and WHEREAS, the flood control structures authorized under the 1999 Easements were never constructed; and WHEREAS, during spring runoff in 2011, the north bank of the Cache la Poudre River, located within the Natural Area, eroded back towards Boxelder’s facilities and, in response to the erosion, Boxelder armored the north bank of the river with rip rap in the approximate area of the 1999 Easements (the “2011 Project”); and WHEREAS, because the 2011 Project design was not approved by the City, the work was not within the scope of the 1999 Easements, and the work was done without the necessary floodplain permits, Boxelder is proposing to redo the 2011 Project following a new design and with proper approvals and permits (the “2012 Project”); and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2012, the City Council approved Resolution 2012-012, authorizing a revocable permit to Lafarge West, Inc. (“Lafarge”), to repair a breach in the riverbank within the Natural Area upstream from the Boxelder facility; and WHEREAS, when Lafarge completes its work, the river flow will be directed back into the channel where Boxelder is proposing to do the 2012 Project; and WHEREAS, by separate Resolution, the City Council is considering authorizing a revocable permit to Boxelder to do the 2012 Project, including access to and reconstruction of the riverbank and mitigation of project impacts on habitat along the riverbank, so that Boxelder can begin work as quickly as possible; and WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that the City also enter into a permanent, non- exclusive easement with Boxelder (the “Easement”) that would permit and require Boxelder’s long term maintenance and repair of the 2012 Project; and WHEREAS, the area of the proposed Easement is described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Boxelder has paid $500 to cover City administrative costs associated with processing the requested revocable permit and Easement, and will reimburse the City for costs in excess of $500; and WHEREAS, Boxelder will also pay the City the value of the Easement, to be calculated as described in the 2012 Natural Areas Easement Policy, and will provide habitat mitigation worth $355 by planting willows in the general area of the 2012 Project, to help stabilize the banks of the river and Boxelder Creek; and WHEREAS, it is in the City’s interest that Boxelder maintain its improvements within the river on the Natural Area over time; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on March 14, 2012, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend approval of the revocable permit and Easement conveyance; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code states that the City Council is authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the conveyance of the Easement to Boxelder, as described herein, is in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Easement to Boxelder on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or to effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including any necessary corrections to the legal description of the Easement, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change in character of the Easement. -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 20th day of March, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -3- DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 8 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council authorized expenditures in 2011 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2011 because: • there was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2011 and therefore, there was no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies • the project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be completed during 2011 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of the project in 2012 • to carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2012 with unspent dollars previously appropriated in 2011 In the above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual fund balances at the end of 2011 and reflect no change in Council policies. Monies reappropriated for each City fund by this Ordinance are as follows: General Fund $1,083,767 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund $ 349,719 Cultural Services & Facilities Fund $ 106,102 Recreation Fund $ 51,000 Cemetery Fund $ 50,000 Transportation Services Fund $ 44,000 Light and Power Fund $ 49,366 Water Fund $ 143,340 Storm Water Fund $ 21,228 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION GENERAL FUND Community Development & Neighborhood Services 1. Historic Preservation Grant Support - $50,500 General Fund, $25,000 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund This request is for reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $75,500 for Historic Preservation grant matching funds, and for hourly staff support for grant management and development project review. City matching funds provide a significant source of preservation monies; for every $1 of City funds, the City typically receives $4 in grant funding. In addition to assisting with development project review, in 2011 one part-time hourly staff assisted the 0.8 Historic Preservation Planner in managing seven different grant projects totaling $1,123,100 in direct funding. Due to the grant funding cycle for State Historic Fund and Certified Local Government grants, these grant monies were not fully expended in 2011. Monies requested for reappropriation comprise the matching funds for these 2012 grants and are needed to continue these projects. April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 8 Economic Development 2 Transportation Utility Analysis - $145,500 During the development of the 2011-2012 budget and through the discussions regarding Keep Fort Collins Great, the community requested that the City consider developing a Transportation Utility to fund basic transportation related programs and services. This funding will be used to bring in outside resources to help in the development of the Transportation Utility concept, the financial model, identification of programs to be funded, and more. Funds were not expended in 2011 because other operational priorities delayed the start of this project and the issuance of an RFP for outside consulting services to complete the project. Given the 2010 voter approval of the new sales tax, the urgency of this project was somewhat diminished from its original schedule. Environmental Services 3. Air Quality Monitoring Equipment - $4,500 This funding was approved in 2011 for continuing operation of the City’s fine-particle air pollution monitor. The monitor provides hourly fine-particle readings (particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or PM2.5). Operation, maintenance, and data quality assurance and reporting are efficiently provided through a partnership with Colorado Air Pollution Control Division and Larimer County Health Department. Full funding for services was not billed in 2011. The final invoice was received in January 2012. These funds are needed to fund that final invoice for 2011 services. 4. Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study - $9,874 This project was approved in the 2011-2012 budget to reduce lung-cancer risks by increasing the rate of radon mitigation among homeowners with high radon test results. CSU researchers in social marketing and epidemiology will carry out the Study, to determine the mitigation rate and barriers, and to scientifically test interventions to increase the mitigation rate. City Council approved $10,000 for the Study, or 23%, with the balance to be secured from outside grants. The State Indoor Radon Grant program has since contributed $21,525, or 50%, leaving an unfunded balance of $11,525. This reappropriation request is for $9,874 to substantially complete the project budget, making the overall project funded nearly half-and-half by Colorado and Fort Collins. 5. Zero Interest Loan for Air Quality - $8,197 Each year, $30,000 is appropriated for zero interest loans for citizens to remove or upgrade old wood stoves or install radon mitigation systems. For most of 2011, loan applications were halted while the City developed a way to address new federal restrictions on loan processing. This prevented usage of the majority of the funds in 2011. This request is to carry over $8,197 of 2011 funding to support zero interest loans for air quality. 6. Environmental Services Copier Maintenance - $4,700 In 2011, the copier maintenance costs for Natural Resources work group located at 215 North Mason were shared between General Fund and the Natural Areas Fund in order to serve staff from both divisions. With the separation of Natural Areas into a new department and new location, the Environmental Services Department will need to fund all of the copier maintenance costs in 2012. This request is to allocate a portion of the unspent 2011 funding to cover the gap in copier maintenance costs for Environmental Services. 7. Sustainability Strategic Plan - $6,600 General Fund, $3,300 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund A multi-day sustainability strategic planning charrette was conducted in February 2012 with approximately 40 City staff participating. The goal was to develop a preliminary Sustainable Strategic Plan that would identify priority project areas, potential collaborations, and integrated BFO offer ideas. These preliminary goals were accomplished but additional resources are needed to flesh out a more comprehensive Strategic Plan. Unspent resources from several program areas are being requested to support continued work on a Sustainability Strategic Plan for the remainder of 2012. April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 8 8. Waste Reduction and Recycling - $18,709 This funding was approved to help the community make progress in meeting the adopted goal of diverting 50% of the waste stream from landfill disposal. Communitywide education and outreach projects are implemented through this program to encourage involvement in recycling and composting, re-use, and source reduction and contribute to less trash being generated. In 2011, $55,000 was dedicated to a Waste Stream Study that was awarded to a consulting firm in September, 2011 and $39,468 was ear-marked for conducting two Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Events for the public. These funds will be used to conduct advertising and public involvement activities that raise awareness of recycling and reduction opportunities in Fort Collins, complete the Waste Stream Study in 2012, and help pay for the HHW event scheduled for June 2, 2012. 9. Waste Innovations Program - $100,987 The money comes from landfill tipping fees paid by City departments, and is intended to pay for innovative waste diversion projects. These projects are solicited from the Utilities, Streets, Parks Maintenance, and Forestry Departments to be applied to the City’s street sweeping, debris clearing, and excavation work that generate specific types of “industrial” waste. During 2011, only limited expenditures were made, including large-diameter tree trunk and limb grinding by the Forestry Department, and to investigate establishing a compost site for departments’ use. Departments that initiated waste diversion investigations in 2011, such as drying/screening soil that gets excavated during water main break occurrences, and small-scale composting approaches, are still working to finalize proposals to the Waste Innovation Program for money to purchase more permanent, larger-scale equipment in 2012 that will enable the City to divert more of its own waste stream from landfill disposal. Human Resources 10. Performance Based Pay - $18,000 The City implemented a uniform employee performance assessment process in 2007 and tied 2008 employee pay increases to overall job performance. Each year, staff has evaluated the process and made changes based on the previous year’s experience and the availability of budget dollars to fund employee pay increases. Financial limitations have created challenges in implementing performance based pay as it was originally designed. These funds will be used to hire a consultant to evaluate the current performance based pay process. The desire to utilize external experts to assist with this project was expressed late in 2011. This request is to use the unspent 2011 budget, originally allocated for performance management, to be reappropriated for 2012. 11. Learning/Organizational Development - $40,000 During the 2011-2012 BFO cycle, funding was approved for design and implementation of several employee programs, such as on-boarding, supervisory summit and supervisory development. When the Leadership Development Programs (Lead 1.0 and Lead 4.0) were subsequently funded with Keep Fort Collins Great dollars, deployment of those leadership programs became the higher priority. Both of these programs were newly designed and a collaborative effort with Poudre School District and Larimer County, which presented a variety of challenges to overcome. As the priorities for the Learning Division shifted, design and implementation of the other employee programs stopped due to resource constraints regarding staff and time. This request is for the reappropriation of $40,000 for consultative services and resources to redesign and implement supervisory summit and on-boarding processes for the organization. Parks 12. Fourth of July - $5,000 In 2011, $30,000 was donated by Poudre Valley Health Systems for the 4th of July celebration. Only $25,000 was spent. Therefore, $5,000 is requested for reappropriation in 2012 for this year’s celebration. 13. Storm Clean Up - $4,000 In 2011, the Parks Division received $19,000 for storm clean up. Only $7,051 was spent in 2011. In 2012, $4,000 is requested for reappropriation to cover chipper rental costs to complete the clean up. April 3, 2012 -4- ITEM 8 14. Lifecycle Funding - $9,206 General Fund, $18,584 Keep Fort Collins Great Fund In 2011, lifecycle funding of $27,790 was anticipated to be spent on replacement of the Rolland Moore playground restroom. Due to the need for additional funding, this project will now be completed in 2012. Planning, Development, and Transportation Administration 15. PDT Administration - $10,000 PDT Administration identified funds in the 2011 budget for service area reorganization facilitation. A scope of work could not be finalized prior to year end to select a vendor and encumber these funds. The need for facilitation is crucial to address the service unit’s key vacancies and reorganization issues, and there are not funds available in the 2012 budget. PDT Administration is requesting $10,000 be reappropriated from the unspent 2011 budget for organizational facilitation and training in 2012. Advance Planning 16. Homebuyer Assistance Program - $119,948 Affordable Housing funds for the Homebuyer Assistance Program could not be encumbered without a contract and the funds cannot be contracted until all monies are available to issue an Homebuyer Assistance loan. These funds are requested for reappropriation for the Homebuyer Assistance Program. The following three requests (17, 18, & 19) were approved in 2011; Affordable Housing funds lapsed as no contracts were signed. Contracts are now ready and the funds are requested for reappropriation to complete the programs. 17. Habitat for Humanity - $82,500 Funds for Habitat for Humanity were approved in November 2011 by City Council. These funds need to be reappropriated for the purchase of land. 18. Fort Collins Housing Authority - $97,524 The Fort Collins Housing Authority - Legacy Senior Apartments were approved by City Council in November 2011. The amount could not be encumbered without a contract. This project is in Development Review and in order to proceed with the project these funds need to be reappropriated. 19. Fort Collins Housing Authority of Loveland - $120,000 Funding for Housing Authority of Loveland was approved by City Council in November 2011. Staff is waiting for contracts to be signed so they can proceed with this program. This is a countywide program administered by the City of Loveland. All monies from Fort Collins are used for Fort Collins projects. Police Services 20. Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) - $21,878 The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) collects a monthly fee from all county telephone users. This fee is used to purchase and maintain equipment and train users to process E911 phone calls and dispatch appropriate emergency services providers for the Poudre Emergency Communications Center/Fort Collins Police Services. LETA uses a formula to determine the annual budget for each emergency services dispatch center based on its number of dispatchers and the number of E911 phone calls received in the center. The formula takes into consideration any unspent balance from the prior year allotment and these funds were unspent due to staffing shortages, training needs and equipment replacement schedules, etc. Any funds remaining from the 2011 allocation must be used for LETA specified purchases during 2012. The amount from the 2011 LETA funding to be reappropriated for use in 2012 is $21,878. April 3, 2012 -5- ITEM 8 21. Computer Automated Dispatch System - $99,712 In October 2011, approximately $1.7million was appropriated for hardware upgrade and replacement of the countywide computer aided dispatch/records and jail management system (CAD/RMS). The process was delayed due to the need for Police Services to hire a project manager. There was also some delay on the vendor’s part in producing the specifications and hardware requirements for the upgrade. The 18 month CAD/RMS upgrade project will kick off in April 2012. The funds will be spent in 2012 as the equipment is ordered and installed. City Manager 22. Performance Excellence Program - $81,432 These funds will be used to pay for contractual services for the Performance Excellence program. Staff’s work on the organizational strategic plan has been completed and the ongoing work toward developing systems for performance improvement and measurement will continue throughout 2012. Funds were originally appropriated for this program in 2011, but were not spent until later in the year due to other priorities. These reappropriated funds will provide organizationwide continued contractual support for the program. 23. Internal Focus Groups - $5,000 The internal service focus groups are intended to provide a data collection tool to evaluate the service provided to internal customers by City departments. The initial concept for this tool was to develop an online survey to collect internal services data. However, after meeting with the City’s Strategic Issues Team (SIT), the decision was made to conduct focus groups to obtain initial qualitative information on internal services. An outside consultant was used to conduct the focus groups and provide an analysis of the results. Normally, this is funded bi-annually; however, staff is seeking remaining funding for additional work in 2012. Finance 24. Budgeting for Outcomes Improvements - $20,000 At the completion of each Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process feedback is gathered from the various constituents involved in it as part of a continuous improvement process. There are two areas of improvement planned that require consulting services and were not completed in 2011. The first of those is assisting Results Teams and Sellers with the performance measures in the Request for Results and Offers, respectively. This aligns with Citywide efforts around operational excellence and performance measurement. The second area for improvement is with relative offer prioritization. Staff has done a good job prioritizing offers within each Outcome, but this enhancement will enable staff to take a systematic, data driven approach to looking at all Offers across all Outcomes. This item reappropriates $20,000 for these BFO improvements. KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT (KFCG) FUND Requests in the amount of $46,884 are included in the General Fund descriptions (Items 1, 7, and 14 listed above). Community Development & Neighborhood Services 25. Design Assistance Program - $20,848 This item requests the reappropriation of 2011 dollars in the amount of $20,848 for the Design Assistance Program. Program policies and procedures were developed for this program during 2011 and monies offered to potential recipients starting in late June. Because the program was in effect for only a portion of 2011, all available funds were not expended. $19,152 of the $40,000 available was paid in 2011. Staff is requesting that the balance of $20,848 be made available for 2012 Design Assistance Program efforts, in addition to the $40,000 that has been budgeted in 2012 for this purpose. April 3, 2012 -6- ITEM 8 Environmental Services 26. Unified Carbon Accounting System - $4,296 Two KFCG offers were approved to increase the City’s transparency and rigor of environmental data reporting. One provided funds for a new Environmental Data Analyst staff position and another provided funding for a unified carbon accounting database. This reappropriation request is to use remaining non-personnel dollars to increase the support for further needed enhancements for the City’s unified carbon accounting system, GEMS (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Management System). 27. Healthy Sustainable Homes (HSH) - $6,000 The HSH Program (formerly called “Volunteers for Sustainable Homes”) provides direct personal assistance to help residents improve indoor air quality to ease asthma and/or COPD, a health concern shared by 26% of area residents. Volunteers train to become Sustainability Masters and then provide in-home assessment and recommendations. Homeowners voluntarily request the service and then make voluntary in-home changes. 2011 funds were used to compile materials, train volunteers and begin in-home assessments. Remaining funds will be used to continue program marketing and outreach. 28. Innovation Fund for Senior Center Lighting - $19,947 This funding was approved to develop efficient, innovative improvements to the City’s physical plant and operational procedures. These improvements focus on reducing costs, reducing energy and water use, and reducing the City’s environmental and carbon footprint. Projects are evaluated by an interdepartmental team using a triple bottom line approach, however, projects with the best return on investment are given priority. The Innovation Fund is not a new idea; many communities and organizations have implemented similar funds over the last decade. In fact, Poudre School District (PSD) has its own version, which has helped the District save millions of dollars in operational costs while significantly reducing environmental impacts. The remaining funds are intended for Senior Center lighting improvements approved, but not implemented in 2011. 29. Sustainability Outreach and Education - $8,923 This funding was approved to increase outreach and education on internal and external sustainability. Sustainability outreach efforts focus on empowering individuals to improve their environmental and carbon footprint. The areas of particular focus are educational displays and training and the remaining funds will be used for these purposes. 30. Commercial Recycling Outreach and Incentive Programs - $3,168 This funding provides services and programs that augment the City’s overall waste reduction and recycling program, as part of achieving the goal of diverting 50% of the community’s waste from the landfill. Specifically, this new effort focuses on getting more commercial and multi-family generators to start recycling or composting programs. For these customers, specialized educational material, site analyses, and financial incentives help encourage them to sign up for recycling or composting services. Unspent funds from 2011 are being requested to support the newly initiated recycling rebate program. 31. Eco Industrial Center - $16,517 A contract for $69,000 was signed with a consulting firm to conduct a real estate analysis for locations to establish a new recycling center, and to design it as an operational facility that expands the City’s recycling drop-off site capacity. The final report was completed in February 2012. Remaining funds will be used to pay for final invoices on this consulting project, and to pay for any additional reporting/investigations needed to answer questions about the feasibility of constructing a new, expanded recycling drop-off site in Fort Collins. 32. Earth Tub Composting Vessels - $3,540 This funding contributes to the operations of a demonstration site for composting food waste using a contained, “in- vessel” system. As a pilot project, the Earth Tubs provide an opportunity for the City to evaluate a waste diversion strategy applicable for small local districts such as the Old Town area; several local restaurants and City buildings participate in this pilot food waste composting project. April 3, 2012 -7- ITEM 8 Human Resources 33. Learning/Organizational Development - $12,200 Following the approval of the Keep Fort Collins Great ballot measure, City Council allocated a portion of the 11% of the ”other community priorities” for Executive Leadership Development (Lead 4.0) in the amount of $109,950. Implementation of the program was delayed due to: (1) Executive leader schedules; (2) the Police Chief recruitment process;and (3) the effort to collaborate with Larimer County and Poudre School District for their participation. The program is now well underway; the reappropriation of $12,200 is requested to complete the Lead 4.0 pilot program. Funds will be used to continue professional business coaching and specific competency-based training. Natural Areas 34. Stream and River Rehabilitation and Restoration - $10,528 The remaining balance of this $250,000 Keep Fort Collins Great line item will be used to further the City’s stream restoration and rehabilitation efforts. Funds were expended in 2011 on several projects, including improvements at Fossil Creek, and McMurry Natural Area; planning for additional implantation in 2012; and, development of an ecological model of the Poudre River. Stream rehabilitation and restoration projects are often complex and require several years of planning and permitting; thus, it is expected that this particular fund will carryover monies on a regular basis. Engineering 35. Skyway Transit Stop and Adjoining Sidewalk Improvements - $4,157 This project will provide accessibility from Foothills Gateway to the existing Transfort bus stop at Skyway Drive and South College Avenue. Specifically, this project will construct a concrete sidewalk along the south side of Skyway Drive from Gateway Center Drive to South College Avenue. The preliminary design has been completed. Final design and construction will be in 2012. The total project cost is $157,000. 36. Drake – Redwing Pedestrian Signal Improvements - $14,000 The Drake/Redwing project is a pedestrian safety project intended to better serve users of the Mason Trail. Right-of- way issues involving CSU and the BNSF railroad delayed the project in 2011. Completion is anticipated within the month. 37. Miscellaneous Pedestrian Sidewalk and Ramp Repairs - $23,868 This request will allow for improvements to sidewalk and ramps in various locations within the City. Street Oversizing 38. Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program - $141,909 These funds are designated to cover the City’s portion of the arterial and collector roadways built as part of developments. Approximately $152,691 was spent in 2011 on replacing traffic signals on arterial streets. The balance will be used in 2012 for construction of Turnberry Road, done in conjunction with the developer’s contribution. Parking Services 39. Parking Services - $12,934 Parking Services received KFCG funding for long-needed maintenance projects for the Old Town Parking Structure. The majority of the projects identified for 2011 were completed, but work on the entry/exit area redesign could not be completed until 2012. The remaining balance of $12,934 is needed to complete the architectural work on the entry/exit area redesign. April 3, 2012 -8- ITEM 8 CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND 40. Art-in-Public-Places - $106,102 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $106,102 in the Cultural Services Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011 and will continue into 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects, including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery, North College Improvements and other miscellaneous projects. RECREATION FUND 41. Security Camera Installation - $51,000 In 2011, $200,000 from Recreation reserves was appropriated for various improvements and life-cycle replacements at the different Recreation facilities. A project that did not get completed in 2011 was installation of security cameras at the Fort Collins Senior Center, Northside Aztlan Community Center, and EPIC, leaving $51,000 in unused, appropriated funds. Recreation has been coordinating with Transfort to “piggy-back” with a similar project in order to receive cost savings; however Transfort was not ready to sign a contract by year end 2011. Installation of security cameras is a high priority for safety and security of both employees and citizens using the facilities; therefore, Recreation is requesting reappropriation of $51,000 for this project in 2012. CEMETERY FUND 42. New Cemetery Management Computer System - $50,000 The process was initiated in 2011 to purchase a new cemetery management system. The bid process was not completed before the end of 2011. Therefore, funding will need to be reappropriated in 2012 to cover the cost of the new system. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND 43. Parking Services - $44,000 Parking Services has a comprehensive service agreement for the access and revenue control systems for the two parking structures. Funds were budgeted in 2011 for this expense and the renewal was due in November. However, the vendor was still determining final costs for upgrades required for credit card systems so a Purchase Order could not be issued and paid prior to the end of the year. The vendor has continued to cover maintenance during the interim and will be sending an invoice for the renewal in February. The cost of the service agreement is $44,000. LIGHT AND POWER FUND 44. Residential Solar Rebates - $26,000 This item reappropriates $26,000 in the Light and Power Fund for residential customer solar rebates. Due to construction delays for seven residential solar electric rebate applicants, projects which were approved in 2011 will not be completed until 2012. The rebates range from $3,500 to $3,750 per customer. The Utilities is requesting reappropriation of 2011 funds in order for these solar rebate incentives to be paid in 2012. 45. Art-in-Public-Places - $23,366 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $23,366 in the Light and Power Utility Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including April 3, 2012 -9- ITEM 8 the Transformer Cabinet Mural project. WATER FUND 46. Art-in-Public-Places - $143,340 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $143,340 in the Water Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery and the Linden Street Pocket Park. STORM WATER FUND 47. Art-in-Public-Places - $21,228 City Council approved legislation in 1995 creating an Art-in-Public-Places (APP) program. The purpose of the program is to encourage and enhance artistic expression and appreciation adding value to the community through acquiring, exhibiting and maintaining public art. The program is funded by setting aside 1% of all eligible City construction projects (including Utility projects) over $250,000, as defined in the APP guidelines. This item reappropriates $21,228 in the Stormwater Utility Fund to be used for the APP projects that were in progress in 2011and will continue in 2012. As APP funds lapse at the end of the year, funds need to be reappropriated to continue these projects including the Flood Markers, Manhole Covers and the Storm Drain Markers. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance increases 2012 appropriations by $1,898,522. A total of $1,083,767 is requested for reappropriation in the General Fund and $814,755 is requested from various other City funds. Reappropriation requests represent amounts budgeted in 2011 that could not be encumbered at year-end. The appropriations are from 2011 prior year reserves. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 025, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter requires that all appropriations unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year lapse to the applicable general or special fund, except that appropriations for capital projects and federal or state grants do not lapse until the completion of the capital project or until the expiration of the federal or state grant; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of ONE MILLION EIGHTY-THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN DOLLARS ($1,083,767) for the following purposes: Historic Preservation Grant Support $ 50,500 Utility Transportation Analysis 145,500 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment 4,500 Radon Mitigation Behavioral Study 9,874 Zero Interest Loan for air Quality 8,197 Environmental Services Copier Maintenance 4,700 Sustainability Strategic Plan 6,600 Waste Reduction & Recycling 18,709 Waste Innovations Program 100,987 Performance Based Pay 18,000 Learning/Organizational Development 40,000 Fourth of July 5,000 Storm Clean Up 4,000 Lifecycle Funding 9,206 PDT Administration 10,000 Homebuyer Assistance Program 119,948 Habitat for Humanity 82,500 Fort Collins Housing Authority 97,524 Fort Collins Housing Authority of Loveland 120,000 Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) 21,878 Computer Aided Dispatch System 99,712 Performance Excellence Program 81,432 Internal Focus Groups 5,000 Budgeting for Outcomes Improvements 20,000 Total General Fund $1,083,767 Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund the sum of THREE HUNDRED FORTY-NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED NINETEEN DOLLARS ($349,719) for the following purposes: Historic Preservation Grant Support $ 25,000 Sustainability Strategic Plan 3,300 Lifecycle Funding 18,584 Design Assistance Program 20,848 Unified Carbon Accounting System 4,296 Healthy Sustainable Homes 6,000 Innovation Fund for Senior Center Lighting 19,947 Sustainability Outreach and Education 8,923 Commercial Recycling Outreach & Incentive Programs 3,168 Eco Industrial Center 16,517 Earth Tub Composting Vessels 3,540 Learning/Organizational Development 12,200 Stream & River Rehabilitation & Restoration 10,528 Skyway Transit Stop & Adjoining Sidewalk Improvements 4,157 Drake-Redwing Pedestrian Signal Improvements 14,000 Miscellaneous Pedestrian Sidewalk and Ramp Repairs 23,868 Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program 141,909 Parking Services 12,934 Total Keep Fort Collins Great Fund $349,719 Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWO DOLLARS ($106,102) to be used for the purpose specified in the City’s Art in Public Places program. Section 4. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Recreation Fund the sum of FIFTY-ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($51,000) to be used for Security Camera Installations at the Fort Collins Senior Center, Northside Aztlan Community Center, and EPIC. Section 5. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Cemetery Fund the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000) to be used for the purchase of a New Cemetery Management Computer System. Section 6. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Transportation Services Fund the sum of FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($44,000) to be used for the Parking Services service agreement for the access and revenue control systems. -2- Section 7. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Light and Power Fund the sum of FORTY-NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX DOLLARS ($49,366) for the following purposes: Residential Solar Rebates $ 26,000 Art-in-Public- Places 23,366 Total Light & Power Fund $ 49,366 Section 8. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Water Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS ($143,340) to be used for the purpose specified in the City’s Art in Public Places program. Section 9. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Storm Water Fund the sum of TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($21,228) to be used for the purpose specified in the City’s Art in Public Places program. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -3- DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: John Stokes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 9 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Natural Areas Fund for the Purpose of Providing Natural Areas Programming Not Included in the 2012 Adopted City Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prior to 2004, the Natural Areas Program was housed within the Capital Projects Fund; therefore, funds did not lapse from year to year. During 2004, in order to comply with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Natural Areas appropriations and the dedicated funding sources were moved into the Natural Areas Fund, a lapsing fund. Any unspent funds and excess revenue lapses into fund reserves at year-end. These reserves then need to be appropriated into the following year’s budget to use the funds for their intended purpose. The purpose of these appropriations is land conservation, construction of public improvements, restoration of wildlife habitat and other natural area program needs to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The funds for the Natural Areas Program come from the following designated sources of revenue, including: the City Open Space Yes! sales tax; the Larimer County - Help Preserve Open Space sales tax; and, miscellaneous unanticipated revenues. All of these funds are restricted to the purposes of the Natural Areas Program, including unanticipated revenues which consist generally of income from leases or grants. The anticipated use of these funds is as follows: • Land Conservation - $2,100,000. For ongoing land conservation efforts per the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan. • Rangers - $30,000. To purchase software and hardware to improve efficiency and effectiveness of encroachment enforcement. • Education - $148,400. Included are education activities at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area funded by a grant from the Pulliam Family Charitable Trust; the development of a comprehensive online registration and volunteer coordination database to greatly improve our customer service and volunteer coordination; provide additional interpretive features; and preparation of a written history of Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. • Program Management - $62,500. For contingency for all aspects of the Natural Areas Program and partial funding for the Regional Land Conservation, Stewardship and Recreation Study, a cooperative effort with Larimer County and all other communities receiving a portion of the County’s open space sales tax. • Resource Management - $203,000. Unspent Resource Management funds that will be appropriated to finance several major habitat restoration projects along the Poudre River in 2012. • Public Improvements - $725,729. A portion of these funds are being appropriated for paved trail construction. Each year, Natural Areas contributes $350,000 to Parks to help fund the regional paved trail system. Parks spent a significant portion of its 2011 allocation, but there is $128,000 remaining to appropriate. Other items included in this appropriation include major maintenance on Rawhide Flats Road (access to Soapstone); a new trail to an outdoor classroom at Red Fox Meadows; Pelican Marsh trails; Reservoir Ridge parking lot and trail construction; match for a possible GOCO grant for Arapaho Bend trailhead parking; and a natural play area along the Poudre River near the Museum. • Facility Operations - $146,999. For capital improvements including: maintenance for the caretaker house at Reservoir Ridge; an equipment storage building at Soapstone; Gateway caretaker house and office April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 9 improvements; the Nix office addition/remodel design; a storage shed and a trash compactor at the Nix Farm - Natural Areas maintenance facility. • Land Management - $40,000. For the development of water rights and construction of new fencing at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance increases 2012 appropriations in the City’s Natural Areas Fund by $3,456,628. The requested appropriation is from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund. These funds are restricted to the purposes of the Natural Areas Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 026, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE NATURAL AREAS FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING NATURAL AREAS PROGRAMMING NOT INCLUDED IN THE 2012 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET WHEREAS, the City is committed to preserving natural areas and providing educational, interpretive and appropriate recreational opportunities to the public; and WHEREAS, Natural Areas programming implements open land conservation priorities identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan by purchasing conservation easement interests in key natural areas, community separators, or other open lands; providing stewardship for lands purchased; and developing trails and interpretive features for public use; and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas program is funded primarily through the collection of Open Space - Yes sales and use tax revenue, as well as revenues from the Larimer County Help Preserve Open Space sales and use tax, investment earnings, and other miscellaneous revenues; and WHEREAS, the Natural Areas Fund has unspent and unencumbered appropriations from 2011 in the amount of $3,456,628; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter requires that all appropriations unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year lapse to the applicable general or special revenue fund, except that appropriations for capital projects and federal or state grants do not lapse until the completion of the capital project or until the expiration of the federal or state grant; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends appropriating from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund $3,456,628 to be used for acquisition, construction, enhancement and maintenance of trail systems, wildlife habitat and other natural areas to benefit the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Natural Areas Fund the sum of THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS ($3,456,628) to be used for acquisition, construction, enhancement and maintenance of trail systems, wildlife habitat and other natural areas to benefit the citizens of the City. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Cheryl Donaldson AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Exhibits Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates Non-Profit Partner revenue of $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Fort Collins Museum and Discovery Science Center (the Non-Profit Partner) entered into a partnership in 2008 to design and construct a new museum facility. The exhibit design company, Gyroscope, Inc. was contracted through the City’s competitive purchasing process with the total contract of $1.285 million shared equally between the City and the Non-Profit Partner. The exhibit fabrication company, Art Guild, was contracted through the City’s competitive purchasing process for the exhibit fabrication, which is underway. Staff is working with Art Guild to complete the first two phases of museum exhibits with an opening date of November 10, 2012. The Non-Profit Partner is providing the $225,000 raised through fundraising efforts and the partnership would like to appropriate the $225,000 into the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. This money will be used to build exhibit enclosures by the building contractor, Hensel Phelps. The appropriation is needed because the Partnership Agreement calls for the project to follow the City’s purchasing requirements and the City holds the contract with Hensel Phelps. Museum staff is looking at funding alternatives to pay for specialized lighting for the exhibits and may come back to City Council in the near future with a request to use Museum reserves for this lighting. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS This Ordinance appropriates $225,000 from the Non-Profit Partner for the Museum Exhibit Capital Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 027, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR THE FORT COLLINS MUSEUM/DISCOVERY SCIENCE CENTER EXHIBITS PROJECT WHEREAS, in March 2008, the City and the Discovery Center, a Colorado non-profit corporation, d/b/a Discovery Science Center (the “NPC”), now officially known as FCDM, Inc., entered into an operating agreement for the construction and operation of the Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the operating agreement, the cost of the exhibit design contract in the amount of $1,285,000 is to be shared equally by the City and the NPC; and WHEREAS, staff is working with the contractor to complete the first two phases of the exhibits by the opening date of November 10, 2012; and WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $225,000 have been provided by the NPC for exhibit fabrication costs; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the revenue as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Capital Projects fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($225,000) for expenditure on the Building on Basics - Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center Joint Facility Exhibits Project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead Josh Birks AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2012, Appropriating General Fund Reserves for the Purpose of Rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in Support of the Building Six Annex Expansion in Accordance with Resolution 2010- 029. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 of General Revenue Funds for a Use Tax rebate approved by City Council on May 18, 2010 (Resolution 2010-029; Vote: 4-1; Nays: Ohlson; Abstain: Poppaw; Absent: Kottwitz). The Resolution approved an agreement between the City and Hewlett Packard Company to provide Business Investment Assistance for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. The additional operations created approximately 100 jobs with an annual average wage of $90,000. The City’s assistance included both a one time use tax rebate and a personal property tax rebate on lab equipment for a total value of $1.6 million. This Ordinance appropriates $241,193 in use tax rebate, which is substantially less that the maximum rebate approved of $600,000. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On May 18, 2010, City Council adopted a resolution approving a Business Investment Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City and Hewlett Packard Company (“HP”) for the Building 6 Annex Expansion. HP expanded operations at the Harmony Road facility, including construction of an Engineering Focused Lab by retrofitting 40,000 square feet of the Building 6 Annex. The additional operations created over 100 jobs with an annual average wages of $90,000. The expansion included two phases totaling $64.4 million in construction and equipment investment. The Agreement includes two performance based investments: (1) a one-time Use Tax rebate on the lab equipment purchased at installation; and (2) a Personal Property Tax rebate on the same lab equipment for ten years. Both investments relate to revenues the City would not otherwise collect if the expansion did not occur. The total investment package has a value of $1.6 million over ten years. During the same time period the City will receive $2.0 million in revenues net of the investments made through the agreement. HP has completed the expansion and submitted an application for Use Tax rebate under the terms of the Agreement. The Agreement authorized a Maximum Use Tax Reimbursement of $600,000. After thorough review by the City’s Sales Tax department, the application requests $241,193 in Use Tax rebate. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The Ordinance will have the following impacts on the City of Fort Collins finances: • $241,193 of General Fund Reserves will be appropriated for the purpose of remitting a Use Tax rebate to HP. The Use Tax was received in a prior year and is now held in reserves. • The Sales Tax Department has validated that HP remitted at least $241,193 of Use Tax through the purchase of eligible equipment as indicated in the Agreement. Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economics and Regional Economist at Colorado State University prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) of HP’s planned expansion. The following summarizes that analysis: April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 11 Construction Benefits/Impacts • Direct Employment and Income – Based on a $34.4 million budget for retrofit, the proposed expansion will directly support approximately 336 construction jobs during the construction phase earning an average wage of $52,300 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Spin-off Employment and Income – The construction jobs will support approximately 207 spin-off jobs during the construction phase earning an average wage of $35,600 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Total Employment – The project will support a total of 543 direct and spin-off jobs during construction, with an average annual compensation of $45,900(Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Construction Use Tax – Based on an investment of $34.4 million in retrofit, the City will receive approximately $620,000 in construction use tax. The calculation assumes 60 percent of the investment is in materials and 40 percent in labor. (Source: Insight Fiscal Impact Model; CSU Regional Economist) Operations Benefits/Impacts • Direct Employment and Income – Per HP, 100 positions will be created after the retrofit of Building 6, earning an average wage of $90,000. Total payroll including benefits is approximately $12.6 million (based on an assumption of 40 percent of gross pay in benefits). • Spin-off Employment and Income – Based on the anticipated job growth supported by the expansion of Research and Laboratory space at HP, the 100 direct jobs will support an additional 124 spin-off positions in Larimer County with an average wage of approximately $32,900 (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • Total Employment – The proposed expansion will support a total of 224 direct and spin-off jobs (Source: IMPLAN, CSU Regional Economist). • On-going Real Property Taxes – Based on a $24 million investment in Building 6, it is likely the Real Property Taxes will increase after completion. This increase in value could generate an additional $88,000 annually in property tax revenue to the City or $880,000 over ten years. • On-going Use Tax – Assuming HP replaces 50 percent of the $30 million investment in equipment over the next ten years, this could result in an additional $450,000 in equipment use tax revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The HP retrofit will impact the environment in the following ways: • An existing building on the HP Harmony Campus will be retrofit for a productive use allowing 100 new jobs to be added to the community without consuming additional raw land. The stated goal of the facility is to develop an Engineering Focused Laboratory with a “sustainable data center” and provide additional energy efficiency improvements. • HP has and remains a strong ClimateWise partner. Energy Efficiency projects to-date have included lighting upgrades, chiller plant expansion and upgrade, air handling unit upgrades, a building tune-up, and ice thermal storage. The total power savings equals 6.2 million Kilowatt Hours annually and a reduction in demand of 1,641 kilowatts. • Annual water consumption will increase by 8.0 million gallons as a result of cooling operations. A great deal of this water will not enter the waste water system due to evaporative loss. • Annual electricity consumption will increase by 10.67 megawatts. April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. PUBLIC OUTREACH Negotiations of the planned HP expansion and related Business Investment Agreement were conducted confidentially. ATTACHMENTS 1. Area Context Map – Identifies the HP Harmony Road Facility 2. Site Map – Identifies HP Harmony Road Facility – Building 6 Annex 3. Hewlett Packard’s Building 6 Retrofit Economic Impact Analysis, Prepared for the City of Fort Collins by Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economics and Michael Marturana, Research Economist, Colorado State University 4. Resolution 2010-029 Attachment 1 Harmony Road Site – Context Map 1 Attachment 2 Harmony Road Site – Site Map 1 1 Hewlett Packard’s Building 6 Retrofit Economic Impact Analysis Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Martin Shields, Associate Professor of Economics Michael Marturana, Research Economist Colorado State University 6 May 2010 Hewlett Packard (HP) is considering retrofitting Building 6 of its Fort Collins campus to allow for a research and laboratory expansion. The proposed expansion has a $64.4 million construction budget. In this report we use information provided by HP to estimate the potential impacts of the proposed project on 1) local employment and income, and 2) city revenue. The analysis below is broken into two parts (I) Construction and (II) Operations. Construction purchases are onetime expenses for building renovations and the purchase of new capital (e.g. computer equipment) – the City will collect use taxes on these purchases. Once the retrofit is operational, HP is expected to create 100 new FTE positions at their Harmony campus. According to HP these jobs will have an average compensation of approximately $90,000. By comparison, the average annual pay for a Larimer County job is $40,141. The proposed project will help stem recent job losses in the region. Using data from the state’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), the Professional, scientific, and technical services industry (NAICS 541, the same has HP) lost 743 jobs from December 2007 to December 2008 in Larimer County. The 100 new jobs at HP would regain 17 percent of last year’s sectoral job loss. It is expected that half of the positions associated with the proposed project will go to residents already living in the region. According to a study published in October 2007 by the Pathfinders entitled The Northern/Upstate Colorado Area Labor Availability Report, northern Colorado had 24,800 underemployed workers. Approximately 23 percent (or 5,648) of these underemployed workers have skills pertaining to the technology or engineering industry. I. Construction The construction phase of the Building 6 retrofit contains two categories: (1) the purchase of new equipment and (2) the physical modification of the building itself. 