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

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 02/07/2017 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann City Attorney City Manager 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. Please call 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Regular Meeting February 7, 2017 (Amended 2/6/2017) Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring February 7, 2017, as Joe Zimlich Appreciation Day. B. Proclamation Recognizing the Recipient of Colorado State University Founders Day Award, the late Lieutenant Colonel John Mosley. Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.  PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  CALL MEETING TO ORDER  ROLL CALL  AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER  City Manager Review of Agenda. City of Fort Collins Page 2  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. o Council-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered before Discussion Items. o Citizen-pulled Consent Calendar items will be considered after Discussion Items.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Individuals may comment regarding items scheduled on the Consent Calendar and items not specifically scheduled on the agenda. Comments regarding land use projects for which a development application has been filed should be submitted in the development review process** and not to the Council.  Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the table in the lobby (for recordkeeping purposes).  All speakers will be asked by the presiding officer to identify themselves by raising their hand, and then will be asked to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby, for those who are not able to stand while waiting).  The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.  Each speaker will be asked to state his or her name and general address for the record, and to keep comments brief. Any written comments or materials intended for the Council should be provided to the City Clerk.  A timer will beep once and the timer light will turn yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time remain, and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended. [**For questions about the development review process or the status of any particular development, citizens should consult the Development Review Center page on the City’s website at fcgov.com/developmentreview, or contact the Development Review Center at 221-6750.]  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP Consent Calendar The Consent 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. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Pulled Consent Items. Items remaining on the Consent Calendar will be approved by City Council with one vote. The Consent Calendar consists of: ● Ordinances on First Reading that are routine; ● Ordinances on Second Reading that are routine; ● Those of no perceived controversy; ● Routine administrative actions. City of Fort Collins Page 3 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 3 and January 17, 2017 Regular Council Meetings. The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 3 and January 17, 2017, Regular Council meetings. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, appropriates a grant received by the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit in the amount of $48,000. The grant, received from the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (VALE) Board, runs for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, and helps fund services provided by this team. The funds will be used for part of the salary for the victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services during weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services office. A part-time victim advocate will be hired from this grant to help with the growing demand the unit is facing. These funds will also pay for a portion of the operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in the community. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2017. Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Encore Fellowship Program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, appropriates $25,000 of unanticipated grant revenues to the General Fund from the Encore Fellowship Program to the City of Fort Collins. Encore implements an innovative social purpose workplace initiative designed to utilize experienced and talented corporate employees in the non-profit sector. The Encore Fellowship Program will provide the City with 1,000 hours of paid hourly staff time in 2017 to support the City’s Indoor Air Quality initiatives, including the Healthy Homes program. 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Environmental Services Department Operating Budget. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, appropriates unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and transfers existing and unexpended appropriated funds from the Environmental Services 2017 operating budget to the Radon Grant project. The Ordinance appropriates $7,960 of unanticipated grant revenues in the General Fund. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment granted these funds to the City for a program to encourage radon testing and mitigation through media advertising and low-cost test kit sales. The grant directly supports radon activities identified in the Environmental Services Department’s core budget offer. The grant requires a local match of $5,307. Matching funds are appropriated and unexpended in the 2017 Environmental Services operating budget and will be transferred to the Environmental Services Radon Program. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2017, Authorizing the Execution of an Amended and Restated Conservation Easement with Colorado Open Lands on the Kingfisher and Nix Natural Areas, Including Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on Additional Lands. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, authorizes the execution of the amended and restated Nix Natural Area Conservation Easement, which is being renamed the Kingfisher Natural Area Conservation Easement. The amended and restated conservation easement offers a conveyance of a conservation easement on an additional 46.13 acres to Colorado Open Lands to mitigate the building envelope on an additional 6.12 acres to allow for the future expansion of the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility. City of Fort Collins Page 4 6. Items Relating to Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area Encroachments. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Steven Jones. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Frank and Lorenda Volker. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Dane and Lynn Brandt. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Barbara and Thomas Cynkar. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Steven Huval. F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Robert and Yukari Samuel. G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Stephanie Yang and Scott Lavolette. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, authorize the sale of seven small parcels of Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area Land, a total of 0.31 acres, to seven residents of the Fox Hills Subdivision to resolve long-standing and significant encroachments. 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2017, Adopting the 2017 Amended Classified Employees Pay Plan to Update Classified Positions as Provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, amends City's Classified Employee Pay Plan based on a market analysis conducted as agreed upon through the 2016-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Northern Colorado Lodge #3 of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). This agreement was approved by Council by Resolution 2015-104, on December 1, 2015. Although ratified in 2015, the bargaining agreement specifies a salary data collection method and evaluation process that included the postponement of final data collection and analysis until January 2017 when additional benchmark data became available. This data has been collected and analyzed, resulting in the revised 2017 Classified Employee Pay Plan. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2017, Amending Land Use Code Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features. The purpose of this item is to consider potential changes to various Land Use Code requirements related to the protection and mitigation of impacts to prairie dog colonies, sensitive and specially valued species, and other natural habitats and features on development sites. 9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2017, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Lease Agreement with the Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches for Recreational Use of Halligan Reservoir and Certain Surrounding Lands. The purpose of this item is the authorization of a lease agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches (the Association) for recreational use of Halligan Reservoir and certain real property adjacent to Halligan Reservoir owned by the City (Halligan Property). The Association has leased the recreational rights to the Halligan Property for fishing, boating, and similar activities since 1988. Historically, the North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) leased the recreational rights for Halligan Reservoir to the Association. Because the City now owns the Halligan Property, it has the right to lease recreational use of it. The Lease City of Fort Collins Page 5 Agreement would maintain historic leasing practices and will benefit the City in various ways, such as gaining certain rights to access to the Reservoir using the Association’s Meadow Creek Road, assisting in the monitoring and maintenance of the Halligan Property, facilitating the ongoing federal permitting process for the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, and generating a revenue stream. The Lease Agreement provides for three ten-year terms, but allows for early termination by the City, if the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir receives authorization or if the City decides to no longer pursue the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. 10. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2017, Annexing Property Known as the Rennat Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The purpose of this item is to annex 57.83 acres located at 6015 South Timberline Road into the City of Fort Collins. The parcel became an enclave with the annexation of the Hansen Farm Annexation on February 15, 2013. As of February 15, 2016, the City was authorized to annex the enclave in accordance with State Statute 31-12-106. Staff is recommending placement into the Residential Neighborhood Sign district. The Rennat Annexation is situated between the Union Pacific Railroad/Southridge Golf Course to the west and South Timberline Road to the east. A related item to zone the proposed annexation presented as the next item on this Agenda. 11. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2017, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Rennat Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Approving Corresponding Amendments to the Sign District Map. This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. The purpose of this item is to zone the property included in the Rennat Annexation into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone districts. 12. Items Relating to Gateway at Prospect Plan Amendment to the City Structure Plan Map and Rezoning of Two Parcels. A. Resolution 2017-009 Amending the City’s Structure Plan Map. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2017, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Making Corresponding Changes to the Sign District Map. This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. These actions are related to a development application being submitted for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) on a parcel of vacant land located at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. The purpose of this item is twofold: first to amend the City’s Structure Plan map (which is a component of the City’s comprehensive plan) to change two land use designations applicable to the site; and second to rezone the site. The Structure Plan amendment proposes to change the existing land use designations applicable to the site to promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of the City Plan and the elements thereof by reflecting land uses consistent with changed conditions within the neighborhoods surrounding and including the site. The rezoning proposes to change the existing zoning of the entire 22.43-acre site, which includes 12.40 acres of land currently zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and 10.03 acres City of Fort Collins Page 6 of land currently zoned E, Employment. The proposed rezoning amends the zoning map for the entire site to M-M-M, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District. On January 12, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval to City Council. 13. Resolution 2017-010 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Said District. The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2016 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the District) in accordance with state law. The properties affected by this resolution are Lodgepole Investments, LLC Annexation, Maverik First Annexation, Mountain’s Edge Annexation, East Prospect at Boxelder Creek Annexation, Majestic Place Annexation, and the Cache la Poudre River Annexation. C.R.S. Section 32-1-502 requires an order of exclusion from the district court to remove these annexed properties from special district territories. The properties have been receiving fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority and will continue to do so. The City Attorney’s Office files the petition in Larimer County District Court each year seeking exclusion for all properties annexed in the previous year that should be removed from the District to avoid double taxation. 14. Resolution 2017-011 Make Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Approve the Landmark Apartments Expansion Project Development Plan. The purpose of this item is to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision to approve the Landmark Apartments Expansion Project Development Plan. 15. Resolution 2017-012 Approving an Art Project for the Lincoln Corridor Plan Project and Authorizing Expenditures from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create the Art Project. The purpose of this item is it to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account to commission an artist to create art for the Lincoln Corridor Plan Project. The expenditures of $91,995 will be for design, materials, signage, fabrication, installation, and contingency for Mark Leichliter to create a series of artworks for the Lincoln Corridor Plan Project. 16. Resolution 2017-013 Approving an Art Project for the Twin Silos Park and Authorizing Expenditures from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create the Art Project. The purpose of this item is it to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account to commission an artist to create art for the Twin Silo Park Project. The expenditures of $67,000 will be for design, materials, signage, fabrication, installation, and contingency for Tim Upham to create a sculpture at the site of Twin Silo Park. 17. Resolution 2017-014 Approving and Adopting an Open Data Policy. The purpose of this item is to adopt an Open Data Policy in support of the City’s commitment to improving the community by fostering open, valuable, effective, and accessible government through data transparency. Publishing structured, standardized data in machine-readable formats creates new opportunities for information from different sources to be combined and visualized in new and unexpected ways, creating a platform for innovation, and for citizens to browse, interpret and draw attention to trends or issues with greater ease and efficiency. This Policy also addresses the very real need to balance transparency with protecting privacy and security concerns. City of Fort Collins Page 7 18. Resolution 2017-015 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions of the City of Fort Collins. The purpose of this item is to appoint individuals to fill vacancies that currently exist on boards and commissions due to the resignation of a board member and a vacancy created upon the expiration of a term. Applications were solicited from October through December. Council teams interviewed applicants in January. This Resolution appoints individuals to fill current vacancies. END CONSENT  CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to comment on items adopted or approved on the Consent Calendar.  