1. New Equipment HP is expecting to spend $30 million on new capital for Building 6. The City of Fort Collins will collect $900,000 in use tax on this equipment ($30 million x 3 percent use tax). ATTACHMENT 3 2 City of Fort Collins Use Tax Collection • Planned Capital Expenses: $30 million • Use Tax Rate: 3 percent • Fort Collins Tax Collection o $900,000 Source: Authors’ calculations using budget information from HP 2. Building Modification To estimate employment impacts for the physical building changes we use the Larimer County version of the IMPLAN model (www.IMPLAN.com). IMPLAN is a widely used input-output model that estimates how changes in final demand (i.e., output) ultimately translate into changes in employment (i.e., inputs) as well as associated wages. The IMPLAN modeling system allows users to look at both direct and secondary – or spin-off – impacts. Direct impacts are those directly attributable to spending on the project itself. Using HP budget data, we “shock” the IMPLAN model with $34.4 million in planned expenditures for the building modification. The results suggest that the proposed project will directly support 336 FTE jobs in Larimer County during the construction phase, with an average annual compensation of $52,300. But the potential impacts are more substantial. The IMPLAN model also allows us to estimate spin-off impacts. These are the jobs created by expenditures of intermediate input suppliers and their employees (e.g. dining out). HP’s modification to Building 6 is expected to support 207 spin-off jobs in Larimer County during the construction phase. These jobs are estimated to earn $35,600 in average yearly compensation. Overall, the retrofit is expected to support a total of 543 positions in Larimer County during the construction phase, with an average yearly compensation of $45,900. One Year Full Time Equivalent Jobs ($ Average Compensation per Worker) • Planned Expenditures on Building Modification: $34.4 million • Larimer County: o Direct: 336 ($52,300) o Spin-off: 207 ($35,600) o Total: 543 ($45,900) Source: Authors’ calculations using IMPLAN using HP’s budget information The City of Fort Collins will see additional revenue during the construction phase. This will be due to use taxes paid on building materials. We do not have information on how much of the $34.4 million construction budget will be subject to the local use tax; therefore, we use the Insight model’s 1 default value to assume 60 percent of construction costs will be spent on materials subject to the use tax. 1 The Insight model is a fiscal impact model originally developed for the state by Arthur Andersen. 3 The values calculated below assume 60 percent of the $34.4 million construction budget ($20.6 million) will be spent on materials subject to the use tax. These values also assume that the full $20.6 million will be spent in the City of Fort Collins. City of Fort Collins Use Tax Collection • Planned Construction Expenses: $34.4 million • Insight Model’s Default Materials Subject to Use Tax: 60 percent • Expenses Subject to the Use Tax: $20.6 million • Use Tax Rate: 3 percent • Fort Collins Use Tax Collection on Construction o $619,200 Source: Authors’ calculations using budget information from HP and Insight assumptions II. Operations Per HP, 100 positions (with an average compensation of $90,000) will be created after the retrofit is completed. Using the IMPLAN model we estimate that these jobs will support an additional 124 spin-off positions in Larimer County. The average yearly compensation of these spin-off jobs is about $32,900. Combining the HP and spin-off impacts, 224 jobs are expected to be supported in Larimer County, with an average compensation of $58,300. One Year Full Time Equivalent Jobs ($ Average Compensation per Worker) • Larimer County: o Direct: 100 ($90,000) o Spin-off: 124 ($32,900) o Total: 224 ($58,300) Source: Authors’ calculations using IMPLAN based on hiring forecast from HP Fort Collins will also collect tax revenue from these employees and business property tax. We calculated the following figures using the Insight model, assuming a 2 percent wage growth rate, with a 10-year outlook. We estimate only those tax impacts from the new HP positions themselves (i.e., direct impacts). The figures below detail additional tax revenue to the City. City of Fort Collins Sales and Property Tax Collection • Employee Wage (Year 1): $90,000 • Wage Growth Rate: 2 percent • Income Spent on Retail Sales: 44 percent • Retail Sales Purchases Made in the City: 60 percent • Cumulative Estimate: 10 years • Fort Collins Tax Collection o City Sales Tax Revenue Supported by Retail Sales to HP Employees  $834,340 ($83,340 per year) o Tax Revenue from Personal Property Taxes During Operations  $249,620 ($24,962 per year) Source: Authors’ calculations using the Insight model ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. 028, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND RESERVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REBATING USE TAX TO HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF THE BUILDING SIX ANNEX EXPANSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION 2010-029 WHEREAS, on May 18, 2010, City Council approved Resolution 2010-029 approving a Business Investment Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City and Hewlett Packard Company (“HP”) for the Building 6 Annex Expansion project (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project includes retrofitting an HP building located on the Harmony Road facility to include a 40,000 square foot expansion and lab equipment investment for an Engineering Focused Lab facility; and WHEREAS, the total construction and equipment investment for the Project will total approximately $64.4 million and create over 100 high-paying, primary jobs that will provide significant economic benefit to the community at large; and WHEREAS, the City’s Economic Development Department has concluded that the Project will generate an increase in tax revenue for the City, over and above the rebate amount as stated in the Agreement, in approximately the following amounts: (i) $450,000 in additional Use Tax over the next ten years, (ii) $150,000 in new annual Personal Property Tax in the first ten years and $250,000 in new Property Tax in subsequent years, and (iii) $88,000 in new annual Real Property Tax revenues; and WHEREAS, in accord with the terms of the Agreement, HP has completed the Project and has submitted an application for a one-time Use Tax rebate in the amount of $241,193 for the investment of $30 million in lab equipment; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that providing financial assistance to HP, upon the terms and conditions of the Agreement, is in the best interests of the City and serves the important public purposes of increasing employment within the City, stabilizing and improving the long-term tax base of the City, and promoting economic development within the City. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED FORTY ONE THOUSAND AND ONE HUNDRED NINETY THREE DOLLARS ($241,193) for the purpose of rebating Use Tax to Hewlett Packard Company in support of the Building Six Annex Expansion project. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Jim O’Neill Ken Mannon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 12 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2012, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Financing by Lease-Purchase of Vehicles and Equipment and Appropriating the Amount Needed for Such Purpose. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The cost of the items to be lease-purchased is $1,579,444. Payments at the 2.15% interest rate will not exceed $167,010 in 2012. Money for 2012 lease-purchase payments is included in the 2012 budget. The effect of the debt position for the purpose of financial rating of the City will be to raise the total City debt by 1.03%. A competitive process was used to select Pinnacle Public Finance for this lease. Staff believes acceptance of this lease rate is in the City's best interest. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Ordinance authorizes the Purchasing Agent to enter into a lease-purchase financing agreement with Pinnacle Public Finance at 2.15 percent interest rate. The agreement is for an original term from the execution date of the agreement to the end of the current fiscal year. The agreement provides for renewable one-year terms thereafter, to a total term of five (5) years, subject to annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, will not exceed the useful life of the property. This lease-purchase financing is consistent with the financial policies of the City of Fort Collins. All equipment shall be purchased following the City's purchasing ordinances and procedures to ensure that the City realizes all cost savings. The vehicles and equipment financed under the agreement will comply with applicable City policies, and will be in accordance with the goal of optimizing City resources without impacting service to the community. An "Equipment Request" justifying the replacement of each vehicle or piece of fleet equipment is on file with Fleet Services. The fleet manager has researched each request, and approved them based on current and projected maintenance costs, fuel economy, downtime, and relevant safety factors. Other equipment purchases have been approved in accordance with departmental procedures. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The City's lease-purchase policy provides that: “The City of Fort Collins uses lease-purchase for the provision of new and replacement equipment, vehicles and rolling stock in order to ensure the timely replacement of equipment and vehicles. This method may also be used to acquire real property. Members of the management staff have developed an equipment needs schedule for rolling stock which encompasses the demands of operating departments. This schedule is used to project equipment needs for each budget year.” The type of lease that the City uses is termed a conditional sales lease. With each rental payment the City builds equity and assumes risk in the asset over the term of the lease. The annual installments are subject to appropriation by the Council each year. Advantages of a lease-purchase over a cash purchase are: • Decreasing the impact of inflation on the purchase of new and replacement equipment. • Resolving the problem of capital replacement needs backlog. April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 12 • Conserving operating reserves. • Reducing the initial impact of the cost to user departments by enabling costs to be spread over the useful life of the equipment. • Safeguarding the opportunity to use cash assets to earn higher interest than the interest cost of lease-purchasing. It should be noted that the City is able to discontinue the equipment leases so that future City Councils will have the option to continue or discontinue the policy of lease-purchasing City equipment. A 2012 Finance Department analysis of current and historical equipment lease financing arrangements showed that lease-purchase is in the best interest of the City given the normal spread between lease rate and reinvestment rate. According to Section 29-1-103 C.R.S., local governments are required to identify as part of their budgets: (1) the total expenditures during the ensuing fiscal year for all lease purchase agreements involving real and personal property; and (2) the total maximum payment liability under all lease purchase agreements over the entire terms of the agreements, including all optional renewal terms. Staff recognizes that the State does not include lease-purchase in the legal definition of debt; however, rating agencies include lease-purchases in calculating the City's debt burden. The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease-purchase financing of the following: Golf Yamaha Electric carts for Collindale 27 77,382.00 Golf Fund Total: 77,382.00 Traffic Highway paint truck - chassis 1 132,000.00 Highway paint truck - body 1 220,600.00 1-ton truck chassis 1 24,000.00 1-ton truck flatbed body 1 24,000.00 Bucket truck chassis 1 33,000.00 Bucket truck body 1 62,000.00 Sign truck chassis - Isuzu NPR 1 32,000.00 Sign truck body 1 19,000.00 Transportation Fund Total: 546,600.00 Parks - Vehicles 5900 Toro - replacement 1 85,000.00 Harper Turf Sweeper Vac - replacement 1 48,000.00 Toro Electric Workman utility vehicles - replacements 2 26,000.00 3/4-ton pickup with utility box - replacement 1 28,000.00 Sander - replacement 1 9,000.00 Dump body - replacement 1 5,000.00 Sidewalk sweeper - new 1 106,000.00 Parks Replacement Vehicles Total: 307,000.00 Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Caprice patrol cars 9 265,500.00 Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 81,000.00 Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 346,500.00 Investigations - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Equinox 1 25,500.00 Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 5,000.00 Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 30,500.00 Equipment Fund Total: 684,000.00 April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 12 Investigations - New Officer Vehicles Dodge Journey 1 23,000.00 Chevy Equinox 1 25,500.00 Ford Fusion hybrid 1 27,500.00 Ford Fusion 1 24,000.00 Chevy Traverse 1 25,500.00 Investigations Vehicle equipment 1 lot 25,000.00 Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 150,500.00 General Fund Total: 150,500.00 Information Technology Dell OptiPlex 790 Desktops 56 39,608.00 Dell Latitude e6420 Laptops 57 69,782.00 Panasonic Toughbook CF-52 7 11,572.00 Data & Communications Fund Total: 120,962.00 Lease Total: 1,579,444.00 Departments have appropriately justified the purchase of all new and replacement vehicles and equipment. Information on replacement units is given below. The Operations Services Director has determined that the following units meet requirements for replacement. These units are included in the financing list, above. Department Old unit: Age: Miles / hours: New unit: Disposal of old unit: Notes: Golf Various 8-10 Yamaha electric carts Trade-in Replacing gasoline carts at the end of their normal service life with electric carts Traffic 2202 23 161,374 1-ton flatbed Auction Overdue for replacement Traffic 22400 10 6810 hrs Ford F550 with bucket truck body Auction Due for replacement Traffic 22501 11 111,570 Isuzu NPR chassis & flatbed Auction Overdue for replacement Parks 3462 13 3840 hrs 5900-D Toro Trade-in Due for replacement Parks 3459 14 930 Harper sweep/vac Auction Parts not available Parks 2518 14 ~10,000 Workman electric Auction Overdue for replacement Parks 2519 14 6000 Workman electric Auction Due for replacement Parks 2445 16 97,800 ¾-ton & utility box Auction Due for replacement Parks 2454A ~20 n/a New sander Auction Due for replacement Parks Dump body on 2454 22 n/a New body Salvage Rusted out Police Various 6-10 All over 90,000 Caprice patrol cars Auction Due for replacement Police - Investigations 11601 10 90,000+ Chevy Equinox Auction Due for replacement Note on usage: Units will accumulate additional miles/hours between now and when replacement vehicles arrive. April 3, 2012 -4- ITEM 12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Due to improvements in emissions and engine technology, new vehicles and equipment will use less fuel and produce fewer emissions than the units being replaced. Police vehicles are replacements except for those needed for newly authorized positions. This represents an increase in fleet size, with a corresponding increase in fuel usage and emissions. The new officers to be added by Police were approved by Council and vehicles must be added to accommodate the increase in staffing levels. Those vehicles are as fuel efficient as can be provided pursuant to the needs of patrol and investigation officers. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 029, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE FINANCING BY LEASE-PURCHASE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AND APPROPRIATING THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR SUCH PURPOSE WHEREAS, the City has a need for and desires to acquire certain personal property for City purposes; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Colorado Constitution, Article XX, §6, its home charter and Part 8 of Article 15 of Title 31, Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended (the “Act”), to enter into rental or leasehold agreements in order to provide necessary land, buildings, equipment and other property for governmental or proprietary purposes, and such agreements may include options to purchase and acquire title to such leased or rented property; and WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Pinnacle Public Finance to lease equipment to the City, consisting of the following: Golf Yamaha Electric carts for Collindale 27 77,382.00 Golf Fund Total: 77,382.00 Traffic Highway paint truck - chassis 1 132,000.00 Highway paint truck - body 1 220,600.00 1-ton truck chassis 1 24,000.00 1-ton truck flatbed body 1 24,000.00 Bucket truck chassis 1 33,000.00 Bucket truck body 1 62,000.00 Sign truck chassis - Isuzu NPR 1 32,000.00 Sign truck body 1 19,000.00 Transportation Fund Total: 546,600.00 Parks - Vehicles 5900 Toro - replacement 1 85,000.00 Harper Turf Sweeper Vac - replacement 1 48,000.00 Toro Electric Workman utility vehicles - replacements 2 26,000.00 3/4-ton pickup with utility box - replacement 1 28,000.00 Sander - replacement 1 9,000.00 Dump body - replacement 1 5,000.00 Sidewalk sweeper - new 1 106,000.00 Parks Replacement Vehicles Total: 307,000.00 Police Patrol - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Caprice patrol cars 9 265,500.00 Patrol vehicle equipment 1 lot 81,000.00 Patrol Replacement Vehicles Total: 346,500.00 Investigations - Replacement Vehicles Chevy Equinox 1 25,500.00 Investigations vehicle equip. 1 lot 5,000.00 Investigations Replacement Vehicles Total: 30,500.00 Equipment Fund Total: 684,000.00 Investigations - New Officer Vehicles Dodge Journey 1 23,000.00 Chevy Equinox 1 25,500.00 Ford Fusion hybrid 1 27,500.00 Ford Fusion 1 24,000.00 Chevy Traverse 1 25,500.00 Investigations Vehicle equipment 1 lot 25,000.00 Patrol New Officer Vehicle Total: 150,500.00 General Fund Total: 150,500.00 Information Technology Dell OptiPlex 790 Desktops 56 39,608.00 Dell Latitude e6420 Laptops 57 69,782.00 Panasonic Toughbook CF-52 7 11,572.00 Data & Communications Fund Total: 120,962.00 Lease Total: 1,579,444.00 and; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to lease the above-described equipment from Pinnacle Public Finance, which is also providing financing for the Equipment acquisition; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with respect to the leasing and financing of the Equipment; and WHEREAS, the useful life of the Equipment is longer than the maximum lease-purchase term of five years; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that the lease payments that will result from the proposed arrangement, in the amount of $ 83,505 per quarter, are reasonable and proper and represent the fair rental value of the Equipment; and WHEREAS, funds for the 2012 lease payments are included in the 2012 budget; and WHEREAS, the lease of the Equipment will not constitute a “multiple-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation” of the City within the meaning of Article X §20(4)(b) and may therefore be entered into without voter approval; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the then current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: -2- Section 1. That the Purchasing Agent is hereby authorized to enter into a lease-purchase agreement for the above-described Equipment with Pinnacle Public Finance in accordance with the following terms and provisions: a. The agreement shall be for an original term from the execution date of the agreement through December 31, 2012. The agreement shall provide for renewable one-year terms thereafter up to a total term of five (5) years, subject to the annual appropriation of funds needed for lease payments. The total lease terms, including the original and all renewal terms, shall not exceed the useful life of the property. b. The City shall make equal quarterly payments throughout the term of such agreement but subject to the annual appropriation of funds needed for such payments. c. If the City leases the Equipment for the original term and all renewal terms, the payment to Pinnacle Public Finance will total the sum of the principal, $ 1,579,444, plus interest at a fixed rate equal to 2.15% per year, which is a reasonable amount. d. The City shall have the option to purchase part or all of the Equipment on any quarterly payment date of any term. The option to purchase shall be exercised by paying the quarterly payment due on said date and the unpaid principal due after said date. e. If the City renews the agreement for all the renewal terms and makes all payments during said terms, the City shall be deemed to have exercised the option to purchase said Equipment. f. The agreement shall constitute only a current expense of the City and shall not be construed to be a debt or pledge of the City's credit or revenues. Section 2. That the amount of SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO DOLLARS ($77,382) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Golf Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 3. That the amount of FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($546,600) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Transportation Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 4. That the amount of SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($684,000) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated -3- for expenditure in the Equipment Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of vehicles for Parks and Police, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 5. That the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($150,500) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the General Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 6. That the amount of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS ($120,962) to be provided under the lease-purchase agreement is hereby appropriated for expenditure in the Data & Communications Fund from unanticipated revenue in the appropriate funds for the acquisition of equipment in accordance with the terms and provisions of the lease-purchase agreement, upon receipt thereof. Section 7. Any inconsistency between the provisions of this Ordinance and those of the Act is intended by the Council. To the extent of any such inconsistency the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed made pursuant to the home rule charter of the City and shall supersede, to the extent permitted by law, the conflicting provisions of the Act. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -4- DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Ann Turnquist Rita Harris AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2012, Amending Chapters 2 Through 27 of the City Code to Update Terminology and Titles Used in Various Code Provisions and to Eliminate Outdated References. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the years, portions of the City Code have not kept pace with the changing City organizational titles and department names that are included in the Code. Changes in the titles of individuals who have responsibilities outlined in the Code, as well as various department names have changed, but not been reflected in relevant Code sections. This Ordinance makes these housekeeping changes. No substantive changes are included in the Ordinance. In addition, certain terminology used in the Code, such as the term “boarding house,” is no longer consistent with corresponding references in other portions of the Code. These terms are updated in the Ordinance. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Staff has conducted a complete review of the City Code to identify Code language which is inconsistent with the City’s current organizational structure or position titles. Throughout the 1,002 printed pages of Code in 29 Chapters, staff has identified over 150 items that should be corrected. These changes represent “housekeeping” items, rather than substantive changes to the Code. Changes included in this Ordinance can be separated into several categories: Type Example Occurrences Staff Title Change “Director of Building and Zoning” should be “Building Official” or “General Manager” should be “Utilities Executive Director” 75 Department Name Change “Department of Building and Zoning” should be “Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services” 61 Name Changes in Other Organizations “Division of Wildlife” should be “Division of Parks and Wildlife” or “Poudre R-1 School District” should be “Poudre School District” 12 Miscellaneous and Grammar Changes “Boarding house” should be “Extra Occupancy Rental House” 15 Total 163 The proposed Code changes do not alter the intent or operations of the ordinances, but are “housekeeping” items which keep the Code current. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 030, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTERS 2 THROUGH 27 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO UPDATE TERMINOLOGY AND TITLES USED IN VARIOUS CODE PROVISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OUTDATED REFERENCES WHEREAS, over the years, portions of the City Code have not kept pace with the changing City organizational titles and department names; and WHEREAS, changes in the titles of individuals who have responsibilities outlined in the City Code, as well as various department names have changed, but those changes have not been reflected in the City Code; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Code be amended to reflect the appropriate updated titles and departments; and WHEREAS, staff further recommends that outdated and obsolete references in Chapters 2 through 27 of the City Code be amended so as to correct and update the terminology used where appropriate; and WHEREAS, City Council agrees that all such amendments are in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That Section 2-31(a)(1)a. of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-31. Executive sessions. . . . a. Matters involving the hiring, appointment, dismissal, demotion, promotion, assignment and discipline of City personnel, and the review and discussion of the performance and proposed compensation and benefits of the City Manager, City Attorney or other direct City Council employeesand Municipal Judge. Section 2. That Section 2-103(3) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-103. Functions. . . . (3) To advise and make recommendations to the Director of Cultural, Library and RecreationalCommunity Services and the City Council as to rules, regulations, guidelines, policy, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the art in public places program. Section 3. That Section 2-138(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-138. Membership; terms; training; subcommittees. . . . (c) Those persons appointed to the Board shall attend and complete such training as may be developed by the City Manager, upon consultation with the Chief of Police and the Health and Safety Committee of the City Council. Section 4. That Section 2-140(g) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-140. Review procedure. . . . (g) A complainant may file a written complaint at Police Services, the City Manager's Office, the Human Rights Office of the City or at a Board meeting. Upon receipt of a written complaint at a location other than Police Services, the Board or receiving office shall forward the complaint to Police Services as soon as reasonably practical. In the event that a complainant is unable to complete any written complaint or request form, the Board, a citizen liaison, the City Manager's Office or Police Services shall, upon the complainant's verbal request, assist the complainant in reducing the complaint or request to writing. However, all complaint or request forms must be signed by the complainant. Section 5. That Section 2-238(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-238. Functions. . . . (1) To advise and make recommendations to the Cultural, Library and Recreational Services DirectorDirector of Community Services (the "Director") and the City Council as to rules, regulations, policies, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the operation and maintenance of all City-owned golf courses; -2- Section 6. That Section 2-308(4) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-308. Functions. . . . (4) To be aware of and coordinate with the various Department of Natural Resources'Office of Sustainability Services technical advisory committees; Section 7. That Section 2-338 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-338. Functions. The Board shall act as an advisory board and shall have the following functions: (1) To advise and make recommendations to the Cultural, Library and Recreational ServicesDirector of Community Services and the City Council for their approval as to rules, regulations, policies, administrative and budgetary matters pertaining to the Department, excluding matters relating to the operation and maintenance of City-owned golf courses and cemeteries; (2) To assist the City in cooperating with the Poudre R-1 School District and other organizations and individuals interested in the City's parks and recreation programs. . . . Section 8. That Section 2-428 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-428. Functions; Bicycle Advisory Committee. (a) The duties and functions of the Board shall be to advise the City Council on matters pertaining to the City's transportation policies and system, including but not limited to transportation planning, alternative modes planning (including bikeways, pedestrian facilities, transit, air transportation and van- and car-pooling), capital improvement projects, downtown parking management and other transportation issues as identified in the Board work plan. Additionally, the Board shall review the City's interaction with federal, state and county government, as well as North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council, Colorado State University and Poudre R-1School District on transportation-related issues. -3- (b) The Board shall also establish and keep in place a committee to be known as the "Bicycle Advisory Committee," the purpose of which shall be to advise the Board with regard to bicycling-related issues. Said Committee shall consist of sixteen (16) members, one (1) of whom shall be a member of the Board, and fifteen (15) of whom shall be appointed by the City Manager. The City Manager appointees shall consist of three (3) "at large" members of the community plus one (1) member of each of the following City boards and commissions and other civic organizations: Air Quality Advisory Board Parks and Recreation Board Natural Resources Advisory Board Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Senior Advisory Board Economic Advisory Commission Downtown Development Authority Bike Fort Collins Fort Collins Bike Co-op Poudre School District Colorado State University University Connections In addition to the foregoing sixteen (16) voting members, the Committee shall also include four (4) nonvoting members, with one (1) such member each representing the City's Department of Police Services, Traffic Operations Department, Engineering Department, and Transportation Planning/Safe Routes to School Department Division, and Police Services. The Bicycle Advisory Committee may establish bylaws, rules and regulations for its own organization and procedures in accordance with the City's policies for boards and commissions, and all voting members of the Committee shall be governed by said policies. Each member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee shall serve for a term of two (2) years. Section 9. That Section 3-81(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 3-81. Report of disturbances. . . . (b) Each licensee and permit holder shall post and keep at all times visible to the public in a conspicuous place on the premises, a sign with a minimum height of fourteen (14) inches and a minimum width of eleven (11) inches with each letter to be a minimum of one-half (½) inch in height, which shall read as follows: "WARNING: The City of Fort Collins Police DepartmentFort Collins Police Services must be notified of all disorderly acts, conduct or disturbances and -4- all unlawful activities which occur on or within the premises of this licensed establishment." . . . Section 10. That Section 4-73(a) and (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-73. Limitation on possession and feeding of wild or exotic animals. (a) No person shall own, feed or possess any animal for which a state license is required unless such person possesses the appropriate license from the State Division of WildlifeColorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. . . . (e) No person shall be subject to prosecution under Paragraph 4-73(b)(9) above unless, within one (1) year immediately preceding the date of the alleged violation, such person has been issued a written warning stating that the feeding of wild geese or ducks at the same approximate location of the alleged offense has been determined by the City's Department of Natural Resources Areas Department to constitute a public health and safety concern and that such feeding is prohibited by the provisions of said Paragraph. Section 11. That Section 4-117(b)(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-117. Sale of chickens and ducklings; quantity restricted; keeping of chickens. . . . (2) Any person keeping chicken hens pursuant to this provision must first have been issued a permit by the Larimer Humane Society and have received such information or training pertaining to the keeping of chicken hens as the director of said agency deems appropriate; Section 12. That Section 4-120 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-120. Trapping restricted. (a) No person shall use, set, place, maintain or tend any trap in the City, except that live traps may be set for the purpose of: (1) trapping animals which are at large in violation of this Chapter, so long as any animals trapped are turned over to the Humane Society as soon as possible upon discovery, or (2) trapping wild animals -5- including but not limited to skunks, squirrels, raccoons and prairie dogs, provided that any animals trapped are released or disposed of in the manner required by the Humane Society and the Division of WildlifeColorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. Any traps found in violation of this Subsection shall be confiscated and destroyed by an animal control officer or peace officer. . . . (c) In the event that the presence of a wild or domestic animal within the City creates an imminent threat of injury to persons or serious damage to property, the Chief of Police, after consultation with the Humane Society and, in the case of a wild animal, the State Division of WildlifeColorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, may authorize the capture and disposition of said animal by such means as he or she may consider reasonably necessary; provided, however, that no firearm may be utilized in the capture or disposition of such animal except by a peace officer trained in the use of the same under such circumstances as will not, in the judgment of said peace officer, unreasonably endanger the safety of others. Section 13. That Section 4-157 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 4-157. Killing or capturing wild birds restricted. It shall be unlawful for any person at any time in the City to shoot at, wound, kill, capture, ensnare, net, trap or in any other manner molest or injure any wild bird or in any manner molest or injure the nest, eggs or young of any such bird. The Chief of Police shall have authority to grant or deny a permit for the killing, capturing or molestation of nuisance birds with the consent or approval of the State Division of WildlifeColorado Division of Parks and Wildlife when it is shown that the birds are, or may become, a nuisance or health hazard in any particular location in the City. The permit shall be granted or denied within five (5) working days of the date the request is made. Section 14. That Section 5-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-1. Solar notification service. (a) Upon issuance of a building permit for a solar energy system, the solar owner may register for a solar notification service with the Department of Building and ZoningCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services. Solar owners who have been issued building permits for solar energy systems prior to the enactment of this service may also register for the service. (b) If the issuance of a building permit allows construction which would extend into the solar protection area described for a registered solar energy system, the -6- Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official may place a hold of not more than ten (10) working days on the issuance of the permit. If any such hold is imposed, the Director may immediately notify the builder and the affected solar owner of the reasons. (c) The builder and the solar owner shall have ten (10) working days to voluntarily negotiate a solar access agreement. (d) Failure of the Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official to perform any of the services herein provided shall not affect the validity of issuing a building permit by the DirectorBuilding Official. (e) Following the ten-day negotiating period or upon sooner resolution by the parties, the Department of Building and ZoningBuilding Official shall issue the building permit if all other requirements of this Code have been met. Section 15. That Section 5-28 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-28. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in Article II of this Chapter and in any code adopted by reference therein, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Whenever the word municipality, jurisdiction or city is used, it shall mean the City of Fort Collins. Whenever the term Building Official, Building-Code Official or Code Official is used, the term shall be synonymous with" Director of Neighborhood and BuildingCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services" or authorized representative. Section 16. That Section 5-47(4), 104.1 General, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: (4) Sections 104.1, 104.2, 104.3 and 104.4 are hereby amended to read as follows: "104.1 General. The Neighborhood and Building Services Director Building Official or such other official as may be appointed by the City Manager shall serve as the executive code official responsible for supervising the administration, compliance and enforcement of this Article. In the performance of said duties, such official may delegate authority to the appropriate technical, administrative and compliance staff under the -7- supervision of said official as he or she deems necessary. The code official is hereby authorized to, and shall, enforce the provisions of this code. Section 17. That Section 5-47(17), Rental Dwelling Unit, of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: (17) Section 202 is amended by the addition of thirty-three (33) new definitions to the list of terms therein in alphabetical sequence of such list to read as follows: "RENTAL DWELLING UNIT. One (1) or more rooms occupied or intended to be occupied as a unit exclusively for residential purposes that is leased, rented or sublet for compensation (including money or services or the sharing of expenses) and that is located in a boarding housean extra occupancy rental house or a single-family, two-family or multi-family dwelling. Section 18. That Section 5-83 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-83. Use of approved materials; electrical signs. Where the use of approved materials, equipment or devices is required by the National Electrical Code, adopted in § 5-80, the label of or listing by the Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., will be accepted as an approval. Alternate materials may be approved by the Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official. All electrical signs shall be approved before any permit for the installation or erection of such sign is granted. Section 19. That Section 5-108 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-108. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article and the code adopted in § 5-106, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Whenever the word municipality, jurisdiction or City is used it shall mean the City of Fort Collins. Whenever the term Building Official is used it shall be synonymous with Director of Building and Zoning BuildingCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services or authorized representative. Section 20. That Section 5-141 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -8- Sec. 5-141. Duties of Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official. The Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official shall maintain public office hours necessary to efficiently administer the provisions of this Article and the code adopted hereby and shall perform the following duties: . . . Section 21. That Section 5-264(a) and (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 5-264. Certificate required for occupancy of dwelling units contained in single-family or two-family dwellings in excess of limit; conditions; revocation or suspension. (a) No dwelling unit contained in a single-family or two-family dwelling shall be occupied by more persons than the number of persons permitted under Section 3.8.16 of the Land Use Code unless a certificate of occupancy for an extra- occupancy rental house (boarding house) has been issued for such dwelling by the Building Official. (b) Terms and conditions imposed upon a certificate of occupancy as a boarding housean extra occupancy rental house may include, but are not limited to, compliance with all state laws, City ordinances, rules and regulations, and court or administrative orders. Section 22. That Section 7.5-19 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-19. Imposition, computation and collection of fees. Payment of the fees imposed under the provisions of this Article shall be required as a condition of approval of all development in the City for which a building permit is required. The amount of such fees has been calculated using current levels of service and the data and methodologies described in Capital Improvement Expansion Cost Study, dated May 21, 1996, as amended; the City's Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study, dated July 15, 1997, and Street Oversizing Impact Fee Study Update, dated November 28, 2000, as amended; and The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997, published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, as amended. The fees due for such development shall be payable by the feepayer to the Department of Building and Zoning DirectorBuilding Official prior to or at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the property to be developed, except to the extent that an agreement deferring all or any portion of such payment has been executed by the City providing for a different time of payment approved by the City Council by resolution. If, during the period of any such deferral, the amount of the deferred fee is increased by ordinance of the City Council, the fee rate in effect at the time of -9- payment shall apply. If the building permit for which a fee has been paid has expired, and an application for a new building permit is thereafter filed, any amount previously paid for a capital improvement expansion fee and not refunded by the City shall be credited against any additional amount due under the provisions of this Article at the time of application for the new building permit. Section 23. That Section 7.5-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-48. Land dedication or in-lieu fees imposed. (a) The owner or developer of every land development project in the City ("applicant") must file with the Financial OfficerBuilding Official of the City, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential structure in such project, proof that the appropriate land reservation for future dedication has been made to the school district, or that the applicant has paid an in-lieu fee, in accordance with the provisions of this Article. (b) Prior to or at the time that any proposed land development project is submitted to the City for review, the superintendent of the school district, or his or her designee, shall meet with the applicant for the purpose of determining whether the school district desires the reservation of any land for future dedication as a school site within the land development project. Any such dedication or in-lieu fee requirement shall be consistent with school district planning standards established by the school district. Said standards shall reflect, without limitation: . . . Any reservation of sites or land areas required under the provisions of this Article shall occur in the following fashion. At or before the time of final approval of any land development project by the City, the sites or land areas to be dedicated to the school district shall be reserved by designation on the plat submitted to the City for approval in connection with the land development project. On or before the date that the first building permit for the project is issued by the City, such reserved site or land area shall be dedicated to the school district. In the event that the school district determines, in its sole discretion, that the dedication of a reserved site is necessary prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project within which such site is located, the school district shall so notify the person(s) shown by the records of the Larimer County Assessor as being the then current owner(s) of such site. Said notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, and a copy of said notice shall be provided to the City's Director of Community Planning and Environmental Development and Neighborhood Services. Within sixty (60) days of the mailing of said notice, the reserved property that is the subject of the mailing shall be dedicated to the school district by the owner(s) thereof. . . . -10- (d) In the event that the dedication of sites or land areas for school site purposes within a particular land development project is not deemed feasible or in the best interests of the school district as determined by the superintendent, or his or her designee, the school district shall so notify the City's Director of Community Planning and EnvironmentalDevelopment and Neighborhood Services in writing, and the City shall require the applicant to pay the in-lieu fees as provided in this Article. The amount of the in-lieu fees to be paid under the provisions of this Article shall be established by agreement with the school district and shall be equal to the full market value of the sites or land areas within a land development project that could be required to be reserved for future dedication for school site purposes under Subsection (b) above. Said fair market value shall be determined on the basis of the average value of developed sites for residential uses in the City as approved for development by the City, with curb, gutter, streets and utilities to the site, according to City engineering standards. Section 24. That Section 7.5-71(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-71. Collection of neighborhood parkland fee. (a) Hereafter, payment of a neighborhood parkland fee in accordance with this Section shall be required as a condition of approval of all residential development for which a building permit is required, as those terms are defined in § 7.5-17 of this Code. The fees due for such development shall be payable by the feepayer to the Building Permits and Inspection Division DirectorOfficial prior to or at the time of issuance of the first building permit for the property to be developed, unless an agreement has been executed by the City which provides for a different time of payment. All such payments shall be deposited by the Financial Officer in the fund created in § 8-80. Only one (1) fee shall be charged for any dwelling unit. No additional fee for acquisition and development of neighborhood parks shall be charged for the same dwelling unit. If the building permit for which a fee has been paid has expired, and an application for a new building permit is thereafter filed, any amount previously paid for a capital expansion fee and not refunded by the City shall be credited against any additional amount due under the provisions of this Article at the time of application for the new building permit. Section 25. That the definition of “Building permit” contained in Section 7.5-81 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Building permit shall mean any development permit issued by the Building and Zoning Department of Community Development and Neighborhood Services before any building or construction activity is initiated on a parcel of land. Building permit does not include any permits for demolition, grading or the construction of a foundation. -11- Section 26. That Section 9-3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 9-3. Appeals. Whenever the Fire ChiefMarshal shall disapprove any application made pursuant to the UniformInternational Fire Code, as amended, or refuse to grant a permit applied for thereunder or when it is claimed that the provisions of the fire code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the fire code have been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted or when any person requests a variance from the literal terms of the fire code, the applicant or person affected may appeal the decision of the Fire ChiefMarshal to the Fire Board of Appeals established pursuant to section 103.1.4 of the UniformInternational Fire Code. Such Board shall have the power to vary or modify any requirement made by the Fire ChiefMarshal thereunder, provided that an appeal to the Board is made within thirty (30) days of the date of the action complained of. Final decisions of the Board are subject to the right of appeal to the City Council as contained in § 2-47, et seq., of this Code, except that the Fire ChiefMarshal shall be included as a party-in-interest with standing to appeal a decision which, in his or her judgment, adversely affects public safety. Section 27. That Section 9-4 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 9-4. Violations and penalties. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of the UniformInternational Fire Code, as amended, or who shall fail to comply with any of the provisions or who shall violate or fail to comply with any orders made thereunder or who shall act in any way in violation of any permits issued thereunder shall, severally and for each and every violation in noncompliance respectively, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by the penalty set forth in § 1-15 of this Code. The imposition of one (1) penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue, and all persons shall be required to correct or remedy the violations or defects within a reasonable time, and when not otherwise specified, each ten (10) days that prohibited conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. The application of any penalty pursuant hereto shall not be held to prevent the forced removal of prohibited conditions nor the suspension or removal of a permit or license issued thereunder. Section 28. That Chapter 10 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by changing all references from “General Manager” to “Utilities Executive Director”. Section 29. That Section 10-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 10-30. Takings determinations. -12- Any person who claims that his or her property has been taken by reason of the application of any provision of this Article may apply to the Utilities Executive Director for a Takings Determination using the procedural and substantive requirements and criteria set forth in Division 2.13 of the City's Land Use Code, provided that, for the purpose of this Section, any reference therein to the Director of Community Planning and Environmental ServicesCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services shall be deemed to constitute a reference to the Utilities Executive Director and any reference to the Land Use Code therein shall be deemed to constitute a reference to this Article. Said Takings Determination Procedures shall be exhausted before the institution of any judicial proceeding against the City claiming a taking of affected property. Section 30. That Section 12-65 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 12-65. Inspection of books and records. The owner of each establishment operating as an enclosed public place shall keep a complete set of books of account, invoices, copies of orders, shipping instructions, bills of lading, correspondence and all other records necessary to show fully the business transactions of such establishment, all of which records shall be available at all times during business hours for inspection and examination by the City ManagerDirector of Community Development and Neighborhood Services or his or her authorized representatives for use in determining the applicability of the provisions of this Article to such establishment. The City ManagerDirector of Community Development and Neighborhood Services may require the owner of any such establishment to furnish such information as he or she considers necessary for such a determination, and may require that the owner of such establishment cause an audit to be made of such books of account and records on such occasions as he or she may consider necessary. Section 31. That Section 12-68 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 12-68. Public education. The City ManagerDirector of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall engage in a continuing program to explain and clarify the purposes and requirements of this Article to citizens affected by it, and to guide owners, operators and managers in their compliance with it. Such program may include publication of a brochure for affected businesses and individuals explaining the provisions of this Article. Section 32. That the definition of “Radon information” contained in Section 12-110 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -13- Radon information shall mean that information produced and disseminated by the City's Department Office of Sustainability Services for provision by sellers to buyers prior to execution of a contract. Section 33. That Section 14-24 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 14-24. Interim control. No building permit shall be issued by the Department of Building and ZoningDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services for alteration, construction, relocation or demolition of a site, structure or object under consideration for landmark designation or any site, structure or object within a district under consideration for landmark district designation from the date of the hearing of the Commission at which the Commission approves a motion directing staff to investigate the benefits to the City of landmark designation until final disposition of the designation by the City Council unless such alteration, construction, relocation or demolition is authorized by resolution of the City Council as necessary for public health, welfare or safety. In no event shall the delay in issuance of a building permit due to the provisions of this Section be for more than one hundred eighty (180) days. Section 34. That Section 15-18 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-18. Alarm committee. The City administration is authorized to form an alarm committee composed of representatives of Fire Services, Police Services, the Department of Building and ZoningDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and licensed alarm businesses, answering services and telephone company representatives which shall act as an advisory body to the City Council to assist in determining policy concerning alarms. All such alarm systems shall be subject to all rules, regulations, fees and requirements set forth in this Article, except the provisions of this Article are not applicable to audible alarms affixed to motor vehicles or trailers, other than mobile homes, or to devices designed or used to register audible or visible alarms on the interior only of protected buildings, structures or areas. Section 35. That Section 15-31(d)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-31. Required. . . . -14- (d) Certificate of compliance for alarm systems: (1) No person shall use an alarm or alarm system, as defined in this Article, unless the alarm or alarm system has been inspected by the Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official and a certificate of compliance for the alarm system has been issued. Section 36. That Section 15-32 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-32. Issuance of permits and licenses. The issuing and approving authority for any license or permit issued hereunder shall be the Department of Building and ZoningDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Section 37. That Section 15-33 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-33. Permit and license application. Applications for all permits and licenses required in this Article shall be filed with the Department of Building and ZoningDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and shall be accompanied by the requisite fees. The fees are established and shall cover the following costs: . . . Section 38. That Section 15-35 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-35. Certificate of compliance for alarm systems. A certificate of compliance for alarm systems shall be issued upon approval of the Department of Building and ZoningBuilding Official. Such approval shall signify compliance with the standards and regulations adopted and requirements set forth in §§ 15-56—15-71. Said certificate shall be issued to the person using or possessing the alarm system. Alarm businesses shall procure and process applications for their subscribers. The subscribers shall forward the completed application to the alarm business servicing the system. The permit fee shall be collected from the subscriber by the alarm business and transmitted forthwith to the Financial Administration UnitFinance Department together with the application. Section 39. That Section 15-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -15- Sec. 15-56. Promulgation of standards and regulations. Any alarm system installed within the City and all devices and agencies acting under this Article shall conform to the requirements of the standards adopted in this Division. The Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official shall inspect and approve all alarm systems installed within the City and shall issue a permit authorizing such systems under this Article. Any system which does not meet the requirements of this Article shall not be approved and shall not be put in service until any deficiencies have been corrected and such correction approved by the AdministratorBuilding Official. Section 40. That Section 15-60(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-60. Performance standards. . . . (c) If any alarm system is deemed unreliable pursuant to this Article, Fire Services or Police Services may declare the system unreliable and restrict or curtail the response of the office to the alarm system until such time as the subscriber or alarm business can show a material change in employee training, can show written proof that the system has been repaired, can show written proof that the system has been reinspected by the Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official and can show proof of issuance of a new certificate of compliance for the alarm system. Section 41. That Section 15-71(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-71. Certain standards adopted. . . . (2) At least one (1) copy of each standard herein adopted shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk, available for public inspection. One (1) copy of each such standard shall be kept in the office of the Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official. One (1) copy shall be kept in the office of the Fire ChiefMarshal. One (1) copy shall be kept in the office of the Police Chief. Section 42. That Section 15-172(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-172. License and registration required; suspension; revocation. -16- (a) No person shall engage in the business of contracting for the installation of electrical work in the City without registering as an electrical contractor with the Department of Building and ZoningDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. In order to register as required herein, the person must perform the following: . . . Section 43. That Section 15-294(a)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-294. Conditions of license for certain shows. (a) The license for any circus, menagerie or carnival shall be issued subject to the following additional requirements: (1) A representative of Fire Services and/or the Department of Building and ZoningDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services shall make an inspection of the area and the equipment in order to determine that adequate fire lanes are provided, that adequate fire hydrants or other means of extinguishing fires are available, that electrical connections are made in a safe manner and that electrical equipment appears to be in good working order. Section 44. That Section 15-306(a) and (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-306. General provisions, licensing and registration. (a) No person shall engage in the trade, business or calling of a plumber or plumbing in the City until he or she shall register with the Department of Building and ZoningDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services as a plumber. For the purpose of this Section, plumbing contractor means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association or combination thereof who undertakes or offers to undertake for another the planning, laying out, supervising and installing or the making of additions, alterations and repairs to potable water supply and distribution pipes and piping, plumbing fixtures, drainage and vent pipes and building drains, including their respective joints and connections, devices, receptacles and appurtenances. A registered professional engineer who plans or designs plumbing installations shall not be classified as a plumbing contractor. (b) No person shall engage in the business of a plumbing contractor in the City without registering as a plumbing contractor with the Department of Building and ZoningDepartment of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. In order to register as a plumbing contractor, the person desiring to engage in such business must do the following: -17- . . . Section 45. That Section 15-385(a)(4) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-385. Review and approval. . . . (4) The recommendations of the Planning Development and Transportation Director and the Director of Cultural, Library and Recreation ServicesDirector of Community Services, insofar as the proposed location may affect the operation of those service areas, based upon the factors recited herein. Section 46. That Section 17-182(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-182. Camping on private property restricted; exceptions. (a) It is unlawful for any person to camp or to knowingly permit any person to camp, as defined in § 17-181, on private property within the City, except on the premises of a residential dwelling with the permission of the property owner. Any such camping must be temporary in nature and must not exceed a period of seven (7) consecutive days or a total of fourteen (14) days in a calendar year; provided, however, that an extension of these time limits may be granted by the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesDirector of Community Development and Neighborhood Services or his or her designee upon written application of a person claiming extraordinary circumstances or undue hardship. The Director's decision whether to grant an extension shall be based upon all attendant circumstances, including, without limitation, any objections posed by occupants of premises located on the same block face of the applicant. In no event shall an extension exceed seven (7) additional consecutive days or fourteen (14) additional days in a calendar year. Section 47. That Section 18-3(b)(4) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 18-3. Construction permit required; application; fees; issuance; appeals. . . . (4) Complete plans and specifications of the proposed park (conforming with the requirements of this Chapter, the Zoning OrdinanceLand Use Code of the City, utility design standards and street design standards as established by the City), including the following specific information: -18- . . . Section 48. That Section 18-11(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 18-11. Miscellaneous park requirements. . . . (c) Park Areas for Nonresidential Uses. No part of any park shall be used for nonresidential purposes, except as otherwise permitted in the Zoning OrdinanceLand Use Code of the City and such uses that are required for the direct servicing and well-being of mobile home park residents and for the management and maintenance of the mobile home park. Section 49. That Section 18-12(b)(1) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 18-12. Mobile office units. . . . (1) The proposed office use and location conforms to the City zoningLand Use Code regulations. Section 50. That Section 19-36(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-36. Creation; jurisdiction; qualifications. . . . (c) A Referee appointed by the Municipal Judge to hear civil infractions shall be appointed from a list of candidates chosen by a staff committee representing each of the following: Neighborhood and Building Services, the City Attorney's Office and the Human Resources Department. Section 51. That Section 19-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-48. Commencement of action. An action under these rules is commenced by the tender or service of a charging document upon a defendant, by mail or by conspicuously attaching a parking assessment to the subject vehicle and by the filing of a charging document with the Municipal Court or the Office of Parking Services. -19- Section 52. That Section 19-50(c)(3) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-50. First hearing. . . . (3) The consequences of the failure to appear at any subsequent hearing, including entry of judgment against the defendant and reporting the judgment to the State Motor Vehicle DivisionDepartment of Revenue, which may assess points against the driving privilege and may cancel a driver's license or deny an application for a driver's license; Section 53. That Section 19-52(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-52. Subpoena. . . . (b) A subpoena shall be issued within the City either by the Clerk of the Municipal Court Clerk at the request of the defendant, prosecuting attorney or officer, or by counsel who has entered an appearance in the case. Section 54. That Section 19-55(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-55. Judgment after final hearing. . . . (d) The judgment shall be satisfied upon payment to the Municipal Court Clerk of the total amount assessed as set forth above. Section 55. That Section 19-58(d) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-58. Default. . . . (d) The defendant may satisfy a judgment entered under this rule by paying the Municipal Court Clerk. -20- Section 56. That Section 19-65(a)(5) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-65. Commencement of action; citation procedure. . . . (5) The officer or inspector shall attempt to obtain the signature of the person to whom he or she served the citation; however, if the citation is mailed or posted or if the person fails or refuses to sign the citation, such failure or refusal shall not affect the validity of the citation or any subsequent proceedings. Section 57. That Section 19-66(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-66. Payment without appearance. (a) The Neighborhood and Building Services DirectorServices Manager or, in the case of a forestry code violation, the Forestry DirectorCity Forester, shall accept payment of the amount due for a civil infraction from a defendant if such payment is made within ten (10) days following service of the citation for the violation. Such payment shall be separately accounted for and deposited into the City's general fund in accordance with rules and procedures of the Finance Department. Section 58. That Section 19-67(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-67. Hearing procedures. (a) If a defendant wishes to contest a citation, he or she, within ten (10) days following service of the citation, shall file a written request with the Neighborhood and Building Services DirectorServices Manager for a hearing before the Referee. Section 59. That Section 19-69(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 19-69. Judgment and procedures after hearing. . . . (c) The judgment shall be satisfied upon payment to the Neighborhood and Building Services or Forestry DirectorCity Forester, with respect to forestry code violations, in the total amount of penalty, costs and fees assessed. -21- Section 60. That Section 20-2(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-2. Abatement of unsanitary or dangerous premises. (a) If either the City Manager, the City Engineer, the Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official or the Fire ChiefMarshal determines that any premises within the City are unsanitary, as determined by the Larimer County Department of Health and Environment, or dangerous to the life or property of persons or constitute a fire hazard, a written notice of such condition shall be given by the City to the owner, agent or occupant of the property ordering the premises to be put in proper condition within such period as is set out in the notice and order. Such period shall not be less than twenty-four (24) hours. Section 61. That Section 20-3 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-3. Abatement by City in cases of emergency. Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the power of the City Manager, City Engineer, Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official or Fire ChiefMarshal, in case of an emergency for the preservation of the public health or safety, to summarily remedy, change, repair, abate or order the evacuation of any dangerous or unhealthy condition found to exist without any notice to any person. Section 62. That Section 20-5 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-5. Abatement of nuisances by persons other than City. Any person ordered to clean, repair, change or make safe any property or abate any nuisance may do so at such person's own expense, if suitable arrangements are made with the City Engineer, Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official or Fire ChiefMarshal, prior to the time when the City shall start carrying out any order made under this Article. Section 63. That the definitions of “Backyard wildlife habitat certification” and “Natural area certification” contained in Section 20-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Backyard wildlife habitat certification shall mean certification by the Department of Natural Resources Areas Department under its backyard wildlife habitat program recognizing a yard as having the necessary components to sustain the desired wildlife species. -22- Natural area certification shall mean certification by the Department of Natural Resources Areas Department under its natural areas program recognizing a one- quarter-acre or larger site as having the necessary components to be classified as a natural area. Section 64. That Section 20-44 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-44. Notice of violation; removal authority and procedure; assessment lien on property. (a) The Neighborhood and Building Services DirectorServices Manager and any officer, as such is defined in § 19-66, are authorized and directed to give notice to any owner and occupant whose property, open area, ditch or right-of-way is being kept or maintained in violation of the provisions of this Article. Such notice may be personally served upon such person or, if not personally served, shall be deposited in the United States mail, addressed to the occupant and owner of record at the address on the assessment roll of the County Assessor or at such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, or with respect to notice to occupants, at the address of the property so occupied. The notice shall state that, if the property, open area, ditch or right-or-way has not been brought into compliance with this Article on or before five (5) days from the date of such notice, a civil citation will issue and the abatement of the nuisance will be done by the City and any costs of abatement, including the cost of inspection, the cost of any grading or sloping necessary to protect the public safety and other incidental costs in connection therewith and the costs for carrying charges and costs of administration will be charged against the property, open area, ditch or right-of-way, in addition to any other penalty and costs or orders that may be imposed. With respect to rubbish only, the notice shall also state that, if said owner desires a hearing before the Referee to contest the declaration of nuisance and/or the removal, such owner shall request such hearing in writing to the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesNeighborhood Services Manager within five (5) days of mailing of the notice and shall further state that, if a request for such hearing is made, the City will remove the rubbish in accordance with Subsection (b) below and will store the material pending the holding of the hearing and the determination therefrom. The notice shall further state that if no request for such hearing is timely filed, the City will remove the rubbish in accordance with Subsection (b) below and shall destroy or otherwise dispose of the rubbish. (b) If the property, open area, ditch or right-of-way has not been brought into compliance with this Article within five (5) days from the date of the notice and if the owner has not requested a hearing before the Referee to contest the declaration of nuisance and/or the removal as provided in Subsection (a) above, the removal may be done by the City, either by City personnel or by private contractors, as the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesNeighborhood Services Manager shall determine. In the event of such removal by the City, the cost, including inspection, removal of obstructions, if any, the cost of any grading or sloping -23- necessary to protect the public safety, other incidental costs in connection therewith, and the costs for carrying charges and administration shall be assessed against the offending property, open area, ditch or right-of-way and the owner thereof. With respect to rubbish only, if the owner has requested a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (a), removal of the rubbish may be accomplished as provided in this Subsection; provided, however, that such material removed shall be stored by the City until such time as the Referee holds the hearing and determines, based upon the evidence presented by the owner and the staff of the City, whether the nuisance should have been declared and the rubbish removed. If the Referee determines that the declaration of nuisance and removal are proper, then the rubbish shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the City, and the additional costs of storage shall be assessed, together with all other costs, as provided above. If the Referee determines that the declaration of nuisance and removal were improper, then the material shall be returned to the owner and no costs shall be assessed. (c) Any cost assessment shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against each property, open area, ditch or right-of-way from the date the assessment became due until paid and shall have priority over all other liens, except general taxes and prior special assessment liens. Any such assessment shall be billed by the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesNeighborhood Services Manager, or his or her designee, to the owner by deposit in the United States mail addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls or such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and to any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known. If any such assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been billed, the Financial Officer, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to thereafter certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments so billed, giving the name of the owner as it appears of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of the assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and form as required for the certification of other taxes. The County Treasurer, upon receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place it upon the tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as general property taxes are collected, together with any charges as may by law be made by the County Treasurer and all laws of the State for the assessment and collection of general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes and the redemption thereof, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property, open area, ditch or right-of-way is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 65. That Section 20-101(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-101. Removal by City; lien. -24- . . . (b) If the property owner contests the declaration of nuisance and/or the assessment of costs, he or she shall file a written request with the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesNeighborhood Services Manager, within ten (10) days from the service of a notice of assessment, a written request for a hearing before the Referee. (c) Any cost assessment shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against each property from the date the assessment became due until paid and shall have priority over all other liens, except general taxes and prior special assessment liens. Any such assessment shall be billed by the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesNeighborhood Services Manager, or his or her designee, to the owner by deposit in the United States mail addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls or such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and to any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known. If any such assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been billed, the Financial Officer, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to thereafter certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments so billed, giving the name of the owner as it appears of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of the assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and form as required for the certification of other taxes. The County Treasurer, upon receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place it upon the tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as general property taxes are collected together with any charges as may by law be made by the County Treasurer and all laws of the State for the assessment and collection of general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes and the redemption thereof, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 66. That Section 20-102(b) and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-102. Removal of snow and ice from sidewalks required; lien. . . . (b) If the property owner contests the declaration of nuisance and/or the assessment of costs, he or she shall file a written request for review with the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesNeighborhood Services Manager, or a written request for a hearing before the Referee, within ten (10) days from the service of a notice of assessment. -25- (c) Such assessment shall constitute an automatic, perpetual lien in the several amounts assessed against each property from the date the assessment became due until paid. Such liens shall have priority over all other liens except general taxes and prior special assessments. In case any such assessment that has not been set for hearing pursuant to Subsection (b) above is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been certified by the Director of Neighborhood and Building Services Neighborhood Services Manager and billed by the Financial Officer or his or her designee to the owner by deposit in the United States mail, addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls of the County Assessor, or such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known, the Financial Officer or his or her designee shall be authorized to certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments, giving the name of the owner of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and in the same form as required for the certification of taxes. The County Treasurer, upon the receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place the same upon the delinquent tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as taxes are collected with such charges as may by law be made by the Treasurer, and all the laws of the State for the assessment and collection of the general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 67. That Section 20-107(d) and (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-107. Parking space obstructions. . . . (d) If the property owner contests the declaration of nuisance and/or the assessment of costs of the City's abatement, he or she shall file a written request for review with the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesNeighborhood Services Manager, or a written request for a hearing before the Referee, within ten (1) days from the service of a notice of assessment. (e) Any cost assessment imposed under this Section shall constitute an automatic, perpetual lien in the several amounts assessed against each property from the date the assessment became due until paid. Such liens shall have priority over all other liens except general taxes and prior special assessments. In case any such assessment that has not been set for hearing pursuant to Subsection (d) above is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been certified by the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesNeighborhood Services Manager and billed by -26- the Financial Officer or his or her designee to the owner by deposit in the United States mail, addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls of the County Assessor, or such other, more recent address as may be available to the City, and any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known, the Financial Officer or his or her designee shall be authorized to certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments, giving the name of the owner of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and in the same form as required for the certification of taxes. The County Treasurer, upon the receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place the same upon the delinquent tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as taxes are collected with such charges as may by law be made by the treasurer, and all the laws of the State for the assessment and collection of the general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 68. That Section 20-114(e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-114. Procedures in general. . . . (e) Actions under this Article shall be filed by the Office of the City Attorney for the CityCity Attorney’s Office. Section 69. That Section 20-115(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-115. Posting of notice of commencement of public nuisance actions. . . . (b) An action under this Article shall be commenced by the filing of a verified complaint or a complaint verified by an affidavit, which may be accompanied by a motion for a temporary abatement order, through the Office of the City AttorneyCity Attorney’s Office. No such action shall be commenced unless each of the separate violations asserted in support of such action has resulted in the issuance of a summons and complaint charging at least one (1) person responsible for such separate violation with the commission of the same. Section 70. That Section 21-87(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -27- Sec. 21-87. Membership; term. (a) The Committee shall consist of six (6) members. The Director of FinanceFinancial Officer shall serve as a standing member of the Committee, and the remaining five (5) members shall be appointed by the City Council. Of the appointed members, three (3) shall be employees who are covered by the Retirement Plan. The fourth appointee shall either be an employee who is covered by the Retirement Plan or an individual who is a taxpaying elector of the City. The fifth appointee shall be a retired member of the Plan who is receiving a monthly retirement benefit from the Plan. Section 71. That Section 21-89 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 21-89. Minutes; annual report; work plan. The Director of FinanceFinancial Officer shall take and file minutes in accordance with the requirements of § 2-73 of the Code. On or before January 31 of each year, the Committee shall file a report with the City Clerk setting forth the activities of the Committee for the previous year. On or before November 30 of each year, the Committee shall file a work plan with the City Clerk for the following year. Section 72. That Section 22-33 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-33. Designation of officers to supervise improvements. All local improvements shall be constructed under the general direction and control of the City Manager and in the immediate charge, direction and supervision of the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation and, if applicable, the Utilities Executive Director or other officer designated for such purpose in accordance with maps, plans and specifications adopted by the City Council. The work of construction may be by independent contract or by the City as determined by the City Council. Section 73. That Section 22-35(a), (b), and (c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-35. Method of initiating improvements. (a) A public work or improvement, the cost of which in whole or in part is to be assessed by the City against the property specially benefitted, may be initiated by the City Council on recommendation of the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation or on petition of the property owners affected. -28- (b) In improvements to be initiated by the City Council, the City Council after receiving a recommendation from the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation shall adopt a resolution which shall state the need and the nature and location of the improvements without mentioning minor details and shall describe the area to be assessed for the improvements by boundaries or other brief description. The resolution shall direct the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation to prepare and present to the City Council the following: . . . (c) In improvements to be initiated by petition of property owners, the petition shall be on a form to be supplied by the City. The petition shall be subscribed by the owners of at least one-third (a) of the frontage to be assessed for improvements to streets including streetlighting and by the owners of at least one (1) percent of the area of the property to be assessed for any other improvements. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt policies to be used in the review of such petitions. Upon receiving a petition, and after review of the same, the City Council may adopt a resolution which shall state the nature and location of the improvements and describe the area to be assessed for the improvements by boundaries or other brief description, and direct the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation to prepare and present to the City Council a report as in the case of City Council initiated improvements. Thereafter, the procedures shall be the same as in the case of improvement districts initiated by the City Council provided that the City Council may at any time determine by resolution that the acquisition of the proposed improvements is not feasible or desirable for reasons stated in the resolution. Any such resolution shall terminate the proceedings. Section 74. That Section 22-36 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-36. Maximum cost of improvements. The total cost of the improvements shall not exceed by more than ten (10) percent the amount of the estimate of the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation for the cost of the improvement, unless the City Council shall find that the public interest requires the making or acquisition of the improvement or any part at such higher cost. The foregoing limitation on maximum cost for improvements shall not apply when all the owners of property to be assessed in a district expressly waive the limitation in writing. Section 75. That Section 22-39 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -29- Sec. 22-39. Advertising for bids; letting of contracts. All contracts for local improvements shall be let by the Purchasing Agent upon the determination of the City Council after the passage of the original ordinance forming the district. All contracts shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder as determined in the sole discretion of the City Council. Contracts shall be let after public advertisement for bids has been published twice in an official newspaper published in the City. The advertisements for bids shall be published at least a week apart. The date for opening of bids shall be not less than ten (10) days after the first publication. In all advertisements, the City Council shall reserve the right to reject all bids. Upon rejecting all bids or receiving no bids, the City Council may again advertise without further ordinance or may order the work done by hiring labor and arranging for purchasing necessary material under the supervision of the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements may be installed by the City utilizing City employees if the City Council so orders. Section 76. That Section 22-42 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-42. Council may require utility connections. Before constructing any permanent paving under the provisions of this Article, the City Council may order the owners of abutting property to connect their several premises with sewer, gas or water mains or with any other commodity in the street in front of the several premises. Upon the default of the owners to make such connections thirty (30) days after such order, the City Council may contract and make said connections at such distance under such regulations and in accordance with specifications as may be prescribed by the City Council, and the whole cost of said connections shall be assessed against the premises with which the connection is made. Any number of said connections may be ordered in pursuance of the regulations adopted as recommended by the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation. The cost shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as provided in this Article for assessment and collection of the cost of other special improvements and shall be included in the assessments made against the particular property in the district proceedings. Section 77. That Section 22-83(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-83. Payments from surplus and deficiency fund. . . . -30- (b) Any portion of the costs of a district payable by the City at large because of the limitation based on value of property as provided in § 22-90, costs of improvements in excess of the estimate of the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation as provided in § 22-36 or reductions in assessments made by the City Council, if directed by the City Council, may be paid from the surplus and deficiency fund. If any such portion is later recovered from the owners of property in the district, the amount of such recovery shall be repaid into such surplus and deficiency fund. Section 78. That Section 22-111(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 22-111. Special assessment bonds and multi-year financial obligations authorized. . . . (b) All such bonds shall be issued upon estimates of the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services Planning, Development and Transportation or, if applicable, the Utilities Executive Director, approved by the City Council. The Financial Officer shall preserve a record of the same in a suitable book kept for that purpose. All such bonds shall be subscribed by the Mayor and countersigned by the Financial Officer, with the corporate seal affixed and attested by the City Clerk. Facsimile signatures may be used. Section 79. That Section 23-61(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-61. Permit required; application. (a) Any person desiring to occupy any parking space on a public street in the City in connection with the maintenance, erection, construction, remodeling or demolition of any building or improvement on property abutting thereto shall make written application to the Planning Development and Transportation Director (hereafter in this Division, the "Director")Parking Services Manager for an obstruction permit on a form prepared and provided by the City. Section 80. That Section 23-62(7), (8) and (9) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-62. Contents of application. . . . -31- (7) a description of the proposed obstruction sufficient to fully inform the City Manager of the character and physical attributes of the obstruction and the DirectorParking Services Manager to perform a complete and competent examination of the application under the criteria contained in Subsection 23-83(a); (8) evidence of the applicant's ability and willingness to provide liability insurance insuring the City in a sum not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000), proof of which insurance shall be provided to the City prior to issuance of the permit, unless the requirement to provide such insurance is waived by the DirectorParking Services Manager; (9) a statement that the applicant agrees to be responsible for barricading the parking spaces in a manner acceptable to the DirectorParking Services Manager; Section 81. That Section 23-63 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-63. Fees and conditions. (a) At the time of issuance of a permit hereunder, and at the time of any renewal or modification of such permit, the applicant shall pay an application fee and an additional fee per parking space per day to help defray the costs incurred by the City in processing and administering the permit program, including, without limitation, the cost of enforcement and the cost of inspection of the spaces that are the subject of the application; provided, however, that the DirectorParking Services Manager may waive part or all of the fees for governmental agencies. The amount of said fees shall be determined and established by the City Manager, pursuant to the provisions of Article I of Chapter 7.5. (b) The DirectorParking Services Manager may condition the issuance and use of an obstruction permit on such requirements as are reasonably necessary to protect the safety of persons and property and the use and control of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, including limitations on time, place and allowed activities; payment of fees; obtaining any additional permits from other departments or agencies as necessary; and providing any fencing or barriers that the DirectorParking Services Manager requires in order to protect pedestrian and vehicular traffic from the obstruction and associated dangers. If required, the permit holder shall build and maintain a good and substantial, protected walkway around the obstruction. The permit holder shall adequately light and mark the obstruction to protect pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Section 82. That Section 23-64 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-64. Term of permit; renewal and revocation. -32- (a) A permit may be issued only for the period of time necessary to complete the purpose for which the permit was issued. No permit issued under Subsection 23- 61(a) shall be issued for more than ninety (90) days; provided, however, that the DirectorParking Services Manager may renew any such permit for one (1) or more additional ninety-day periods upon written application and payment of the applicable renewal fee. The term of a permit issued under Subsection 23-61(b) shall be limited in accordance with Paragraphs (2) and (3) thereof. (b) Any permit issued under this Article may be denied or revoked by the DirectorParking Services Manager if the holder fails to obtain any other necessary permits, fails to conduct the activity in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, violates any of the provisions of this Article, state law, local ordinances or the applicable rules and regulations of the City, or if the work allowed by the permit unduly interferes with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or otherwise poses a threat to the health and safety of the public. Section 83. That Section 23-94(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-94. Investigation of application; permit fee; revocation. (a) The application for a permit for a neighborhood entry shall be made to the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall make or cause to be made an investigation of the information contained in the application and prior to the issuance of a permit shall determine that the applicant is a qualified neighborhood organization and that the proposed neighborhood sign does not constitute a nuisance or destroy or impair the use of the right-of-way or any City property by the public or constitute a traffic hazard and complies with all standards and criteria of this Division. In investigating whether the application for a neighborhood entry sign conforms to the standards and criteria of this Division, the City Engineer shall consult with the Traffic Engineer, and the Director of Current Planning and the City Neighborhood Resources officeDirector of Community Development and Neighborhood Services. Section 84. That the definitions of “Director” and “Service Area” contained in Section 23-192 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Director shall mean the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Servicesof Community Services of the City. Service AreaUnit shall mean Community Planning and Environmental Services of the City. Section 85. That Section 23-193(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-193. Prohibited acts; permits. -33- . . . (b) Unless a sign has been posted by the Service AreaUnit that the particular natural area or a portion thereof is open for such use, it shall be unlawful to: . . . (c) It shall be unlawful to engage in any activity within or upon a natural area when a sign has been posted by the Service AreaUnit that the particular area or a portion of the area is closed for such use, based upon a determination by the Service AreaUnit that such prohibition is appropriate to protect the safety or well-being of persons or animals; the natural area, related facilities or any other City property or facility; the use and enjoyment of said areas or facilities by the general public; the needs and objectives of the City in maintaining and operating the same; and/or the natural environment in general. (d) Except as authorized by a permit obtained for such use from the Service AreaUnit, it shall be unlawful to: (1) Enter a natural area during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., except: a. As otherwise permitted by a sign posted by the Service AreaUnit opening or closing the particular area or a portion of the area for public use for a specified time or during specified hours; or . . . (e) Research or public safety related training activities involving any of the activities prohibited in this Article, including without limitation the training of search and rescue dogs off-leash, may be authorized by the Service AreaUnit by permit in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in § 23-194. Section 86. That Section 23-194(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-194. Natural areas permit process. (a) Any person or organization seeking a permit for the purposes set forth in this Article shall apply for a natural area permit by filing a verified application with the Service AreaUnit on a form supplied by the Service AreaUnit, except that permit applications for which a routine permit process has been established by the Director under § 23-195 below shall be governed by and processed in accordance with the routine permit process. A fully completed application must be filed with the Director not less than seven (7) business days nor more than ninety (90) business days before the date on which a permitted activity is to commence; provided, however, that the Service AreaUnit may accept and process an application that is filed after the filing deadline if, in the judgment of the Director, there are sufficient time and sufficient -34- resources for the Service AreaUnit to process and investigate the application and make any preparations necessary for the activity. Section 87. That the definitions of “Director” and “Service Area” contained in Section 23-202 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Director shall mean the Director of Cultural, Library and Recreation Services of the CityCommunity Services. Service AreaUnit shall mean Cultural, Library and Recreation Services of the CityCommunity Services. Section 88. That Section 23-203(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-203. Prohibited acts; permits. . . . (b) Unless a sign has been posted by the Service AreaUnit that the particular recreation area or a portion thereof is open for such use, it shall be unlawful to: . . . (c) No person shall engage in any conduct or activity within or upon a recreation area when a sign has been posted by the Service AreaUnit that such conduct or activity is not allowed in the recreation area or a portion of the area, based on a determination by the Service AreaUnit that such prohibition is appropriate to protect the safety or well-being of persons, or animals, or to protect or preserve the recreation area and related facilities, or any other City property or facility, the use and enjoyment of the same by the general public, or the needs and objectives of the City in maintaining and operating the same. (d) Except as authorized by a permit obtained for such use from the Service AreaUnit, it shall be unlawful to: . . . (e) Research or public safety related training activities involving any of the activities prohibited in this Article, including without limitation the training of search and rescue dogs off-leash, may be authorized by the Service AreaUnit by permit in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in § 23-204. Section 89. That Section 23-204(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: -35- Sec. 23-204. Recreation area permit process. (a) Any person or organization seeking a permit for the purposes set forth in this Article shall apply for a recreation area permit by filing a verified application with the Service AreaUnit on a form supplied by the Service AreaUnit. An application must be submitted and completed not less than ten (10) business days before the date on which a permitted activity is to commence; provided, however, that the Service Area may accept and process an application that is filed after the filing deadline if, in the judgment of the Director, there are sufficient time and sufficient resources to process and investigate the application and make any preparations necessary for the activity. Section 90. That the definition of “Art in Public Places Coordinator (or APP Coordinator) contained in Section 23-302 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Art in Public Places Coordinator (or APP Coordinator) shall mean a City staff member designated by the Director of Cultural, Library and Recreation ServicesCommunity Services as the Art in Public Places Coordinator. The Coordinator will serve the APP Board as City staff liaison. Section 91. That Section 23-307 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 23-307. Administration. The Director of Cultural, Library and Recreation ServicesCommunity Services shall administer the provisions of this Article in a manner consistent with the APP Guidelines. The guidelines shall provide for the selection of works of art; the placement and presentation of works of art; the maintenance, repair and care of works of art; the payment for works of art; the acceptance of donations of works of art; and such other matters as the Director deems necessary and appropriate. The Director shall designate an APP Coordinator who will serve as staff liaison to the APP Board. Section 92. That Section 24-1(2) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-1. Signs on streets, sidewalks and public rights-of-way prohibited; removal; exceptions; permit. . . . (2) Traffic control signs erected by the City and directional or informational signs erected by the City or other governmental entities which relate to facilities and areas owned, maintained or operated by the City or such other -36- governmental entities. Before any directional or informational sign of a governmental entity other than the City is erected, the governmental entity must obtain a permit authorizing the sign from the City Traffic Engineer. . . . Section 93. That Section 24-91 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-91. List of street names. All new arterial and collector streets, as defined in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, are to be named from the list of street names approved by the City Council. The list of street names shall be composed of names of natural areas, natural features, historic and/or well-known places, citizens of the City or Growth Management Area whom the City Council would like to honor posthumously, and such other names of places, things or deceased persons as the City Council may approve. With respect to citizens of the City whom the City Council desires to honor posthumously, such citizens must have devoted much time and effort to the City either as a former City officer or employee, a former Colorado State University officer or employee, a person important in the founding of the City or a former citizen of exemplary character deserving of special recognition. The list of street names shall be adopted and amended by the City Council by resolution. All new arterial and collector streets which are not extensions of existing arterial and collector streets must be named from the foregoing list of street names, and the Director of Community Planning and Environmental ServicesDevelopment and Neighborhood Services shall strike names from the list as they are used in the naming of such new arterial and collector streets