STAFF REPORTS A. Larimer County Annual Community Report. (presented by Commissioner Steve Johnson)  COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS  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 (three 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. 19. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to Pay 2017 Fees for the City of Fort Collins Areas within the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority. (staff: Jon Haukaas, Lance Smith, Ken Sampley; no staff presentation; 5 minute discussion) This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017 by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Cunniff) appropriates $330,000 from prior year reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to pay stormwater service and stormwater system development fees in advance to the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA) for those developed areas of the City of Fort Collins that also are City of Fort Collins Page 8 located within the BBRSA service area boundary based on existing development (i.e., impervious surface area) conditions. Prior to expenditure of the funds appropriated under this Ordinance, it is anticipated that an intergovernmental agreement between the City and BBRSA will be negotiated clarifying the provisions on which a prepayment will be made. Such an intergovernmental agreement requires Council approval under City Code Section 1-22.. 20. Items Relating to the Submission of a City-Initiated Ordinance Relating to Medical Marijuana Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the April 4, 2017, Regular Municipal Election. (staff: Ginny Sawyer; 3 minute staff presentation; 10 minute discussion) ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language. B. Resolution 2017-016 Submitting a City-Initiated Ordinance Dealing with Medical Marijuana Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the Municipal Election to be Held on April 4, 2017. The purpose of this item is to submit a City-Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the City at the April 4, 2017 municipal election. The proposed Ordinance amends Section 15-491 (a) and (b) of Article XVI of the City Code to allow Council to change or add any provisions in Chapter 15, Article XVI to be consistent with state laws, rules and regulations relating to medical marijuana. Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, February 6, at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Resolution 2017-016. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet. 21. Resolution 2017-017 Adopting Amended Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings and Council Work Sessions. (staff: Carrie Daggett; 5 minute staff presentation; 15 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to update and simplify the Rules of Procedure for Council meetings, and to clarify that certain provisions also apply to City Council work sessions.  CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS  OTHER BUSINESS A. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Councilmembers (Three or more individual Councilmembers may direct the City Manager and City Attorney to initiate and move forward with development and preparation of resolutions and ordinances not originating from the Council's Policy Agenda or initiated by staff.)  ADJOURNMENT City of Fort Collins Page 9 Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed first on the discussion agenda for such meeting. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Joseph Zimlich was appointed by Governor Ritter as a member of the Colorado State University Board of Governors in 2008 and has now served eight years, the maximum amount of time allowed; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Board of Governors of the CSU System to foster development of Colorado State University, Colorado State University-Pueblo, and CSU Global Campus and to support the institutions in their development as separate and distinct institutions through planning and resource development; and WHEREAS, Mr. Zimlich, an active member of our community currently serving as Chief Executive Officer of the Bohemian Companies, has served on the City Leadership Committee with CSU with the purpose of strengthening town/gown relationships, where his thoughtful style of leadership and ability to consider the impact of decisions on people and places and be very strategic in his decision making has helped create a strong partnership between the two organizations; and WHEREAS, during his tenure as a Governor on the Board, the CSU system has grown, from 25,011 students in 2008 to 33,198 in 2016 and the CSU campus has been transformed with $1 billion in new infrastructure and facilities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Zimlich has been an instrumental leader in guiding CSU through this recent growth, serving in various capacities on the Board, including Treasurer of the Board, serving on the Academic Affairs, Evaluation, Finance, Real Estate/Facilities, and Executive Committees, and Chair of the Board from 2011-2013; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins wishes to recognize and thank Mr. Zimlich for his contributions to our community and to Colorado State University. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim February 7, 2017 as JOE ZIMLICH APPRECIATION DAY and thank him for his service and commitment to our city and CSU. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ ATTEST: Mayor _________________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 9 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, on February 11, 2017, Colorado State University celebrates 147 years of providing life-changing educational experiences to more than 180,000 living graduates; and WHEREAS, each year since 2010 Colorado State University has honored one of its own with the Founders Day medal; and WHEREAS, the late Lieutenant Colonel John Mosley served as a shining example to all by overcoming prejudice, segregation, and racism to become the first African-American student-athlete at Colorado State University, referred to by historians as “the Jackie Robinson of Colorado State University athletics”; and WHEREAS, he came to CSU as a National Merit Scholar and valedictorian of his class at Manual High School and distinguished himself as a student leader at CSU, elected to lead the student body by serving two years as vice-president of the student government; and WHEREAS, Lt. Col. John Mosley continued to break down barriers by serving as a member of the famed Tuskegee Airmen in World War II, also becoming one of the first black pilots to fly bombers during both the Korean and Vietnam Wars.; and WHEREAS, Lt. Col. John Mosley went on to live an extraordinary and exemplary life of service to country, his home state of Colorado, and Colorado State University. After retiring from the Air Force in 1970, he served as special assistant to the undersecretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Washington, DC; and worked in the regional office of the Department of Health and Human Services until his retirement; and WHEREAS, Lt. Col Mosley has been a role model for generations of students, reflected in his induction into the CSU Sports Hall of Fame and the Colorado Sports Hall of Fame, the creation of the Lt. Col. John Mosley Student-Athlete Mentoring program at CSU, the naming of the Edna and John W. Mosley P-8 school in the Aurora Public Schools; and his receipt of an honorary doctorate of human letters from CSU in 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby recognize the 147th birthday of Colorado State University and celebrate Founders Day Medal honoree LIEUTENANT COLONEL JOHN MOSLEY IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ ATTEST: Mayor _________________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 10 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk SUBJECT Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the January 3 and January 17, 2017 Regular Council Meetings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the January 3 and January 17, 2017, Regular Council meetings. ATTACHMENTS 1. January 3, 2017 (PDF) 2. January 17, 2017 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 11 City of Fort Collins Page 201 January 3, 2017 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Staff Present: Atteberry, Duvall, Winkelmann  AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda. He recognized Vince DeChand, owner of Counterfeit Press, for printing Council’s agendas for 46 years.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Eric Tanning supported regulating short-term rentals but opposed the current draft ordinance. Mel Hilgenberg mentioned global warming. Heather Lahdenpara questioned how short-term rentals affect neighborhood livability. James Janty expressed thanks for the proclamation addressing idling cars in cold temperatures in front of neighborhood schools. He opposed allowing non-primary short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. Ken Summers commended the proclamation on anti-human trafficking and recognized the U- count campaign. Mike Pruznick stated 2016 was a year of exploitation in government. Gina Janett encouraged only allowing primary short-term rentals and supported the current U + 2 Ordinance. Bill Fairbank supported the regulation of short-term rentals. Sally Lee commented on the value of neighborhoods and supported the regulation of short-term rentals. Renee Sheri supported the regulation of short-term rentals stating downtown neighborhoods are being eroded by short-term rentals. Maggie Dennis discussed the growth of short-term rentals and encouraged the development of an equitable solution for residents that preserves neighborhood livability and contributes to housing affordability and availability. She opposed non-primary short-term rentals. Tamela Wahl echoed the comments regarding short-term rentals and opposed non-primary short- term rentals. 1.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 202 Eric Levine opposed the rebranding of the Climate Action Plan to the Road to 2020. Katherine Dubiel shared an article regarding the explosion of short-term rentals. Deborah James supported starting Sunday bus service as soon as possible and discussed housing in Fort Collins.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP Councilmember Overbeck requested a memo capturing tonight’s comments made by residents regarding short-term rentals for the work session on January 10. Councilmember Martinez asked about Mr. Pruznick’s comment relating to the City’s collection of food tax. Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer, replied the City’s 2.25% sales tax is applied to food and a comparison has been made with other communities regarding the amount. He stated he believes the City is in complete compliance with its Code and Charter; however, he will confirm that information with the Sales Tax office. Councilmember Martinez asked if the rebranding of the Climate Action Plan was due to the Chamber of Commerce, as suggested by Mr. Levine. City Manager Atteberry replied feedback has been received from several different sources, including Councilmembers, regarding the development of a brand which relates to community members who are not climate experts. Councilmember Campana stated the Futures Committee had a discussion regarding the rebranding. Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager, replied the name change was not to address comments from the Chamber of Commerce and noted the Climate Action Plan was a framework. Council believed going from a framework to an operational plan required a rebranding; that effort resulted in the Road to 2020 as the next major milestone, which was a transitional name. Staff has identified a new name for both the Climate Action Plan and its operationalizing: Fortify Fort Collins, Healthy, Efficient, and Resilient. Councilmember Cunniff noted the City’s website may appear to be less emphatic on climate action than it had been. He stated he does not want to lose the “climate action” aspect. Councilmember Cunniff commented on the housing voucher program, noting that is a federal program administered by Housing Catalyst. He stated he will look into the bedroom count advertising to address Ms. James’ question. Councilmember Stephens thanked the citizens who spoke regarding short-term rentals. She requested an update regarding Sunday bus service and reminded citizens there is a rebate program for food sales tax. She thanked Mr. Summers for his comments and work in the community. Councilmember Campana thanked the citizens who spoke regarding short-term rentals. He stated staff responded to his previous questions confirming a bed and breakfast use requires a resident operator. He thanked Mr. Summers for his comments and work in the community. Councilmember Cunniff thanked the citizens who spoke regarding short-term rentals. 1.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 203 Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed the plan for the development of a short-term rental ordinance. He commented on the name of the Climate Action Plan and noted the important aspect of the issue is the funding of programs which are making a difference. Councilmember Stephens stated it is important for citizens to understand the meaning of the name. Mayor Troxell thanked the citizens who spoke and noted short-term rentals will be addressed at next week’s work session.  CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt and approve all items on the Consent Agenda. RESULT: CONSENT CALENDAR ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 6, 2016 Regular Council Meeting and the December 13, 2016, Adjourned Council Meeting. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the December 6, 2016, Regular Council meeting and the December 13, 2016, Adjourned Council meeting. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2016, Designating the Howell Property Located at 519 East Mulberry Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (Adopted) This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(e) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 20, 2016, designates the Howell property, located at 519 East Mulberry Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of this property, Housing Catalyst, formerly the Fort Collins Housing Authority, is initiating this request. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139, 2016, Designating the Kimball Property Located at 608 and 608 ½ South Grant Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (Adopted) This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(e) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 20, 2016, designates the Kimball Property, located at 608 and 608 ½ South Grant Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of this property, Housing Catalyst, formerly the Fort Collins Housing Authority, is initiating this request. 1.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 204 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2016, Designating the Schroeder/McMurry Property Located at 701 Mathews Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (Adopted) This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(e) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 20, 2016, designates the Schroeder/McMurry property, located at 701 Mathews Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of this property, Housing Catalyst, formerly the Fort Collins Housing Authority, is initiating this request. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No.141, 2016, Designating the Wilhelm Property Located at 717 and 717 ½ West Mulberry Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. (Adopted) This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(e) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 20, 2016, designates the Wilhelm Property, located at 717 and 717 ½ West Mulberry Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owner of this property, Housing Catalyst, formerly the Fort Collins Housing Authority, is initiating this request. 6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2016, Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Amendment Number One to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Larimer County Regarding Cooperation on Managing Urban Development Within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and Amending the Boundaries of the Fort Collins Growth Management Area. (Adopted) This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 20, 2016, amends the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Larimer County regarding the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary to ratify the same boundary agreed to by the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath. 7. Resolution 2017-001 Approving Revised Fees for Fort Collins Police Services' Criminal Justice Records. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to propose a new fee schedule for Police Services for criminal justice records. The existing fee schedule has been in existence since 2008 and the proposed adjustments are necessary to keep up with the change in technology and staff expenses. In addition, the staff is proposing to begin charging the public for Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Verifications to reflect actual costs incurred by staff. Currently, this is a free service, while a neighboring agency charges double the amount being proposed. 8. Resolution 2017-002 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with the State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund Regarding Poudre River and Floodplain Habitat Restoration at Kingfisher Point Natural Area. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to approve a contractual agreement with Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) to receive a $100,000 grant in support of the Natural Areas Department’s (NAD) Poudre River and floodplain habitat restoration at Kingfisher Point Natural Area scheduled for construction in 2017. The award was made by the GOCO Board of Directors on December 8, 2016. A draft agreement and Resolution is due to GOCO on January 9, 2017 with a final formalized agreement by 1.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 205 February 6, 2017. Under the terms of the grant all work must be completed by December 2018. NAD is confident it can meet that deadline. 9. Resolution 2017-003 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions of the City of Fort Collins. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to appoint individuals to fill vacancies that currently exist on various boards, commissions, and authorities due to resignations of board members and vacancies to be created upon the expiration of terms of current members. Applications were solicited from October through December. Council teams interviewed applicants during November and December. This Resolution appoints individuals to fill current vacancies and expiring terms. This Resolution does not fill all vacancies. Interviews are continuing, and any remaining vacancies will be advertised as needed.  CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP Councilmember Cunniff commented on Item No. 7, Resolution 2017-001 Approving Revised Fees for Fort Collins Police Services' Criminal Justice Records, and requested it be made policy that the intent is not to be a revenue generator. City Manager Atteberry replied that is not the intent and stated staff will provide additional information. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested that data be included in the overall fee policy for the City. Councilmember Campana commended the candidates for Boards and Commissions and congratulated those who were appointed.  STAFF REPORTS Honore Depew, Environmental Planner, spoke about the Wasteshed Coalition and detailed the public outreach process. The Coalition agreed to share a standardized set of recycling guidelines for greater educational consistency throughout the region. Mayor Troxell discussed the Coalition and the importance of working together regionally. Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked about the accuracy of the eight-year landfill lifespan. Depew replied landfill management staff has confirmed that, under current regulations, there is no opportunity for expansion at the current site and the estimate is based on the current usage of the landfill. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a graphic representing the lifespan and its variability. Councilmember Campana noted that while there may be no room for expansion, there is room for innovation.  COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmember Campana discussed a report he received from staff regarding the City’s debt. He noted the City’s outstanding debt over the last five years has fallen by over $50 million, no new external debt has occurred, and $8.8 million has been saved with refinancing. 1.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 206 Mayor Troxell stated he sent a letter to the president-elect regarding Fort Collins’ position as a leader relating to clean energy and climate action.  DISCUSSION ITEMS 10. Items Relating to the Submission of Charter Amendments to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the April 4, 2017, Regular Municipal Election. (Adopted on First Reading) A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 7 of Article VIII of the City Charter Pertaining to the Date of Certification of Election Results (the “Canvass”), Proposed Amendments to Section 1 (d) and Section 4 of Article II of the City Charter Pertaining Respectively to the Timing of the Council Organizational Meeting Following an Election, and when Councilmember Terms of Office Begin. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 11 of Article II of the City Charter Pertaining to the Process for Cancelling a Council Meeting. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 9 of Article IV of the City Charter Pertaining to Conflicts of Interest and Certain Prohibited Sales to the City. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 1 of Article VII of the City Charter Pertaining to Appointment of Municipal Judges. The purpose of these items is to submit various Charter amendments to the voters in April that will: (1) change the deadline for final certification of an election so that the City may implement signature verification, and corresponding changes to the date of the Council organizational meeting and the beginning of Councilmember terms of office; (2) outline a process for the cancellation of a Council meeting in the event of unforeseen circumstances (i.e., weather, natural disasters, emergencies); (3) clarifying when City officials and employees, and their relatives, have a conflict of interest in a sale of property or services to the City concerning which sale the officer or employee has decision-making or supervisory authority; and (4) to allow the Council to appoint additional Municipal Judges and to designate a Chief Municipal Judge. Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Tuesday, January 3, at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Ordinances No. 001, 002, 003 and 004, 2017. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet. Mayor Troxell stated a protest has been filed regarding the proposed language for Ordinance No. 004, 2017, and that issue will be first heard, considered, and resolved. Second, Council will consider the four Ordinances which make up the item. John Duval, Deputy City Attorney, stated a protest has been filed regarding the proposed ballot language. Mayor Troxell established the process the hearing and consideration of the protest. 1.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 207 Eric Sutherland, protestor, disagreed with Duval’s interpretation of the City Code and protest definition. He stated his protest disagrees with the final result of the language placed in the amendment because it is ambiguous and improperly phrased regarding whether or not the entire collective municipal judiciary or individual judges need to be licensed by the state. He questioned how it is possible that amendments are being proposed to organic law without any citizen review. Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Sutherland what he wants to change. Mr. Sutherland replied the language of the final result of the charter should indicate the individual persons who are appointed as judges in the Municipal Court should be attorneys licensed with the State of Colorado, rather than the collective judiciary. Councilmember Martinez asked if there is a requirement that judges be licensed attorneys. Duval replied in the affirmative and stated the City Charter requires Municipal Judges to be licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado during their tenure. The language could be amended to state “each” Municipal Judge shall be licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado during his or her tenure. Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, that Council respond to Mr. Sutherland’s protest by amending Ordinance No. 004, 2017, on First Reading to state “each Municipal Judge” rather than “the Municipal Judges,” and to replace “their” with “his or her.” RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 004, 2017, AMENDED IN RESPONSE TO PROTEST [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gino Campana, District 3 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk, stated Council adopted a Resolution in 2015 which created an ad hoc committee to discuss changes to the Charter and Code. The first proposed Charter amendment would amend the canvass date, when election results must be certified, from three days to ten days after Election Day. This would also require a change to the date of the organizational meeting to after the final certification of election results and after the expiration of the recount period. The second proposed amendment deals with the cancellation of a Council meeting in the event of an emergency or natural disaster in the absence of all Council members. Duval stated the third proposed Charter amendment is the result of an Ethics Review Board opinion adopted by Council which recommended that certain Charter provisions prohibiting City officers and employees from being involved in certain sales of property and services to the City be clarified. The fourth proposed Charter amendment would allow Council to appoint multiple municipal judges, a chief judge, and temporary judges. 1.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 208 Eric Sutherland stated that section of the Charter requires the Municipal Court to develop procedures for handling its business. People who believe the Charter is not being followed should have recourse through the Municipal Court. Mike Pruznick supported full-time paid Council positions and ranked voting. Councilmember Cunniff noted there was a failed citizen initiative for ranked voting six years ago. He stated there is value in having the Municipal Court handle civil cases. Councilmember Stephens discussed the importance of citizen comment and input. Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to adopt Ordinance No. 001, 2017, on First Reading. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 001, 2017 ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gino Campana, District 3 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to adopt Ordinance No. 002, 2017, on First Reading. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2017, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Councilmember Martinez made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Ovebeck, to adopt Ordinance No. 003, 2017, on First Reading. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2017, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ray Martinez, District 2 SECONDER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance No. 004, 2017, on First Reading as amended. Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted these proposed changes are more housekeeping type issues and stated an entire Charter review would be a much longer process. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 004, 2017, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING, AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak 1.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 209 11. Items Relating to City Elections. (Adopted on First Reading) A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2017, Amending Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Amend Requirements and Procedures for City Elections. B. Resolution 2017-004 Establishing a Council Election Code Committee and Appointing its Members. The purpose of this item is to adopt changes to Chapter 7 of the City Code as recommended by the ad hoc Council Committee and the City Clerk and to create a Council Election Code Committee. Wanda Winkelmann, City Clerk, discussed the proposed Election Code changes, which include recommending conducting signature verification with the 2019 municipal election, requiring committees to retain records for one year and to produce those records within three business days upon request, and clarifying the circumstances that would prompt review of the population deviation between districts. John Duval, Deputy City Attorney, discussed the amendment which would add a much more detailed process for citizen election complaints and the amendment dealing with the reporting requirements for small-scale issue committees. City Clerk Winkelmann discussed the final Election Code amendment which would change the Election Committee to a standing committee which would meet only when an issue presents itself for discussion. Eric Sutherland discussed the practice of eliminating ballots due to signature verification stating it is unconstitutional. He suggested the possibility of voters including email addresses or phone numbers on ballots and stated the Municipal Court should be the launching pad for any elections dispute. Mike Pruznick expressed concern regarding the requirements for the delivery of receipts for committees. Karen Wagner thanked Council for considering these improvements to the Election Code. She suggested the possibility of extending the campaign season by moving up the filing date. Councilmember Stephens requested information regarding the process for handling signature discrepancies. Rita Knoll, Chief Deputy City Clerk, replied the current process involves looking at the printed name in comparison to the signature for elements of the name in the signature. If those elements are found, it is presumed the signature belongs to the person to whom the ballot was sent. Ballots where signatures clearly do not match the name are set aside for further research. If matches are not made at that point, they ballot must be rejected as the envelope was clearly not signed by the person to whom the ballot was sent, which is a requirement of state law and local ordinance. There are very few ballots rejected for mismatched signatures; most rejections are for unsigned ballots, which was still extremely low for the last election. Councilmember Stephens asked if individuals are contacted to correct signatures. Knoll replied voters with unsigned ballots are contacted up to the point letters will arrive. Councilmember Cunniff noted part of the intent of the proposed Charter amendment is to give more time for ballot certification. City Clerk Winkelmann agreed and stated County Clerk 1.