and shall promptly file an updated list in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 94. That Section 24-131 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-131. Statement of legislative finding. Public necessity and convenience require that a portion of State Highway No. 1, which lies in and on a street of the City, be widened and reconstructed in accordance with the plans and specifications of Project No. C 06-0001-17 of the State Department of HighwaysTransportation, State of Colorado. Section 95. That Section 24-133 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-133. Right of State Department of Highways recognized. The City recognizes the right of the State Department of HighwaysTransportation and its contractor or contractors to proceed at once or at any time in the future to -37- construct the connecting links of State Highway No. 1 in the City on the portions of the street involved. Section 96. That Section 24-136(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-136. Parking and speed limits. . . . (c) Upon the basis of engineering and traffic investigations by the State Department of HighwaysTransportation and the City, it has been determined that a reasonable and true prima facie speed limit on portions of the street shall be a minimum of thirty-five (35) miles per hour in the business district and a minimum of thirty-five (35) miles per hour on the remaining portions, provided that standard signs are erected giving notice of the authorized speed as provided by C.R.S. Section 97. That Section 24-137 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 24-137. Right of State Department of HighwaysTransportation to purchase property recognized. In order to establish the streets and connecting links, it will be necessary to take and purchase certain property included within the above described right-of-way. By adoption of this Article, the City recognizes the right of the State Department of HighwaysTransportation to purchase or condemn any such private property. Section 98. That Section 25-166(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 25-166. Preservation of returns and other records; confidentiality. . . . (b) Except in accordance with a court order or as otherwise provided by law, the Financial Officer shall not divulge or make known in any way any financial information obtained from any investigation conducted by the Financial Administration UnitFinance Department or disclosed in any document, report or return filed in connection with the taxes covered by this Article. The persons charged with custody of such documents, reports, investigations and returns shall not be required to produce any of them or evidence of anything contained therein in any action or proceeding in any court, except on behalf of the Financial Officer in any action or proceeding under the provisions of this Article to which the Financial Officer or the City is a party or on behalf of any party to an action or proceeding under the provisions of this Article when the report of facts shown thereby is directly -38- involved in such action or proceeding, in either of which events the court may require the production of and may admit in evidence so much of the reports or of the facts shown thereby as are pertinent to the action or proceeding and no more. Section 99. That Section 25-190(b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 25-190. Lien on construction improvements. . . . (b) The Director of Building and ZoningBuilding Official shall not make a final inspection on or issue a certificate of occupancy for any construction project unless a person has paid or arranged with the Financial Officer to pay all taxes due under this Article on all fixtures, minerals and other construction materials and supplies or tangible personal property used in or connected with the construction, reconstruction, alteration, expansion, modification or improvement of any building, dwelling or other structure or improvement to real property in the City. Section 100. That Section 26-719 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-719. Discontinuance of service at user's request. All orders for termination of water, wastewater or electric service shall be made to the Financial OfficerUtilities Customer Service Office at least three (3) days prior to the desired discontinuance date. The user will be liable in any event for utility ser- vices consumed until the final meter reading is obtained. The termination notice given by the user does not relieve the user in any way from any minimum charges or payments guaranteed under a service contract. Section 101. That Section 27-59(c) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 27-59. Notice of violation; removal authority and procedure; lien on property. . . . (c) Any cost assessment shall be a lien in the several amounts assessed against each property from the date the assessment became due until paid and shall have priority over all other liens, except general taxes and prior special assessment liens. Any such assessment shall be billed by the Director of Neighborhood and Building ServicesCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services, or the City Forester, or his or her designees, to the owner by deposit in the United States mail addressed to the owner of record at the address as shown on the tax rolls or such other, more -39- recent address as may be available to the City, and to any agents, representatives or occupants as may be known. If any such assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after it has been billed, the Financial Officer, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to thereafter certify to the County Treasurer the list of delinquent assessments so billed, giving the name of the owner as it appears of record, the number of the lot and block and the amount of the assessment plus a ten-percent penalty. The certification shall be the same in substance and form as required for the certification of other taxes. The County Treasurer, upon receipt of such certified list, is hereby authorized to place it upon the tax list for the current year and to collect the assessment in the same manner as general property taxes are collected together with any charges as may by law be made by the County Treasurer, and all laws of the State for the assessment and collection of general taxes, including the laws for the sale of property for unpaid taxes and the redemption thereof, shall apply to and have full force and effect for the collection of all such assessments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the offending property is not subject to taxation, the City may elect alternative means to collect the amounts due pursuant to this Article, including the commencement of an action at law or in equity and, after judgment, pursue such remedies as are provided by law. Section 102. That Section 27-60 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 27-60. Time limit for compliance; appeals; hearings. Upon receipt of a notice given by the City Forester pursuant to § 27-18, 27-57 or 27-58, the property owner shall have the right to contest the order of the City Forester to the Referee by filing with the Referee a petition for review at the office of Neighborhood and BuildingCommunity Development and Neighborhood Services. A written request for a hearing before the Referee must be submitted within five (5) days from the date of service of the order. Pending a final determination by the Municipal Court Referee, the property owner need not complete the work required to be done by the City Forester, unless such work involves a violation of Paragraph 27-57(a)(5). If the Referee sustains all or any part of the order of the City Forester, the Referee shall set the time within which the required work shall be completed, and the property owner must complete the required work within such time. -40- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk -41- DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Daylan Figgs Justin Scharton AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 14 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2012, Authorizing Amendments to a Conservation Easement Held by the City on the Hansen Property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on Parcel II (south parcel) of the Hansen Ranch property, on which the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD) holds a conservation easement (CE). NAD also holds a conservation easement on Parcel I (north parcel). Once the Bank took possession of Parcel II, Ric and Myrna Hansen, who reside on Parcel I, denied the Bank access through the existing driveway that bisects their parcel and serves as the only access to Parcel II. This amendment to the easement grants permission for a driveway to be constructed to access Parcel II, while allowing the NAD to make needed corrections and updates to the easement deed. In return, the development right for a secondary residence on the Parcel II will be extinguished. The City will also take this opportunity to amend language in the CE to increase its oversight and enforcement capability on the CE and update some of the terms of the CE. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins placed a CE on the Hansen Ranch property, owned by Myrna Hansen, in 2004 as part of efforts to conserve land in the Timnath Community Separator area. The Hansen CE, along with the contiguous North and South Cribari CEs, also conserved by the City, are within the Town of Timnath’s Growth Management Area. In July 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha foreclosed on the south parcel (referred to as Parcel II) of the Hansen property. Following the foreclosure, the Hansens denied the Bank access to Parcel II via the driveway from County Road 42 through Parcel I. A temporary agreement was reached between the Hansens and the Bank that allows the Bank to access Parcel II until May 31, 2012. However, the Hansens are not interested in a long-term agreement and plan to restore the driveway to a two-track farm road in 2012. The Bank contacted the City to determine what steps were necessary to construct a new driveway to Parcel II. Upon review of the CE deed, NAD staff determined that the CE permitted construction of a new driveway for access to Parcel II, but only as part of the construction of a second residence on Parcel II, which the Bank was not planning to do. Therefore, an amendment to the CE would be necessary to allow a new driveway to be constructed. As such, NAD staff has worked collaboratively with the Bank and Hansens to create a package of amendments that would restore access to Parcel II, protect the Conservation Values of the Property, create a net conservation gain to the City, reflect separate ownership of the Parcels, and comply with the NAD Conservation Easement Amendment Policy and Procedure document. The main components of the amendment include: • The maintenance of one conservation easement that reflects separate ownership of the two parcels, allowing for independent management and enforcement of Parcel I and Parcel II • Removal of the development right for a secondary residence with a 1,000 square foot footprint on Parcel II • Granting permission to construct a new driveway approximately 2,200 feet in length on Parcel II with strict requirements as to the location, design, and construction materials to be used • Requiring Hansen’s to restore approximately 1,000 linear feet of existing driveway across Parcel I to a two- track “farm road” by 2013 • Addition of language that allows City to enter either Parcel without notice should staff have reason to believe a violation has taken place or is occurring • Addition of City oversight and approval authority with regard to oil and gas development on the Parcels • Strengthening Weed Control language • Addition of City oversight and approval authority for granting Utility Easements and Roads on the Parcels April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 14 • Addition of language to clarify easement deed position on Public Roads and Improvements on Parcels • Other minor clarifications and clean-up items, including legal description correction • Update Management Plan for both Parcels While the Hansen CE contains contemporary language for the time period it was written, standard conservation easement language has evolved and is more comprehensive in CEs written today. In addition, every CE contains language that has been negotiated between the City and the individual landowner, inherently making each CE unique. The Hansen CE is representative of other older CEs in the City’s portfolio that may have older language that may not be in line with contemporary standards. With any opportunity to amend a CE, NAD staff will make every effort to negotiate with a willing landowner to update easement language to current form and standards. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS There will be no economic impact to the City with approval of the amended conservation easement. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS While there will be approximately 0.4 mile of new gravel driveway built on Parcel II, the impact to the environment is minimal as the route is within an agricultural pasture and the existing vegetation is primarily non-native smooth brome grass. This minor impact is mitigated by extinguishing the development right on Parcel II and by requiring the Hansen’s to restore the existing driveway on Parcel I to a two-track “farm road”. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its March 14, 2012 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amended conservation easement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2, Property Map 3. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, March 14, 2012 FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR COYOTE RIDGE NATURAL AREA LONG VIEW FARM OPEN SPACE CATHY FROMME PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA RUNNING DEER NATURAL AREA ARAPAHO BEND NATURAL AREA FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR REGIONAL OPEN SPACE RIVERBEND PONDS NATURAL AREA HAZALEUS NATURAL AREA RIVER BLUFFS OPEN SPACE VANGBO PROPERTY PELICAN MARSH NATURAL AREA ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING CENTER FOSSIL CREEK WETLANDS NATURAL AREA KINGFISHER POINT NATURAL AREA COLINA MARIPOSA NATURAL AREA CATTAIL CHORUS NATURAL AREA EAGLE VIEW NATURAL AREA COTTONWOOD HOLLOW NATURAL AREA PRAIRIE DOG MEADOW NATURAL AREA FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR NATURAL AREA MCMURRY NATURAL AREA ARCHERY RANGE NATURAL AREA REDTAIL GROVE NATURAL AREA PROSPECT PONDS NATURAL AREA ROSS NATURAL AREA UDALL NATURAL AREA NORTH SHIELDS POND NATURAL AREA SALYER NATURAL AREA RED FOX MEADOWS NATURAL AREA TWO CREEKS NATURAL AREA FISCHER NATURAL AREA SPRINGER NATURAL AREA RIVER'S EDGE NATURAL AREA THE COTERIE LARIMER COUNTY LANDFILL REDWING MARSH NATURAL AREA MAGPIE MEANDER NATURAL AREA GUSTAV SWANSON NATURAL AREA MALLARD'S NEST NATURAL AREA WILLIAMS NATURAL AREA SHIELDS HARMONY VINE DRAKE COLLEGE TIMBERLINE PROSPECT TRILBY ZIEGLER MULBERRY LEMAY CARPENTER COUNTY ROAD 32 MOUNTAIN VISTA HORSETOOTH VINE LEMAY LEMAY HORSETOOTH COUNTY ROAD 42 Hansen Conservation Easement South Parcel Driveway Location Hansen CE Driveway Envelope Parcels 30 ft. Wide Driveway Envelope Cribari N CE Parcel Cribari S CE Parcel Hansen (CE Parcel South II) Parcel Hansen (ParcelCE Parcel North I) 0 125 250 500 ¹ Feet Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2012 MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting DATE: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 LOCATION: 215 N. Mason, West Entrance, Conference Room 1-A TIME: 6:00 p.m. For Reference: Trudy Haines, Chair - 225-2760 Aislinn Kottwitz, Council Liaison - 692-9915 Mark Sears, Staff Liaison - 416-2096 Board Members Present –Trudy Haines, Linda Knowlton, Matt Lloyd, S. Kathryn Grimes, Linda Stanley, Ed Reifsnyder Board Members Excused – Michelle Grooms, K-Lynn Cameron, Scott Quayle Staff Present – Mark Sears, Daylan Figgs, Justin Scharton, Courtney Bennett Guests – Arvind Panjabi, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory Jen Ammerman, First National Bank Jannessa Uhl-Carper, Community Member Rob Novak, Larimer County ________________________________________________________________________ Hansen CE Amendment Justin Scharton: Tonight I’ll be discussing a proposed amendment to the Hansen Conservation Easement. First, the Natural Area Department and all entities in Colorado that hold conservation easements went through a process with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Division of Real Estate Services. Together we created a conservation easement amendment policy and procedure. The Hansen Conservation Easement Amendment was invented through this policy and procedure. We can refer to the document for specific questions about legitimate reasons to amend conservation easements. Justin Scharton: The Hansen Conservation Easement is east of Archery Range Natural Area and west of Timnath reservoir. In 2004, Ric and Myrna Hansen placed a conservation easement on two parcels, parcel one (I), the northern parcel, and parcel two (II), the southern parcel. The Hansen Conservation Easement is part of the larger Timnath Separator Area which also includes Cribari North and Cribari South Conservation Easements which we hold. In July of 2011, the First National Bank of Omaha, by way of First National Bank in Fort Collins foreclosed on Parcel II from Ric and Myrna Hansen. The only access road to Parcel II is through Parcel I. There was a short-term agreement between the Bank and the Hansens that allowed access to Parcel II. The agreement expires May 1st and the Hansens are no longer interested in providing access across their property. The Bank approached the Natural Areas to find a way to provide access to the property. We worked with the Bank and created a package of amendments to the Conservation Easement that does several things. First, we require a net conservation gain as a result of the amendments; it has to be better, conservation wise then before. Highlight of amendments: The first amendment will recognize the individual parcels under the conservation easement. If one landowner violates the terms of the conservation easement it will not affect the other landowner. The second amendment is the removal of the development rights for a secondary residence with a 1000ft sq2 footprint on Parcel II. This is part of the net conservation gain. The Bank is willing to extinguish its development rights. The third amendment provides the bank access. We are proposing to grant a driveway, the easement deed the driveway specifics; generally it is a 16ft gravel driveway, from County Rd 42 at the north end, south within 30 feet of the boundary to where it connects with the current driveway. Finally, we are requiring the Hansens to restore 1000 linear feet of their driveway across Parcel I, which they have agreed too. A portion of the Hansen’s driveway will be restored to a two-track farm road. This is allowed under the conservation easement at will.  Linda Stanley: Why would they do that?  Justin Scharton: What is their motivation? They are just being collaborative at this point. They have also said that they don’t have any use for it, that they want to restore it, and put it back to a more rustic condition.  Matt Lloyd: So there is nothing stopping them from not doing that?  Justin Scharton: There is, we are requiring that they have it restored by the last day of 2012 or it is a material violation of the conservation easement.  S. Kathryn Grimes: Have the people on the left side been notified?  Justin Scharton: Yes, they have been notified. They don’t have any approval authority but because they are contiguous properties and because we hold their conservation easements we let them know. One other small detail is the fence line. We have to be very careful of where the Bank constructs the driveway to avoid ditches and other properties fence lines.  S. Kathryn Grimes: Is it possible to go on the right side of the property?  Justin Scharton: No, it wouldn’t work very well with the topography  Mark Sears: Is the little 30ft strip owned by Parcel I?  Justin Scharton: When the conservation easement was put in place, the idea was to develop Parcel II further and this was the idea for access, the 30 ft wide flagpole, as we like to call it, was the idea from the start. There is access to County Road 42, but under the conservation easement they are not allowed to build a drive way to it.  S. Kathryn Grimes: So this is the amendment, the amendment is the road?  Justin Scharton: Exactly, or it is one of the pieces.  Justin Scharton: We are adding net conservation gains, additional enforcement, additional language that allows the City to enter either Parcel without notice should staff have reason to believe a violation is taking place; adding City oversight and approval authority with regard to oil and gas development to the extent that is allowable by law; strengthening the noxious weed control language; adding City oversight and approval authority for granting Utility Easements and roads on the parcels; language to clarify the easement deed position on public roads and improvements; other minor clarification and clean-up items, including a legal description correction. The final piece of the amendment is the updates to the management plans governing both parcels.  Trudy Haines: I assume this is because the bank wants to sell, they need access, and it will be sold with the conservation easement on it. They are not interested in renting they just want to sell it. Sounds like a net gain. You guys have done really well working together and coming up with a good solution. It is too bad it went into foreclosure.  Justin Scharton: It is an unfortunate situation that has become a collaborative effort between all parties so far. It is still a moving target with small edits but this captures the large changes in to the conservation easement through the amendment process for which we are seeking approval. S. Kathryn Grimes moved that the Land Conservation Stewardship Board recommend that City Council approve an amendment to the Hansen Conservation Easement the City holds on the Hansen Ranch Property, as presented by Justin Scharton. Matt Lloyd second. Unanimously approved. ORDINANCE NO. 031, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT HELD BY THE CITY ON THE HANSEN PROPERTY WHEREAS, on July 21, 2004, Myrna Hansen granted the City a conservation easement (the “Conservation Easement”) on two parcels of farm land that she owned in the Timnath Community Separator area, as described on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference (“Parcel I” and “Parcel II”); and WHEREAS, the Conservation Easement is managed by the City’s Natural Areas Department; and WHEREAS, at the time Mrs. Hansen granted the Conservation Easement, Parcel II was encumbered by a Deed of Trust held by First National Bank of Omaha (the “Bank”), and the Bank subordinated its Deed of Trust to the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Bank foreclosed on Parcel II and took title to it on July 13, 2011, through a Public Trustee’s foreclosure sale; and WHEREAS, after the Bank foreclosed on Parcel II, the Hansens did not want to permit the Bank to access Parcel II via an existing driveway on Parcel I; and WHEREAS, under the terms of the Conservation Easement, the owner of Parcel II is allowed to construct another driveway on Parcel II to serve Parcel II, but only as part of the construction of a second residence on Parcel II, which the Bank was not planning to do; and WHEREAS, the Bank asked the City’s Natural Areas staff to amend the Conservation Easement to allow construction of the second driveway, and in exchange the Bank agreed to give up the right to build a second residence on Parcel II; and WHEREAS, through a series of negotiations with the Bank and the Hansens, staff has developed an Amended and Restated Deed of Conservation Easement (the “Amended Conservation Easement”), a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for review; and WHEREAS, the Amended Conservation Easement would address not only the second driveway and second residence on Parcel II, but would also update the terms of the original Conservation Easement to allow the two Parcels to be managed separately, and to strengthen the City’s oversight and enforcement capability of matters including oil and gas development, weed control, and easements and road on the Parcels; and WHEREAS, the City Council is being asked to approve the Amended Conservation Easement by ordinance because by changing the terms of the Conservation Easement, even though City staff expects a net benefit to the City from the proposed changes, the City is giving up some rights in real property that were previously granted to it; and WHEREAS, under Section 23-111(a) of the City Code, the City Council is authorized to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on March 14, 2012, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend approval of the Amended Conservation Easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds that the amendments to the Conservation Easement as provided herein are in the best interests of the City. Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an Amended Conservation Easement in substantially the form as is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or to effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Parcels conserved by the Amended Conservation Easement, as long as such changes do not materially reduce the size or change the character of the property. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk EXHIBIT A (Property Description) Parcel I: A parcel of land situate in the Southwest ¼ of Section 23 and in the Northeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 26, all in Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, which, considering the South line of said Southwest ¼ as bearing S 88º56’31” E, and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point which bears N 00º53’19” E 35.00 feet, and again S 88º56’31” E 1347.69 feet from the Southwest corner of said Section 23, and run thence S 88º 56’31” E 1287.77 feet; thence S 00º 46’03” W 35.00 feet to the North ¼ corner of said Section 26; thence along the East line of the Northwest ¼ of said Section 26, S 00º42'34" W 999.64 feet; thence S 78º00’18” W 1321.03 feet; thence N 00º45’05” E 1333.00 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel II: A parcel of land situate in the Southwest quarter of Section 23, and the Northwest quarter of Section 26. Township 7 North, Range 68 West, of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows: Considering the North line of said Northwest quarter of Section 26 as bearing North 88º56’31” West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 26, said point also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; thence along the West line of said Southwest quarter of Section 23, North 00º53’19” East 35.00 feet; thence South 88º56’31” East 1347.69 feet; thence South 00º45’05” West 1333.00 feet; thence North 78º00’18” East 1321.03 feet to the East line of said Northwest quarter of Section 26; thence along said East line, South 00º42’34” West 1643.99 feet to the Center quarter corner of said Section 26; thence along the South line of said Northwest quarter of Section 26, North 89º04’50” West 1319.69 feet to the Center – West sixteenth corner; thence along the West line of the East half of said Northwest quarter of Section 26, North 00º45’05” East 2646.91 feet to the North line of said Northwest quarter of Section 26; thence along said North line, North 88º56’31” West 1317.77 feet to the true point of beginning. The above parcel contains 47.19 acres more or less, and is subject to all right- of-way, easements and restrictions now in use or on record. DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Rick Richter, Randy Maizland, Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 15 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2012, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project - Vine to Conifer. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The North College Avenue Improvement Project – Vine to Conifer (the “Project”) is a road improvement project that extends from Vine Drive on the south to the intersection of Hickory Street on the north. In 2010, City Council passed Ordinance No. 085, 2010, authorizing the use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire the necessary property interests for the Project. All property interests were secured for construction to move forward. While relocating existing utilities for the upcoming road work, City staff determined that additional right of way area containing approximately .011 acres is needed on one parcel to accommodate a realignment of a planned pedestrian bridge. City staff has contacted the affected property owner who is open to working with the City on the new acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) facility (State Highway 287) and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, this acquisition must follow the same eminent domain procedures used in the previous acquisitions for the Project. It is required that City staff obtain authorization to use eminent domain proceedings for this additional acquisition since it was not included in Ordinance No. 085, 2010. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The purpose of the Project is to improve the safety, operations and aesthetics between Vine Drive and the Hickory/Conifer intersection. The project includes storm drainage utilities, curb, gutter and roadway paving, redefinition and consolidation of driveways, bike lanes and sidewalks, new streetscape and other necessary improvements. The area of the additional acquisition needed for the Project is located on a property at 742 North College Avenue. The City has already acquired a small area of fee simple property and a temporary construction easement from the owner of this property. The fee simple acquisition was located on the southern portion of this property to accommodate a pedestrian bridge to be built over the Lake Canal ditch. There is an existing City-owned 8” water line running parallel to College along the frontage of this parcel which also crosses the ditch. It was discovered through potholing that the planned pedestrian bridge foundation would be in conflict with the water line. City Engineering staff obtained a quote from the Project contractor to relocate the water line. The quoted price was a minimum of $106,000. A cost estimate was also prepared for shifting the bridge to the east ten feet rather than relocating the water line. This would require the acquisition of additional fee simple area from the property owner. The estimate for this option came out to be approximately $35,000 which included the cost of acquisition and additional construction costs. The decision was made to pursue acquiring the additional property and realign the pedestrian bridge. The owner of the property was contacted with the new proposal and has not raised any objections to the additional acquisition. Since the Project is located on a Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) facility (State Highway 287) and the Project is partially funded by CDOT, all aspects of the Project, including property acquisitions, must comply with procedures for federally funded projects. The acquisitions for this Project conform to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 as Amended (Public Law 91- 646). In accordance with these regulations, the City must inform property owners about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado Statute in the official Notice of Intent Letter. The authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official step in the acquisition phase and happens prior to the appraisals. City staff notified the affected property owner by certified mail of this request to Council for authorization of the use of eminent domain proceedings prior to first reading of this Ordinance. During recent conversations, the owner has indicated a willingness to work with the City on this new acquisition. April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 15 FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS Overall Project In 2005, Fort Collins voters approved a 1/4 cent sales tax to fund capital projects – Building on Basics (BOB). One of the transportation projects funded through this package is “North College Avenue Improvements Phase 2 – Vine Drive to Conifer.” This project is the next phase of the improvements that were initially funded through the Building Community Choices (BCC) capital plan, which expired in 2005. The BCC program funded improvements from Jefferson to Vine Drive. Anticipated Funding Sources: • City Funds/BOB: $4,780,000 • Residual funds from Northern Colorado Truck Route Relocation Project: $1,800,000 • State/Federal funds: $1,549,000 • Urban Renewal Authority (URA) funds: $2,700,000 (The timing and exact amount of URA funds is contingent upon URA Board approval and revenue generated within the plan area. ) Complete cost estimate: $10.8 million (estimate does not include medians or edge improvements north of Conifer Street) Additional Acquisition City Engineering staff obtained a quote from the Project contractor to relocate the water line. The quoted price was a minimum of $106,000. A cost estimate was also prepared for shifting the bridge to the east ten feet rather than relocating the water line. This would require the acquisition of additional fee simple area from the property owner. The estimate for this option came out to be approximately $35,000 which included the cost of acquisition and additional construction costs. After evaluating the two options, City staff’s decision was to pursue acquiring additional property to shift the pedestrian bridge further to the east and avoid the water line. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS With the project adjacent to a state facility and having federal dollars as part of the overall project budget, several environmental assessments were conducted along this section of North College as required by CDOT. Assessments evaluating the project’s impacts to air quality, noise pollution, hazardous waste, lead based paint, threatened or endangered species, wetlands, archaeology, paleontology, historic bridges, and history were conducted. A majority of the assessments resulted in no mitigation necessary. The hazardous waste and lead based paint investigations did prompt additional examination to determine appropriate mitigation for the existing contaminants within the project limits. Due to the existence of contaminated soils at one property, a permanent easement, as opposed to ROW, will be purchased at the request of CDOT. Additional mitigation to address remaining contaminants will be performed during the construction phase of the project. No environmental concerns were identified within the area of the property affected by this additional acquisition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 15 PUBLIC OUTREACH City staff has held numerous public meetings in 2010, 2011 and early 2012. These meetings began in the conceptual phase of the project to include public input as to what improvements were most desirable in the area. City staff has also met with individual property and business owners in the area to discuss the Project and any concerns related to the upcoming improvements. City staff has also been present at a number of North Fort Collins Business Association Meetings to present the Project and discuss the planned changes in the area. City staff has also specifically discussed the realignment of the pedestrian bridge with the owner of the property affected by this new acquisition. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Map 2. Pedestrian Bridge Detail ORDINANCE NO. 032, 2012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS OF CERTAIN LANDS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - VINE TO CONIFER WHEREAS, the North College Avenue Roadway Improvement Project (the “Project”) is currently under construction; and WHEREAS, the Project involves the construction of curbs, gutters, driveway, bike lanes, sidewalks, streetscape, and other necessary improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project will improve the safety, operations, and aesthetics of North College between Vine Drive and the Hickory/Conifer intersection; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City to acquire certain property rights hereinafter described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the purpose of constructing the Project; and WHEREAS, the City will negotiate in good faith for the acquisition of said property rights from the owner thereof; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of the property rights is desirable and necessary for the construction of the Project, is in the City’s best interest and enhances public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of such property rights may, by law, be accomplished through eminent domain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is necessary in the public interest to acquire the property rights described on Exhibit “A” for the purpose of the Project. Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney and other appropriate officials of the City to acquire said property rights for the City by eminent domain proceedings. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds, in the event that acquisition by eminent domain of the property rights described in this Ordinance is commenced, that immediate possession is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of April, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of April, A.D. 2012. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Interim City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" PROJECT NUMBER: AQC M455-079 PARCEL NUMBER: 106A Project Code: 16489 Date: March 20, 2012 A tract or parcel of land No. 106A of the City of Fort Collins, State of Colorado, Project No. AQC M455-079 containing 0.011 acres, more or less, being a portion of the property described in the records of the Larimer County Clerk & Recorder as Lot 1, Block 1 of the Will Subdivision, located in the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, said tract or parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point, whence the SW corner of said Section 1 (a 3 1/4" Brass Cap in a Range Box - PLS 25372), bears S07°41'19"W, a distance of 468.78 feet, said point being on the easterly right-of-way line of N. College Avenue (US 287), also being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 1. Thence S41°53'54"E, a distance of 18.54 feet; 2. Thence S00°38'34"W, a distance of 71.58 feet to the south line of said Lot 1, Block 1 of the Will Subdivision; 3. Thence along said south line, S89°21'26"E, a distance of 6.50 feet; 4. Thence N00°38'34"E, a distance of 68.52feet; 5. Thence N48°03'44"W, a distance of 25.33 feet, more or less, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described tract or parcel of land contains 481 sq. ft. (0.011 acres), more or less. Basis of Bearings: Bearings are based on the west line of the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, bearing N00°38'34"E. The SW corner of said Section 1 is a 3 1/4" Brass Cap in a Range Box - PLS 25372, and the W1/4 corner of said Section 1 is 3" Aluminum Cap in a Range Box - PLS 20123. Prepared for and on behalf of the City of Fort Collins Micheal L. Bouchard, PLS #24941 Farnsworth Group, Inc. 3538 JFK Parkway, Suite 3 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Project No: Drawn by: Approved: Date: Revised: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WILL SUBDIVISION SW 1/4 SECTION 1, T-7-N, R-69-W OF THE 6TH PM CITY OF FORT COLLINS, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL 106A EXHIBIT A THIS IS NOT A MONUMENTED SURVEY. IT IS INTENDED ONLY TO BE A GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF THE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION. TITLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. NOTE: POINT OF BEGINNING CHANGE IN COURSE ONLY LEGEND DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead Jason Licon AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 16 SUBJECT Items Relating to State Grants for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. A. Resolution 2012-021 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement (CDAG #12-FNL-01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of Equipment and Improvements Pertaining to the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. B. Resolution 2012-022 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant Agreement (CDAG #12-FNL-I01) with the Colorado Department of Transportation (Colorado Aeronautical Board) for the Funding of an Intern Position Pertaining to the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Resolution 2012-021 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $400,000. This State Aviation Discretionary Grant will be used to match the FAA 2012 Entitlement Grant for Design Services for the capital construction project that will be completed in 2013 and an additional Snow Removal Equipment, a Utilities Master Plan, a Runway Weather Instrument System and an Airport Service Vehicle. Resolution 2012-022 authorizes the City Manager to execute a grant agreement from the State of Colorado, Division of Aeronautics for funds in the amount of $14,560. This second State grant will fund 50% of the Airport’s Intern Program for 12 months. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Resolution 2012-021 is an annual grant that is given each year to the airport from the State of Colorado. FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS The $400,000 State Aviation Discretionary Grant requires a 10% local match from the airport, or $55,431, and the internship grant will provide capital resources or $14,560 for 50% of a paid intern position over a period of 12 months. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions. RESOLUTION 2012-021 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT (CDAG #12-FNL-01) WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (COLORADO AERONAUTICAL BOARD) FOR THE FUNDING OF EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, Title 43, Article 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, entitled “Aviation Safety and Accessibility/Aeronautics Division” provides that there exists a need to promote the safe operation and accessibility of general aviation and interstate commercial aviation in Colorado and in pursuance thereof, has established the Colorado Aeronautical Board (the “Board”) and, among the duties assigned to the Board, is the power to establish policy and procedures for distribution of monies in the Aviation Fund; and has also created the Division of Aeronautics (the “Division”) to carry out the directives of the Board; and WHEREAS, any entity operating a public-accessible airport such as the Fort Collins- Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”) may file an application with the Division for a grant to be used exclusively for aviation purposes provided that such grant is supported by a resolution passed by the applicant’s governing body requesting such assistance and assuring that if any grant is awarded, it will be used solely for aviation purposes and will comply with all grant procedures and requirements as defined in the Division’s most recently adopted Aviation Grant Management Manual (the “Manual”); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins, as one of the duly authorized governing bodies of the Airport intends by this resolution to provide grant assurances to the Board pursuant to the Grant Agreement entitled “CDAG #12-FNL-01" attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Grant Agreement”). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council, as one of the duly authorized governing bodies of the applicant Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, hereby formally requests assistance from the Board and the Division in the form of a state aviation system grant in the amount of $400,000 with a contractual local match in the amount of $55,431; and the City Council further states that the grant, if awarded, shall be used solely for aviation purposes, as determined by the State, and as generally described in the Application. Section 2. That the City Council hereby commits to keep the Airport facility accessible to, and open to the public during the entire useful life of the Grant funded improvements/equipment, or, if not, then will reimburse the Division for any unexpired useful life of the improvements/equipment on a pro-rata basis. By signing the Grant Agreement, the City Council further commits the City to keep open and accessible for public use, all grant funded facilities, improvements and services for their useful life, as determined by the Division and stated in the Grant Agreement. Section 3. That the City Council hereby designates Jason Licon, Airport Director, as the Project Director and authorizes the Project Director to act in all matters relating to the work project proposed in the Application and further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement. Section 4. That the City has appropriated or will appropriate or otherwise make available in a timely manner its share of all funds that are required to be provided by the City and the City of Loveland under the terms and conditions of the Grant. Section 5. That the City hereby accepts all guidelines, procedures, standards, and requirements described in the Manual as applicable to the performance of the grant work project and hereby approves the Grant Agreement. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd day of April A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk CDOT – Aeronautic Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 EXHIBIT A CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 1 ROUTING: 12 HAV 39750 SAP PO: 291001183 CMS: 39750 STATE OF COLORADO Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Aeronautical Board Division of Aeronautics Grant Agreement with City of Fort Collins and City of Loveland TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PARTIES ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY ...................................................................................... 1 3. RECITALS ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 4. DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 5. TERM ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 6. STATEMENT OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................ 3 7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE.................................................................................................................................... 3 8. REPORTING - NOTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................. 5 9. GRANTEE RECORDS ............................................................................................................................................. 5 10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS ...................................................................................... 6 11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................................................................................................. 6 12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ....................................................................................................... 7 13. INSURANCE .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 14. BREACH ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 15. REMEDIES ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES .................................................................................................................. 10 17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE ............................................................. 11 18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ........................................................................................................................ 11 19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ................................................................................... 11 20. GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................................................................... 12 21. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................... 14 22. SIGNATURE PAGE ............................................................................................................................................. 16 EXHIBIT A (Colorado Discretionary Aviation Grant Application) EXHIBIT B (Resolution) 1. PARTIES This Grant Agreement (“Grant”) is entered into by and between the City of Fort Collins and City of Loveland (hereinafter called “Sponsor”), and the STATE OF COLORADO acting by and through the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (“State” or“Division”). The Sponsor represents and warrants to the State that it has the authority to act on behalf of the Fort Collins/Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”) and to bind the Airport to the provisions in this Grant (the Sponsor and the Airport are collectively hereinafter called the “Grantee”). 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY This Grant shall not be effective or enforceable until it is approved and signed by the Colorado State Controller or designee (hereinafter called the “Effective Date”). Except as provided in Section 7(B)(v), the State shall not be liable to pay or reimburse Grantee for any performance hereunder, including, but not limited to costs or expenses incurred, or be bound by any provision hereof prior to the Effective Date. CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 2 3. RECITALS A. Authority, Appropriation, and Approval Authority to enter into this Grant exists in CRS §43-10-108.5 and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made available pursuant to CRS §§39-27-112(2)(b), 43-10-109 and 43-10-102 and a sufficient unencumbered balance thereof remains available for payment. Required approvals, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies. B. Consideration The Parties acknowledge that the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration are sufficient and adequate to support this Grant. C. Purpose The purpose of this Grant is to promote aviation for the betterment of the Colorado Aviation System. D. References All references in this Grant to sections (whether spelled out or using the § symbol), subsections, exhibits or other attachments, are references to sections, subsections, exhibits or other attachments contained herein or incorporated as a part hereof, unless otherwise noted. 4. DEFINITIONS The following terms as used herein shall be construed and interpreted as follows: A. Budget “Budget” means the budget for the Work described in Exhibit A. B. Evaluation “Evaluation” means the process of examining Grantee’s Work and rating it based on criteria established in §6 and §19. C. Exhibits and other Attachments The following are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A (Colorado Discretionary Aviation Grant Program Application), and Exhibit B (Resolution in accordance with the General Assembly of the State of Colorado declared in CRS §43-10-101). D. Goods “Goods” means tangible material acquired, produced, or delivered by Grantee either separately or in conjunction with the Services Grantee renders hereunder. E. Grant “Grant” means this Grant, its terms and conditions, attached exhibits, documents incorporated by reference under the terms of this Grant, and any future modifying agreements, exhibits, attachments or references incorporated herein pursuant to Colorado State law, Fiscal Rules, and State Controller Policies. F. Grant Funds “Grant Funds” means available funds payable by the State to Grantee pursuant to this Grant. G. Local Funds “Local Funds” provided by any city, county or other private entity to fund performance of the Work. H. Manual “Manual” refers to the Aviation Grant Management Manual as approved by the Colorado Aeronautical Board. I. Party or Parties “Party” means the State or Grantee and “Parties” means both the State and Grantee. J. Program “Program” means the Colorado Discretionary Aviation grant program that provides the funding for this Grant. K. Review “Review” means examining Grantee’s Work to ensure that it is adequate, accurate, correct and in accordance with the criteria established in §6, §19 and Exhibit A. L. Services “Services” means the required services to be performed by Grantee pursuant to this Grant. CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 3 M. Subgrantee “Subgrantee” means third-parties, if any, engaged by Grantee to aid in performance of its obligations. N. Work “Work” means the tasks and activities Grantee is required to perform to fulfill its obligations under this Grant and Exhibit A, including the performance of the Services and delivery of the Goods. The Work is further described in the plans and specifications for the project as approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) or the Division. O. Work Product “Work Product” means the tangible or intangible results of Grantee’s Work, including, but not limited to, software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other finished or unfinished documents, drawings, models, surveys, maps, materials, or work product of any type, including drafts. 5. TERM A. Initial Term-Work Commencement The Parties respective performances under this Grant shall commence on the Effective Date. This Grant shall terminate on 06/30/2015 unless sooner terminated or further extended as specified elsewhere herein. 6. STATEMENT OF WORK A. Brief Project Description: Element A: Participate in Federally Funded – Design of GA Ramp Rehab & Purchase Snow Removal Truck (SRE) Element B: Airport Service Vehicle Element C: Utility Upgrade Element D: Runway Weather Information System (RWIS) B. Completion Grantee shall complete the Work and its other obligations as described herein and in Exhibit A and in the plans and specifications for the project as approved by the FAA or Division on or before 06/30/2015. The State shall not be liable to compensate Grantee for any Work performed prior to the Effective Date or after the termination of this Grant. C. Goods and Services Grantee shall procure Goods and Services necessary to complete the Work. Such procurement shall be accomplished using the Grant Funds and shall not increase the maximum amount payable hereunder by the State. Grantee is subject to its local procurement standards. If none exist, Grantee is subject to the general procurement standards of the State. D. Employees All persons employed by Grantee or Subgrantees shall be considered Grantee’s or Subgrantees’ employee(s) for all purposes hereunder and shall not be employees of the State for any purpose as a result of this Grant. 