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 210 Angela Myers has agreed to have a staff member present at the City for a week for the 2017 election for electronic signature verification. Councilmember Martinez asked if the placement of a phone number or email is allowed on ballots. City Clerk Winkelmann replied individuals can check the status of their ballot online. Knoll replied that online search does inform individuals of ballot issues and alerts them to contact the Clerk’s Office. The proposed charter amendment will allow ballots to be corrected up to eight days following the election. Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stephens, to adopt Ordinance No. 005, 2017, on First Reading. Councilmember Cunniff requested clarification regarding Mr. Pruznick’s questions prior to Second Reading. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 005, 2017, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gino Campana, District 3 SECONDER: Kristin Stephens, District 4 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Councilmember Campana made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stephens, to adopt Resolution 2017-004 to appoint Councilmembers Cunniff, Stephens, and Overbeck to the Election Committee. RESULT: RESOLUTION 2017-004 ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gino Campana, District 3 SECONDER: Kristin Stephens, District 4 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak (Secretary’s Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 12. Resolution 2017-005 Expressing Support for the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda's Open Letter to President-Elect Donald Trump on Climate Action. (Postponed to January 17, 2017) The purpose of this item is to consider a resolution endorsing and supporting the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda (MNCAA) open letter to President-elect Donald Trump on climate action. Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported the Mayor’s individual letter and supported this Resolution as a good complement to that letter. John Calderazo supported the Resolution citing the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change. Janice Lynn supported the Resolution stating signing the letter is the morally correct thing to do. Michelle Betzel supported the Resolution and discussed the agreement on climate change among CSU faculty and staff. 1.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 211 Zach Heath supported the Resolution. Kevin Henry supported the Resolution and thanked the Mayor for sending the Fort Collins letter. Rachel Pries supported the Resolution. Mike Pruznick questioned what in the Climate Mayors’ letter contradicts the City’s current values and supported the Resolution. Elizabeth Hudetz supported the Resolution. Suzanne Trask supported the Resolution stating the president-elect pays attention to numbers. Nancy York supported the Resolution citing the importance of standing with others. Karen Wagner spoke on behalf of 350.org and supported the Resolution. Councilmember Campana stated Council is not partisan and he is concerned about signing a letter which could be seen as being partisan. He stated he chooses to show leadership and innovation by working on the issue as a community. He discussed the Climate Mayors’ letter’s reference to the Paris Agreement and stated he has volunteered to compare the City’s policies to that agreement. Councilmember Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Resolution 2017-005. Councilmember Stephens stated she does not believe the Climate Mayors letter is partisan and stated it would be important to send to any incoming president. Councilmember Cunniff stated he does not believe the letter is partisan and discussed the importance of joining with others to affect climate change. He did agree a review of the Paris agreement would be prudent. Councilmember Campana suggested the review of the Paris Agreement occur prior to signing the letter and questioned certain inclusions in the Agreement which do not seem to deal with climate change. Councilmember Martinez questioned some aspects of the Paris Agreement and supported further vetting of the Agreement. He supported the City sending its own letter rather than joining with others. He noted only 48 of over 19,000 mayors have signed the letter and stated the City’s individual letter contains more information than the Climate Mayors letter. Councilmember Overbeck supported the Resolution noting all the speakers supported it as well. Mayor Troxell stated Fort Collins and Council have always avoided making statements outside of their jurisdiction, which has allowed the focus to remain on what is important to Fort Collins citizens. He supported a review of the Paris Agreement. Councilmember Cunniff suggested the addition of a Whereas statement to the Resolution that would direct the Legislative Review Committee to review the Paris climate agreements and 1.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 212 compare them with adopted Fort Collins policy. He stated the signing of the Climate Mayors letter should move forward. Councilmember Martinez questioned the letter’s inclusion of the Paris Agreement. Councilmember Cunniff disagreed with the conclusion the letter requires the City to implement the Paris Agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated passing the Resolution is not a good idea without further vetting of the alignment of the Paris Agreement with the City’s goals. He suggested postponing the Resolution to a date certain. Councilmember Martinez questioned the aspect of the letter which references climate change as a threat to national security. Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted the Department of Defense has expressed concerns regarding the effect of rising sea levels on military bases. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to postpone consideration of Resolution 2017-005 to February 7, 2017 to allow the Legislative Review Committee to make its recommendations. Councilmember Cunniff opposed the February date and suggested convening a special meeting of the Legislative Review Committee to allow consideration before Council earlier. Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he wanted the public to have more time to review the recommendations. Councilmember Cunniff discussed the importance to citizens of addressing the issue prior to the inauguration. Mayor Troxell noted the City’s individual letter was already sent, and practically speaking, the Climate Mayors letter has also already been sent. Councilmembers held a brief discussion regarding meeting timing. Mayor Pro Tem Horak and Councilmember Campana amended the motion to postpone consideration of Resolution 2017-005 to January 17, 2017. RESULT: RESOLUTION 2017-005 POSTPONED TO JANUARY 17, 2017 [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak  OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Overbeck commented on the need to keep the meeting orderly by not allowing Councilmembers to speak over others. Councilmember Campana supported the idea of broadening the Nature in the City campaign. 1.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 3, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 213  ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 1.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: January 3, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) City of Fort Collins Page 214 January 17, 2017 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council-Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM  ROLL CALL PRESENT: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Staff Present: Atteberry, Daggett, Knoll  AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER City Manager Atteberry stated Item No. 9, Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 011. 2017, Authorizing the Execution of an Amended and Restated Conservation Easement with Colorado Open Lands on the Kingfisher and Nix Natural Areas, Including Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on Additional Lands, includes a public hearing. A revised resolution for Item No. 13, Resolution 2017-008 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions of the City of Fort Collins, has been provided to Council and the scheduled staff report has been withdrawn from the agenda. Mayor Troxell opened the public hearing for Item No. 9, Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 011. 2017, Authorizing the Execution of an Amended and Restated Conservation Easement with Colorado Open Lands on the Kingfisher and Nix Natural Areas, Including Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on Additional Lands.  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Mary Kopco, Fort Collins Symphony Executive Director, announced the Youth Education Series concert for Poudre School District students. Wes Kenny, Fort Collins Symphony Music Director, discussed the narrator of the Youth Education Series, Greg Smith. Daniel Watt, Fort Collins Symphony, played a trombone piece. Jana Newman announced the Women’s March on Denver and thanked Mayor Troxell for sending the letter to President-Elect Trump regarding the City’s efforts regarding climate change. Eric Levine discussed the Climate Action Plan and opposed its rebranding. Eric Sutherland stated the integrity of elected leaders is poor and discussed the Keep Fort Collins Great sales tax. Dylan Lindsey discussed snow and ice buildup on Silvergate Road between Harmony and Seneca. Mike Pruznick opposed the use of tax increment financing for the Lyric Cinema Theater. Keith Gilmartin discussed an easement he owns on Vine Drive which has been used as a right- of-way for Poudre Fire Authority. 1.2 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 215  CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOLLOW-UP Councilmember Stephens thanked Dylan for speaking and stated she will look into the snow issue on Silvergate. She thanked Ms. Newman for her comments and thanked the Symphony speakers and performer. Mayor Troxell thanked the speakers for their comments. Councilmember Martinez stated he has been in contact with Mr. Gilmartin and requested staff input regarding the issue. City Attorney Daggett replied the City Manager entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) outlining certain responsibilities PFA will take on in terms of managing the use of the access easement. Mr. Gilmartin was a party to the original granting of the access easement.  CONSENT CALENDAR Eric Sutherland withdrew Item Nos. 2, Items Relating to the Submission of Charter Amendments to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the April 4, 2017, Regular Municipal Election, and 7, First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to Pay 2017 Fees for the City of Fort Collins Areas within the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority, from the Consent Agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. RESULT: CONSENT CALENDAR ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak 1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 20, 2016 Regular Council Meeting. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes of the December 20, 2016 Regular Council meeting. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2017, Amending Chapter 7 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Amend Requirements and Procedures for City Elections. (Adopted) This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 3, 2017, adopts changes to Chapter 7 of the City Code as recommended by the ad hoc Council Committee and the City Clerk. 3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to fund the Victim Services Unit of Fort Collins Police Services for victim advocacy services under the Colorado Victim Rights Amendment for victims of crime and their family members. The Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit has been awarded a 12-month grant in the amount of $48,000 for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, by the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (VALE) Board to help fund services provided by this team. These funds will be used for part of the salary for the victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services during weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services 1.2 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 216 office. A part-time victim advocate will be hired from this grant to help with the growing demand our unit is facing. These funds will also pay for a portion of the operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in the community. 4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2017. Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Encore Fellowship Program. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to appropriate $25,000 of unanticipated grant revenues to the General Fund from the Encore Fellowship Program to the City of Fort Collins. Encore implements an innovative social purpose workplace initiative designed to utilize experienced and talented corporate employees in the non-profit sector. The Encore Fellowship Program will provide the City with 1,000 hours of paid hourly staff time in 2017 to support the City’s Indoor Air Quality initiatives, including the Healthy Homes program. Indoor air quality is one of the four “High Priority” pollutants as identified in the City’s 2011 Air Quality Plan. 5. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Environmental Services Department Operating Budget. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to appropriate unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and transfer existing and unexpended appropriated funds from the Environmental Services 2017 operating budget to the Radon Grant project. This Ordinance appropriates $7,960 of unanticipated grant revenues in the General Fund. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment granted these funds to the City for a program to encourage radon testing and mitigation through media advertising and low-cost test kit sales. The grant directly supports radon activities identified in the Environmental Services Department’s core budget offer. The grant requires a local match of $5,307. Matching funds are appropriated and unexpended in the 2017 Environmental Services operating budget and will be transferred to the Environmental Services Radon Program. 6. First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2017, Adopting the 2017 Amended Classified Employees Pay Plan to Update Classified Positions as Provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to recommend changes to the City's Classified Employee Pay Plan based on a market analysis conducted as agreed upon through the 2016-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Northern Colorado Lodge #3 of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). This agreement was approved by Council by Resolution 2015-104, on December 1, 2015. Although ratified in 2015, the bargaining agreement specifies a salary data collection method and evaluation process that included the postponement of final data collection and analysis until January 2017 when additional benchmark data became available. This data has been collected and analyzed, resulting in the revised 2017 Classified Employee Pay Plan. 7. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 011. 2017, Authorizing the Execution of an Amended and Restated Conservation Easement with Colorado Open Lands on the Kingfisher and Nix Natural Areas, Including Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on Additional Lands. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to authorize the execution of the amended and restated Nix Natural Area Conservation Easement, which is being renamed the Kingfisher Natural Area Conservation Easement. The amended and restated conservation easement offers a conveyance of a conservation easement on an additional 46.13 acres to Colorado Open Lands to mitigate the building envelope on an additional 6.12 acres to allow for the future expansion of the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility. 1.2 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 217 8. Items Relating to Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area Encroachments. (Adopted) A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Steven Jones. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Frank and Lorenda Volker. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Dane and Lynn Brandt. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Barbara and Thomas Cynkar. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Steven Huval. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Robert and Yukari Samuel. G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Stephanie Yang and Scott LaVolette. The purpose of this item is to review and recommend the sale of seven small parcels of Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area Land, a total of 0.31 acres, to seven residents of the Fox Hills Subdivision to resolve long-standing and significant encroachments. 9. Resolution 2017-006 Stating the Intent of the City of Fort Collins to Annex Certain Property and Initiating Enclave Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Lehman-Timberline Annexation. (Adopted) This is a City-initiated request to annex the 5.684-acre enclave at 5830 South Timberline Road into the City of Fort Collins. The parcel became an enclave with the annexation of the Mail Creek Crossing Annexation on January 7, 2014. As of January 7, 2017, the City is authorized to annex the enclave by ordinance in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes § 31-12-106. The Lehman- Timberline Annexation is located in southeast Fort Collins. The parcel abuts the Mail Creek Ditch to the north, South Timberline Road to the west and Bacon Elementary to the south. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed-Use (LMN) zone district, which complies with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential, education (Bacon Elementary), and agriculture land uses in the City of Fort Collins. 10. Resolution 2017-007 Stating the Intent of the City of Fort Collins to Annex Certain Property and Initiating Enclave Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Mail Creek Crossing Second Annexation. (Adopted) This is a City-initiated request to annex a 42.37-acre enclave consisting of 11 parcels into the City of Fort Collins. The parcels became an enclave with the annexation of the Mail Creek Crossing Annexation on January 7, 2014. As of January 7, 2017, the City is authorized to annex the enclave by ordinance in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes § 31-12-106. The Mail Creek Crossing Second Annexation is located in southeast Fort Collins, abuts the east side of South Timberline Road and is bisected by Kechter Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Urban Estate (UE) zone district, which complies with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential, education (Bacon Elementary), and agriculture land uses. 1.2 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 218 11. Resolution 2017-008 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions of the City of Fort Collins. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to appoint individuals to fill vacancies that currently exist on various boards, commissions, and authorities due to resignations of board members and vacancies to be created upon the expiration of terms of current members. Applications were solicited from October through December. Council teams interviewed applicants in January. This Resolution appoints individuals to fill current vacancies and expiring terms.  END CONSENT Mayor Troxell closed the public hearing for Item No. 9, Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 011. 2017, Authorizing the Execution of an Amended and Restated Conservation Easement with Colorado Open Lands on the Kingfisher and Nix Natural Areas, Including Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on Additional Lands.  COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS Councilmember Campana attended the first summit for the “It’s On Us” campaign at the White House. He showed a video of Coyote Ridge Natural Area. Councilmember Overbeck reported on upcoming public open houses for CSU game day events and noted the Stadium Advisory Group will be meeting on January 23 rd regarding the use of the Good Neighbor funds. Mayor Pro Tem Horak provided an update on I-25 work. Councilmember Stephens reported on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day celebration.  CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS  DISCUSSION ITEMS 12. Resolution 2017-005 Expressing Support for the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda's Open Letter to President-Elect Donald Trump on Climate Action. (Adopted) The purpose of this item is to consider a resolution endorsing and supporting the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda (MNCAA) open letter to President-elect Donald Trump on climate action. As the letter makes reference to the Paris Agreement, which the Council had not reviewed, this resolution was postponed from the January 3, 2017 meeting. This postponement will allow for the Legislative Review Committee to meet on January 13, 2017, to evaluate the alignment between the Paris Agreement and the City's Legislative Policy Agenda and Strategic Plan and provide feedback to Council accordingly. Michelle Betzel commended the staff review of the Paris Climate Agreement and stated it reinforced the synergy between Fort Collins efforts and the global discussion regarding climate change. She supported the Resolution. Kevin Cross, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, stated the Climate Mayors’ letter is not a partisan effort and discussed the importance of addressing climate change. He supported the Resolution. 1.2 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 219 Kevin Henry commended the staff members who analyzed the Paris Climate Agreement and stated no major misalignment was found between the legislative policy agenda and that Agreement. He supported the Resolution. Jana Newman supported the Resolution. Tom Hoehn supported the Resolution. Mike Pruznick stated the community as a whole supports climate action and questioned why it has taken Council so long to adopt the Resolution. Eric Levine supported the Resolution Ted Walker, Sierra Club Poudre Canyon, supported the Resolution. Rachel Pries supported the Resolution and discussed the population represented by the other signing cities. Rose Lew supported the Resolution. Doug Henderson, 350 Group, supported the Resolution. LeRoy Poff supported the Resolution. Maggie (no last name given) supported the Resolution. Elizabeth Hudetz supported the Resolution. Andrew Bondi supported the Resolution and noted no speakers tonight or during other meetings have opposed it. Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network and Fort Collins Sustainability Group, supported the Resolution. Councilmember Campana reported on the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) meeting during which the Climate Mayors’ letter was reviewed and not recommended for a signature by a 2-1 vote of the Committee. Staff and four community members conducted a thorough review on the alignment of the Paris Climate Agreement with the City’s legislative policy agenda and the Committee reviewed that report. While nothing was found in the report that the Agreement and the City’s legislative policy agenda are directly in conflict, the Committee chose to unanimously take a position of “monitor,” which would mean the letter would not be signed, nor would it be opposed. Councilmember Cunniff stated that while the Legislative Review Committee took the monitor position, it would be reasonable for Council to support signing the letter, as the Paris Agreement is more of an aspirational plan. He commended the deep dive on the Paris Agreement. Councilmember Campana agreed the review of the Paris Agreement was positive. 1.2 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 220 Councilmember Stephens asked if the “monitor” position is in regard to the letter or just the Paris Agreement. Councilmember Cunniff replied it is for the Paris Agreement. Councilmember Cunniff thanked the speakers and discussed the importance of signing on to the letter prior to the inauguration. Councilmember Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Resolution 2017-005. Councilmember Stephens commended the process and discussed the large number of citizens in favor of signing the letter. She stated the letter is not partisan and reflects the values of the community. Councilmember Martinez discussed the Paris Agreement and stated it was signed by executive order of President Obama. He questioned the need for Fort Collins to sign a second letter to the president elect and noted only 62 of 19,000+ mayors have signed the letter. He stated Council has received a letter opposed to signing the Climate Mayors’ letter from the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Campana stated making generalized statements regarding partisan issues on an issue facing Council is inappropriate. He stated he would not support signing the letter, but he does support the City’s climate goals and the initial letter sent to the President-Elect. Councilmember Stephens stated this has gone through a process and encouraged Councilmembers to look at the language in the letter which she feels is conciliatory. Not signing the letter could show the City does not have as much pride at it ought to in the climate program it has enacted. Councilmember Overbeck agreed with Councilmember Stephens. Councilmember Campana asked when the LRC last took a position of “monitor” and still sent a letter of support. Councilmember Cunniff replied the LRC has not previously been asked to contemplate something which is not legislation. He does not believe this is inconsistent because the letter is asking the administration to work with Congress and find ways to join the global community in honoring the Paris Agreement, which is not prescriptive. Councilmember Campana stated the accepted process of Council is not being followed with the motion that has been made. Councilmember Cunniff stated the process is being followed; however, Councilmember Campana’s interpretation of the LRC recommendation is not being followed. Mayor Troxell expressed appreciation for the time taken to look at this issue. He stated he will support the motion given the deliberative process occurred. 1.2 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 221 RESULT: RESOLUTION 2017-005 ADOPTED [5 TO 2] MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4 SECONDER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 AYES: Stephens, Overbeck, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak NAYS: Martinez, Campana (Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City- Owned Property at Running Deer Natural Area to Fence Post Properties, LLC. (Postponed until such time as staff can complete work to explore other options) The purpose of this item is for City Council to consider the proposed sale of approximately 11.85 acres of land to Fence Post Properties, LLC, (Roger Hageman, Hageman Earth Cycle (HEC)). About seven months ago, the City Manager’s Office inquired about the possibility of selling approximately 15 acres of land to HEC. The land was purchased by the City’s Natural Areas Department eighteen years ago, along with additional land for Running Deer Natural Area. Prior to the City’s purchase, the 15 acres was leased by HEC for the operation of a yard waste/organic material recycling business. The land has continued to be leased to HEC and the current lease will expire in 2017. The proposed sale area has been reduced to 11.85 acres after exclusion of a wetland and boundary adjustments. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, discussed the property in question on East Prospect. Hageman Earth Cycle is currently leasing 15 acres of the Running Deer Natural Area from the City. The City has never occupied this particular acreage as Hageman’s has been in business longer than the City has owned the property. This item would authorize the sale of 11.8 acres of the 15 acres to Hageman’s. Both the Land Conservation Stewardship Board and Natural Resources Advisory Board are opposed to the sale primarily because of the precedent it might set. However, staff is recommending the sale given the City has never occupied the property and Hageman’s business is in line with the City’s recycling goals. The land would be deed restricted in terms of use and no permanent structures can be built on the property. The City will also maintain a buy-back provision. Marsha Patton-Mallory, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Vice-Chair, stated the Board is unanimously opposed to the sale and suggested a possible long-term lease as an alternative. Trudy Haines opposed the sale and suggested continuing with the lease. Vicky McLane opposed the sale. Ray Watts discussed the ecological value of the property and opposed the sale. Paul Stutheit opposed the sale, citing the possibility of setting a precedent. Oliver Richardson stated this sale is insignificant given the total land area owned by the City in Natural Areas. Bill Jenkins opposed the sale citing the possibility of setting a precedent. Ed Reifsnyder commended the service provided by Hageman’s but opposed the sale. He suggested the continuation of the lease. 1.2 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 222 Mike Pruznick supported the continuation of the lease and expressed concern regarding some of the details of the proposed sale. Bob Viscount discussed the various purchases and land transfers made by Hageman’s and opposed the sale. Peggy Hageman discussed her business’ commitment to the Fort Collins community and stated the land sale is vital to its continued operation. Doug Evans supported the land sale. Dan McGuire supported the land sale. Brad Kennedy opposed the land sale and expressed concern the appraised land value may not be accurate. He asked if the City receives any discount for utilizing Hageman’s service. Gina Janett opposed the land sale and stated the highest and best use of the land is as a Natural Area. Ron Nebelsick supported the land sale. Dallas Hageman supported the land sale. Cordelia Stone opposed the land sale. David Tweedale opposed the land sale. Merv See supported the land sale and commended the business. David Roy opposed the land sale despite the business being a valuable asset to the city. Brad Florin supported the land sale and stated the business reduces vehicle miles travelled for thousands of residents. Donna Walter supported the land sale and commended the business. Elizabeth Hudetz opposed the land sale and suggested continuing the lease. Ken Summers supported the land sale as being a public-private partnership. Roger Hageman supported the land sale and stated a long-term lease is not likely in his plan. Councilmember Cunniff asked if annual reviews were conducted as per the 2008 resolution. Stokes replied compliance reviews dealing with water quality were conducted and are being compiled. Councilmember Cunniff asked if the City received a discounted rate at Hageman’s. Stokes replied in the negative. Councilmember Martinez asked if there are other providers of similar services. Stokes replied in the negative. 1.2 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 223 Councilmember Martinez asked what would occur should the business leave the area. Stokes replied he was unsure; however, Hageman’s processes about 20,000 tons of material per year. Councilmember Martinez asked if this sale would work toward the City’s climate goals. Stokes replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Martinez noted the importance of the buy-back clause and asked if there is any potential for the land to be damaged based on its current use. Stokes replied in the negative and stated the City would require the parcel to be cleaned up prior to repurchasing it. Councilmember Overbeck asked if the soil condition has been analyzed on the property. Stokes replied there are monitoring wells for water quality on the site and no problematic components have been found. Councilmember Overbeck asked if the price of the buy-back would be affected should any negative soil conditions be found. Stokes replied that would be a possibility. Councilmember Overbeck asked how the $255,000 value was determined. Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager, replied the property was appraised with the deed restriction in mind. Councilmember Overbeck asked why multiple appraisals were not requested. Sears replied one appraiser is typically used and Real Estate staff evaluate the report. Councilmember Overbeck asked if the property value would change based on the Boxelder stormwater and I-25/Prospect improvements. Sears replied in the affirmative, assuming the deed restriction were removed and an upzoning was approved; however, should the business be closed or the use changed and the City decides to repurchase the property, it will be repurchased based on the price received plus an escalator based on the assessed value of the property. Councilmember Overbeck asked if the City has considered other assistance for the service provided by Hageman’s. Stokes replied in the negative and stated it is extremely difficult to find other properties for this use. Councilmember Stephens asked why it is difficult to find another location for this type of operation. Stokes replied there are very few locations, if any, within the Growth Management Area. Councilmember Stephens asked if there are other providers of this service in the area. Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager, replied there is one small business owner on West Mulberry that takes a limited amount of yard waste; however, Hageman’s handles the recycling of 72% of yard waste within the city. Councilmember Stephens asked if this type of use is being considered for the regional wasteshed. Councilmember Cunniff replied that would be quite far in the future. Councilmember Stephens asked if the City could buy something comparable in terms of acreage for this same price. Sears replied the price equates to a little over $20,000 an acre and land has been purchased within the Growth Management Area for $5,000 to $50,000 an acre. Within the river corridor, another 11 acres could be purchased for approximately the same value. 1.2 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 224 Councilmember Cunniff asked about the escalator for the buy-back value. Sears replied the difference between the assessed value now and then would be the escalator that would be applied to the $255,000 sales price. Councilmember Cunniff asked if keeping this money in escrow to use for future repurchase would be possible. Stokes replied in the affirmative; however, he noted the proceeds from this sale must go back into land conservation and staff has taken the approach that finding land to purchase and protect now would be a better use of the funds. Councilmember Campana asked if there are conditions regarding liens on the property. Sears replied any liens on the property would have to be cleared prior to repurchase; however, that is not a requirement during the time of Hageman’s ownership. Councilmember Campana asked what the lease terms have been to this point. Stokes replied it was a ten-year lease that renewed annually and it will be expiring this year. Councilmember Campana asked what type of long-term lease the Boards proposed. Stokes replied the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board proposed a twenty-year lease with annual renewals. Councilmember Campana suggested the removal of annual reviews and the institution of a long- term lease rather than a sale as a possible option to strike a balance and allow Hageman’s to have a viable business plan. Councilmembers Cunniff and Stephens supported the idea of a possible long-term lease. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested input from Mr. Hageman. Mr. Hageman replied he does not want a long-term lease due to the possibility of future Councils having the ability to cancel the lease. He stated he cannot invest in the front of his business without assuring control of the back acreage. Mayor Pro Tem Horak noted CSU has a long-term lease on the Engines Lab. Mr. Hageman discussed the value of land appreciation. Councilmember Martinez asked if a lease could be written with definite terms and assurance it could not be cancelled. City Attorney Daggett replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Martinez asked Mr. Hageman if he would consider a firm 99-year lease. Mr. Hageman replied he would consider it but that is not his desire. He stated he has no intention of putting a lien on this land. Councilmember Martinez made a motion, seconded by Mayor Troxell, to adopt Ordinance No. 020, 2017, on First Reading. City Attorney Daggett reviewed the changes made to the Ordinance since the published agenda. Councilmember Cunniff made a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to postpone consideration of this item until the March 7, 2017 meeting to allow staff to investigate the long-term lease option. 1.2 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 225 Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he would also like to receive additional information regarding the value of the property without the deed restriction. Stokes stated it would be difficult for staff to develop a full lease proposal by March 7. City Attorney Daggett noted the current lease does not terminate until June 2018; however, the final annual review will occur in June of this year. Councilmembers Cunniff and Overbeck accepted a friendly amendment to postpone indefinitely to allow staff time to provide a full market value appraisal, examine a long-term lease, and gather information on possible river corridor land acquisitions. City Attorney Daggett suggested postponement to the next Council meeting for staff to present a timeline. Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to postpone the item until such as time as staff has determined it can provide acceptable answers to Council’s questions. RESULT: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 020, 2017, POSTPONED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS STAFF CAN COMPLETE WORK TO EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 SECONDER: Bob Overbeck, District 1 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak  CONSIDERATION OF CITIZEN-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS 14. Items Relating to the Submission of Charter Amendments to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the April 4, 2017, Regular Municipal Election. (Adopted on Second Reading) A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 7 of Article VIII of the City Charter Pertaining to the Date of Certification of Election Results (the “Canvass”), Proposed Amendments to Section 1 (d) and Section 4 of Article II of the City Charter Pertaining Respectively to the Timing of the Council Organizational Meeting Following an Election, and when Councilmember Terms of Office Begin. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 11 of Article II of the City Charter Pertaining to the Process for Cancelling a Council Meeting. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 9 of Article IV of the City Charter Pertaining to Conflicts of Interest and Certain Prohibited Sales to the City. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 004, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Section 1 of Article VII of the City Charter Pertaining to Appointment of Municipal Judges. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 3, 2017, submit various Charter amendments to the voters in April that will: (1) change the deadline for final certification of an election so that the City may implement signature verification, and corresponding changes to the 1.2 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 226 date of the Council organizational meeting and the beginning of Councilmember terms of office; (2) outline a process for the cancellation of a Council meeting in the event of unforeseen circumstances (i.e., weather, natural disasters, emergencies); (3) clarifying when City officials and employees, and their relatives, have a conflict of interest in a sale of property or services to the City concerning which sale the officer or employee has decision-making or supervisory authority; and (4) to allow the Council to appoint additional Municipal Judges and to designate a Chief Municipal Judge. Eric Sutherland suggested a Charter amendment allowing future Councils the ability to appoint a Municipal Court Judge for a period of time less than two years. Mike Pruznick discussed the inclusion of full-time Council members. Councilmember Cunniff asked about Mr. Sutherland’s question. City Attorney Daggett replied the two-year term is intended to provide a regular, predictable cycle. The language does allow the appointment of a temporary judge as Council deems necessary. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance No. 001, 2017, on Second Reading. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 001, 2017 ADOPTED ON SECOND READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to adopt Ordinance No. 002, 2017, on Second Reading. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 002, 2017, ADOPTED ON SECOND READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance No. 003, 2017, on Second Reading. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 003, 2017, ADOPTED ON SECOND READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance No. 004, 2017, on Second Reading RESULT: ADOPTED ON SECOND READING [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak 1.2 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 227 15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to Pay 2017 Fees for the City of Fort Collins Areas within the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority. (Adopted on First Reading) The purpose of this item is to appropriate $330,000 from prior year reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to pay stormwater service and stormwater system development fees in advance to the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA) for those developed areas of the City of Fort Collins that also are located within the BBRSA service area boundary based on existing development (i.e., impervious surface area) conditions. Eric Sutherland discussed the Boxelder Stormwater Authority and opposed the use of tax increment financing. He opposed the Ordinance. Tim Singewald, Mayor of Wellington, introduced himself and stated he has some concerns regarding this item. Mayor Pro Tem Horak discussed the read-before memo which addressed some of his concerns regarding this item. He noted the long-term cash flow is positive while the short-term cash flow is a problem. Councilmember Cunniff stated he has significant concerns regarding this item. Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to adopt Ordinance No. 009, 2017, on First Reading. Councilmember Campana commended this as a creative solution. RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 009, 2017, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [6 TO 1] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Horak NAYS: Cunniff  Motion to Extend the Meeting Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to suspend the rules to continue past 10:30 PM in order to consider any other business to come before the Council. RESULT: ADOPTED [6 TO 1] MOVER: Ross Cunniff, District 5 SECONDER: Gino Campana, District 3 AYES: Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak NAYS: Martinez 1.2 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) January 17, 2017 City of Fort Collins Page 228  OTHER BUSINESS Councilmember Martinez requested and received Council support to write a letter of support for the Food Bank becoming an Enterprise Zone. Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested information regarding other entities which could possibly benefit from the Enterprise Zone. Councilmember Campana discussed the Stormwater Criteria Manual update and asked if any type of citizen committee has been assembled to review the Manual. City Manager Atteberry replied he would return with that information.  Call of Special Meeting Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, to call a Special Meeting of the Council pursuant to Section 2-29(a) of the City Code for 6:00 PM on Tuesday, January 31, 2017, for the purpose of conducing the Landmark Apartments appeals and any other items that may come before the Council. RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Gerry Horak, District 6 SECONDER: Ray Martinez, District 2 AYES: Martinez, Stephens, Overbeck, Campana, Troxell, Cunniff, Horak  ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:44 PM. ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ City Clerk 1.2 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: January 17, 2017 (5231 : minutes-1/3, 1/17) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Melissa Funk, Victim Services Supervisor John Hutto, Police Chief SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, appropriates a grant received by the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit in the amount of $48,000. The grant, received from the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (VALE) Board, runs for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, and helps fund services provided by this team. The funds will be used for part of the salary for the victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services during weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services office. A part-time victim advocate will be hired from this grant to help with the growing demand the unit is facing. These funds will also pay for a portion of the operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 006, 2017 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 40 Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 17, 2017 City Council STAFF Melissa Funk, Victim Services Supervisor John Hutto, Police Chief SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to fund the Victim Services Unit of Fort Collins Police Services for victim advocacy services under the Colorado Victim Rights Amendment for victims of crime and their family members. The Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit has been awarded a 12-month grant in the amount of $48,000 for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, by the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (VALE) Board to help fund services provided by this team. These funds will be used for part of the salary for the victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services during weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services office. A part-time victim advocate will be hired from this grant to help with the growing demand our unit is facing. These funds will also pay for a portion of the operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in the community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Victim Services Unit has received funding from the Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (VALE) grant since the inception of the program in 1996. Services have been provided to thousands of victims and their family members who have become victims of violent crime in the community. Council has approved appropriations of the grant revenue every year. Services to the community would be drastically cut without this grant award. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City has received a grant in the amount of $48,000 from the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement Board to help fund victim services activities. This grant requires no local cash match. ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (5227 : SR 006 Police VALE Grant) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 006, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE FORT COLLINS POLICE SERVICES VICTIM SERVICES UNIT WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services has been awarded a grant in the amount of $48,000 (the “Grant”) for the period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 by the Eighth Judicial District Victim Assistance and Law Enforcement (“VALE”) Board to support the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit (“Victim Services”); and WHEREAS, Victim Services provides crisis intervention, resources and referral services to victims of violent crime and other traumatic situations; and WHEREAS, the Grant will be used to fund a part of the salary for the victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services, a part-time victim advocate, and to partially pay for operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in the community; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Grant from the VALE Board to support Victim Services will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Police Services 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 as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund the sum of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($48,000) for expenditure in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Unit. 2.2 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Ordinance No. 006, 2017 (5227 : SR 006 Police VALE Grant) -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 2.2 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Ordinance No. 006, 2017 (5227 : SR 006 Police VALE Grant) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Mary Pat Aardrup, Environmental Planner SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2017. Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Encore Fellowship Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, appropriates $25,000 of unanticipated grant revenues to the General Fund from the Encore Fellowship Program to the City of Fort Collins. Encore implements an innovative social purpose workplace initiative designed to utilize experienced and talented corporate employees in the non-profit sector. The Encore Fellowship Program will provide the City with 1,000 hours of paid hourly staff time in 2017 to support the City’s Indoor Air Quality initiatives, including the Healthy Homes program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 007, 2017 (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 44 Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 17, 2017 City Council STAFF Mary Pat Aardrup, Environmental Planner SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2017. Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Encore Fellowship Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $25,000 of unanticipated grant revenues to the General Fund from the Encore Fellowship Program to the City of Fort Collins. Encore implements an innovative social purpose workplace initiative designed to utilize experienced and talented corporate employees in the non-profit sector. The Encore Fellowship Program will provide the City with 1,000 hours of paid hourly staff time in 2017 to support the City’s Indoor Air Quality initiatives, including the Healthy Homes program. Indoor air quality is one of the four “High Priority” pollutants as identified in the City’s 2011 Air Quality Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Encore is an innovative social purpose workplace initiative. It is designed to utilize experienced and talented corporate employees in the non-profit sector. The Encore Fellowship program will provide the City with 1,000 hours of paid hourly staff time in 2017 to support the City’s Indoor Air Quality initiatives, including the Healthy Homes program. Tony Fourcroy will be joining the Environmental Services Department (“ESD”) through the Encore Fellowship program. As a part of his early retirement package, Intel committed $25,000 to the Encore Fellowship Program to fund the grant for this 1,000 hour commitment. Mr. Fourcroy’s salary will be $25.00 per hour as an hourly employee of the City. Mr. Fourcroy is a Microprocessor Design Engineer and worked at Intel from 2005- present. This is the first Encore Fellow employed by the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Tony Fourcroy will be assisting ESD with:  the Healthy Homes Program database management,  development of the Do It Yourself assessment and,  Healthy Homes program evaluation. Encore sees aging as a solution. Those individuals in and beyond midlife represent a powerful source of talent with the accumulated skills, experience and wisdom of our aging workforce. Encore embraces this population by harnessing these skills and partnering with a corporation to provide additional resources to the communities in which they reside. This grant provides funding for an additional part-time person for the indoor air quality programs in 2017. The Encore Fellowship Program provides an important opportunity to the City to add capacity to support indoor ATTACHMENT 1 3.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (5222 : SR 007 Encore Grant) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 2 air quality programs. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City benefits by a $25,000 grant which supports this initiative. No matching funds are required. The City will provide office space and equipment for this hourly position. ATTACHMENTS 1. Encore Grant Agreement (PDF) 3.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (5222 : SR 007 Encore Grant) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 007, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE ENCORE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant from the Encore Fellowship Program (“Encore”) operated by Civic Ventures, a California nonprofit corporation, dba Encore.org in the amount of $25,000 to utilize experienced and talented corporate employees in the non-profit sector; and WHEREAS, the Encore grant funds will be used to employ an individual for 1,000 hours to assist with the City’s existing indoor air quality programs, specifically the Healthy Homes Program and program evaluation and development of the Do It Yourself program assessment; and WHEREAS, the grant requires no matching funds; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the Encore Fellowship Program grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund the sum of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000) for expenditure in the General Fund for air quality programs. 3.2 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Ordinance No. 007, 2017 (5222 : SR 007 Encore Grant) -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 3.2 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Ordinance No. 007, 2017 (5222 : SR 007 Encore Grant) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Cassie Archuleta, Senior Environmental Planner SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Environmental Services Department Operating Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, appropriates unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and transfers existing and unexpended appropriated funds from the Environmental Services 2017 operating budget to the Radon Grant project. The Ordinance appropriates $7,960 of unanticipated grant revenues in the General Fund. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment granted these funds to the City for a program to encourage radon testing and mitigation through media advertising and low-cost test kit sales. The grant directly supports radon activities identified in the Environmental Services Department’s core budget offer. The grant requires a local match of $5,307. Matching funds are appropriated and unexpended in the 2017 Environmental Services operating budget and will be transferred to the Environmental Services Radon Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 008, 2017 (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 49 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 17, 2017 City Council STAFF Cassie Archuleta, Senior Environmental Planner SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2017, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Environmental Services Department Operating Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program and transfer existing and unexpended appropriated funds from the Environmental Services 2017 operating budget to the Radon Grant project. This Ordinance appropriates $7,960 of unanticipated grant revenues in the General Fund. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment granted these funds to the City for a program to encourage radon testing and mitigation through media advertising and low-cost test kit sales. The grant directly supports radon activities identified in the Environmental Services Department’s core budget offer. The grant requires a local match of $5,307. Matching funds are appropriated and unexpended in the 2017 Environmental Services operating budget and will be transferred to the Environmental Services Radon Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Radon is an indoor air quality and public health issue in Fort Collins, as homes in Fort Collins and much of Colorado routinely test high for radon gas. Sixty-five percent of homes in Fort Collins test higher than Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defined "action levels". Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers (and second for smokers). The Environmental Services Department proposes to use these grant funds to augment existing programs that provide low cost radon test kits to residents, education and outreach to raise awareness of the health risks, and resources to help mitigate high radon levels. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS City resources would increase by $7,960. Required matching funds have already been appropriated in the 2017 General Fund. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Radon is a priority pollutant for the Air Quality Advisory Board, but no formal recommendation was sought for appropriation of the grant funds to augment existing radon program efforts. PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach regarding radon will be conducted throughout the year with presentations, educational materials and through print and electronic media. ATTACHMENT 1 4.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary (w/o attachments) (5224 : SR 008 Radon Grant) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 008, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RADON PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF MATCHING FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, the Fort Collins Environmental Services Radon Program (the "Program") is part of the City’s indoor air quality program, which is guided by the Air Quality Plan with a policy goal to educate and encourage residents to reduce their exposure to indoor air pollution; and WHEREAS, the current radon program includes aggressive education, a voluntary radon testing program, mandatory radon mitigation in new construction, and an ordinance requiring the distribution of radon information to all residential home-buyers at point-of-sale; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins has been awarded a grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”) in the amount of $7,960; and WHEREAS, the CDPHE grant funds will be used for the existing Environmental Services Radon Program, which provides low cost radon test kits to residents, education and outreach to raise awareness of the health risks, and resources to help mitigate high radon levels; and WHEREAS, the grant requires $5,307 of matching funds, which have been appropriated in the 2017 Environmental Services operating budget and are available for transfer to the Environmental Services Radon Program; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council to make supplemental appropriations by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year, provided that the total amount of such supplemental appropriations, in combination with all previous appropriations for that fiscal year, does not exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, City staff has determined that the appropriation of the CDPHE grant funds as described herein will not cause the total amount appropriated in the General Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10, of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project account to another fund or capital project account, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged. 4.2 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Ordinance No. 008, 2017 (5224 : SR 008 Radon Grant) -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the General Fund the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS ($7,960) for expenditure in the General Fund for the Environmental Services Radon Program. Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVEN DOLLARS ($5,307) is authorized for transfer from the Environmental Services operating budget in the General Fund to the Environmental Services Radon Program and appropriated therein. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 4.2 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Ordinance No. 008, 2017 (5224 : SR 008 Radon Grant) Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Justin Scharton, Environmental Planner Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2017, Authorizing the Execution of an Amended and Restated Conservation Easement with Colorado Open Lands on the Kingfisher and Nix Natural Areas, Including Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on Additional Lands. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, authorizes the execution of the amended and restated Nix Natural Area Conservation Easement, which is being renamed the Kingfisher Natural Area Conservation Easement. The amended and restated conservation easement offers a conveyance of a conservation easement on an additional 46.13 acres to Colorado Open Lands to mitigate the building envelope on an additional 6.12 acres to allow for the future expansion of the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 011, 2017 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 53 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 17, 2017 City Council STAFF Justin Scharton, Environmental Planner Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager SUBJECT Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 011. 2017, Authorizing the Execution of an Amended and Restated Conservation Easement with Colorado Open Lands on the Kingfisher and Nix Natural Areas, Including Conveyance of a Conservation Easement on Additional Lands. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to authorize the execution of the amended and restated Nix Natural Area Conservation Easement, which is being renamed the Kingfisher Natural Area Conservation Easement. The amended and restated conservation easement offers a conveyance of a conservation easement on an additional 46.13 acres to Colorado Open Lands to mitigate the building envelope on an additional 6.12 acres to allow for the future expansion of the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Nix Farm CE The original 24.94 Acre Nix Natural Area Conservation Easement (Nix CE) was granted to Legacy Land Trust (Legacy) on December 2, 2002 as a requirement of the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) - Poudre River Legacy Grant Agreement. The land previously called Nix Natural Area was acquired in part with these grant funds. (Attachment 1) The Nix CE was placed on the Nix Farm Natural Area due to the fact that an open gravel mining permit remained on the two ponds originally intended for the CE. GOCO’s policies would not allow funds to be used for the acquisition of land with such an open permit. In order to satisfy the terms of the grant agreement staff needed to maximize the size of the CE on Nix Natural Area. Therefore, the remaining developable area excluded from the CE around the Natural Areas Facility does not provide the area needed for the master- planned expansion of the facilities, both near and long-term. Nix Farm Facility The Nix farm was purchased in 1996 in anticipation of needing facilities to support the operations of the Natural Area program. In 2002, the historic farm house was remodeled to serve as an office building for the majority of the natural areas staff and the new shop building and yard was constructed to house the maintenance equipment and materials. Natural Areas staff grew to a point where some were housed at 215 North Mason due to lack of additional office space at Nix Farm. In 2014, a new office building was constructed to house the downtown staff and the Education workgroup. While the new office satisfies the immediate needs of the roughly 30 classified and 30 seasonal FTEs, a significant need still remains for additional shop space ATTACHMENT 1 5.