7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE The State shall, in accordance with the provisions of this §7, pay Grantee in the following amounts and using the methods set forth below: A. Maximum Amount The maximum amount payable under this Grant to Grantee by the State is $400,000.00 as determined by the State based on available funds. The maximum amount payable under this Grant to Grantee by the State is 2.5% of the project cost not to exceed $12,316.00 for Element A, 90% of the project cost not to exceed $22,500.00 for Element B, 90% of the project cost not to exceed $90,000.00 for Element C and 90% of the project cost not to exceed $275,184.00 for Element D, as determined by the State from available funds in Fund 160, GL Account 4511000010 & SAP Vendor 2000212 & SAP Partner N/A (if applicable), and Cost Center VDG12-033. Grantee agrees to provide any additional funds required for the successful completion of the Work. CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 4 Payments to Grantee are limited to the unpaid obligated balance of the Grant as set forth in Exhibit A. The State and Grantee shall participate in providing the Grant amount as follows: State: $400,000.00 Local Funds: $55,431.00 Federal: $468,000.00 B. Payment i. Advance, Interim and Final Payments Any advance payment allowed under this Grant, shall comply with State Fiscal Rules and be made in accordance with the provisions of this Grant. Grantee shall initiate any payment requests by submitting invoices to the State in the form and manner set forth and approved by the State. Grant Funds remaining following the completion and approval of the Work or the termination/expiration of the Grant will be returned to the State. ii. Interest The State shall fully pay each invoice within 45 days of receipt thereof if the amount invoiced represents performance by Grantee previously accepted by the State. Uncontested amounts not paid by the State within 45 days may, if Grantee so requests, bear interest on the unpaid balance beginning on the 46th day at a rate not to exceed one percent per month until paid in full; provided, however, that interest shall not accrue on unpaid amounts that are subject to a good faith dispute. Grantee shall invoice the State separately for accrued interest on delinquent amounts. The billing shall reference the delinquent payment, the number of day’s interest to be paid and the interest rate. iii. Available Funds-Contingency-Termination The State is prohibited by law from making fiscal commitments beyond the term of the State’s current fiscal year. Therefore, Grantee’s compensation is contingent upon the continuing availability of State appropriations as provided in the Colorado Special Provisions, set forth below. If federal funds are used with this Grant in whole or in part, the State’s performance hereunder is contingent upon the continuing availability of such funds. Payments pursuant to this Grant shall be made only from available funds encumbered for this Grant and the State’s liability for such payments shall be limited to the amount remaining of such encumbered funds. If State or federal funds are not appropriated, or otherwise become unavailable to fund this Grant, the State may immediately terminate this Grant in whole or in part without further liability in accordance with the provisions herein. iv. Erroneous Payments At the State’s sole discretion, payments made to Grantee in error for any reason, including, but not limited to overpayments or improper payments, and unexpended or excess funds received by Grantee, may be recovered from Grantee by deduction from subsequent payments under this Grant or other Grants, grants or agreements between the State and Grantee or by other appropriate methods and collected as a debt due to the State. Such funds shall not be paid to any person or entity other than the State. v. Retroactive Payments The State shall pay Grantee for costs or expenses incurred or performance by the Grantee prior to the Effective Date, only if (1) the Grant Funds involve federal funding and (2) federal laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Work provide for such retroactive payments to the Grantee. Any such retroactive payments shall comply with State Fiscal Rules and be made in accordance with the provisions of this Grant or any Exhibit. Grantee shall initiate any payment requests by submitting invoices to the State in the form and manner set forth and approved by the State. C. Use of Funds Grant Funds shall be used only for eligible costs identified herein and/or in Exhibit A. This shall be used solely for aviation purposes as defined in CRS §43-10-102(3) and this Grant shall not be used for the subsidization of airlines. Misuse of Grant Funds, including subsidization for airlines, may result in immediate termination of this Grant for cause and forfeiture of any remaining Grant Funds. CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 5 D. Local Funds Grantee shall provide Local Funds as provided in Exhibit A. Grantee shall have raised the full amount of Local Funds prior to the Effective Date and shall report to the State regarding the status of such funds upon request. E. Payment Compliance All Grant reimbursements shall comply with Title 49 Part 18 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. Additionally, Grantee shall only be reimbursed for costs allowable under 2 CFR Part 125, Appendix A. Sponsor requests that all Grant Funds be distributed by the State to the Airport. 8. REPORTING - NOTIFICATION Reports, Evaluations, and Reviews required under this §8 shall be in accordance with the procedures of and in such form as prescribed by the State and in accordance with §19, if applicable. A. Performance, Progress, Personnel, and Funds State shall submit a report to the Grantee upon expiration or sooner termination of this Grant, containing an Evaluation and Review of Grantee’s performance and the final status of Grantee's obligations hereunder. In addition, Grantee shall comply with all reporting requirements, if any, set forth in the Manual. B. Litigation Reporting Within 10 days after being served with any pleading in a legal action filed with a court or administrative agency, related to this Grant or which may affect Grantee’s ability to perform its obligations hereunder, Grantee shall notify the State of such action and deliver copies of such pleadings to the State’s principal representative as identified herein. If the State’s principal representative is not then serving, such notice and copies shall be delivered to the Executive Director of CDOT. C. Noncompliance Grantee’s failure to provide reports and notify the State in a timely manner in accordance with this §8 may result in the delay of payment of funds and/or termination as provided under this Grant. D. Subgrants Copies of any and all subgrants entered into by Grantee to perform its obligations hereunder shall be submitted to the State or its principal representative upon request by the State. Any and all subgrants entered into by Grantee related to its performance hereunder shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and shall provide that such subgrants be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. 9. GRANTEE RECORDS Grantee shall make, keep, maintain and allow inspection and monitoring of the following records: A. Maintenance Grantee shall make, keep, maintain, and allow inspection and monitoring by the State of a complete file of all records, documents, communications, notes and other written materials, electronic media files, and communications, pertaining in any manner to the Work or the delivery of Services (including, but not limited to the operation of programs) or Goods hereunder. Grantee shall maintain such records until the last to occur of the following: (i) a period of three years after the date this Grant is completed or terminated, or (ii) final payment is made hereunder, whichever is later, or (iii) for such further period as may be necessary to resolve any pending matters, or (iv) if an audit is occurring, or Grantee has received notice that an audit is pending, then until such audit has been completed and its findings have been resolved (the “Record Retention Period”). B. Inspection Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government and any other duly authorized agent of a governmental agency to audit, inspect, examine, excerpt, copy and/or transcribe Grantee's records related to this Grant during the Record Retention Period for a period of three years following termination of this Grant or final payment hereunder, whichever is later, to assure compliance with the terms hereof or to evaluate Grantee's performance hereunder. The State reserves the right to inspect the Work at all reasonable times and places during the term of this Grant, including any extension. If the Work fails to conform to the requirements of this Grant, the State may require Grantee promptly to bring the Work into conformity with Grant requirements, at Grantee’s sole expense. If the Work cannot be brought into conformance by re- CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 6 performance or other corrective measures, the State may require Grantee to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to Grant requirements and exercise the remedies available under this Grant, at law or inequity in lieu of or in conjunction with such corrective measures. C. Monitoring Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government, and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, in their sole discretion, to monitor all activities conducted by Grantee pursuant to the terms of this Grant using any reasonable procedure, including, but not limited to: internal evaluation procedures, examination of program data, special analyses, on-site checking, formal audit examinations, or any other procedures. All monitoring controlled by the State shall be performed in a manner that shall not unduly interfere with Grantee’s performance hereunder. D. Final Audit Report If an audit is performed on Grantee’s records for any fiscal year covering a portion of the term of this Grant, Grantee shall submit a copy of the final audit report to the State or its principal representative at the address specified herein. 10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS Grantee shall comply with the provisions of this §10 if it becomes privy to confidential information in connection with its performance hereunder. Confidential information, includes, but is not necessarily limited to, any State records, personnel records, and information concerning individuals. Such information shall not include information required to be disclosed pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS §24-72-101 et seq. A. Confidentiality Grantee shall keep all State records and information confidential at all times and to comply with all laws and regulations concerning confidentiality of information. Any request or demand by a third party for State records and information in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately forwarded to the State’s principal representative. B. Notification Grantee shall notify its agent, employees, Subgrantees, and assigns who may come into contact with State records and confidential information that each is subject to the confidentiality requirements set forth herein, and shall provide each with a written explanation of such requirements before they are permitted to access such records and information. C. Use, Security, and Retention Confidential information of any kind shall not be distributed or sold to any third party or used by Grantee or its agents in any way, except as authorized by this Grant or approved in writing by the State. Grantee shall provide and maintain a secure environment that ensures confidentiality of all State records and other confidential information wherever located. Confidential information shall not be retained in any files or otherwise by Grantee or its agents, except as permitted in this Grant or approved in writing by the State. D. Disclosure-Liability Disclosure of State records or other confidential information by Grantee for any reason may be cause for legal action by third parties against Grantee, the State or their respective agents. To the extent permitted by law, the Grantee shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any and all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related costs, incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or assignees pursuant to this §10. 11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Grantee shall not engage in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships which conflict in any way with the full performance of Grantee’s obligations hereunder. Grantee acknowledges that with respect to this Grant, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is harmful to the State’s interests. Absent the State’s prior written approval, Grantee shall refrain from any practices, activities or relationships that reasonably appear to be in conflict with the full performance of Grantee’s obligations to the State hereunder. If a conflict or appearance exists, or if Grantee is uncertain whether a conflict or the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, Grantee shall submit to the State a disclosure CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 7 statement setting forth the relevant details for the State’s consideration. Failure to promptly submit a disclosure statement or to follow the State’s direction in regard to the apparent conflict constitutes a breach of this Grant. 12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Grantee makes the following specific representations and warranties, each of which was relied on by the State in entering into this Grant. A. Standard and Manner of Performance Grantee shall perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with the highest standards of care, skill and diligence in the industry, trades or profession and in the sequence and manner set forth in this Grant. B. Legal Authority – Grantee and Grantee’s Signatory Grantee warrants that it possesses the legal authority to enter into this Grant and that it has taken all actions required by its procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable laws to exercise that authority, and to lawfully authorize its undersigned signatory to execute this Grant, or any part thereof, and to bind Grantee to its terms. If requested by the State, Grantee shall provide the State with proof of Grantee’s authority to enter into this Grant within 15 days of receiving such request. C. Licenses, Permits, Etc. Grantee represents and warrants that as of the Effective Date it has, and that at all times during the term hereof it shall have, at its sole expense, all licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other authorization required by law to perform its obligations hereunder. Grantee warrants that it shall maintain all necessary licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other authorizations required to properly perform this Grant, without reimbursement by the State or other adjustment in Grant Funds. Additionally, all employees and agents of Grantee performing Services under this Grant shall hold all required licenses or certifications, if any, to perform their responsibilities. Grantee, if a foreign corporation or other foreign entity transacting business in the State of Colorado, further warrants that it currently has obtained and shall maintain any applicable certificate of authority to transact business in the State of Colorado and has designated a registered agent in Colorado to accept service of process. Any revocation, withdrawal or non-renewal of licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits or any such similar requirements necessary for Grantee to properly perform the terms of this Grant shall be deemed to be a material breach by Grantee and constitute grounds for termination of this Grant. 13. INSURANCE Grantee and its Subgrantees shall obtain and maintain insurance as specified in this section at all times during the term of this Grant: All policies evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder shall be issued by insurance companies satisfactory to Grantee and the State. A. Grantee i. Public Entities If Grantee is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101, et seq., as amended (the “GIA”), then Grantee shall maintain at all times during the term of this Grant such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as is necessary to meet its liabilities under the GIA. Grantee shall show proof of such insurance satisfactory to the State, if requested by the State. Grantee shall require each Grant with Subgrantees that are public entities, providing Goods or Services hereunder, to include the insurance requirements necessary to meet Subgrantee’s liabilities under the GIA. ii. Non-Public Entities If Grantee is not a "public entity" within the meaning of the GIA, Grantee shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Grant insurance coverage and policies meeting the same requirements set forth in §13(B) with respect to Subgrantees that are not "public entities". B. Grantee and Subgrantees Grantee shall require each Grant with Subgrantees, other than those that are public entities, providing Goods or Services in connection with this Grant, to include insurance requirements substantially similar to the following: i. Worker’s Compensation CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 8 Worker’s Compensation Insurance as required by State statute, and Employer’s Liability Insurance covering all of Grantee and Subgrantee employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. ii. General Liability Commercial General Liability Insurance written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 10/93 or equivalent, covering premises operations, fire damage, independent contractors, products and completed operations, blanket contractual liability, personal injury, and advertising liability with minimum limits as follows: (a) $1,000,000 each occurrence; (b) $1,000,000 general aggregate; (c) $1,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate; and (d) $50,000 any one fire. If any aggregate limit is reduced below $1,000,000 because of claims made or paid, Subgrantee shall immediately obtain additional insurance to restore the full aggregate limit and furnish to Grantee a certificate or other document satisfactory to Grantee showing compliance with this provision. iii. Automobile Liability Automobile Liability Insurance covering any auto (including owned, hired and non-owned autos) with a minimum limit of $1,000,000 each accident combined single limit. iv. Additional Insured Grantee and the State shall be named as additional insured on the Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance policies (leases and construction Grants require additional insured coverage for completed operations on endorsements CG 2010 11/85, CG 2037, or equivalent). v. Primacy of Coverage Coverage required of Grantee and Subgrantees shall be primary over any insurance or self-insurance program carried by Grantee or the State. vi. Cancellation The above insurance policies shall include provisions preventing cancellation or non-renewal without at least 45 days prior notice to the Grantee and Grantee shall forward such notice to the State in accordance with §16 (Notices and Representatives) within seven days of Grantee’s receipt of such notice. vii.Subrogation Waiver All insurance policies in any way related to this Grant and secured and maintained by Grantee or its Subgrantees as required herein shall include clauses stating that each carrier shall waive all rights of recovery, under subrogation or otherwise, against Grantee or the State, its agencies, institutions, organizations, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. C. Certificates Grantee and all Subgrantees shall provide certificates showing insurance coverage required hereunder to the State within seven business days of the Effective Date of this Grant. No later than 15 days prior to the expiration date of any such coverage, Grantee and each Subgrantee shall deliver to the State or Grantee certificates of insurance evidencing renewals thereof. In addition, upon request by the State at any other time during the term of this Grant or any subgrant, Grantee and each Subgrantee shall, within 10 days of such request, supply to the State evidence satisfactory to the State of compliance with the provisions of this §13. 14. BREACH A. Defined In addition to any breaches specified in other sections of this Grant, the failure of either Party to perform any of its material obligations hereunder, in whole or in part or in a timely or satisfactory manner, constitutes a breach. The institution of proceedings under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or similar law, by or against Grantee, or the appointment of a receiver or similar officer for Grantee or any of its property, which is not vacated or fully stayed within 20 days after the institution or occurrence thereof, shall also constitute a breach. B. Notice and Cure Period In the event of a breach, notice of such shall be given in writing by the aggrieved Party to the other Party in the manner provided in §16. If such breach is not cured within 30 days of receipt of written notice, or if a cure cannot be completed within 30 days, or if cure of the breach has not begun within 30 days and pursued CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 9 with due diligence, the State may exercise any of the remedies set forth in §15. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the State, in its sole discretion, need not provide advance notice or a cure period and may immediately terminate this Grant in whole or in part if reasonably necessary to preserve public safety or to prevent immediate public crisis. 15. REMEDIES If Grantee is in breach under any provision of this Grant, the State shall have all of the remedies listed in this §15 in addition to all other remedies set forth in other sections of this Grant following the notice and cure period set forth in §14(B), provided however, that the State may terminate this Grant pursuant to §15(B) without a breach. The State may exercise any or all of the remedies available to it, in its sole discretion, concurrently or consecutively. A. Termination for Cause and/or Breach If Grantee fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder with such diligence as is required to ensure its completion in accordance with the provisions of this Grant and in a timely manner, the State may notify Grantee of such non-performance in accordance with the provisions herein. If Grantee thereafter fails to promptly cure such non-performance within the cure period, the State, at its option, may terminate this entire Grant or such part of this Grant as to which there has been delay or a failure to properly perform. Exercise by the State of this right shall not be deemed a breach of its obligations hereunder. Grantee shall continue performance of this Grant to the extent not terminated, if any. i. Obligations and Rights To the extent specified in any termination notice, Grantee shall not incur further obligations or render further performance hereunder past the effective date of such notice, and shall terminate outstanding orders and subcontracts with third parties. However, Grantee shall complete and deliver to the State all Work, Services and Goods not cancelled by the termination notice and may incur obligations as are necessary to do so within this Grant’s terms. At the sole discretion of the State, Grantee shall assign to the State all of Grantee's right, title, and interest under such terminated orders or subgrants. Upon termination, Grantee shall take timely, reasonable and necessary action to protect and preserve property in the possession of Grantee in which the State has an interest. All materials owned by the State in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately returned to the State. All Work Product, at the option of the State, shall be delivered by Grantee to the State and shall become the State’s property. ii. Payments The State shall reimburse Grantee only for accepted performance up to the date of termination. If, after termination by the State, it is determined that Grantee was not in breach or that Grantee's action or inaction was excusable, such termination shall be treated as a termination in the public interest and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be the same as if this Grant had been terminated in the public interest, as described herein. iii. Damages and Withholding Notwithstanding any other remedial action by the State, Grantee also shall remain liable to the State for any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach under this Grant by Grantee and the State may withhold any payment to Grantee for the purpose of mitigating the State’s damages, until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from Grantee is determined. The State may withhold any amount that may be due to Grantee as the State deems necessary to protect the State, including loss as a result of outstanding liens or claims of former lien holders, or to reimburse the State for the excess costs incurred in procuring similar goods or services. Grantee shall be liable for excess costs incurred by the State in procuring from third parties replacement Work, Services or substitute Goods as cover. B. Early Termination in the Public Interest The State is entering into this Grant for the purpose of carrying out the public policy of the State of Colorado, as determined by its Governor, General Assembly, and/or courts. If this Grant ceases to further the public policy of the State, the State, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Grant in whole or in part. Exercise by the State of this right shall not constitute a breach of the State’s obligations hereunder. This subsection shall not apply to a termination of this Grant by the State for cause or breach by Grantee, which shall be governed by §15(A) or as otherwise specifically provided for herein. CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 10 i. Method and Content The State shall notify Grantee of such termination in accordance with §16. The notice shall specify the effective date of the termination and whether it affects all or a portion of this Grant. ii. Obligations and Rights Upon receipt of a termination notice, Grantee shall be subject to and comply with the same obligations and rights set forth in §15(A)(i). iii. Payments If this Grant is terminated by the State pursuant to this §15(B), Grantee shall be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total reimbursement under this Grant as the Services satisfactorily performed bear to the total Services covered by this Grant, less payments previously made. Additionally, if this Grant is less than 60% completed, the State may reimburse Grantee for a portion of actual out-of-pocket expenses (not otherwise reimbursed under this Grant) incurred by Grantee which are directly attributable to the uncompleted portion of Grantee’s obligations hereunder; provided that the sum of any and all reimbursement shall not exceed the maximum amount payable to Grantee hereunder. C. Remedies Not Involving Termination The State, in its sole discretion, may exercise one or more of the following remedies in addition to other remedies available to it: i. Suspend Performance Suspend Grantee’s performance with respect to all or any portion of this Grant pending necessary corrective action as specified by the State without entitling Grantee to an adjustment in price/cost or performance schedule. Grantee shall promptly cease performance and incurring costs in accordance with the State’s directive and the State shall not be liable for costs incurred by Grantee after the suspension of performance under this provision. ii. Withhold Payment Withhold payment to Grantee until corrections in Grantee’s performance are satisfactorily made and completed. iii. Deny Payment Deny payment for those obligations not performed, that due to Grantee’s actions or inactions, cannot be performed or, if performed, would be of no value to the State; provided, that any denial of payment shall be reasonably related to the value to the State of the obligations not performed. iv. Removal Demand removal of any of Grantee’s employees, agents, or Subgrantees whom the State deems incompetent, careless, insubordinate, unsuitable, or otherwise unacceptable, or whose continued relation to this Grant is deemed to be contrary to the public interest or not in the State’s best interest. v. Intellectual Property If Grantee infringes on a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right while performing its obligations under this Grant, Grantee shall, at the State’s option (a) obtain for the State or Grantee the right to use such products and services; (b) replace any Goods, Services, or other product involved with non-infringing products or modify them so that they become non-infringing; or, (c) if neither of the foregoing alternatives are reasonably available, remove any infringing Goods, Services, or products and refund the price paid therefore to the State. 16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES Each individual identified below is the principal representative of the designating Party. All notices required to be given hereunder shall be hand delivered with receipt required or sent by certified or registered mail to such Party’s principal representative at the address set forth below. In addition to, but not in lieu of a hard-copy notice, notice also may be sent by e-mail to the e-mail addresses, if any, set forth below. Either Party may from time to time designate by written notice substitute addresses or persons to whom such notices shall be sent. Unless otherwise provided herein, all notices shall be effective upon receipt. CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 11 A. State: T.K. Gwin Project Manager Colorado Department of Transportation 5126 Front Range Parkway N/A Watkins, CO 80137 TK.Gwin@dot.state.co.us B. Grantee: Jason Licon Project Director Fort Collins/Loveland Municipal Airport 4900 Earhart Road N/A Loveland, CO 80538 liconj@ci.loveland.co.us 17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE Any software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other documents, drawings, models, materials, or Work Product of any type, including drafts, prepared by Grantee in the performance of its obligations under this Grant shall be the property of the State and, all Work Product shall be delivered to the State by Grantee upon completion or termination hereof. The State’s rights in such Work Product shall include, but not be limited to, the right to copy, publish, display, transfer, and prepare derivative works. 18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, nothing herein shall constitute a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions of the GIA. Liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising from the negligence of the State of Colorado, its departments, institutions, agencies, boards, officials, and employees is controlled and limited by the provisions of the GIA and the risk management statutes, CRS §24-30-1501, et seq., as amended. 19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM If the maximum amount payable to Grantee under this Grant is $100,000 or greater, either on the Effective Date or at anytime thereafter, this §19 applies. Grantee agrees to be governed, and to abide, by the provisions of CRS §24-102-205, §24-102-206, §24- 103-601, §24-103.5-101 and §24-105-102 concerning the monitoring of vendor performance on state Grants and inclusion of Grant performance information in a statewide Contract Management System. Grantee’s performance shall be subject to Evaluation and Review in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Grant, State law, including CRS §24-103.5-101, and State Fiscal Rules, Policies and Guidance. Evaluation and Review of Grantee’s performance shall be part of the normal Grant administration process and Grantee’s performance will be systematically recorded in the statewide Contract Management System. Areas of Evaluation and Review shall include, but shall not be limited to quality, cost and timeliness. Collection of information relevant to the performance of Grantee’s obligations under this Grant shall be determined by the specific requirements of such obligations and shall include factors tailored to match the requirements of Grantee’s obligations. Such performance information shall be entered into the statewide Contract Management System at intervals established herein and a final Evaluation, Review and Rating shall be rendered within 30 days of the end of the CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 12 Grant term. Grantee shall be notified following each performance Evaluation and Review, and shall address or correct any identified problem in a timely manner and maintain work progress. Should the final performance Evaluation and Review determine that Grantee demonstrated a gross failure to meet the performance measures established hereunder, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration (Executive Director), upon request by CDOT and showing of good cause, may debar Grantee and prohibit Grantee from bidding on future Grants. Grantee may contest the final Evaluation, Review and Rating by: (a) filing rebuttal statements, which may result in either removal or correction of the evaluation (CRS §24-105-102(6)), or (b) under CRS §24-105-102(6), exercising the debarment protest and appeal rights provided in CRS §§24-109-106, 107, 201 or 202, which may result in the reversal of the debarment and reinstatement of Grantee, by the Executive Director, upon a showing of good cause. 20. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Assignment and Subgrants Grantee’s rights and obligations hereunder are personal and may not be transferred, assigned or subgranted without the prior, written consent of the State. Any attempt at assignment, transfer, or subgranting without such consent shall be void. All assignments, subgrants, or Subgrantees approved by Grantee or the State are subject to all of the provisions hereof. Grantee shall be solely responsible for all aspects of subgranting arrangements and performance. B. Binding Effect Except as otherwise provided in §20(A), all provisions herein contained, including the benefits and burdens, shall extend to and be binding upon the Parties’ respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. C. Captions The captions and headings in this Grant are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to interpret, define, or limit its provisions. D. Counterparts This Grant may be executed in multiple identical original counterparts, all of which shall constitute one agreement. E. Entire Understanding This Grant represents the complete integration of all understandings between the Parties and all prior representations and understandings, oral or written, are merged herein. Prior or contemporaneous additions, deletions, or other changes hereto shall not have any force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein. F. Indemnification-General To the extent permitted by law, Grantee shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any and all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related costs, incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or assignees pursuant to the terms of this Grant; however, the provisions hereof shall not be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions, of the GIA, or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., as applicable, as now or hereafter amended. If Grantee is a “public entity” within the meaning of GIA, liability is controlled and limited by the provisions of the GIA. G. Jurisdiction and Venue All suits, actions, or proceedings related to this Grant shall be held in the State of Colorado and exclusive venue shall be in the City and County of Denver. H. Modification i. By the Parties Except as specifically provided in this Grant, modifications of this Grant shall not be effective unless agreed to in writing by the Parties in an amendment to this Grant, properly executed and approved in accordance with applicable Colorado State law, State Fiscal Rules, and Office of the State Controller Policies, including, but not limited to, the policy entitled MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS - TOOLS AND FORMS. CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 13 ii. By Operation of Law This Grant is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or Colorado State law, or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification automatically shall be incorporated into and be part of this Grant on the effective date of such change, as if fully set forth herein. I. Order of Precedence The provisions of this Grant shall govern the relationship of the Parties. In the event of conflicts or inconsistencies between this Grant and its exhibits and attachments including, but not limited to, those provided by Grantee, such conflicts or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in the following order of priority: i. Colorado Special Provisions, ii. The provisions of the main body of this Grant, iii. Exhibit A, and iv. Exhibit B. J. Severability Provided this Grant can be executed and performance of the obligations of the Parties accomplished within its intent, the provisions hereof are severable and any provision that is declared invalid or becomes inoperable for any reason shall not affect the validity of any other provision hereof. K. Survival of Certain Grant Terms Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, provisions of this Grant requiring continued performance, compliance, or effect after termination hereof, shall survive such termination and shall be enforceable by the State if Grantee fails to perform or comply as required. L. Taxes The State is exempt from all federal excise taxes under IRC Chapter 32 (No. 84-730123K) and from all State and local government sales and use taxes under CRS §§39-26-101 and 201 et seq. Such exemptions apply when materials are purchased or services rendered to benefit the State; provided however, that certain political subdivisions (e.g., City of Denver) may require payment of sales or use taxes even though the product or service is provided to the State. Grantee shall be solely liable for paying such taxes as the State is prohibited from paying for or reimbursing Grantee for them. M. Third Party Beneficiaries Enforcement of this Grant and all rights and obligations hereunder are reserved solely to the Parties, and not to any third party. Any services or benefits which third parties receive as a result of this Grant are incidental to the Grant, and do not create any rights for such third parties. N. Waiver Waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Grant, or any right or remedy hereunder, whether explicitly or by lack of enforcement, shall not be construed or deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term, provision or requirement, or of any other term, provision, or requirement. O. CORA Disclosure To the extent not prohibited by federal law, this Contract and the performance measures and standards under CRS §24-103.5-101, if any, are subject to public release through the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS §24-72-101, et seq. THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 14 21. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS These Special Provisions apply to all Grants except where noted in italics. A. CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL. CRS §24-30-202 (1) This Grant shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the Colorado State Controller or designee. B. FUND AVAILABILITY. CRS §24-30-202(5.5) Financial obligations of the State payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available. C. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY No term or condition of this Grant shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101 et seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b) and 2671 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended. D. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR Grantee shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent contractor and not as an employee. Neither Grantee nor any agent or employee of Grantee shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of the State. Grantee and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers compensation benefits through the State and the State shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for Grantee or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits will be available to Grantee and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by Grantee or a third party. Grantee shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and local head taxes incurred pursuant to this Grant. Grantee shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind the State to any agreement, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth herein. Grantee shall (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, (b) provide proof thereof when requested by the State, and (c) be solely responsible for its acts and those of its employees and agents. E. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. Grantee shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and State laws, rules, and regulations in effect or hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair employment practices. F. CHOICE OF LAW. Colorado law, and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of this grant. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with said laws, rules, and regulations shall be null and void. Any provision incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other Special Provision in whole or in part shall not be valid or enforceable or available in any action at law, whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by the operation of this provision shall not invalidate the remainder of this Grant, to the extent capable of execution. G. BINDING ARBITRATION PROHIBITED. The State of Colorado does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person. Any provision to the contrary in this Grant or incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void. H. SOFTWARE PIRACY PROHIBITION. Governor's Executive Order D 002 00 State or other public funds payable under this Grant shall not be used for the acquisition, operation, or maintenance of computer software in violation of federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. Grantee hereby certifies and warrants that, during the term of this Grant and any extensions, Grantee has and shall maintain in place appropriate systems and controls to prevent such improper use of public funds. If the State determines that Grantee is in violation of this provision, the State may exercise any remedy available at law or in equity or under this Grant, including, without limitation, immediate termination of this Grant and any remedy consistent with federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 15 I. EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL INTEREST/CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CRS §§24-18-201 and 24-50- 507 The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no employee of the State has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property described in this Grant. Grantee has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of Grantee’s services and Grantee shall not employ any person having such known interests. J. VENDOR OFFSET. CRS §§24-30-202 (1) and 24-30-202.4 [Not applicable to intergovernmental agreements] Subject to CRS §24-30-202.4 (3.5), the State Controller may withhold payment under the State’s vendor offset intercept system for debts owed to State agencies for: (a) unpaid child support debts or child support arrearages; (b) unpaid balances of tax, accrued interest, or other charges specified in CRS §39-21-101, et seq.; (c) unpaid loans due to the Student Loan Division of the Department of Higher Education; (d) amounts required to be paid to the Unemployment Compensation Fund; and (e) other unpaid debts owing to the State as a result of final agency determination or judicial action. K. PUBLIC GRANTS FOR SERVICES. CRS §8-17.5-101 [Not applicable to agreements relating to the offer, issuance, or sale of securities, investment advisory services or fund management services, sponsored projects, intergovernmental agreements, or information technology services or products and services] Grantee certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this Grant and will confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States to perform work under this Grant, through participation in the E-Verify Program or the State program established pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5)(c), Grantee shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant or enter into a grant with a Subgrantee that fails to certify to Grantee that the Subgrantee shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant. Grantee (a) shall not use E-Verify Program or State program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this Grant is being performed, (b) shall notify the Subgrantee and the granting State agency within three days if Grantee has actual knowledge that a Subgrantee is employing or contracting with an illegal alien for work under this Grant, (c) shall terminate the subgrant if a Subgrantee does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three days of receiving the notice, and (d) shall comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Grantee participates in the State program, Grantee shall deliver to the granting State agency, Institution of Higher Education or political subdivision, a written, notarized affirmation, affirming that Grantee has examined the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other requirements of the State program. If Grantee fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS §8-17.5-101 et seq., the granting State agency, institution of higher education or political subdivision may terminate this Grant for breach and, if so terminated, Grantee shall be liable for damages. L. PUBLIC GRANTS WITH NATURAL PERSONS. CRS §24-76.5-101 Grantee, if a natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under penalty of perjury that he or she (a) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (b) shall comply with the provisions of CRS §24-76.5-101 et seq., and (c) has produced one form of identification required by CRS §24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Grant. SPs Effective 1/1/09 THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CDOT – Aeronautics Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Page 16 22. SIGNATURE PAGE THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS GRANT * Persons signing for Grantee hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on Grantee’s behalf and acknowledge that the State is relying on their representations to that effect. GRANTEE City of Fort Collins By: ____________________________________________ Print Name of Authorized Individual Title: ___________________________________________ Print Title of Authorized Individual _____________________________________________ *Signature Date: _________________________ STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor Colorado Department of Transportation Donald E. Hunt – Executive Director ______________________________________________ By: David C. Gordon, Aeronautics Division Director Signatory avers to the State Controller or delegate that Grantee has not begun performance or that performance is authorized by federal law or a Statutory Violation waiver has been requested under Fiscal Rules Date: _________________________ JOINT GRANTEE City of Loveland By: ____________________________________________ Print Name of Authorized Individual Title: ___________________________________________ Print Title of Authorized Individual ____________________________________________ *Signature Date: _________________________ ALL GRANTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State grants. This Grant is not valid until signed and dated below by the State Controller or delegate. Grantee is not authorized to begin performance until such time. If Grantee begins performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not obligated to pay Grantee for such performance or for any goods and/or services provided hereunder. STATE CONTROLLER David J. McDermott, CPA By:___________________________________________ Colorado Department of Transportation Date:_____________________ AeronauticsGrant.01.Jun11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11 Exhibit B-1 CDOT – Aeronautic Division CDAG: 12-FNL-01 EXHIBIT B -RESOLUTION WHEREAS: The General Assembly of the State of Colorado declared in Title 43 of the Colorado revised Statutes, Article 10, 1991 in CRS §43-10-101 (the Act) “… that there exists a need to promote the safe operations and accessibility of general aviation in this state; that improvements to general aviation transportation facilities will promote diversified economic development across the state; and that accessibility to airport facilities for residents of this state is crucial in the event of a medical or other type of emergency…” The Act created the Colorado Aeronautical Board (“the Board”) to establish policy and procedures for distribution of monies in the Aviation Fund and created the Division of Aeronautics (“the Division”) to carry out the directives of the Board, including technical and planning assistance to airports and the administration of the state aviation system grant program. SEE CRS §43-10-103 and C.R.S. §43-10-105 and CRS §43-10-108.5 of the Act. Any entity operating a public-accessible airport in the state may file an application for and be recipient of a grant to be used solely for aviation purposes. The Division is authorized to assist such airports as request assistance by means of a Resolution passed by the applicant’s duly-authorized governing body, which understands that all funds shall be used exclusively for aviation purposes and that it will comply with all grant procedures and requirements as defined in the Division’s Aviation Grant Management Manual, revised 2009, (“the Manual”). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The City of Fort Collins & the City of Loveland as a duly authorized governing body of the grant applicant, hereby formally requests assistance from the Colorado Aeronautical Board and the Division of Aeronautics in the form of a state aviation system grant. The City of Fort Collins & the City of Loveland states that such grant shall be used solely for aviation purposes, as determined by the State, and as generally described in the Application. Each airport-operating entity that applies for and accepts a grant that it thereby makes a COMMITMENT a) to keep the airport facility accessible to, and open to, the public during the entire useful life of the grant funded improvements/ equipment; or b) to reimburse the Division for any unexpired useful life of the improvements/ equipment, or a pro-rata basis. By signing this grant agreement, the applicant commits to keep open and accessible for public use all grant funded facilities, improvements and services for their useful life, as determined by the Division and stated in the Grant Agreement. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That The City of Fort Collins & the City of Loveland hereby designates Jason Licon as the Project Director, as described in the Manual and authorizes the Project Director to act in all matters relating to the work project proposed in the Application in its behalf, including executions of the grant contract. FURTHER: The City of Fort Collins & the City of Loveland has appropriated or will appropriate or otherwise make available in a timely manner all funds, if any, that are required to be provided by the Applicant under the terms and conditions of the grant contract. FINALLY: The City of Fort Collins & the City of Loveland hereby accepts all guidelines, procedures, standards and requirements described in the Manual as applicable to the performance of the grant work and hereby approves the grant contract submitted by the State, including all terms and conditions contained therein. ______ for The City of Fort Collins, Grantee for The City of Loveland, Joint Grantee Attest Attest RESOLUTION 2012-022 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT (CDAG #12-FNL-I01) WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (COLORADO AERONAUTICAL BOARD) FOR THE FUNDING OF AN INTERN POSITION PERTAINING TO THE FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WHEREAS, Title 43, Article 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, entitled “Aviation Safety and Accessibility/Aeronautics Division” provides that there exists a need to promote the safe operation and accessibility of general aviation and interstate commercial aviation in Colorado and in pursuance thereof, has established the Colorado Aeronautical Board (the “Board”) and, among the duties assigned to the Board, is the power to establish policy and procedures for distribution of monies in the Aviation Fund; and has also created the Division of Aeronautics (the “Division”) to carry out the directives of the Board; and WHEREAS, any entity operating a public-accessible airport such as the Fort Collins- Loveland Municipal Airport (the “Airport”) may file an application with the Division for a grant to be used exclusively for aviation purposes provided that such grant is supported by a resolution passed by the applicant’s governing body requesting such assistance and assuring that if any grant is awarded, it will be used solely for aviation purposes and will comply with all grant procedures and requirements as defined in the Division’s most recently adopted Aviation Grant Management Manual (the “Manual”); and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Fort Collins, as one of the duly authorized governing bodies of the Airport intends by this resolution to provide grant assurances to the Board pursuant to the Grant Agreement entitled “CDAG #12-FNL-I01" attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Grant Agreement”). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council, as one of the duly authorized governing bodies of the applicant Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, hereby formally requests assistance from the Board and the Division in the form of a state aviation system grant in the amount of $14,560 with a contractual local match in the amount of $14,560; and the City Council further states that the grant, if awarded, shall be used solely for aviation purposes, as determined by the State, and as generally described in the Application. Section 2. That the City Council hereby commits to keep the Airport facility accessible to, and open to the public during the entire useful life of the Grant funded improvements/equipment, or, if not, then will reimburse the Division for any unexpired useful life of the improvements/equipment on a pro-rata basis. By signing the Grant Agreement, the City Council further commits the City to keep open and accessible for public use, all grant funded facilities, improvements and services for their useful life, as determined by the Division and stated in the Grant Agreement. Section 3. That the City Council hereby designates Jason Licon, Airport Director, as the Project Director and authorizes the Project Director to act in all matters relating to the work project proposed in the Application and further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement. Section 4. That the City has appropriated or will appropriate or otherwise make available in a timely manner its share of all funds that are required to be provided by the City and the City of Loveland under the terms and conditions of the Grant. Section 5. That the City hereby accepts all guidelines, procedures, standards, and requirements described in the Manual as applicable to the performance of the grant work project and hereby approves the Grant Agreement. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd day of April A.D. 2012. Mayor ATTEST: Interim City Clerk EXHIBIT A DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Lindsay Kuntz AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT Routine Easement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Easement Deed and Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Line from Hyde Living Trust, to grant a sanitary sewer easement at no cost to the City for the purpose of a new City-owned sanitary sewer line that will serve three nearby residences, located at 2500 North Overland Trail. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Hyde Living Trust is granting a sanitary sewer easement at no cost to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of this routine easement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Hyde Living Trust Location Map DATE: April 3, 2012 STAFF: Courtney Levingston Karen McWilliams AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 22 SUBJECT Consideration of the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board’s February 16, 2012 Denial of Two Stand-Alone Modifications Concerning the Proposed Carriage House Apartments Located at 1305-1319 South Shields Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January, 2012, Charles A. Bailey, Catamount Properties, Ltd, (Appellant) submitted two stand-alone modification of standard requests: one relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding the preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation, and one for the demolition of an individually eligible structure (Section 3.4.7(E)). The Appellant requested to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street by demolishing two existing single family residences and associated outbuildings and constructing five multi-family buildings with approximately ten units per building. On February 16, 2012, the Planning and Zoning Board considered two Stand-Alone Modification of Standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E). After testimony from the applicant, the public and staff, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously denied (6-0) the two modification of standard requests. On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office seeking redress of the action of the Planning and Zoning Board. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading and failed to properly interpret the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standards requests. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The existing buildings at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street are over fifty years old. Therefore, the proposal to demolish these buildings is subject to Chapter 14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process.” In November 2011, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the house at 1319 South Shields and the outbuildings at 1305 South Shields Street were not individually eligible for local landmark designation. The residence at 1305 South Shields Street was reviewed by the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair on three separate occasions, in September, November, and December, 2011, and each time the dwelling was unanimously determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation. Additionally, on November 9, 2011, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition of the dwelling. LPC Preliminary Hearings are an opportunity for the applicant and the Commission to explore alternatives to demolition or substantial alteration. At this Preliminary Hearing, the Appellant did not discuss or provide any alternatives to demolition, and a mutually agreeable solution to demolition of the home was not identified. The Commission moved that the application proceed to a LPC Final Hearing. An LPC Final Hearing would be scheduled after the receipt of submittal requirements, including approved plans for the redevelopment of the property. For the Planning and Zoning Board to approve a Project Development Plan, it must comply with all applicable Sections of Article 3 and Article 4 of the Land Use Code. As conceptually proposed, the project does not comply with Sections 3.4.7 (B) and 3.4.7(E), due to the failure to demonstrate either that the plan provides for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in his proposal; or by providing evidence that the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with the Code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Therefore, the Appellant chose to submit two “stand-alone” modification requests. April 3, 2012 -2- ITEM 22 ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD At its February 16, 2012, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board made the following motions: 1. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. 2. The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good. The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, and unanimously voted (6-0) to deny the modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL On March 1, 2012, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk’s Office. The Appellant, who was the applicant before the Planning and Zoning Board, alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing and failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code when denying the two stand-alone modification of standard requests to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. A. Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading. The Appellant states, “The Board deferred to staff opinion and a prior erroneous determination of eligibility based on substantially false and grossly misleading evidence as was demonstrated to be blatantly incorrect...” The Appellant maintains that the Board considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading. In support, the Appellant cites the November 9, 2011 staff report to the Landmark Preservation Commission; the initial determination of eligibility; the State of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by the historic preservation firm HistoryMatters, LLC. The Appellant asserts these contained false information and that the Board relied on the product of this false information in accepting the eligibility determination for the 1305 South Shields structure. The Appellant further details other aspects of these materials, as well as information from a separate report provided by the Appellant, referenced as the Rogue Architects Report, in support of this assertion. The Planning and Zoning Board did not receive nor did they discuss the November 9, 2011 staff report prepared for the Landmark Preservation Commission. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss any information contained in said report in connection with its decisions on the modifications of standard request. Similarly, none of the three determinations of eligibility were provided to the Planning and Zoning Board. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, provides that the determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The applicable provisions of Chapter 14 provide for the determination of eligibility to be made by the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, or, in the case of conflicting determinations, by the Landmark Preservation Commission. In this instance, three separate determinations of eligibility were made for the building at 1305 South Shields Street. On each occasion, the CDNS Director and LPC Chair determined that the building is individually eligible for local landmark designation. The factual information that the house at 1305 South Shields Street has been determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation was provided to the Board on page 3 of the staff report on the modifications of standards. This information was also verbally relayed to the Board at the hearing, as documented in the transcript of the meeting (Transcript, pg.15). April 3, 2012 -3- ITEM 22 The HistoryMatters, LLC report, commissioned by private citizens, was sent to the Planning and Zoning Board electronically on February 16, 2012, at the same time as electronic copies of the Appellant’s Rogue Architecture and Gebau reports were sent. The Planning and Zoning Board did not review or consider any of these reports in making its decisions on the modifications of standards (transcript, pg.15). The transcript of the February 16, 2012 Planning and Zoning Board meeting reflects that, when asked about the relevancy of these documents to the Board’s consideration, the Appellant, Mr. Charles Bailey stated, “The fact of relevancy of these documents is that, again, we’re not asking for a declaration that the home isn’t eligible, these are just supporting materials that were part of the slide show.”…. and, “But the Gebau report and the Rogue report, you know, were not asking that your decision hinge on those reports.” (Transcript, pg.15). B. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) of the Land Use Code in the Request for a Modification of Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. The Appellant states, “A modification of standard is allowed if granting the modification is not detrimental to the public good” and the Appellant maintains that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City Plan, West Central Neighborhood Plan, and the Land Use Code zone district standards in relationship to the eligibility of the property in making its decision that modifications of Standards 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. The question, thus, is do the benefits to the community of retaining the historic structure at 1305 South Shields Street outweigh the benefits to the community of additional student housing at this location. The Appellant states that the granting of the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project addresses eleven City Plan policies. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code. On February 16, 2012, the Appellant requested that the Planning and Zoning Board (Board) grant modifications to Section 3.4.7(B) and Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code. These Land Use Code (LUC) Sections are as follows: Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark …, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site... New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation … may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. In order for the Board to approve the modification requests to LUC Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E), the Board must find that the modifications are not detrimental to the public good and that one or more of the four criteria outlined in LUC Section 2.82(H) are fully complied with. LUC Section 2.8.2(H) states that: The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. April 3, 2012 -4- ITEM 22 The staff report to the Board notes that, “while providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of City Plan… providing for the protection of historic resources is also required.” The Planning and Zoning Board’s discussion at the Hearing did not specifically cover policy documents such as City Plan as they relate to the requested modification. In its denial of the two stand alone modification of standard requests, the Planning and Zoning Board did not make specific findings regarding the cited City Plan policies referenced by the Appellant in the Notice of Appeal. The Appellant states that granting the modifications is not detrimental to the public good because the proposed project advances the public good by substantially addressing policies from the West Central Neighborhood Plan as established in three Maps, one Policy and three Housing Objectives. On page 3 of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant references WCNP Map 4- Zoning District Map. This map was not part of the record and the Planning and Zoning Board did not take the WCNP Map 4 into consideration when moving to deny the two modifications based on the fact that they are detrimental to the public good. As the staff report states on page 2, providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of the West Central Neighborhood Plan; however, providing for the protection of historic resources is also required. In terms of the public good, the staff report to the Board notes that, “the public good lies within a delicate balance of community values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people and a modification to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible structure at 1305 South Shields Street could be considered as detrimental to the public good in so much that it could weaken the sense of heritage and area identity.” The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the cited West Central Neighborhood Plan Maps, Policies or Housing Objectives referenced in the Notice of Appeal. The Appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in that the proposed project is not detrimental to public good in relationship to the eligibility of the Property and the lack of exterior integrity of Property. In doing so, that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard. The property was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Planning and Zoning Board did not make a determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation on February 16, 2012. Additionally, the State of Colorado, Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form that the Appellant references on page 4 of the Notice of Appeal was not provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, as the Planning and Zoning Board has no ability to consider, make, or change a determination of eligibility. Land Use Code 3.4.7(C), Determination of Landmark Eligibility, specifically states that the determination of eligibility for local landmark designation will be made in accordance with the process laid out in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The determination of eligibility for the residence at 1305 South Shields Street was made following the process outlined in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to apply the proper and commonly understood definition of “substantial.” Section 5.1.1 of the Land Use Code gives the Director authority to interpret or define words, terms and phrases not explicitly defined in LUC Section 5.1.2. The definition of substantial, as stated in the staff report, was determined using Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) pursuant to LUC Section 5.1.1. The definition provided by staff to the Board was “considerable in amount, value or worth.” In context with the complete modification criteria of subsection 2.8.2(H)(2) (below), the definition of the word substantial was appropriately interpreted by staff and subsequently the Planning and Zoning Board. Section 2.8.2(H)(2) states, (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. April 3, 2012 -5- ITEM 22 The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing the word substantial nor did they make any specific findings in relation to the word substantial. The Appellant alleges that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply the Code in that the requested modification of standard and demolition of the Property substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs. The motions made by the Planning and Zoning Board at its February 16, 2012 Hearing denying the two stand alone modification of standard requests did not contain any language referencing adopted city policies, the intent or purpose of the Land Use Code or any statements regarding the project in terms of the LUC Section 2.8.2(H)(2). SUMMARY The house at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation pursuant to the process and procedures contained in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code. When a building that has been determined to be individually eligible is proposed to be demolished or significantly modified as part of a development plan, then the plan is subject to the standards contained in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. As proposed, the project did not meet Section 3.4.7 requirements and the Appellant requested a modification of these standards preceding the submittal of a Project Development Plan, which was heard on February 16, 2012. In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Board moved to deny both of the request for modifications based on their determination that granting the modifications would be detrimental to the public good. ATTACHMENTS 1. City Clerk’s Public Hearing Notice and Notice of Site Visit 2. Notice of Appeal, Filed by Appellant, March 1, 2012 3. Staff Report (with attachments) to the Planning and Zoning Board, dated February 16, 2012, Carriage House Apartments Stand-Alone Modification of Standard, MOD120001 4. Letter from applicant, Charles Bailey, to Planning and Zoning Board dated January 30, 2012 5. Property Information submitted by Applicant at Planning and Zoning Board Meeting: - Rogue Architecture Report - Gebau Structural Review - Landmark Designation Opinion, 1305 South Shields Street, prepared by Oz Architecture 6. Requested Findings of Fact submitted by Applicant to the Planning and Zoning Board on February 16, 2012 7. Information submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board on February 16, 2012, by David Taylor, affected property owner 8. State of Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Architectural Inventory Form, prepared by Dr. Mary Therese Anstey 9. Verbatim transcript of the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, February 16, 2012 10 Staff PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 11. Applicant PowerPoint presentation to Planning and Zoning Board, February 16, 2012 12. Staff PowerPoint presentation to Council 13. Site Visit Summary, March 26, 2012 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Section 3.4.7 contains standards requiring the preservation of structures determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, to the maximum extent feasible. The applicant is not willing to provide for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in their proposal. While providing for infill and redevelopment as well as student housing is a goal of City Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Sub-Area plan, providing for the protection of historic resources is required. Due to the fact that this project is only providing, at most, fifty (50) dwelling units and is not incorporating the historic home into the site design, both modifications are unable to be justified because they do not substantially meet a City-wide need, considered on a city-wide basis. COMMENTS: 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: N-C-B—Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (existing single-family residential with free-stall barns and farm character); S: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential and Bennett Elementary School); E: H-M-N—High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (existing commercial); W: R-L— Low Density Residential District (existing single-family residential neighborhoods) The existing buildings proposed to be demolished are both over fifty years old and therefore subject to Chapter14, Article 4, of the Municipal Code, commonly called the “Demolition/Alteration Review Process”. In September 2011, the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director and Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) Chair determined that the building at 1319 South Shields was not individually eligible for local landmark designation, due to previous alterations which negatively affected the building’s historic integrity. However, the CDNS Director and the LPC Chair determined that the house at 1305 South Shields Street was individually eligible for local landmark designation. In November 2011, the LPC conducted a Preliminary Hearing on the proposed demolition of the house. The Commission and the applicant were not able to identify a mutually agreeable solution that would preserve the house and allow for the applicant to redevelop the property as desired. Following the November LPC meeting, the applicant requested a third Determination of Eligibility from the CDNS Director and LPC Chair, and provided additional information to support this request. At that time, neighbors also provided additional information on the property for consideration. Due to the new information provided, the CDNS Director and 2 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 LPC Chair both re-evaluated the eligibility of the house. In December 2011, the house at 1305 South Shields Street was again found to be individually eligible for local landmark designation, for both its architectural significance and for its historical significance, based upon its association with Dr. William Carlson, University of Wyoming President. The Commission found that the proposed demolition of 1305 South Shields Street does not meet the criteria contained in Section 14-72(b) (1) (b) of the Municipal Code, and the Commission moved to recommend that the application proceed to the LPC Final Hearing. A final LPC hearing can only take place after the receipt of the submittal requirements, of which include approved from the Planning and Zoning Board plans (in this instance). The plans, as proposed, do not meet Land Use Code requirements and the applicant is asking for modifications to the specific standards in which they do not meet. 2. Review Criteria A. Land Use Code Section 2.8.2 – Modification of Standards: (H) Step 8 (Standards): The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or 3 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). 3. Land Use Code Citations for the two (2) Standards: A. Section 3.4.7(B) General Standard If the project contains a site, structure or object that (1) is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places; (2) is officially designated as a local or state landmark, or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or (3) is located within an officially designated historic district or area, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. The development plan and building design shall protect and enhance the historical and architectural value of any historic property that is: (a) preserved and adaptively used on the development site; or (b) is located on property adjacent to the development site and qualifies under (1), (2) or (3) above. New structures must be compatible with the historic character of any such historic property, whether on the development site or adjacent thereto B. Section 3.4.7 (E) Relocation or Demolition A site, structure or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation or for individual listing in the State or National Registers of Historic Places may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure or object in accordance with the standards of this Section, and the preservation of the site, structure or object is not feasible. 4. Applicant Modification Request: The proposed Overlay Plan, (Exhibit PDP2) depicts the relationship with the 1305 S. Shields Street house with the proposed site plan for Carriage 4 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 House Apartments. As indicated, if the house is preserved, two of the proposed buildings (#3 + #4) would not be developable. The loss of two buildings represents 40% of the project. Considerable economies of development, construction and operations are lost with a 40% reduction in volume which would jeopardize the viability of the project. Further, the Owner has a contract to sell the entire 1.15 acre parcel. The contract does not contemplate purchasing just the back portion of the subject property. Proposed Site Plan – The proposed Site Plan, (Exhibit PDP3) contemplates five (5) separate buildings. Each of the buildings shall be designed to look more like single family houses than typical apartment buildings with the inclusion of porches, orientation of the building to the street, a consolidation of most of the access to the back of the building and extensive articulation on the exterior. The NCB zoning requires that the buildings be located predominantly on the front half of the site. The subject property is rectangular in shape making the frontage facing the 335’ along Springfield Street. The NCB zoning imposes a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restriction that minimizes the amount of building area in the back half of the site to just 0.33 of the total land area. In the case of the subject property, only 21,610square feet can be built on the back half of the site. The net result is that in order to optimize the site plan as required in NCB zoning, the bulk of the buildings must be on the front half of the site. Further, the 2010 City Plan places an emphasis on new multi-family residential buildings that have variation to the exterior to avoid monotony and are situated to face the street, as is the case with the proposed plan. The West Central Neighborhoods Plan – Housing Policies also stresses attached dwelling unit buildings to be designed to a scale appropriate to their surroundings (F4). Rather than designing the typical large building, the proposed plan contemplates five smaller buildings. The result is that the proposed site plan is tailored to developing smaller, separate buildings rather than a more typical large building. Thus, the placement, size and quantity of buildings contemplated in the proposed Carriage House Apartments site plan is the result of addressing and conforming to the City’s stated objectives. Mitigation scenarios to develop around the 1305 S. Shields St. residence have been explored by the applicant, to no avail. The 1305 S. Shields residence has been a rental for a number of years. It is rapidly reaching the end of its functional life due to deterioration and deferred maintenance. Further, the home is woefully inadequate with respect to the energy efficiency, basic insulation values and water saving features that are required in the current City code. The applicant doesn’t acknowledge any historic character to the 1305 S. Shields property, and therefore can find no sound reason to retain it. 5 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 City Plan specifically and expressly defines and describes the following policies that support the proposed project:  Policy EH 4.1 Prioritize Targeted Redevelopment Areas – The Targeted Infill and Redevelopment Areas (depicted in LIV1) encompass the subject property.  Policy LIV 5.1 – Encourage Targeted Redevelopment and Infill – The project will concentrate higher density housing in a location that is currently served by high frequency transit and can thus support higher levels of activity.  Policy LIV 6.1 – Types of Infill and Redevelopment in Residential Areas – The project will provide new multi-family residential dwellings through the expansion or redevelopment of an under-utilized parcel surrounded by existing residential development.  Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing – The City is encouraging private sectors to take actions to develop and maintain an adequate supply of multi-family dwellings necessary to serve the growth patterns of CSU.  Policy LIV 7.4 – Maximize Land for Residential Development – The proposed development will maximize the potential of the subject property for housing, thereby positively influencing housing affordability.  Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population – The project will serve to provide new housing for the burgeoning student body at the southwest corner of the campus immediately across Shields Street that is well served by public transportation.  Policy LIV 10.1 – Incorporate Street Trees – The proposed site plan will serve to preserve the majority of the existing ___16 crabapple trees along the Springfield frontage.  Policy LIV 22.1 – Vary Housing Models and Types – The proposed plan for five separate buildings will allow for variation in exterior materials, color, articulation and avoid the appearance of monotonous, standardized community.  Policy LIV 22.2 Creativity – The Carriage House Apartment Home community will be comprised of smaller buildings that are typically associated with single family homes.  Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns – The proposed plan is located in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone. The density associated with the proposed plan will support walking, biking and transit use while minimizing the reliance upon automobiles.  Policy T3.4 – Travel Demand Management – The proposed plan will minimize automobile dependence and maximize the choices among other modes of local and regional travel. 6 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012  Figure P-4 - Pedestrian Priority Areas – The subject property is located within the Downtown/CSU Pedestrian District. Additionally, the proposed project substantially addresses specifically and expressly defined and described policies outlined in the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP) including the following principals:  The WCNP was adopted in March of 1999. The plan identifies the subject property as a Redevelopment Area.(Map 2)  The WCNP Land Use and Housing Densities Plan identifies the subject property as Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoning acting as a buffer between the older, single family residences and the more intense uses of the Campus District and HMN zoning on the immediate east side of Shields Street. (Map 3) The WCNP identified this specific area as predominantly rental properties catering to university students and recognized that this area is growing to meet the housing demands of the university. Therefore, the scale and density of the proposed plan reflect that housing type. (Map 3)  The WCNP recommends that higher density uses such as the proposed Carriage House Apartment Homes development be located next to the CSU Main Campus. (Policy F7)  The WCNP encourages redevelopment within this area of the neighborhood, as the existing single family homes are being converted to multi-family uses in order to meet the demand of student housing (HO 4).  The WCNP specifically contemplates the subject property as a buffer area that can be made up of small-scale apartment buildings. (Future Housing Needs (B)).  The WCNP encourages the height of student housing complexes built adjacent to the CSU Main Campus to exceed 3 stories (Housing Design (B)). Granting the Modification of Standards is not detrimental to the public good and advances a use by right in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB) zoning; to the contrary, the proposed project substantially benefits the City by reason of the fact that it substantially addresses important community needs that are specifically and expressly defined and described as policy considerations in the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD), City Plan and the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP) all as directly applicable to the project site. 5. Staff Evaluation of Modification Requests: 7 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 The two LUC standards in question require the individually eligible structure to be preserved and incorporated into the project’s design to the maximum extent feasible. The maximum extent feasible clause puts the burden on the applicant to show that: …no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts (by the applicant) to comply with the regulation or minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. Granting of these modifications would impair the intent of the Section because it is feasible for the applicant to develop the land while preserving the individually eligible structure located on the subject property. The applicant is not willing to consider the “prudent alternatives” to demolition including retaining and rehabilitating the individually eligible structure, such as constructing a compatible multi-unit property around it, or incorporating it into the design of one of the proposed buildings, in such a manner as to meet the LUC requirements. Code Citation for Modification The decision maker may grant a modification of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city- wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. Staff Analysis Public Good: The concept of the public good lies within a delicate balance of community values and is inextricably linked to the identity and heritage of an area and its people. A modification to Sections 3.4.7 (B) and (E) to not require the preservation of the individually eligible structure at 1305 South Shields Street could be considered as detrimental to the public good in so much that it would weaken the sense of heritage and area identity. Intent and Purpose of the Land Use Code: The intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, as stated in Section 1.2.2 is to “improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:…(M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to 8 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 the character of existing neighborhoods.” The character of the existing neighborhoods to the north, south and west of the project are comprised of primarily smaller, single-family dwellings. Substantial Community Need: While the project provides multifamily housing in close proximity to CSU’s campus, 30 to 50 units is not considered substantial when compared to the community at large. It is important to note the definition of “substantial” in this instance, which Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as “considerable in amount, value or worth.” In this application, 30 to 50 units would not meet that definition. In comparison, recently entitled multifamily projects, such as Choice Center, contain a total of 219 units. Another example of a substantial multifamily project in Fort Collins is the recently submitted Spring Creek Farms North, proposing 248 units total. Below is an illustrative table, highlighting a few of the recent, substantial student housing projects in Fort Collins. Project Name Location Number of Units Presidio Apartments North of Rock Creek Dr. between Lady Moon and Cinquefoil 240 Units The Grove Centre Ave. and Rolland Moore Dr. 218 Units Choice Center S. College Ave. and W. Prospect Ave. 219 Units The justification that Carriage House Apartments is providing a substantial benefit by substantially addressing an important community need stated in City Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, would not be prudent with only providing a relatively small number of units. 7. Findings of Fact In evaluating the request for two stand-alone modifications, Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7(E), Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The granting of modifications to Section 3.4.6(B) and 3.4.7(E) would be detrimental to the public good. a. A modification to Section 3.4.7(B) and 3.4.7 (E) to not require the preservation of the historic structure at 1305 South Shields Street to the maximum extent feasible, is detrimental to the public good because it would weaken the sense of identity and heritage of the surrounding neighborhood context. B. The granting of a modification to Section 3.4.7 (B) and Section 3.4.7 (E) would not result in a substantial benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the 9 Carriage House Apartments, Modification of Standard – MOD120001 February 16, 2012 10 proposed project would not substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined in City Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council. This is because the data reveals that the thirty to fifty dwelling units that would be provided is not substantial when compared to other projects on a city-wide basis. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of both requests for modification. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Photo of the structure located at 1305 South Shields Street 4. Modification of Standard Request Narrative 5. Exhibits a. PDP 1 – Existing Structures b. PDP 2 – Proposed Site Plan with Existing Structures c. PDP 3 – Proposed Site Plan d. PDP 4 – Proposed Landscape Plan e. PDP 5 – Elevations f. PDP 6 – Visual Analysis of Proposed Project 6. November 2011 Landmark Preservation Commission Draft Minutes W PROSPECT RD S SHIELDS ST SOUTH DR W LAKE ST W PITKIN ST SPRINGFIELD DR LYNNWOOD DR BENNETT RD CITY PARK AVE WESTWARD DR FAIRVIEW DR UNIVERSITY AVE ELLIS DR DEL MAR ST BALSAM LN S H E E L Y D R JAMES CT LAKEWOOD DR PROSPECT LN BURTON CT HEATHERIDGE RD SUMMER ST H O B BIT ST W L A KE S T CITY GEOGRAPHICCOLLINS OF FORT INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS © These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 0 112.5 225 450 675 900 1,125 1,350 Feet eL eg dnaparGciheSstcelPdetnios neC ilret en L eba sl craP sle saM k S SHIELDS ST SOUTH DR W LAKE ST BENNETT RD SPRINGFIELD DR W PITKIN ST WESTWARD DR CITY PARK AVE LYNNWOOD DR ELLIS DR DEL MAR ST JAMES CT LAKEWOOD DR BURTON CT WST LAKE ST SUMMER JAMES CT RL HMN CSU NCB LMN MMN CC CITY GEOGRAPHICCOLLINS OF FORT INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS © These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. 0 85 170 340 510 680 850 1,020 Feet Legend aGraphicsSelectedPoints Railroad Lines Streams and Ditches Centerline Labels Parcels CityFeatures Water Zoning ZONE Community Commercial Community Commercial North College Community Commercial Poudre River General Commercial Limited Commercial Service Commercial CSU Downtown Employment Harmony Corridor Industrial High Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood SE view of 1305 South Shields Street 1 CARRIAGE HOUSE APARTMENTS SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS (Proposed by Applicant) As supported by evidence submitted at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the applicant submits the following findings of fact: Modification 2.8.2(H)(2) – Substantially Alleviate City-Wide Concern and Address Adopted Policies A. The granting of modifications to the General Development Standard Section 3.4.7(B) and to Section 3.4.7 (E) as stand alone modifications to allow demolition of 1305 South Shields are requested by the applicant and the property owner meets the requirements of Section 2.8.2(H)(2) as supported by the following specific findings: 1. Demolition of 1305 South Shields is not detrimental to the public good because the property lacks Exterior Integrity and lacks Significance for Landmark designation. To be designated as a Landmark, a property must not only be shown to be Significant, but must also have Exterior Integrity. 1305 South Shields has neither Exterior Integrity nor Significance. The Property does not possess the requisite degree of the seven (7) aspects or qualities that define Exterior Integrity. The property has undergone three substantial additions such that the property does not retain or convey any particular architectural style, including the addition of a two car garage that is not compatible with the house and is extremely damaging to the Exterior Integrity of the structure. The garage has doubled the size of the property by the addition of a very utilitarian garage with little if any architectural character. The result is a property with physical and aesthetic characteristics weakened and damaged to the extent that any sense of identity and heritage is lost. The Property lacks the requisite Significance in that it fails to meet any one (1) or more of the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. We find in the alternative that 1305 Shields would still lack Significance even if the record had demonstrated that the property had met one (1) or more of the standards for Landmark designation under Section 14-5, since the composite of the seven (7) aspects or qualities that define Exterior Integrity are of insufficient degree such that 1305 South Shields has no ability to convey any Significance and does not retain any identity for which it may have been significant. The property is designated as a redevelopment parcel in the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP) and is located in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone District. The proposed plan is designed in full compliance with zone district standards articulated in the N-C- B zone district and multifamily dwellings are a permitted use. When balanced against the community values expressly stated in the WCNP, City Plan, the Land Use Code, the N-C-B zone district, the TOD overlay zone district, and the express intent and fiscal objectives of the property owner, and for the reasons stated above, we find that the requested modification of standard and demolition of the property is not detrimental to the public good. 2 2. Demolition does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, and further advances the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code set forth in Section 1.2.2 by: (i) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of the land, the city’s transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services (subsection C; and, TOD overlay district policy); (ii) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel through in-fill development approximate to Colorado State University and student services (subsection F; and, TOD overlay district policy of encouraging stable and attractive residential and commercial environments within TOD overlay district); (iii) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trials bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation through in-fill development approximate to the Mason Street Corridor, City Transit Center, Colorado State University sidewalk infrastructure and established bicycle routes in the WCNP area (subsection H; and, TOD overlay district policy); (iv) fostering a more rational relationship among residential and business uses for the mutual benefit of all through in-fill development approximate to established student services (subsection K; and, TOD overlay district policy); (v) encouraging development of vacant properties within established areas (subsection L; and WCNP); and, (vi) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods (subsection M; and, N-C-B zone district compliance). 3. Demolition substantially alleviates existing, defined and described problems of city-wide concern and substantially addresses and benefits important community needs through advancing the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, alleviating pressure on enforcement and violations of the “3-unrelated” law, and addressing the concerns identified in the Student Housing Action Plan. A strict application of the standard for the preservation and adaptive use of a property that lacks Exterior Integrity and lacks Significance for failing to meet any one (1) of the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code (or in the alternative has no ability to convey any Significance and does not retain any identity for which it may have been significant), renders the project practically infeasible when balanced against the expressly stated goals of the WCNP, City Plan, the Land Use Code, the TOD overlay zone district and the N-C-B zone district. GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT (Proposed by Applicant) 1305 South Shields lacks Exterior Integrity and fails to meet any one (1) of the standards for designation set forth in Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. 1305 South Shields has undergone three substantial additions such that the property does not convey any particular architectural style, including the addition of a two car garage that is not compatible with the house and is extremely damaging to the exterior integrity of the structure. The garage has doubled the size of the property by the addition of a very utilitarian garage with little if any architectural character. The result is a property with physical and aesthetic characteristics weakened and damaged to the extent that any sense of identity and heritage is lost. The property is designated as a redevelopment parcel in the West Central Neighborhood Plan (WCNP). The property is located in the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone 3 district with the stated policy of encouraging stable residential and commercial environments which as the appropriate integration of residential student housing approximate to Colorado State University commercial use and related services. The property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer District (N-C-B) zoning which is a transition zone between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones. The proposed project is consistent with the zone district requirements and multifamily dwellings are a permitted use. The record establishes that 1305 South Shields does not meet any of the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 in that that property: (1) is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever; and, (2) is not associated with the lives of a person significant in history. Mr. William Carlson resided in 1305 South Shields while growing up and completing his undergraduate degree. He moved out of the subject home in June of 1950 upon receiving his undergraduate degree (when he was married at the age of 21) never to live there again. During the 1960’s and up to 1968, William & Bev Carlson lived at 1301 S. Shields Street after buying that home from his grandmother. . None of the accomplishments listed as important achievements in Mr. Carlson’s life such as earning a Ph.D. in radiation biology from Colorado University Medical Center (Denver) or practicing as a veterinarian in Littleton or even chairing the Colorado State University veterinarian school radiology department occurred while living at 1305 S. Shields Street. Mr. Carlson moved from Fort Collins in 1968 and did not return to Fort Collins or Colorado to live or work after 1968. While Mr. Carlson is accomplished, we find that his life is not significant in history or significant to Fort Collins history such that it warrants a finding that the property meets this standard for designation as a Fort Collins landmark. Such a finding is contrary to wishes of the applicant and Mrs. Beverly Carlson, the property owner and widow of Mr. Carlson. Any such designation would be without the consent of the property owner and does not reflect a delicate balance of community values in this instance; and, (3) does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or posse high artistic values or represent a significant and distinguishable entity with components that lack individual distinction. The record demonstrates clearly (i) significant alterations and additions to the property with incompatible design, materials and workmanship, (ii) an unknown builder and architect, and, (iii) conveys significant weaknesses of design; the property is not a good example of either Cape Cod or Tudor Revival, and the combination of two styles does not create a successful eclectic design or significant and distinguishable entity. The design actually creates confusion as evident by the fact that when the property was determined individually eligible, the director and chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission concluded that the property was an example of Cape Cod architecture. The record now contains evidence that the property is characterized as a house with Tudor Revival influences in a report submitted by neighbors in opposition to the in-fill proposal which as submitted is in compliance with all zone district standards and that advances specific City policies; and, 4 (4) has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history since the record contains no evidence whatsoever. The record establishes that 1305 South Shields does not possess Exterior Integrity since the property does not have the ability to convey any significance as defined under Section 14-1 of the Municipal Code. The property has no ability to convey significance for failure to meet the standards for designation as a Fort Collins landmark under Section 14-5 of the Municipal Code. The record does establishes that the property lacks Significance and lacks Exterior Integrity. 1 HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held Tuesday, February 16, 2012 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Street Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Carriage House Apartments Modifications of Standard, MOD120001 Meeting time: 6:00 p.m., February 16, 2012 To 12:15 a.m., February 17, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Smith, Chair Gino Campana Jennifer Carpenter Kristin Kirkpatrick Brigitte Schmidt Butch Stockover 2 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: The next item is the Carriage House Apartments stand-alone 2 modification of standard, MOD120001. Staff, you want to go ahead and give us a report please. 3 MS. LEVINGSTON: Sure, thanks. This is a request for two stand-alone modifications. 4 One relating to the general standard in Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code regarding 5 preservation of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation, and one 6 for the demolition of an individually eligible structure. 7 The applicant is requesting to redevelop the properties located at 1305 and 1319 South 8 Shields Street by demolishing the two existing single-family residences and associated 9 outbuildings and constructing five multi-family buildings with approximately 10 units per 10 building. The project will have a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units. However, the 11 specific quantity of each bedroom type is not finalized at this time. 12 The project is located in the NCB district and is also within the transit oriented 13 development overlay district. This is a picture of the individually eligible structure at 1305 14 South Shields Street. This is taken from Springfield Drive looking at the individually eligible 15 structure, 1305 South Shields Street. This is where the individually eligible structure is located 16 relative to the proposed site plan. 17 The first modification is to Section 3.4.7(B), the General Standard that says “if the 18 project contains a site, structure, or object that is: 1) is determined to be individually eligible for 19 local landmark designation, then to the maximum extent feasible, the development plan and 20 building design shall provide for the preservation and adaptive use of the historic structure. 21 The second modification is to Section 3.4.7(E), Relocation or Demolition. A site, 22 structure, or object that is determined to be individually eligible for local landmark designation 23 may be relocated or demolished only if, in the opinion of the decision maker, the applicant has, 24 to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to preserve the site, structure, or object in accordance 25 with the standards of this Section and the preservation of the site, structure, or object is not 26 feasible. This is a definition from the Land Use Code of the term “maximum extent feasible:” no 27 feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation or to 28 minimize potential harm or adverse impacts have been undertaken. 29 This is the proposed site plan for the Carriage House Apartments and is requiring the 30 demolition of the homes at 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street. 1319 South Shields Street was 31 determined not to be individually eligible for local landmark designation and that’s why that 32 structure is not in question tonight. 33 This is a little bit of the neighborhood context. And we’ll see the individually eligible 34 structure is located to the left. This is looking west down Springfield Drive, the left is in the 35 summer, the right was recently taken in the winter. This is looking east from 1305 South Shields 3 1 Street. This is the property 1319 South Shields Street. This is looking west to Shields Street 2 from Springfield Drive. So, I’m right here and I’m looking out to South Shields Street. This is 3 looking across South Shields Street at 1301 South Shields Street, so the project and the 4 individually eligible structure in question is right here. This is 1301 South Shields Street, this is 5 directly across the street from 1305 South Shields Street. This is another picture taken across 6 Shields Street. You can see the property across the street and then the property in question 7 would be right over here. This is looking east across South Shields Street. These are 8 commercial properties that would be directly across the street from the property in question. 9 And this is the proposed site plan once again. 10 So, Section 3.4.7 contains standards requiring the preservation of structures determined to 11 be individually eligible for local landmark designation to the maximum extent feasible. The 12 applicant is not willing to provide for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 13 South Shields Street by incorporating the building in their proposal. While providing for infill 14 and redevelopment, as well as student housing, is a goal of City Plan and the West Central 15 Neighborhood Sub-Area Plan, providing for the protection of historic resources is also required. 16 Due to the fact that this project is only providing, at most, 50 dwelling units and is not 17 incorporating the historic home into the site design, both modifications are unable to be justified 18 because they do not substantially meet a City-wide need considered on a City-wide basis. That 19 concludes my staff presentation. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: I just have one quick question. On the one diagram, you know where 21 you have, there’s the yellow and the brown, and just the house is the only thing that needs to be, 22 not the chicken coop isn’t. 23 MS. LEVINGSTON: Which one are you asking? 24 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, just wanted to make, it might be one that the applicant has given 25 us that has that site plan that shows where the houses are right there, so it would just be though 26 the yellow, 1305, not the chicken coop that’s associated with it or anything like that, right? 27 MS. WILLIAMS: That’s correct, it’s the house only. 28 MS. LEVINGSTON: The associated outbuildings were determined not to be individually 29 eligible for local landmark designation so these outbuildings are not in question nor is 1319 30 South Shields Street. That is also not individually eligible for local landmark designation. The 31 only structure in question is right here, 1305 South Shields Street. 32 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, thank you. 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anything else from staff? Okay, Kristin did you have a question? 34 Did I hear you? Jennifer? Okay, I thought I heard one of you guys ask a question, sorry. I’d like 35 to, if that’s the staff presentation, time for the applicant presentation, please. 4 1 MR. BAILEY: Good evening. My name is Chuck Bailey, I’m with Catamount 2 Properties. I’m pleased to be here tonight to present the Carriage House Apartments at 1305 3 South Shields Street. I think it’ll be a slightly different presentation than what you just saw, and 4 hopefully a little bit clearer. The issues are really just singular to the historic eligibility and then 5 the modification of standard. I was last here in April for another project that we’re under 6 construction on Laurel Street, called Pura Vida Place. It’s a 52-home community and we 7 anticipate opening for occupancy on July first. I know Mr. Campana is concerned about Laurel 8 Street, but we’re going to show you some reasons why we think this is a tremendous addition to 9 the community, and some subsequent slides. 10 My history is in multi-housing development, over 25 years and over 1,000 attached 11 homes. I was past president of the Colorado Apartment Association and I’ve managed over 100 12 different communities through some institutional employment earlier. I’m based in Longmont, 13 Colorado and I’m dedicated and focused on this business. I’m not a conglomerate, what you see 14 is what you get, so this is it. I found this picture in my travels at the CSU library and I thought it 15 was kind of interesting in terms of the Fort Collins and the CSU growth history and the patterns 16 that we’ve seen. This is Shields Street here, and this is a picture from May of 1957, and you can 17 see the vast changes that have occurred to the city. The particular site in question is right about 18 here, and I believe that’s Springfield Drive, with the 50’s ranch style homes being constructed 19 earlier that decade. And you can see that a lot of these old farm houses are still there and that’s 20 really the subject of tonight’s presentation, is what happens 50 years from now, if you want this 21 to retain that farmhouse character on the edge of Colorado State University. And you can see 22 some of the old Quonset huts too, I thought this was interesting that…Bev Carlson is here 23 tonight and she remembers those Quonset huts and the post World War II occupants were GIs 24 here going to school on the GI bill. That’s just east of Moby there I believe. So, this is the 25 neighborhood map, and you’ve seen some of this from Courtney’s presentation so I don’t want to 26 waste time, but I think it’s interesting to see that there’s some significant acreage in this part of 27 town, and I think that’s a meaningful element for the commission to consider is, going forward, 28 what happens here and how do you alleviate that need for student housing that we know is so 29 critical. 30 This is an aggregation of two different sites. The Carlson piece is about an acre and a 31 quarter and the adjacent site, 1319, which is a 50’s style ranch house that you saw in Courtney’s 32 presentation, that’s I think about a 17-18,000 square foot lot, so, in the aggregate, there’s an acre 33 and a half here on Shields Street, right across from campus. That’s hard to find, so we think 34 that’s meaningful. There are 16,000 cars a day travelling on Shields, so this is an NCB zoning 35 area, has been for 20 years. Obviously, that’s a buffer, it’s going to be hard to conceive of 36 development on Shields Street that embraces…it’s going to want to embrace that traffic and we 37 think that student oriented apartments can deal with that because of the proximity to campus. 38 But, the old houses that are there, it’s hard to envision the owners increasingly capitalizing those 5 1 houses, rehabilitating them, keeping them up with that kind of environment, in the current 2 scenario. 3 You can see some horse property back here. I believe Mr. Gene Fisher owns that 4 property and it’s considerable acreage as well. So, why a modification of the standard? And, 5 again, I can skip over this, but this is just the three sites that you saw and then the 1301 home 6 that the Carlson’s also own, is about where the north arrow is. Why the modification of 7 standard? It’s a single issue, I’ve not purchased the property, unlike the previous presentation 8 that you saw. So, I have a contract to buy this entire portion of ground, but I have not executed 9 that. I’ve been stymied in terms of producing plans and we’re not going to show you 10 sophisticated elevations or engineered plans or site plans tonight. It’s just a simple issue of 11 trying to define if the City sees this as a cultural resource, and if they want student housing 12 across from the campus. We understand and respect the Code and we think the Code really 13 embraces what we are going to do here. And I’m going to show you all of those components 14 tonight. But, effectively, you’re the decision maker and we are coming to you because the 15 Landmark Preservation Committee is really judge, jury, and jailer. They’ve made the decree and 16 we’ve talked to them on multiple occasions about it but this is it as far as an appeal of the 17 process. 18 We’re going to show you eleven reasons in the Land Use Code why the policies and the 19 plan that we’re going to put forth here makes sense…and, we’ve found seven policies and 20 objectives and goals in the West Central Neighborhood Plan. So, that’s a total of eighteen 21 elements, and there is one element against this to say if this is a cultural resource or not. So, the 22 background is, we had a pre-neighborhood meeting. It wasn’t an obligation, but we did that, and 23 didn’t really experience tremendous hospitality, but, nevertheless, we extended the opportunity 24 to talk and meet and we’ll do that again certainly, if we are to get past this hurdle. This board 25 will have another opportunity to weigh in on all of our site plans and we’ll certainly have a more 26 formal neighborhood meeting. We submitted a concept plan to the City in September, and that’s 27 when it was communicated to us that the staff had designated this as eligible for protection, this 28 particular home. And, at that time, they had designated the chicken coop in the back. There was 29 a split decision there. And the adjacent yellow house, the 50’s ranch house, was also a split 30 decision on its eligibility. We were looking at all three residences as being eligible for protection 31 and we went back and met with the Director and with Karen and provided them a presentation 32 from a member of the Denver Landmark Historic Commission, who produced a memo, that’s of 33 record, dated in October, and requested that they review their findings and reconsider for a 34 number of reasons. His opinion was that this home doesn’t have any exterior integrity and 35 character. That was declined and so we went to the mid-November Landmark Preservation 36 Committee hearing, and at that time, the City’s approach was that this is a Cape Cod house. 37 Why? I guess because it has shake shingles on the outside, but, other than that, there was no real 38 evidence that this is a Cape Cod house at all. During that presentation, there was, and the record 39 will support this through the minutes, there was some confusion on the staff report and it talked 6 1 about a garage with a bell tower with a window with ten lights or some such thing in the window 2 and Karen had realized that the staff report was incorrect. So, there were a lot of questions even 3 what the decision was made, if it was made on the right staff report or not, but it was made, 4 effectively, for a so-called Cape Cod house. 5 Bev Carlson, who’s here tonight, and she will speak, testified during that November 6 meeting, that she was not in favor of designating this house, and was opposed to it, and it could 7 jeopardize her contract with me. She talked about some of the elements of this house, 8 particularly this dormer up here being added later and how it was done without an architect, etc. 9 And, how the family often joked about how this house had morphed into something that it is 10 through the years. So, we asked for a deferral because of the confusion and the discussion 11 points, and the record even will show that several of the committee members objected to this 12 being a Cape Cod house and thought there were more Tudor elements that Cape Cod elements. 13 So, we felt like the best opportunity would be to push this another month and to resubmit 14 additional information to the Director and the Chairman of the committee. So, we did that, and, on December 6 th 15 , we met with the City, and we were presented with a report by a company 16 called Historitecture, presumably supplied to the City by the neighborhood group, I’m not sure of 17 that. But, at any rate, this report now contends that the house is Tudor revival. So, the house has 18 morphed from a Cape Cod to Tudor revival and we’re dumbfounded as this thing is a moving 19 target. And, additionally, it had a number of statements that were incorrect in terms of Mr. 20 William Carlson’s living situation at the house and it made assertions that it had historical 21 significance because of his residency in this house. And, I’m going to point out how those are 22 incorrect in a few minutes. So, we went to the December 14 th 23 hearing and it was determined from the board that the 24 house was now a Tudor revival home with some Cape Cod elements. So, here’s the 1301 house 25 across the street. The Carlson’s also own this house and it’s very confusing, and what has 26 happened is, and I want to point out how Bev Carlson, at one time lived in this home, but never 27 lived in 1305, which is contrary to the Historitecture report. This is the chicken coop in back and 28 it was initially deemed to be eligible and we showed pictures that it was altered and reduced in 29 size and then turned into a residential living arrangement…and so it was, that decision was 30 rescinded, and its eligibility status lifted. 31 At 1319, the same story. It was originally declared, on a split vote, to be eligible, and 32 that was rescinded based on extensive changes to the exterior, including this bay window, and 33 the addition of this two-car garage. So, here’s the overlay plan. You saw this once before, but, 34 again, here’s the 1305 house and this is the element where we considered how to present a site 35 plan that works with this house, and we don’t find one, because it takes 40% of the density out of 36 the plan. It’ll take those two buildings you see right here and right here, out, and leave us with 37 three building. Forty percent, it’s too much, and so that’s the crux of what we’re dealing with 38 right now. 7 1 So here are some of the alterations to 1305. You can see this gentleman…this was 2 presented to the Chairperson and the Director. This is a picture that Bev Carlson provided to 3 me…and this gentleman you can see a door out the back of this home. You can see the dormer 4 here, which is this dormer. But this entire two-car garage element was added after this picture 5 was taken, so that’s probably about forty percent of the footprint of this house was an addition to 6 the house and it’s all in a flat-roof condition. This is a southwest view, looking from the 7 southwest to the northeast, and you can see the backside of the garage…there’s really no detail in 8 terms of workmanship or, you know, extensive sort of craftsman-related kind of elements to it. 9 And this is the view from the north side and you can see the two-car garage here. This has 10 considerable street exposure and, because it’s not just in the backyard of this house, it faces on 11 Springfield Drive, and you really can’t see the pitch of the roof here but, trust me, it’s right 12 there…then the two car garage. 13 So, this house was originally a very small prairie style house and it has morphed into what it is now. We hired Gebau Structural Engineers on February 3 rd 14 , to come through and do an 15 analysis of this house in terms of the changes to this house and this report is of record. Gebau 16 thinks there are four different additions to this house that have taken place over the years and 17 they can get to the basement, and we’ve got photographs that are in the Rogue Architect’s 18 record, depicting the different framing patterns, different framing materials. There’s even siding 19 on this wall here from the old exterior. So, it’s their contention that this was the original house 20 right here. 21 UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry, I’ve got to 22 object…the applicant is referring to evidence not in the record. It was submitted today, it’s not 23 appropriate, it was not relevant to any issue before the Board…and we would ask that the 24 Commission at least ask that the attorney before it goes any further, that this is an appropriate 25 form of questioning or that this is an appropriate reference to evidence that should not be in the 26 record. 27 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Paul, unless you overrule me on this, I’m going to let the applicant 28 continue with his presentation and we’ll discuss your objection in a moment. 29 MR. BAILEY: At any rate, the original house being here and, there was a one-bedroom 30 configuration up in the attic upstairs above this lighter purple shade. Then, subsequent to that, 31 the kitchen was added, and then subsequent to that, the dining and family room and the entry 32 that’s considered to be so prominent in the Historitecture determination of Tudor Revival style. 33 And then finally, the two-car garage was added to the back of the residence. So, there’s 34 demonstrable evidence that this house has morphed almost like the rings of a tree, to what it is 35 today. It wasn’t this house in 1924 when it was built. And so here it is, and I don’t know if it 36 takes an expert or not to say that whatever this house is, it’s a mutt. And these are sliding glass 37 windows, they slide from side to side. That doesn’t meet any definition of a Tudor home. They 8 1 don’t match the windows down here and the Gebau report goes on to state that this dormer was 2 added later as a closet for the addition of the second bedroom upstairs. 3 The Historitecture report has a number of errors in it and I’d like to just hit the high 4 points here. It talks about a garage, a single-car garage that served this house at one point in 5 time, in paragraph 29, and that’s certainly of record. That’s emphatically incorrect, this house is 6 elevated. This house is three feet off the ground so there was never a garage there. It also states, 7 through hearsay, that Bev Carlson testified that this dormer was added to the back of the house, 8 in paragraph 29 of the report. That’s completely erroneous, you saw the back dormer in the 9 other picture. It was this front dormer that was added subsequently. On paragraph 32, it talks 10 about ownership and it refers to William Carlson having got a PhD and having been the head of 11 the radiology department, and then later the President of the University of Wyoming, and it 12 refers to this experience in Littleton, and implies that he did this in this house. He got married in 13 June of 1950 and he got a degree from Texas A&M, and those are two, maybe the most 14 important things that happened in his life. Certainly marrying that lovely woman right there. 15 But, he left this house, and Bev Carlson will testify she never lived in this house, so it’s 16 completely erroneous. How could he have been the President of the University of Wyoming and 17 live in this house? We can celebrate that he was the President of the University of Wyoming, 18 maybe not, and that’s a notable position, but he certainly didn’t do it from this location. So, its 19 very similar to saying that this is Abe Lincoln’s cabin, and we need to preserve it. 20 So, this house has no integrity, and these are some of the reasons why. This is the criteria 21 for Tudor Revival architecture and there’s nine key components here. Half-timbering elements, 22 steeply pitch roof that’s greater than a 12:12, casement windows, no, no, no. The only thing it 23 has is clipped gables, out of nine elements. No bay window. The Cape Code attributes, its got 24 two of the five, but, you know, we morphed off that subject to Tudor Revival. So, effectively, 25 this is the conglomeration of two architectural styles that don’t even match each other…they’re 26 in conflict with each other. So, here’s the criteria: exterior integrity, no, too many changes, 27 landmark designation…I don’t know why the must is in there, sorry about that…integrity, 28 significance, no, he didn’t do anything historical at this home. 29 So here’s the proposed site plan, and this site plan is appreciably less than the standard. 30 We’re not looking for approval of this site plan but we want to give you a flavor and an idea of 31 what could potentially happen here if we could move forward. And, this is, I think, I’d like to 32 say a little bit of a game changer for Fort Collins in that these are smaller apartment buildings. 33 These aren’t 24-plex buildings like you saw at The Grove or, certainly the common situation 34 with multi-housing. These are 10-plex buildings. They are approximately 10,000 square feet 35 each, in terms of gross square footage, and they have tons of exterior light and they really 36 provide, I think, a living situation that would be ideal. And, it’s only about sixty percent of the 37 floor area ratio that this site could endorse. So, when we go to the maximum extent feasible, 38 we’ve grabbed the Land Use Code and we’ve said we want these buildings to be compatible with 39 the neighborhood, to be smaller, and to be more individualized. And this is a streetscape view of 9 1 potentially looking southwest from the corner of Springfield and Shields and you can see a 2 couple of the buildings there that would front along Shields. You know, a very rudimentary 3 sketch again, we apologize for the level of sophistication here, but it give you an idea that, you 4 know, you’re not going to see a whole bunch of entry doors and it’s designed to have porches 5 and articulation and to look like single family homes. 6 So, some specifics: again, 64,000 square feet of land area. Floor area we are proposing is 7 36,000. The maximum per NCB zoning is almost 65,000. I don’t know if we’d have thirty or 8 fifty homes, but you know, we’re targeting maybe one hundred beds for this site and fifty-two 9 parking spaces as well. Here’s some of the attributes of the City Plan that we are adhering to. 10 Again, as I said, there’s eleven of these. Obviously it’s an infill location, it’s a higher density 11 location on transit lines. We’re going to expand an underutilized parcel here, surrounded by 12 existing residential. It’s an attempt to develop adequate supply of housing and maximizing land 13 for residential development. It’s certainly focused to accommodate student populations. We’re 14 going to keep the street trees on the perimeter, there’s some wonderful old crab trees from way 15 back in time, and we certainly plan to detach the sidewalk. The sidewalk there, by the way, right 16 now is thirty inches wide, and certainly not handicapped accessible or really usable. There will 17 be some variation in those buildings that you saw. I think it’s a creative concept and it’s 18 obviously supportive to transit patterns. The City’s got vehicle miles travelled goals and, you 19 know, reduction goals, and it’s certainly a pedestrian focused kind of situation to be across the 20 street from a major college campus. And there are, as I said, seven, I think, West Central 21 Neighborhood goals and objectives that we’re adhering to. The maps show this area as being a 22 redevelopment area from, I think, as long as twenty years ago. Map three depicts this as NCB 23 zoning, which accommodates multi-housing, and policy F.7 endorses higher density. And the 24 future housing needs certainly encourages smaller-scale apartment buildings which is what 25 we’ve tried to accommodate. And, the housing design B prefers three-story buildings. So, this is 26 pretty interesting right here in terms of getting to the heart of is this a substantial benefit to the 27 community. 28 And I hired THK, which is a very notable real estate analytical company in Denver, and I 29 asked them to take a swath of college environments similar to Fort Collins, in our immediate 30 area, and I didn’t cherry pick, you know, I took the University of Wyoming. You know, I mean, 31 equal opportunity analytic presenter, but, and they’ll never be accused of being a high-density 32 environment I don’t think. But, we took CU, and I know that Fort Collins doesn’t want to 33 emulate CU, but you can see the density in terms of people per acre, and this is a six-block area 34 around all of these campuses. So, we uniformly applied a six-block area. We excluded on- 35 campus housing and we looked only at the housing that surrounds the campus. And you 36 wouldn’t think we’d need proof that there’s not a lot of density here, but here it is. There’s 37 thirteen and a half people per acre around CSU, in that radius. There’s twenty-one in Boulder, 38 which is almost fifty percent higher. Even UNC has higher density around its campus than 39 Colorado State University. Nebraska, if some of you know, has an Interstate on the north side, 10 1 so it’s really kind of a deceiving example because there’s no development on the north side of 2 their campus, and we stayed within the confines of that campus. And BYU, ten years ago 3 BYU… 4 MS. SCHMIDT: Sir, could you just explain what the blue and the red are. We can’t 5 really see them and I don’t think we got that in our packets. 6 MR. BAILEY: Sure, it’s population, slightly over 20,000 persons in that six block area 7 around campus. All the way around the perimeter of the campus, and these campuses are all 8 different sized and different shapes too. So, rather than taking a circle, we took a square, a six- 9 block square from the outer perimeter of the campus. And then the red is the total housing units 10 within that same proximity. So, in the case of Colorado State, there’s maybe seven thousand 11 housing units, so, the average number of people per acre then was calculated based on THK’s, 12 and they used 2010 census data by the way, and they determined it to be thirteen and a half 13 people per acre for the CSU situation. And, BYU, as I said, they instituted a comprehensive plan 14 eleven years ago and looked at their surrounding area and it’s really working for them. I met 15 some gentlemen that are building a project there as we speak but they’ve got almost triple the 16 density around their campus than CSU has. And, University of Kansas…I’ve not been to 17 Lawrence, Kansas, and then again, Wyoming kind of pulls the numbers down, but I just took 18 what we could get. 19 And this is another interesting chart, this is the comparative density in terms of dwelling 20 units per acre and, again, I got to tell you that CSU is at the bottom of the barrel here. Even 21 UNC has more dwelling units per acre than CSU does, using the same set of structure in terms of 22 population in 2010 numbers. I actually asked THK to throw in The Grove and the Capstone deal 23 at Stuart and South College, and it barely moves the needle. This number goes from 5.3 to 5.6. 24 So, I mean those are all positive moves to get students close to campus but, it’s going to take a 25 concerted effort to change this environment and provide the 1,500 beds a year that Student 26 Housing Action Plan is seemingly looking for. 27 And this is an interesting density chart…these are a comparison of newer projects, maybe 28 in the last five years, and what their density is in terms of persons per acre, again, and dwelling 29 units per acre. And you can see the subject property, again, we deliberately scaled the density 30 back in order to address the Land Use Code, all those eleven components I talked about and 31 smaller building. But, at any rate, we’re still achieving sixty-seven people per acre, and thirty- 32 four units per acre. Pura Vida, the project that I’m doing presently, is one hundred people per 33 acre. And I know the concern about Laurel Street is strong and I appreciate that, but I think 34 these are the locations where the City has to look at it and say, this is where we can address 35 student housing. If you can’t do it across the street from the campus, I don’t know where you’re 36 going to do it. Way down the Mason Street Corridor line maybe, I don’t know. But you can look 37 at The Flats, you can look at The Grove even, and there are twenty-three people per acre, they’re 38 eight units per acre because there’s so much land area that’s gobbled up in terms of that wetlands 11 1 and that site. The Choice does raise the bar a bit, that’s one hundred people per acre, that’s a 2 four-story building project, as you probably all recall. And, that’s thirty-four dwelling units per 3 acre. And, Presidio, it’s really not a student deal, but it’s new, and it’s very suburban and very 4 low density, but I put it in here because Courtney had referred to it in her staff report as a reason 5 for denial. And the Clock Tower is, you know, a very large three-story building. So, here we 6 are, I mean, is this detrimental to the public good? Are we going to impair and abuse the Land 7 Use Code? We’ll be back in front of you on that subject, so, we aren’t asking for approval of 8 these plans, we’re just asking for you to provide a modification to standard to the so-called 9 historic eligibility issue. Will we substantially alleviate a defined City-wide concern and 10 substantially benefit and address important community needs described in the Comp Plan? I 11 think so, and will a strict application render this project infeasible? Yes, I’m taking forty percent 12 out of a project that’s already had a reduced level of density in order to adhere to the Code. It 13 makes the project undoable. 14 MS. SCHMIDT: Can you explain that a little more? I just don’t understand where you’re 15 losing forty percent by having to just… 16 MR. BAILEY: Sure, can we back up to the slide, it’s probably ten or fifteen slides earlier, 17 or see the whole thing. It’s the overlay slide. 18 MS. SCHMIDT: You’re losing forty percent of the land area or the… 19 MR. BAILEY: It’s two out of the five. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: And why exactly would you be losing them? 21 MR. BAILEY: Because, if you stand on this issue that this house is worthy of protection, 22 we can’t build two of the five buildings on the site. This house takes up that much of the site 23 plan. 24 MS. SCHMIDT: And is that because there’s a certain distance around a historically 25 designated home that you have to… 26 MR. BAILEY: You certainly can’t build within thirty feet, the fire department, there’d be 27 a certain distance from that building that we couldn’t get any closer to it. Here’s the house, and 28 here’s the two buildings, and that’s two out of five. So, that’s the forty percent. And another 29 factor is, you know, which I think is important, is we’re hiring an on-site manager at Pura Vida. 30 We have fifty-two homes and we have an on-site manager. And you talk about the dynamics of 31 managing a student population. We’ve got some students right here that are going to speak in a 32 minute about the student housing situation but, we’re going to have a person there. And, if you 33 take a project that’s contemplated to have that kind of critical mass, and you say, well, why don’t 34 you just build it with thirty units. Well, we clearly cannot do that. So, we’re actually going the 35 wrong direction. It’s cutting our nose off in spite of our face. The problems, the social 12 1 problems, of managing student housing takes a certain level of critical mass, and it’s just out of 2 the equation, you know, if we take that project and make it thirty units rather than fifty. 3 So, in the end, go ahead Todd. I won’t waste a lot of time in this. There are some strong 4 fees to City agencies. The current taxable value of this assemblage of property is $500,000, and 5 it’s conceivable that this will be a $7 million project so you’re talking about a factor of maybe 6 ten to twelve to the School District in terms of property tax revenues that goes on ad infinitum. 7 And, you know, it’s on the bus route, it’s pedestrian oriented. 8 In conclusion, it’s an NCB redevelopment area, we’re conforming…we’re not going to 9 come back here and ask for variances on floor area ratios and all of those kinds of things. The 10 Student Housing Action Plan, I’ve mentioned, you know, shows a strong need for housing, 11 potentially 1,500 beds per annum, and it’s a high-quality community. So, the Planning staff’s 12 recommendation of denial defined substantial is the amount of value or worth. I mean, that’s 13 entirely subjective and I think that’s a message to say that this fifty unit project doesn’t have 14 enough value or worth to us as a community. That seems dangerous to me. The definition I 15 found in Webster’s, and maybe I have a different dictionary, but, the definition I found was 16 substantial means important. And I think that’s what this is, it’s important to the community. 17 And, it’s honestly, you’re going to hear a lot of testimony that this is a problem, but, you know, 18 we’re not the problem, we’re the solution. Thank you. Oh, and I’d like to introduce Bev Carlson 19 if I could just for a moment and have her just speak briefly. 20 MS. CARLSON: Well, I am Bev Carlson, and I am the owner of the property at 1305 21 South Shields. I find myself a little surprised that I’m standing here before you this evening 22 talking to you about this. But, I, as the owner of that property, I agree with, I do not agree, 23 excuse me, do not agree, with the eligibility for historic, nor will I accept, historic designation on 24 my property. It is really not a conceivable thing to do. I have a contract on the property at this 25 time, which will naturally be in jeopardy if this is continued. And that will be, I don’t know 26 what will happen, because the current contract will not be fulfilled and I don’t feel that the 1305 27 South Shields Street is a proper place to put a historical designation on. I would like to tell you 28 also that the dormers on the front of the quote Cape Cod house, that they said were part of a 29 Cape Cod situation, were put on, I’m sorry I don’t have the date, because my husband and I left 30 in ’68 and went to Wyoming, but those were added on, and I know that. I told the Committee 31 that, but I don’t think they heard what I said, to begin with. I would like very much for you to 32 consider what we’re asking for this evening. And, I hope the decision is a good one. Thank you. 33 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 34 MR. BAILEY: And, I’d like to introduce, again, similar to the last hearing, a motion, and 35 some specific findings, on what I’ve just spoken about. And, also, I have some elements from 36 both the Gebau Structural Engineers report that I showed you and the Rogue Architectural report 37 that was part of this presentation. 13 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I said this earlier as well, anything that we’re getting now, first of 2 all, I’m going to lean on the City Attorney in a moment to determine whether or not it is relevant 3 to what we can do in our purview. Second of all, then we really haven’t had the time to be able 4 to consider it, so I think there’s a couple points. I’m going to wait for the City Attorney to give 5 us his advice on this matter, and then we can proceed from there. 6 MR. BAILEY: And I understand, I’m not asking that you go back and declare it not 7 eligible, I’m asking for you to look at the facts that have been presented tonight and realize that, 8 or come to a realization that, this is a substantial benefit to the community and this, to the 9 greatest extent possible, we’ve tried to plan around it, but we’ve adhered to the Land Use Code, 10 which inhibits that, and we’re asking for the ability to demolish the structure for a one-year 11 period. We obviously cannot do that, we have to come back in and present detailed plans, but 12 we’re thwarted from doing that because of this hurdle that we’re faced with right now. Thank 13 you. 14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thank you. What we’ll be doing right now is getting a staff 15 response to the applicant presentation. While Paul is taken away here for a moment, does other 16 staff, professional staff, have any comments right now, before Paul comes back. 17 MS. LEVINGSTON: Yeah, I do have a few. Staff believes that granting of these 18 modifications would impair the intent of the Section because it is feasible for the applicant to 19 develop the land while preserving the individually eligible property. The second is, if you read 20 the Code citations on page eight of the staff report, “the decision maker may grant a modification 21 of standard only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the 22 public good; and, that the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard 23 would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an 24 existing, defined, and described problem of City-wide concern or would result in a substantial 25 benefit to the City by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an 26 important community need, specifically and expressly defined and described in the City’s 27 Comprehensive Plan or an adopted policy.” While the project does provide multi-family housing 28 in close proximity to CSU’s campus, thirty to fifty units, staff does not consider substantial when 29 compared to the community at large, and we really feel that substantial is mentioned about three 30 times in that justification. And, we compared with other projects, like The Grove, Choice 31 Center, Presidio Apartments, that have 240 units, 218 units, and 219 units, fifty units in 32 comparison, we don’t feel meets that substantial clause of the modification criteria, and that’s 33 why we are recommending denial. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Paul, can I put you on the hot spot on this one? I think that there’s 35 probably a very central theme that we need to establish here pretty quick, and that is our purview 36 in evaluating whether or not the historic preservation program, whether they’re finding 37 something that we have the purview to be able to overturn, essentially. 14 1 MR. ECKMAN: Well, as I said with respect to the last application, the question of 2 eligibility is decided by the Landmark Commission and by the Chair and the Planning Director 3 in connection with demolition. That’s not this Board. And, you have received, I have 4 documents here, one entitled Rogue Architecture, and one entitled Gebau Consulting Structural 5 Engineers, another one Oz Architecture Urban Design/Interior Design. Now, there’s been some 6 objection to the relevance of these, I think, all three documents. 7 MR. BANTHUM: Only the first two you mentioned, sir, are the new ones…My name is 8 Andrew Banthum, I’m a neighbor, and I apologize for the interruption before, it was very 9 important to make a record the moment these documents were referenced. These documents 10 came in today, they’re not appropriate to the issues being considered by the Board today. They 11 should not be part of the record and I need to make a formal motion that they be stricken and not 12 considered by the Board. And, again, I apologize for the nature by which I had to make that but 13 there was no mechanism without actually standing up the first time it was referenced. 14 MR. ECKMAN: Well, what’s your opinion on the Oz Architecture one? 15 MR. BANTHUM: Is that the one that was part of the LPC…? 16 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. 17 MR. BANTHUM: Okay, again, for the same reason, I don’t feel it’s relevant today. 18 That’s not new, that was part of a different process, but it is not all relevant to what is being 19 considered today. 20 MR. ECKMAN: So your objection is to all three? 21 MR. BANTHUM: Yes, my objection is to all three. 22 MR. ECKMAN: Okay, now I don’t think the Board has received the Oz one. The LPC 23 did, but not this Board. Unfortunately, the other two, you got in e-mail today because staff sent 24 it out to you. So, I think, technically, it’s already in the record. Now, there are two choices. 25 You could either decide it’s relevant, keep it in the record, then the applicant may want to 26 explain why it’s relevant to the discussion tonight. Or, if you decide it’s not relevant, you could 27 vote on a motion to strike it from the record, or you could simply agree that it is not going to be 28 considered in your calculations of your decision tonight. So, I think that at this point it might be 29 good for the applicant to explain how it happens that these documents, which seem to go to the 30 question of eligibility, are relevant to your consideration tonight. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Agreed. 32 MR. BAILEY: Mr. Chairman, according to step seven of the Public Hearing, Conduct of 33 Public Hearing, subsection B, Rights of All Persons, any person may appear at a public hearing 34 and submit evidence. So, I think that’s what’s been accomplished here. The fact of relevancy of 15 1 these documents is that, again, we’re not asking for a declaration that the home isn’t eligible, 2 these are just support materials that were part of the slide show. So, I don’t think there’s 3 something that…the Oz documents were submitted to the Landmark Preservation Committee so 4 those should be long in the tooth and those aren’t anything that’s, you know, any recent 5 revelation. You know, I referred to those in November and December. But the Gebau report and 6 the Rogue report, you know, we’re not asking that your decision hinge on those reports. But 7 they are part of the circumstance that has affected Bev Carlson, and certainly myself. Thank 8 you. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Does anybody on the Board have a comment right 10 now, of any sort? 11 MS. SCHMIDT: I guess my only comment would be…was since we got them so late, we 12 really haven’t looked at them anyhow, I don’t know about other Board members. So, I can’t say 13 that I would be using that information in any way this evening I guess. 14 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, Paul, could you, one more time for us, just tell us what our 15 options are in this. I think I heard them but I just want to hear it again. 16 MR. ECKMAN: I think your obligation is to receive all relevant evidence that is offered 17 to you in support of the applicants’ position or any opponents’ position. The question you are 18 trying to decide is: is it relevant? It sounds like the view is that it’s not relevant. So, now, if you 19 think it’s not relevant, you can still keep it in the record, and it’ll go if there’s an appeal to 20 Council, it would go to the Council, but I would advise you that if you think it’s not relevant, 21 then you shouldn’t think about it. Just set it aside and don’t use it in your thought process. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Right, okay, is that something that the Chair needs to make a 23 decision on, or us as a Board? 24 MR. ECKMAN: I don’t think you need to vote on that, I think you can just follow the 25 direction that I gave you not to think about it if you determine that it’s not relevant. You may 26 want to vote on its relevancy just to decide whether to strike it or not from the record. That’s 27 another option that you could have. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. Gino? 29 MR. CAMPANA: I think we could just move forward and not think about it in our 30 decision. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, I think it’s to an issue and a decision that is not relevant for 32 us, and that is whether or not the property is eligible. And so I think that because that is not in 33 our purview, the material that we received late was only to that, as to whether or not the LPC 34 Chair and the Director were wrong in their decision. That’s not for our consideration. And, so, 35 since it’s not for us to consider, the material is irrelevant. And, so, I’m going to recommend to 16 1 the Board that we do put it aside and we focus on the factors and the evidence we have that we 2 can consider. Are we in agreement or does anybody disagree? 3 MR. CAMPANA: Yeah, because I think if they do appeal it to Council, it is in their 4 purview to look at that data and make a decision from there so let’s leave it in the record. 5 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Right, okay, so Paul then, with that being decided and stated, then 6 at this point we could see if there’s any more staff response to what the applicant presented. If 7 staff has any more comments about that; if not, we would go to public testimony. 8 MS. MCWILLIAMS: The only comment I’ll make is to the question of whether it is a 9 Tudor building or a Cape Cod, or some variation of those. You can lay the blame for it being 10 called a Cape Cod squarely with me. The building probably more accurately would be called 11 eclectic or a vernacular building. It’s basically Tudor with a few Cape Cod elements to it, 12 especially based upon its shingling and so forth. But, I know it seems to, for some reason, have 13 brought up a lot of discussion about the style and that really is not…its really a moot point. Lay 14 the blame with me on that one. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, I mean, that’s where I think that we need to establish as a 16 Board, I mean, it’s really at this point how it was determined to be eligible, individually eligible 17 structure, is not in our purview. And, so, it is what it is, and that was that finding I would say. 18 And so, the applicant can’t make any more about it so I think we’ll just take that as it was from 19 the staff report and we’ll move forward that it is eligible. 20 With that, the public should have the opportunity now to address this issue. Again, I 21 don’t think that it’s necessary to get into whether or not, you know, getting into the architectural 22 styles, into how it is or is not worthy of designation or not, or that it’s eligible, because I think 23 that’s been established and that’s not in our purview. That would be something for back to the 24 LPC and the Director, and ultimately to City Council. So, just saying that in the interest of time 25 and brevity and germane to be able to come and speak to us. I’ll give every speaker three 26 minutes, if you would state your name and address for the record and sign in please. How many 27 folks would like to address? Please raise your hand. Don’t you guys want to go home tonight? 28 MS. SCHMIDT: If you are going to repeat something that someone else has already said, 29 just say “I agree with the previous speaker.” We don’t have to hear it again for three minutes, 30 thank you. 31 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, please go ahead and line up. I want to give you the 32 opportunity, and it was just a joke, we’ll take the time that we need to get through this. If you 33 want to come up and have your three minutes, let’s do it. Again, name and address, and please 34 sign in, and don’t steal the pen. 17 1 MR. SANDVIG: My name is Patrick Sandvig. I’m just speaking on behalf of students, 2 just talking about how we do need more student housing around the CSU campus. I’m a second 3 generation CSU student and my brother and me both realized how, as the years have gone on, 4 it’s harder to find housing for school. Starting to look for housing has to begin in January so you 5 have to make decisions on who your roommates are, who’s going to be there when people don’t 6 even know if they’re coming back. And these processes are just getting sooner and sooner that 7 you’re making decisions on what you’re doing next fall semester during the fall semester. So, I 8 just think it’d be really beneficial to have more student housing around the campus. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, next speaker please. 10 MR. ANDERSON: My name is Reggie Anderson, 1300 Skyline Drive. Well, I’m going 11 to go ahead and agree with Pat. Also, I would like to make it known that, just the proximity to 12 campus, I mean, there’s student housing, it’s just that the closeness to campus. That’s going to 13 cut down on a lot. We don’t have to worry about as many people getting parking passes at CSU, 14 so I know personally that you can go at a certain time to campus and not have a spot, even 15 though you bought a pass. So, I figure if you have, what, its fifty units, so sixty, seventy kids 16 that are living in these units, those are sixty, seventy kids that don’t have to buy a parking permit. 17 That helps. Also, just the daily commute, the traffic, everything. If you have these people that 18 don’t have to drive either, just walk across the street, that’s going to cut down on a lot. And, also 19 I know that Chuck is, he’s very passionate about what he does. It’s not going to be some, you 20 know, mediocre place, it’s going to be a very nice place, very conveniently located. We’re just 21 going to have a lot…it’s a benefit to the City, it’s not a drawback, so that’s where I’m at. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. How many more folks want to speak to this? Sir, 23 before you speak, if you don’t mind, when you’re done, would you put that sign-up sheet right 24 over there by staff? Karen, will you take that sign up sheet? If you’re going to speak, please 25 sign up as the speaker is finishing up so we can go. When you’re done signing in, then you can 26 come up and chat when it’s your turn. Sorry, sir, go ahead. 27 MR. DELINE: My name is Ben Deline, and I live at 609 City Park Avenue, and it’s 28 pretty close to campus there. It’s nice, I can walk and ride my bike, you know, a lot of activity 29 through there. And, the kid that lives with me, actually, he’s one of my best friends, and he used 30 to live down off of Harmony and Shields, just north of Front Range there. And, that is, you 31 know, it took him fifteen minutes to get to class every day because he couldn’t find anything 32 near to campus. And, the same thing, my girlfriend lives 2525 West Lake Street which is a ways 33 off. And at both of those locations, both neighbors do not like living next to college students, I 34 mean, we stay up late, we’re loud, we like to play loud music and drink beer. That’s what 35 college is. And, having a place like the Carriage House closer to campus will help draw people 36 that are attending CSU out of society and clump them where they should be around campus 37 instead of disbursing them throughout Fort Collins. I mean, Fort Collins is a college town, you 38 know, and the students should be located around campus and I feel like, if people have a problem 18 1 with the students, then they should separate themselves from the students and this helps make 2 that possible. Giving students a place to live near to campus, I feel like makes a society, Fort 3 Collins, a better place to live for people that are attending CSU and people that are not. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Again, if you can, sign in while you’re waiting. 5 MR. MERTZ: My name is Nick Mertz, I live at 517 South Whitcomb. I’m a senior 6 marketing student. I came in here as a transfer, I was at UNC for two years and then came here, 7 and I think the biggest problem I found, was is that there wasn’t really too much nice housing 8 developments around campus. I lived off Horsetooth and Shields in the Seasons and that was 9 really the nicest thing at the time, other than maybe the Flats. And, you know, the Flats had a 10 waiting list, I came in here late and it wasn’t realistic to wait on that waiting list. You know, I 11 had to commute every day to school. Having something like this new apartment complex that’s, 12 you know, planned to go up, is huge and it’s great. It’s going to be a great opportunity for 13 students who, like myself, want, you know a little bit nicer housing much closer to campus. The 14 house I live in now, it’s almost embarrassing to live in, it’s so run down, and we have an 15 opportunity for someone to come in here and clean it up, literally. I mean, if you look at the 16 place, you clean it up, it’s going to look great, there’s going to be a lot of opportunities there. 17 And, another huge point to make is, right as you’re driving into school, you have out of state 18 people that are coming to visit the campus for the first time, you’re driving north on Shields, 19 campus is on the right, coming to the left you see this beautiful new complex there. You know, 20 I’m a student, I’m going to want to live there, I’m going to say, wow, this is real nice. The City 21 has done some nice things to put this apartment complex up. You go all the way to Laurel, you 22 turn right, you know, Pura Vida, that other apartment complex right there, and then you continue 23 down to the Flats, then you see the Oval with all the new construction that’s going on on campus. 24 It’s going to look really nice, it’s going to attract a lot of new students, I think, and it’s only 25 going to help the community you know. And I know some people are disgruntled that, you 26 know, that an apartment complex is going to be built close to their homes, but, again, it is a 27 location that’s geared toward students. All the businesses around there are geared with the 28 student in mind, they target student demographic. So, you know, overall, I only think this is 29 going to help the community and help students at CSU. Thank you. 30 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 31 MR. DOURAS: Good night Council, my name is Greg Douras, I live at 1205 Springfield. 32 I’m a CSU graduate and a CSU graduate student, and an employee of CSU. My live goes to 33 them. I would like you to support the staff decision to deny this project for the following 34 reasons. The site that’s going to be demolished, or proposed to be demolished, doesn’t appear to 35 infringe on the buildings very much. It seems like the site could be designed such that that 36 building could be preserved. And, that is a designated site. The neighborhood around it has no 37 three-story buildings and no multi-family housing. Both Bennett Drive and Springfield Drive are 38 all single-family houses back to City Park. City Park is the first point at which you see any 19 1 multi-family units there. Third point is, the project in its current state seems infeasible, there’s 2 not enough parking for the number of proposed beds, and there seems to be a lack of concrete 3 plans at this point since there’s no site to develop, as the developer stated himself. Finally, 4 there’s been no alternative for the single-family sites, or the single lots, as in the previous case 5 you considered tonight. There was a discussion of developing each lot individually, and not 6 clumping them all into a multiple lot development. So I believe that all those are important in 7 the decision to deny that. Thank you for your time. 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. One thing I just want to say is I want to remind 9 everybody, is that the focus of what we’re considering tonight is not a development proposal of 10 any sort. We’re not looking at whether, what it’s going to be. It is specific to a stand-alone 11 request to modify one of the standards relating to the demolition of an eligible residence, or 12 structure, for historic preservation. So, I’m sorry, continue. 13 MR. SUTHERLAND: Eric Sutherland of Fort Collins, and I just wanted to quickly note 14 that Fort Collins does not yet have a Student Housing Action Plan. City Council did have a 15 worksession on that just two nights ago in this building but it’s very preliminary you know. 16 They’re just going through the process and the applicant did speak to that as though it were 17 carrying the weight of perhaps the City Plan, or a neighborhood plan that might be in existence, 18 but it’s not there yet. It hasn’t been vetted on, it hasn’t been voted on and I’d really expect the 19 City staff to inform the Council and the public of those types of facts when they come up. 20 Thanks. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 22 MS. QUACKENBUSH: Hi, my name is Sandy Quackenbush, and I am a neighbor of the 23 proposed project, and I first want to thank the committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of 24 the neighborhood about this project. And, I want to provide a little bit of history about how we 25 got here tonight. Our reading of the Municipal Code and Land Use Code tells us that the City 26 places a very high value on historic structures, and that if someone wants to develop a property 27 that contains an historic structure, or one that is eligible for historic designation, the developer 28 must attempt to preserve the structure and integrate it into the development plan. We think it is 29 important to review the history of the applicant’s dealings with the City so that you have a clear 30 picture of his objectives. The applicant elected several months ago to pursue demolition of all 31 the structures on the properties through the demolition alteration review process in the Municipal 32 Code, because he believes that none of the buildings have any historic significance. The 33 Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Landmark 34 Preservation Commission Chair made three separate determinations that the house at 1305 South 35 Shields is eligible for an historic designation. The applicant was afforded two opportunities at 36 two separate preliminary hearings in November and December of 2011, to explore alternatives to 37 substantially preserve the house. But, at both hearings, he chose instead, to argue against the 38 eligibility determination. He did not make any explanation of what he had tried to do to comply. 20 1 Since no solution was found for preservation or integration of the house, because none 2 was offered, the next step in the demolition alteration review process was for the applicant to 3 submit all of the required documentation and then schedule a final hearing. One of the required 4 submittal items is an approved development plan, and to my knowledge, no development plan 5 has been submitted to date. Since the review process for a development plan would require 6 compliance with Land Use Code Section 3.4.7, the applicant tried to get the LPC, during the 7 December meeting, preliminary hearing, to move from the demolition alteration review process 8 to a different process under the Municipal Code: the landmark designation process. Historic 9 designation was clearly contrary to the applicant’s position that the house is not eligible. He 10 asked the LPC to designate the house as a historic structure without having complied with any of 11 the procedural requirements of that process. Escape from the demolition alteration review 12 process and the development review requirements by requesting a decision from the LPC on 13 historic designation would have allowed an immediate appeal of the decision to City Council. 14 The LPC, properly, refused to allow this. The applicant’s options were clear. I guess I’m done. 15 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, I’m sorry, that’s your three minutes. Next speaker please. 16 MR. ROUNAK: Hello, my name is Joel Rounak, I live about 500 feet from the site. The 17 applicant’s options were clear: design a development that preserves and incorporates the house, 18 or prove that he cannot after attempting to do so to the maximum extent feasible. Mr. Bailey has 19 done neither. He has, instead, chosen to ask for a modification which would excuse him from 20 such efforts. With that, I’d like to cede my time to Mr. Taylor. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. 22 MR. TAYLOR: David Taylor, 1302 Bennett. We have twelve neighbors left. From here 23 forward, we’d like to pool our time. We’re not going to take the whole time but a couple of us 24 would like to speak longer than three minutes. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let’s see here, I mean, there’s twelve folks from the same 26 neighborhood. Normally what we’ll do is we will give a representative of the neighborhood a 27 little bit more time. So, it’s a little bit of negotiation, if a couple of you might agree not to step 28 up, I mean we saw that you’re here, we’d be willing to give you some additional time. How 29 many folks would you all want to be representatives to speak? 30 MR. TAYLOR: Dave, seven minutes, Andrew about ten minutes, Lauren about three or 31 four minutes. The rest are prepared to stand and say “I agree.” 32 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah, that’s reasonable, let’s do that. So, you said seven. 33 MR. TAYLOR: Oh, one more point of privilege I guess, for the notes that I’m going to 34 review, I have ten copies, I don’t know if you need those or want those or what have you. 21 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: You can pass them off to staff there. One thing I would just ask 2 you all is that, like we’ve asked the applicant, is to be able to stay focused on really, I mean if it’s 3 stuff about the merits of a development proposal for the project, it’s not really relevant or 4 germane. So, I would like to caution you to be able to kind of narrow and focus your comments 5 to be germane to the request for a modification to that standard. 6 MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: And I want to make sure that the applicant has this as well. Have 8 you seen it yet? Okay, I want to make sure that the applicant gets this because the applicant will 9 have the opportunity to respond to what he hears here and I’m going to give him this as well. 10 MR. TAYLOR: Okay, ready? Alright, on behalf of the neighbors, I’ll spend the next few 11 minutes talking through the specific criteria required for a modification, so I am going to try to 12 stay very close to the subject, and why we believe the applicant has failed to comply. There’s 13 four alternate justifications for approving a modification and there’s also a mandatory fifth 14 criteria with which all requests must comply. The applicant did not use criteria one, three, or 15 four, but I will start by going through a couple of those very, very briefly. Criteria one asks, 16 does the plan with the modification, promote the purpose of the standard equally well or better 17 than a plan without the modification. You’ve heard a lot about 3.4.7 today for the last four or 18 five hours. It articulates the importance of preserving historic sites “to the maximum extent 19 possible.” Demolishing 1305 will definitely not promote this, criterion one, therefore we 20 conclude, is not met. Criterion three is about exceptional and unique physical conditions, it 21 doesn’t really apply here. We’ll just kind of gloss over that one. Criteria four asks, this is 22 2.8.2(H)(4). One reason for the handout is all this Code stuff is in there. Criteria four asks, is 23 the divergence from Land Use Code standards nominal and inconsequential, and does the 24 development plan continue to advance purposes of Land Use Code. The applicant doesn’t rely 25 on criteria four, but the demolition of an historical property is not a nominal divergence from a 26 standard that requires its preservation. It’s effectively a complete waiver of that standard. 27 Neither could the demolition be called inconsequential. Several neighbors, including myself, 28 have testified at LPC hearings about the historic significance of the property to us personally. 29 Therefore, we conclude that criteria number four does not apply. 30 The applicant focuses on criteria number two to justify the modification. This has several 31 parts so this will take a little longer. First part, is there no impairment of intent and purpose of 32 Land Use Code. We claim there is impairment, Section 3.4.7 for one, is impaired as we 33 discussed. And, this impairs Section 1.2.2 as well, “ensuring that the development proposals are 34 sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhoods.” The West Central Neighborhood Plan 35 has been quoted by the applicant, but I could quote it ad nauseum here as well. Our 36 neighborhood is characterized therein with existing housing, single-family homes, small versus 37 large structures, mixed-use housing as a component of redevelopment near the Campus West 38 area, not down by us. Distribution of student housing in other appropriate locations throughout 22 1 Fort Collins to help avoid over-concentrations of short-term residents that have tended to 2 destabilize certain West Central neighborhoods. It talks about reuse versus demolition, it talks 3 about existing buildings, it talks about adequate parking. So, there’s lots of stuff in there that 4 speak to 1.2.2. So, we conclude that’s not met as well. 5 And, secondly, does the modification substantially alleviate a defined City need, or result 6 in substantial benefit to the City. The applicant focuses on policies of the City Plan and 7 statement from the West Central Neighborhood Plan in support of the project, and there is some 8 validity to some of that. But, in comparison to the other student housing projects, and the overall 9 need to the City, fifty new units, or one hundred new beds, which is probably I guess maybe 92 10 or 93 actual new beds net, because there are already students living on the property today, would 11 not make a substantial difference, and it would certainly have to make a very substantial 12 difference to justify demolition in the face of all the historical aspects of the request. 13 And, thirdly, does strict application of the standard render the project practically 14 infeasible. We think not. The applicant did not present alternative development plans. He states 15 the structure’s not worth saving, that it’s not historic, that the chosen plan requires demolition, 16 that his contract requires him to purchase the whole property. You know, we live in a City 17 where we’re proud of our historic structures. We encourage the owner to take advantage of 18 incentives to rehabilitate the structure, rearrange buildings, downsize buildings, reduce the 19 number of buildings, put the site to a different use entirely. There’s any number of alternatives 20 and, bear in mind, that the property immediately adjacent to this, was developed just a few years 21 ago, profitably, with a very modest and compatible single family homes, the bungalows that a lot 22 of us live in. So, feasible options do seem to exist. 23 We recall another student housing project that was before the Board called The Grove. 24 That didn’t deal with a historic structure, but that developer had to redesign and change a number 25 of things about the project, at the direction of this Board, in order to come up with a plan that 26 balanced all the competing objectives. And I’ve got to believe that’s possible here as well. 27 Concluding section two, the applicant has not proven, in our opinion, compliance with the 28 mandatory elements here. 29 On to the last criteria, this is the mandatory criteria and it’s very simple, is there no 30 detriment to the public good. We think there would be detriment to the public good here. I will 31 cite Municipal Code 14-2, historic preservation declaration of policy, “It is hereby declared, as a 32 matter of public policy, that the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of sites, structures, 33 objects, and districts, of historical, architectural, or geographic significance, located within the 34 City, are a public necessity, and are required, in the interest of prosperity, civic pride, and the 35 general welfare of the people.” So, in the face of all that, we can’t see how the PZB can approve 36 this. I thank you very much for your time and your diligent work on behalf of the City. 23 1 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. And, I want to make sure that the three of you who 2 are going to speak do sign in. 3 MS. MYRACLE: Alright, so I’m going to be brief as well. I’m Lauren Myracle, I live at 4 1338 Bennett. I’ve spoken before the Landmark Preservation Committee as well and I fully 5 support the positions of all those who are opposed to this project. What I’d like to do, briefly, is 6 address a different facet of this issue. And, thanks for listening. So, I’m a writer, that’s my job, 7 and in my capacity as a writer, I’m surrounded every day by stories and culture and history. 8 And, because of that, I’ve gained an intimate, first-hand knowledge of how important that is to 9 us as people, and not just as attorneys, or developers, or moms and dads and students, or policy- 10 makers, but it’s important to us as humans. What we’re deliberating tonight, it seems to me, is at 11 its most basic level, the importance of history, and it is important. By preserving history, we’re 12 remembering where we came from. History is our cultural DNA; without it, we risk losing track 13 of who we were without it. We risk losing site of who we can become, who we chose as a 14 community to become. And, in my opinion, that is hugely detrimental to the public good. There 15 are many ways of preserving and honoring our history, but a building such as 1305 16 Springfield…a physical entity, a home, plays a special role in that process. Even if, or maybe 17 especially if, that house has morphed, as Mr. Bailey has suggested. 1305 Springfield is a 18 microcosm of time and place. It’s a living, non-static historical record that no photo, or film, or 19 written document can replace. To tear down the house at 1305 Springfield, to make it disappear, 20 would change our town in a significant and irreversible way. So, I ask you please, as you 21 deliberate, think hard about whether you’re comfortable letting that happen. Thanks. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Next speaker please. 23 MR. BANTHAM: Thank you, and I believe I’m the final speaker. My name is Andrew 24 Bantham, I’m at 1214 Bennett, just a couple hundred feet from the proposed development. Dave 25 indicated I needed ten minutes, I’m actually going to take fewer than five, so I won’t keep you 26 much longer. I think many of the issues have been covered, and as you heard from Dave Taylor 27 a few minutes ago, the applicant’s request does not meet the necessary criteria for modification 28 and should be rejected tonight on those grounds. However, I also think it’s important to take a 29 step back for a minute and look, philosophically almost, at what the applicant’s asking you to do 30 here tonight. Both the Municipal Code as well as the land use preservation regarding historic 31 preservation are parts of how development works in Fort Collins. And, in many ways, they are 32 the embodiment of a number of very important goals for the City. And, in this situation, rather 33 than attempting to design a development that meets these requirements and complies with the 34 Land Use Code, Section 3.4.7, the applicant has chosen instead to seek a complete waiver, 35 essentially, of these requirements through this modification process. It’s not a small 36 modification, it’s essentially very close to a waiver of the entire Section. This applicant appears 37 to be doing everything he can to subvert the process and get around the requirements of the 38 Code. And, I think in many ways, this is what’s been so frustrating to the neighbors. One of the 39 critiques you often hear about neighbors and neighborhood groups in the development process is 24 1 that they often don’t get involved until the very end. They’ll come before Council or even before 2 P&Z and they don’t take the time to educate themselves about the issues or review the Code, or 3 educate themselves about the process. But, we have the complete opposite situation. We have 4 neighbors who were very involved, who were studying the issues, trying to stay involved in the 5 process. In contrary to that, we’ve got an applicant who appears to be trying to subvert the entire 6 process in requesting waivers, essentially, for entire sections of the Land Use Code. And, the 7 reasons suggested by the applicant in support of that position, are very difficult also for the 8 neighbors to understand. There’ve been references to a site plan several times during the 9 process, in support of the modification, and there’s even been a suggestion that every possible 10 site plan that could keep this house doesn’t work. But, how do we really know that’s true when 11 we don’t even have a development plan. I mean, the requirement is that there be a demonstration 12 of every effort to preserve and maximize to the extent feasible, and we’ve seen no evidence of 13 that in support of this modification request. The second thing we heard about is financial, and 14 we’ve heard this from several folks, and we’ve heard it in prior processes as well. There were 15 repeated references to the fact that the only way this project can work is to bulldoze this 16 potentially historic, and certainly eligible, structure. And, granted, we don’t know the details of 17 this applicant’s deal or what financial promises he’s made to his investors, but I think it’s fair to 18 suggest that the possibility that any development project that is based from the very beginning on 19 the premise, or the request, or the requirement, the City essentially waive entire portions of its 20 Land Use Code, is either not a terribly well thought-out project, or it’s just not appropriate for 21 that particular site. And, finally, I’m just going to wrap up by urging the Board to consider what 22 a bad precedent this would set if this type of modification request was granted. Again, this is a 23 neighborhood, I mean just look at home many neighbors have stuck around on a Thursday night 24 this late. This is a very important issue and people make decisions about where to live, and 25 obviously the Board understands this, but where people live and where they chose to raise their 26 families, are based in part on the character of the neighborhood. And, a huge part of that 27 character is what can or can’t be built around them, and reliance on that. People rely on the 28 values embodied by the Land Use Code, and the processes and the procedures set up. And it’s 29 very disturbing, the suggestion that someone should be allowed to come into town and 30 essentially avoid participating in the process. And, very briefly, the LPC, there was a 31 mechanism to challenge that, not to come in front of P&Z and say, hey, we don’t like what 32 happened, that’s fine, the decision went against you, and it’s fine that the applicant isn’t okay 33 with that, but rather than avail himself the process and set it for a formal meeting, he’s jumped to 34 a different process and tried to essentially reargue the case in front of the Board. And that, 35 finally, is very frustrating to the neighbors, people who’ve taken the time to educate themselves, 36 who have made decisions about their neighborhood, where they’re doing to live and reliance on 37 these codes and processes. And, for those reasons, we think this sort of a waiver, this sort of 38 modification, would set a terrible precedent, and we urge the Board to uphold the determination 39 and the recommendations of staff and to deny this modification request. Thank you. 40 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Any more comments? 25 1 MR. BROBST: Neighbors are done? 2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I believe so, is that true? Neighborhood is done at three? Okay. 3 MR. BROBST: Good evening Board. My name is Doug Brobst, I live at 1625 4 Independence Road. You may remember that I appeared before you two or three times during 5 the consideration of The Grove. I’m a strong advocate for student housing in Fort Collins. I’m 6 not necessarily going to support every project that comes down the road, but I think we need to 7 look at each of the projects on their merits. I was part of the stakeholders group that came up 8 with the so-called SHAP proposal to City Council. I was…it was interesting to me that the City 9 is rejecting Mr. Bailey’s proposal because it’s not large enough, that we need to have projects 10 such as The Grove, or The Commons, in order to be considered important enough, big enough. 11 We don’t have enough room in the city close to campus for such projects. The other part of it is, 12 as we all know, going through The Grove fiasco, neighbors just strongly object to those kind. 13 Now, The Commons was pretty much went right through because it’s not near any 14 neighborhoods, but we don’t have that situation all the time. The basic problem that we have is 15 that we need student housing. Everybody, I think, in the city will agree on that. But, CSU is 16 either unable or unwilling, and now with the stadium proposal I think it’s more that they’re 17 unwilling, to propose, or to follow through and keep up with student housing in accordance with 18 their increased enrollment that they’re predicting. Now, I’m not saying that I would necessarily 19 support either of the proposals that came before you this evening, but, what was obvious to me 20 was that the City was rejecting them on just grounds that would make them not economically 21 feasible for a developer. And, like I said before, CSU is not willing to come up with student 22 housing, so it’s going to be up to, apparently up to, private developers to fill that void. We’ve 23 got to make sure that the City is making it feasible for developers to follow through with 24 projects. I think keeping the house at 1305, on this site, is going to make this very well-located 25 property undevelopable in the future. I urge you to allow this change that’s being talked about 26 tonight so this project can move forward and be judged on its merits, or lack thereof. Thank you 27 very much. 28 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Any other member of the audience like to step 29 forward and address the Board on this topic? Are you sure? We’re going to close it here in a 30 second and this is the last opportunity to address the Board on this issue. Okay, we’ll close the 31 public testimony at this time. We will move into an applicant response. The applicant has the 32 opportunity to tell us what he thinks about what we just heard. 33 MR. BAILEY: Thank you. I’ll try to keep it brief and concise. First, off, the 34 modification of standard is part of the City process. The concept that I’m subverting the City 35 process…it’s absurd, this is part of the process. This is a component of Section 2.8 and that’s 36 exactly what we’re doing, asking you to look at this situation as a modification to 3.4.7(B) and 37 (E). And, the issue that we have in front of us…it’s a bit of a chicken and egg. We don’t own 38 the property, so how do we spend $100,000 and come back, similar to the last hearing you heard, 26 1 and have this conversation. We have to get this out in front and we have to find out if this is a 2 showstopper or not, and, so that’s the entire purpose of tonight’s hearing: to find out if this 3 particular issue, if the City is going to fall on their sword on this particular house at that location. 4 The statement of facts and specific findings for modification of standard that has been submitted, 5 paragraph two says demolition does not impair the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code, and 6 further advances the intent and purpose of the Land Use Code set forth Section 1.2.2, by 7 fostering the safe, efficient, economic use of the land, the City’s transportation infrastructure and 8 other public facilities and services, TOD overlay district, which this is certainly a part of, 9 encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile, and, you know, I 10 could go on and on. It’s these varied components, but, that is the reason that we are seeking this 11 modification. 12 We are in compliance with the Land Use Code…I mean, we haven’t submitted a plan, we 13 all know that, and so, we’re going to get in front of this Board, hopefully, and submit a plan. 14 But, the plan that we’re contemplating adheres to the Land Use Code and, as you heard earlier, 15 there are floor area restrictions in terms of the total amount of floor area and that property has to 16 be developed on the front half in the NCB zoning, we heard all of that earlier tonight. That’s 17 what we plan to do, we are adhering to that code by pushing these buildings to the front half of 18 the property so Springfield Drive becomes the new front of this property. So, we can’t build in 19 the back half of this property. And, we are building smaller buildings to conform to the West 20 Central Neighborhood Plan. So, you could say, well, gee, just build around it. Well, that 21 becomes a single building back here? That’s not something that you’re going to want to see and 22 approve next to a single-family neighborhood, and not something that I want to take to the 23 market. So, that is why the greatest extent possible, we’re…the Land Use Code is dictating this 24 plan. Setbacks, parking in the rear, all of these are components of the NCB zoning district. This 25 project would comply completely with all zoning requirements in a transit-oriented district. 26 And, there are no minimum parking requirements, as you might know. But, we’ve contemplated 27 fifty-two parking spaces. We believe that, as in our Pura Vida community has over seventy 28 interior bike racks, so we’re going to create a situation here where we think we can build a 29 community that doesn’t center around automobiles. And, to go back to an item of record, the 30 Historitecture report item forty-four, it says, it checks the box, that this project, this particular 31 house, 1305, is not eligible for the national standards. It checked the box, that means it’s not 32 eligible for the state standards. So, that means that the City of Fort Collins has got a different 33 standard than the State of Colorado and the national Secretary of Interior standards. I don’t 34 know why. The architecture lacks integrity, and for that reason, you know, we argue that it 35 doesn’t comply. 36 And, finally, the definition of substantial, again, is important. Is this project important to 37 the city? To my knowledge, there’s only been one property designated over the objection of a 38 land owner, and that was the post office at South College and Oak. Is that the path that we’re 39 taking here? You’ve heard from Bev Carlson, she…this is very, very damaging to someone who 27 1 grew up in Fort Collins, who lived here all her life, moved away and is retired now, but, she’s 2 not in favor of this being designated as a historical landmark. Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: As the applicant, do you, or any other member of your team, have 4 more comments? You’re welcome to continue, really in response to the public testimony. 5 MR. OLDHAM: My name is Mike Oldham, I live at 16131 West Ellsworth Avenue in 6 Golden, Colorado. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Again, you’re part of the applicant’s team? 8 MR. OLDHAM: I’m part of the applicant’s team. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, okay, thank you. 10 MR. OLDHAM: I’m not a developer, so a lot of this is foreign to me, I don’t really 11 understand all the legalities, but I want to set the record straight on a couple of things. First of 12 all, there’s been some talk about there was no effort made to try to incorporate this house into the 13 plan. That’s just not true. We hired, not we, Chuck, hired Oz Architecture to do a land plan and 14 they looked extensively at how to leave the house there and build around it, and it just turned out 15 not to be feasible unless you build some kind of a tower or much larger structure. So, if we were 16 going to comply with, what my understanding was what the land plan called for, smaller 17 buildings in the context of the neighborhood, it just didn’t make sense. And I sat through the 18 meeting personally and listened to that, so just so that you understand there was a lot of effort put 19 into trying to figure that out. My interest in this is strictly as a small-time, local guy investor, 20 and I made a small investment in the Pura Vida place because it’s a great opportunity, it’s a great 21 thing for the community. I think if anybody sees what Chuck and the team’s done over there, 22 they’ll agree that they’ve done a great job. And, I think this project can be the same. For me, 23 it’s just an opportunity to be part of something in the community, and I think it would be short- 24 sighted not to make this change and move forward with the project. Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Mr. Bailey, do you have any other folks that you 26 want from your team? Okay, thank you. At this point, we’d also like to hear from staff to be 27 able to comment on the public testimony that we heard, and also the applicant’s response to that 28 public testimony. 29 MS. LEVINGSTON: In terms of the proposed other plans that would comply with the 30 standard that would preserve the structures, those were never submitted to staff, nor did staff 31 ever see the plans that we drawn up by Oz Architecture, incorporating the individually eligible 32 structure into a project development plan, we never saw those. So, I just wanted to make sure 33 that was on the record, that we did not look at those plans. And, I have no further input. 34 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay, thanks. Paul, are you going to say something? 28 1 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I think that, whether it complied or not isn’t what’s before us, 2 again. We’re here to decide whether a modification should be granted, not whether the plan, if 3 there were a plan, complies with the standard. So, Ms. Levingston has given you, I think, a good 4 analysis of the way the staff feels about the question before you and I think Mr. Bailey has given 5 you a good analysis of the way he feels in this document called “Carriage House Apartments, 6 Specific Findings for Modification of Standards.” As you know, you have to decide if it’s 7 detrimental to the public good as kind of an opening decision. Then, you have to decide if this 8 plan alleviates an existing defined problem or addresses and benefits an important community 9 need, and, in doing so, does not impair the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code. So, Mr. 10 Bailey has, at least in his presentation, on the first page, dealt a lot with whether the plan is 11 detrimental to the public good, and is essentially saying, well, it’s not very…it doesn’t have 12 much integrity, and so it’s…and there’s other arguments there as you can read as well that 13 would, in his mind, think it’s not detrimental to the public good to demolish it. The paragraph 14 two deals with the impairing the intent and purposes of the Land Use Code and paragraph three 15 deals with the important community need. And, really, that’s the question before you. It’s just 16 as before, if you think it’s detrimental to the public good as all those four motions were the last 17 time, or five, you can stop there. And, if not, you can go on to decide if you think that this 18 student housing project is an important enough community need to trump this historic 19 preservation criteria that the modification is being requested for. 20 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. Thank you, Paul. 21 MS. SCHMIDT: So, Paul, is it correct, because…what he’s asking the modification for 22 is…he’s saying that the requirement that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all 23 possible efforts to comply…have been undertaken. He’s saying that has not happened and that’s 24 what they’re asking the modification for. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I mean, I think Paul, for a moment, is that, in the staff report, 26 which we’ve had a chance to read for nearly two weeks, that on page eight, at the top, that sums 27 up the argument, is that…I think this kind of gets to what our purview is, is that we’re taking it 28 as being that it is an eligible property and that, regardless of that, that he’s asking for the 29 modification of a standard, that it’s not detrimental to the public good, and that the proposed 30 project substantially benefits the City by reason of the fact that it substantially address important 31 community needs that are specifically and expressly defined, described policy considerations in 32 the TOD overlay zone, City Plan, and the West Central Neighborhood Plan; all is directly 33 applicable to the project site. And, I think that’s the core of this issue, is just, besides all the stuff 34 about whether or not the property is…am I right? Okay, I saw one shaking head. But, I mean, 35 we’re not discussing whether or not the property is eligible or not, it’s just that, if it is, is it okay 36 to demolish it because it’s not detrimental to the public good and the project would substantially 37 benefit the city. 29 1 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, and we’re presuming that we’re just making it because there is no 2 alternative and all possible efforts have been taken. He’s saying it’s not possible, and that to 3 design a plan incorporating the house, and therefore they’re asking for the modification, right? 4 And then, if we agree with the modification, then we agree with it based on these criteria? 5 MR. ECKMAN: I don’t think that the compliance, feasibility, and all that…you don’t 6 have a plan to look at, so you have no idea whether they’ve taken all feasible efforts to comply 7 with the…we’re not measuring compliance with the standard. And, please, feel free to help out, 8 but I think that the request is, and I don’t want to put words in the applicant’s mouth. I think that 9 the request is, from what I’ve seen in this document, that it’s not detrimental to the public good, 10 student housing trumps historic preservation, and it doesn’t impair the intent and purpose of the 11 Land Use Code. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: It accomplishes goals that are stated…that’s the argument, and 13 then, I mean, along those lines is that it, I think, we…to be able to consider whether or not it’s 14 feasible, we’d have to at least see a plan. We don’t even know, necessarily, how many units 15 there are, so for us to be able to be consider feasibility is a moot point. Jennifer? 16 MS. CARPENTER: Which is my concern. I think we all agree that we need student 17 housing, but I think what we’re being asked to do here tonight, and twice, is to say that student 18 housing is more important than historic preservation. So, then what we’re saying is, that we 19 can’t get student housing and keep our historic properties. I don’t believe that’s true. I also 20 think that through this whole…through our whole Code, and you look at 3.4.7, everything ties 21 back to a proposed development, to a proposed plan. And, we’re making a precedent here of 22 separating this completely from a development plan, so that we don’t really have any way to 23 know. We’re being asked to take down this historic structure with what looks like, you know, 24 kind of a nice plan, but we don’t have any plan. 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I think, Jennifer, I agree with you to a certain degree, that, in this 26 case, it is about, you know, historic preservation. But, I think it really is about substantial. I 27 think that’s the qualifier in the statement is, is that if we agree, we can grant the request to 28 modify the standard if, obviously, we got around the idea about detrimental to the public good, 29 but then we’d also have to make the finding that it’s substantially addressing a community need. 30 And, you know, maybe if it was eliminating a community problem that we identified, I mean I’m 31 just speaking hypothetically, but let’s just say it’s a real bad problem, it’s a drought, whatever, 32 not even housing, and this would eliminate drought. Then, yeah, the loss of an eligible home 33 would be worth it, if we made that finding. So, I mean, I think that there are times when, you 34 know, that’s why the word substantially, I think, is in there, is it’s important for us to be able to 35 say that it is not only not detrimental to the public good, but it substantially addresses those 36 community needs, and that’s where… 30 1 MS. CARPENTER: So, you’re saying is go to meet both of those? It’s not detrimental 2 and it’s substantial. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: It does have to, it’s my understanding that… 4 MR. ECKMAN: It does, and Courtney has addressed that on page nine, and she and I 5 talked about the Webster’s definition before she drafted this. And, there are various meanings 6 for the term “substantial” in the big dictionary. The one that seemed most appropriate was 7 “considerable in amount, value, or worth.” Other ones say “having substance,” more general 8 definitions. But, that one seemed to be the one that would apply the best in this situation. But, 9 you know, you’ve had testimony about the number of units and it’s for you to decide if that’s 10 considerable in amount, and, so, I can’t wait to find out what you think. 11 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I mean, I think that’s where substantial…I’m sorry, I don’t want 12 to dominate the conversation, but substantial, I think, is going to be something that has, you 13 know, a big impact, as determined by a reasonable person, and that would be, you know, it has to 14 be compared against other relative developments, you know, or other projects, at least in my 15 mind. Not the only criteria, but substantial, and we’re talking about, we have to be able to say, is 16 thirty to fifty substantial, and even in the staff report we see that, you know, Choice Center is 17 219, Grove is 218, 240. And I’m not saying that just by measurement of the bedroom units is it 18 going to be substantial, but I think that’s one factor for me, is whether or not substantial is 19 substantial compared to similar projects. 20 MS. SCHMIDT: Well, and I can see Mr. Bailey’s comment about the, you know, 21 financial incentives that that might create and that he considers that a substantial asset to the 22 City. And, I guess my problem is though, I think some of those could still be gained by someone 23 else who might come in a do a project that preserves the house. Could be even something else. 24 As far as the financial incentives, I would say, too, that this amount of housing may not be 25 considered substantial by a lot of people. I mean, Doug comes to our meetings all the time 26 slamming CSU for not keeping up with their housing needs and yet they’re probably putting 200 27 beds a year on-line themselves with adding floors to the residence halls and changing some of 28 their…so they are trying to meet the needs and, if like 200 beds a year isn’t considered 29 substantial, then these probably aren’t either. So, you know, I don’t know, I mean, I think people 30 are making an effort to not to say that it isn’t important and I’d like to see a project. I think there 31 would be a good project here, but I think possibly that, you know, something could be designed 32 that would keep the house. Whether that even ended up being a manager’s residence, or the 33 rental office, or something, so that it’s possible to somehow create a win-win situation where you 34 would get a certain element of student housing and some benefit and yet still be able to keep the 35 residence. 36 Now, I’m not sure, I didn’t mean to ask Karen, are there any specific guidelines, where 37 there has to be like so much distance set away from a house, or your can’t have driving by it, or 31 1 something like that, or anything that would really impair a project from happening of any kind of 2 scope here. 3 MS. MCWILLIAMS: No, we work with each developer individually, look at their 4 program and that particular property, and the house could be connected to a unit, it could be, as 5 you say, repurposed for use as a caretaker or the property manager, or turned into the mailbox 6 center and the community center for that little area…and the students could go and shoot pool 7 there or whatever they happen to do. And, again, we just look at each property and work with 8 the developers. 9 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I’d like to keep this to…I want us to move along a little bit here, if 10 we can, get to a vote. Gino, Kristin, Butch, any comments? 11 MR. CAMPANA: I’ll make a couple, I don’t know why you want me to keep 12 commenting tonight. Just an observation that I had tonight was, there seem to be some new 13 information that the applicant came up with, with regards to the home, that maybe this isn’t the 14 right venue to present it in. Maybe you could bring that new evidence back to the LPC and show 15 it to them, I don’t know, maybe not. But, it’s just very difficult for us to sit here and try to assess 16 that when they’re the experts…they have a tough job in trying to determine what the history of a 17 home or a project is, a building is, and for us to sit here and second guess it, at this point, is too 18 difficult for me to do. And, based on what I’m seeing, I just can’t justify demoing that house 19 tonight. I think there’s some alternative designs that can be taken into consideration, and, I know 20 we’re not looking at the design, but we kind of have to look at it to justify it, and so, I won’t be 21 supporting the motion to modify the standard tonight. 22 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Do you want to make a motion? Brigitte, you want to make a 23 motion? You’ve got a good track record. 24 MS. SCHMIDT: Paul, here they have (B) and (E) together, so is it okay to do it together 25 or do you want them separate again? The modification… 26 MR. ECKMAN: Was it combined as a single request? 27 MS. SCHMIDT: In the findings and fact of the… 28 MR. ECKMAN: I’m hearing from the applicant it’s two requests. 29 MS. SCHMIDT: It’s two requests so… 30 MR. ECKMAN: Let’s have two motions. 31 MS. SCHMIDT: So, the first would be, I move the Planning and Zoning Board deny the 32 granting of modification of Section 3.4.6(B), based on the fact that it’s detrimental to the public 33 good. 32 1 MS. LEVINGSTON: Brigitte, that’s seven, 3.4.7(B) 2 MS. SCHMIDT: Okay, it’s six in the staff report so I’ll change it to seven, okay. 3 MR. CAMPANA: I’ll second that. 4 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We have a first and a second. Any more discussion? Roll call 5 please. 6 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 7 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes. 8 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 9 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 10 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 11 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 12 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 13 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 14 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 15 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 16 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 17 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. 18 MS. SCHMIDT: I make a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board deny the 19 modification to Section 3.4.7(E), based on the fact that it’s detrimental to the public good. 20 MR. CAMPANA: I’ll second that as well. 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Motion’s been seconded. Further discussion or comments by the 22 Board? Roll call please. 23 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Stockover? 24 MR. STOCKOVER: Yes. 25 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Kirkpatrick? 26 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Yes. 33 1 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Carpenter? 2 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 3 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Schmidt? 4 MS. SCHMIDT: Yes. 5 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Campana? 6 MR. CAMPANA: Yes. 7 MS. SANCHEZ-SPRAGUE: Smith? 8 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. Alright, that resolves the Carriage House Apartments 9 modification of standard request. Requests have been denied. 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Deny Two Stand-Alone Modifications at 1305 South Shields Street 2 1305 South Shields Street East Elevation Southeast Elevation Northeast Elevation 2 3 Vicinity Map Bennett Rd. Springfield Dr. S. Shields St. 1305 1319 4 Proposed Plan and Existing Buildings 3 5 Process for Determinations of Eligibility • Landmark Preservation Chapter -Municipal Code • Review historical significance of buildings 50 years old and older • Prevent loss of historic resources; preserve character; allow for public participation • LPC Chair and CDNS Director • 1305 S. Shields reviewed on 3 occasions • Each time, it was determined to be eligible for individual local landmark designation 6 Process for Approving Demolition •1st step: Determination of Eligibility •2nd step: LPC Preliminary Hearing, Nov. 9, 2011 – Appellant did not provide or discuss any alternatives – No solution found •3rd step: P &Z Board Approves Plans for Redevelopment •4th step: LPC Final Hearing 4 7 Requirements for Plan Approval • All applicable Sections of Land Use Code must be met for P&Z Approval • Proposed project does not meet two Sections of the LUC: – Preservation to the maximum extent feasible of structures deemed individually eligible for local landmark designation (Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7 (B), General Standard) – Demolition of a building deemed individually eligible for local landmark (Historic and Cultural Resources 3.4.7(E) Relocation or Demolition) • Maximum extent feasible: no feasible and prudent alternative exists, and all possible efforts to comply with the regulation have been undertaken 8 How Appellant Could Meet LUC Standards • Appellant could show that his plan provides for the preservation of the individually eligible home at 1305 South Shields Street by incorporating the building into the proposal; or • Appellant could provide evidence that he has, to the maximum extent feasible, attempted to comply with the code provision and that no feasible and prudent alternative exists and all possible efforts to comply or minimize adverse impacts have been undertaken 5 9 Modification of LUC Standards • Modification of LUC Standards allowed under LUC Section 2.8.1 • “Stand-Alone” – No development plans submitted • Modification may be granted only if Decision Maker finds: – 1) the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and – 2) that at least one of four listed criteria has been met (LUC 2.8.2(H)) 10 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing • Planning and Zoning Board Hearing February 16, 2012 • Applicant/Appellant asserted: – Modification not detrimental to public good, and – Project would substantially address important community need 6 11 Planning and Zoning Board Action • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (6-0) • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (6-0) • Appeal of these denials filed March 1, 2012 12 Grounds for Appeal • Failure to Conduct a Fair Hearing in that the Planning and Zoning Board Considered Evidence Substantially False and Grossly Misleading • Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Relevant Provisions of the Land Use Code in the Denial of the Requests for Modification 7 13 11sstt Assertion • Appellant asserts that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that they considered evidence substantially false and grossly misleading – Board deferred to staff opinion and Information on which the determination of eligibility was based is incorrect, and 1305 South Shields Street is not individually eligible 14 Information Citied by Appellant • Rogue Architecture Report • Gebau Structural Review • Oz Architecture, Landmark Designation Opinion • HistoryMatters, LLC, State of Colorado Architectural Inventory Form P&Z Board discussion around information cited by Appellant (transcript, pg. 15) 8 15 22nndd Assertion • Appellants assert that the P & Z Board failed to properly Interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in the denial of the requests for modification – That the proposed modifications are not detrimental to the public good; and – That the project would substantially advance the public good because it substantially addressed adopted plans and policies 16 P & Z Board Discussion • Discussion regarding value of student housing and historic resources (transcript, pg. 29) • Board discussed the possibility of a student housing project that keeps the existing home (transcript, pg. 30) 9 17 Requirements for Modification • To grant the requested Modifications, the P&Z Board must find that: – not be detrimental to the public good; and – not impair the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code; and • substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern; or • would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the city’s Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council; and – the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible. 18 Summary • The house at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be individually eligible pursuant to the process and procedures in Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code • The project does not meet the requirements of Section 3.4.7 of the Land Use Code. • In order to grant a modification request, the Board must make the findings outlined in Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code 10 19 Planning & Zoning Board Motions • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(B) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (transcript, pg.31) • The Board moved to deny the modification request to Section 3.4.7(E) of the Land Use Code based on the fact that the modification would be detrimental to the public good (transcript, pg.32) 20 Questions for Council Action 1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to hold a fair hearing? 2. Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code? Site Visit Summary – Carriage House Apartments Appeal. The site visit of 1305 South Shields Street commenced around 3:00 p.m. on March 26, 2012. In attendance from City Council were Mayor Weikunat, Councilmember Ohlson and Councilmember Horak. City Staff included Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, Laurie Kadrich, CDNS Director, Courtney Levingston, and Seth Lorson, City Planners and Karen McWilliams, Preservation Planner. The Appellant, Charles Bailey, as well as attorney Jeffrey Johnson were present, as well as an architect from Rouge Architecture. Additionally, approximately 5-6 affected property owners from the neighborhood attended. The site visited started on the north side of the property along Springfield Drive. A general overview of the site was given by Levingston. As proposed, 1305 and 1319 South Shields Street will be demolished and replaced with 5 multi-family buildings with a total of 30 – 50 units. The Appellant stated that the interior of the property was available for the Mayor and Councilmemebers to tour. It was noted by City Attorney Daggett that the Planning and Zoning Board did not review the interior of the property during its hearing. The Mayor, Councilmembers, Appellant, Neighbors and City Staff then proceeded to view the residence at 1305 South Shields Street from the east, along South Shields Street. In response to a question by Councilmember Horak requesting clarification regarding which buildings were determined to be individually eligible, McWilliams said that the residence at 1305 South Shields Street was determined to be eligible on three separate occasions and that the outbuildings associated with 1305 South Shields Street and the residence at 1319 South Shields Street and were determined to not be individually eligible. Councilmember Ohlson requested an overview of the historic preservation process regarding a determination of individual eligibility for local landmark designation. McWilliams explained that Chapter 14 of the municipal code governs this historic preservation process. McWilliams noted that as a part of the City's permitting processes, whenever a permit or development application is sought for a building or structure that is 50 years old or older, the application is reviewed under Section 14-72 of the Municipal Code, commonly called the Demolition/Alteration Review. The review begins with a determination of a property's eligibility for possible designation as a Fort Collins Landmark, and the Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services and the Chair of the Landmark Preservation Commission make this determination of eligibility. The Mayor, Councilmembers, Applicant, Neighbors and City Staff then proceeded to the rear of the residence at 1305 South Shields Street (west side of property). Once again, the Appellant requested that the Mayor and Councilmembers tour the inside of the residence. In response to a question from Mr. Horak, McWilliams stated that the interior of the property was not a factor in determining the individual eligibility of the property. There was a question as to if a tour of the interior would be presenting new information, and, after further discussion by Deputy City Attorney Daggett, Councilmember Horak asked to see the interior and the group proceeded inside. It was noted that the structure was currently used as a rental property. Inside the residence, Mayor Weikunat asked if there was an addition. McWilliams responded that there was a main house with additions. After exiting the residence, the tour ended at approximately 3:30 and attendees disbursed. A DVD of the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing of February 16, 2012 has been provided to Council. The video of the Hearing may be viewed at: http://www.fcgov.com/cable14/video-archive.php under the “City Programs” tab. Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Neighborhood Conservation Low Density Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density Public Open Lands River Conservation River Downtown Redevelopment Residential Foothills Low Density Residential Transition Urban Estate LATHAM COUNTY ROAD 1 WILLOX LINCOLN LAPORTE MAIN 4TH KECHTER BUSS GROVE COUNTY ROAD 5 COUNTY ROAD 48 COUNTY ROAD 52 GIDDINGS MASON COUNTRY CLUB COUNTY ROAD 30 REMINGTON TURNBERRY HOWES LAUREL THREE BELL COUNTY ROAD 50 COUNTY ROAD 32E GREGORY ELIZABETH COUNTY ROAD 3 PROSPECT 71ST RIVER PASS COUNTY ROAD 7 BOARDWALK SHIELDS COUNTY ROAD 9 JOHN F KENNEDY COUNTY ROAD 11 COUNTY ROAD 34C COUNTY ROAD 1 COUNTY ROAD 30 COUNTY ROAD 5 COUNTY ROAD 30 COLLEGE HIGHWAY 14 TERRY LAKE MULBERRYMULBERRY INTERSTATE25 25 INTERSTATE Hansen CE Location Map Natural Areas General City Natural Areas City Open Lands Other Agency Natural Areas Created by City of Fort Collins Natural Areas - 2012 Water Bodies ¹ City Natural Areas City Open Lands Other Agency Natural Areas 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Hansen CE