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (5223 : SR 011 Nix/Kingfisher NA CE) Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 2 and equipment storage. In 2016, Natural Areas contracted with consultants to create a master plan of the Nix Farm Facility campus, including the shop expansion, two additional office buildings and associated parking lots, and the development of a paved access road from Timberline Road for emergency and City access in the future. (Attachment 2) The current timeline has planning and design for the campus completing in late 2016/early 2017, with a bid process in 2017 and construction of the shop and yard expansion commencing in 2018. Additional office building construction is not currently in the planning process and will likely be five years or more out. Kingfisher Amended and Restated CE The proposed amended and restated conservation easement includes a 6.12 acre development envelope to realize the future expansion of the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility for the next 20-30 years. To mitigate for the additional developable acreage in the building envelope, an additional 46.13 acres of land is being placed under easement in the amended and restated CE. (Attachment 3) This land is part of what was originally to be placed under easement in 2002; this is possible now as the gravel mining permit previously preventing inclusion in the CE has been closed. Staff is working collaboratively with Colorado Open Lands (COL), the statewide land trust that merged with Legacy, to amend the CE. At its December 1, 2016 meeting, the board of directors voted to support the amendment. COL will next submit the project to GOCO for its approval in early 2017. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Financial impacts will be nominal if the amended and restated conservation easement is approved, including the minor administrative costs to amend and restate the CE. If the amended and restated CE is not approved the future growth of the Natural Areas Facility will need to occur on another site, which will be a significant financial impact due to higher development costs, inefficiencies, and loss in productivity. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its October 12, 2016, regular meeting, the Land Conservation Stewardship Board unanimously recommended Council adopt the Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Nix CE Existing Conditions (PDF) 2. Proposed New Boundaries (PDF) 3. Proposed Site Plan (PDF) 4. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, October 12, 2016 (PDF) 5.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (5223 : SR 011 Nix/Kingfisher NA CE) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 011, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH COLORADO OPEN LANDS ON THE KINGFISHER AND NIX NATURAL AREAS, INCLUDING CONVEYANCE OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON ADDITIONAL LANDS WHEREAS, in 1996 the City purchased approximately 30.8 acres of land east of Lemay Avenue and south of Mulberry Street now known as the Nix Farm Natural Area, which is the location of the Natural Areas Department (NAD) office and shop facilities; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 158, 2002, authorizing the conveyance to Legacy Land Trust (“Legacy”) of a conservation easement on the Nix Farm Natural Area in order to meet requirements for receiving grant funds from Great Outdoors Colorado related to the Poudre-Big Thompson Rivers Legacy Project; and WHEREAS, the City entered into a Deed of Conservation Easement with Legacy on December 2, 2002 (the “Nix CE”); and WHEREAS, Legacy has since merged into Colorado Open Lands; and WHEREAS, the Nix CE includes a building envelope of 5.86 acres; and WHEREAS, NAD has master-planned the Nix Farm campus to provide additional office, shop and equipment storage space at Nix Farm for the next 30-plus years; and WHEREAS, in order to have sufficient space to build additional facilities, NAD has been negotiating with Colorado Open Lands to amend the Nix CE to add an additional 6.12 acres to the Nix CE building envelope in exchange for expanding the Nix CE to cover an additional 46.13 acres of adjoining land on the Kingfisher Natural Area, and rename the Nix CE the Kingfisher Natural Area Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, the additional property on which the City would convey a conservation easement to Colorado Open Lands is shown on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Expanded CE Area”); and WHEREAS, the City would survey the Expanded CE Area and prepare a more precise legal description before executing the amended conservation easement; and WHEREAS, City staff is recommending that the City not charge Colorado Open Lands for conveyance of a conservation easement on the Expanded CE Area, because the value of the additional conservation easement would be offset by the benefit to the City of having an expanded building area at Nix Farm, without which the City would have to develop additional NAD facilities at other sites, incurring higher development costs, inefficiencies in NAD operations, and reduced productivity; and 5.2 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Ordinance No. 011, 2017 (5223 : SR 011 Nix/Kingfisher NA CE) -2- WHEREAS, if the City and Colorado Open Lands both approve the proposed amendments, Colorado Open Lands will submit the changes to GOCO for approval in early 2017; and WHEREAS, the NAD’s Conservation Easement Amendment Policy and Procedure requires that proposed amendments to conservation easements to which the City is a party be approved by the City Council by adoption of an ordinance after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property owned by 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 October 12, 2016, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the execution of an amended and restated Kingfisher Natural Area Deed of 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 makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of a conservation easement on the Expanded CE Area to Colorado Open Lands as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to amend and restate the Kingfisher Natural Area (formerly Nix) Conservation Easement, including conveyance of a conservation easement on the Expanded CE Area to Colorado Open Lands, on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Expanded CE Area, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property interest to be conveyed. 5.2 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Ordinance No. 011, 2017 (5223 : SR 011 Nix/Kingfisher NA CE) -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 5.2 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Ordinance No. 011, 2017 (5223 : SR 011 Nix/Kingfisher NA CE) Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community KINGFISHER CE - EXISTING CE AREA AND NEW LAND CONVEYED IN AMENDED AND RESTATED CE City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department Project Area Larimer County 0250500 125 Feet New Land Conveyed in CE Existing Nix CE ² Date Created: 1/11/2017 2:21:56 PM EXHIBIT A ADDITIONAL CE AREA TO BE CONVEYED ON A PORTION OF THE PROPERY DESCRIBED AS: Tract 1 (20.20 ac+/-) and Tract 2 (26.13 +/- ac) of the Cache la Poudre Industrial Park P.U.D., located in Sections 17 & 18, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., in Larimer County, Colorado, Reception # 85057278, recorded 11/07/85. AND Lot 1 (27.47 ac +/-) of the Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility Final Plat, located in Section 18, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. in Larimer County, Colorado, Reception # 2001092701, recorded 10/16/2001. LOT 1 TRACT 2 TRACT 1 5.2 Attachment: Ordinance No. 011, 2017 (5223 : SR 011 Nix/Kingfisher NA CE) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area Encroachments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Steven Jones. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Frank and Lorenda Volker. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Dane and Lynn Brandt. D. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Barbara and Thomas Cynkar. E. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Steven Huval. F. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Robert and Yukari Samuel. G. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Stephanie Yang and Scott Lavolette. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, authorize the sale of seven small parcels of Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area Land, a total of 0.31 acres, to seven residents of the Fox Hills Subdivision to resolve long-standing and significant encroachments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 012, 2017 (PDF) 3. Ordinance No. 013, 2017 (PDF) 4. Ordinance No. 014, 2017 (PDF) 5. Ordinance No. 015, 2017 (PDF) 6. Ordinance No. 016, 2017 (PDF) 7. Ordinance No. 017, 2017 (PDF) 8. Ordinance No. 018, 2017 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 60 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 17, 2017 City Council STAFF Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area Encroachments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 012, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Steven Jones. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Frank and Lorenda Volker. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Dane and Lynn Brandt. D. First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Barbara and Thomas Cynkar. E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Steven Huval. F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Robert and Yukari Samuel. G. First Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2017, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Portion of City-Owned Property at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to Stephanie Yang and Scott LaVolette. The purpose of this item is to review and recommend the sale of seven small parcels of Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area Land, a total of 0.31 acres, to seven residents of the Fox Hills Subdivision to resolve long- standing and significant encroachments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In the fall of 2013, Natural Areas became aware that the City owned the Fox Hills Open Space; prior to that the City and Fox Hills Home Owners Association (HOA) thought that the land was owned and maintained by the HOA. In fact, the open space was conveyed to the City in 1996 by the developer for open space, a trail corridor, and stormwater drainage and detention. After about a year of internal discussion as to which City department should be responsible for managing the site, in 2015, Natural Areas agreed to take the lead and manage the 22-acre site as an addition to the adjoining Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. ATTACHMENT 1 6.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 2 In January 2016, a Memo of Understanding was signed by Natural Areas, Utilities, Parks and Streets regarding the management and maintenance of the open space, trail, drainage ways, detention ponds and adjoining streets. During the summer of 2016, Natural Areas rangers began the process of monitoring the site for encroachments. Twenty-four encroachments were discovered; eleven appeared to be significant and not easily removed. To date, all but seven of the encroachments have been resolved; the remaining seven property owners have requested that the City sell them the small parcels of land where they are encroaching. Natural Areas has 49 sites and an estimated 500 adjoining private properties. Over the years, it appeared the number of encroachments by these private property owners was increasing. The encroachments included: landscaping; fences; structures; composting; storage of RVs, vehicles, equipment, or materials; deposition of yard waste; and unauthorized vehicular access. To address these increasing encroachment issues, the Natural Areas Encroachment Policy was developed in 2011. The Policy defines what constitutes an encroachment; defines the City Codes that can be used to enforce encroachments; defines minor encroachments that may be tolerated; and defines the enforcement monitoring process and procedures for handling violations. (Attachment 3) Since 2011, rangers have made a more concentrated effort to monitor Natural Areas boundaries and take enforcement actions to remove encroachments. Over the last four years, the number of violations has dramatically dropped from 117 violations found in 2011 to only 13 violations found in 2016; not counting the encroachments found at Fox Hills. In 2013, rangers discovered several significant encroachments onto Pineridge Natural Area by residents in the Quail Ridge Subdivision. Staff purposely waited until all of the other known encroachments were resolved before addressing these unusual encroachments. Some of the encroachments had existed for 20 years since the properties were developed. Staff met with nine property owners and presented them with two options: (A) Removing the encroachment (which is the City’s typical approach) and (B) request that City Council sell them the land on which they were encroaching (which is not an option Natural Areas would normally recommend or even consider). Staff was willing to recommend Option B for several reasons: most of the encroachments had been there close to 20 years; they included extensive, valuable and mature landscaping; and four of the encroachments were on land Natural Areas preferred not to own due to their awkward shape and location. In January 2015, City Council, based upon staff and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board’s recommendations, approved the sale of six parcels of land from Pineridge Natural Area to six residents to resolve their encroachments. Staff used the Natural Areas Utility Easement Policy as a procedural guide on how to handle the purchase requests to City Council. Per the Policy staff required each of the property owners to pay $1,000 in estimated administrative costs to process their request and $1,500 in estimated survey costs to survey the land they want to acquire. The property owners paid ½ of the administrative and survey costs upfront with the remaining half of those fees plus the value of the land due at closing if their request was approved by Council. The property owners were informed that if Council denied their requests they would forfeit the $1,250 they paid up front. Staff is using this same process to address the seven significant Fox Hill’s residents’ encroachments onto Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. Each of the seven residents has paid $1,250 up front to fund the cost of administrating this request to Council. Each of the seven encroachments and associated improvements are higher in value than the underlying fee value of the land. Most of these encroachments have been in place for over 15 years, likely since the property was originally developed and landscaped. Most of the current owners were not the original owners and were not responsible for the encroachments. Since it was believed that the HOA owned this open space, many of the original property owners had received HOA approval to encroach, not realizing that the land was actually owned by the City. All seven of the residents appreciate the opportunity to request a land sale; however they fully understand that their request may be denied. 6.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 3 Appraisals were not conducted, in part because they would have cost more than the value of the parcels. The property owners agreed to a value of $1.00 per square foot as determined by Real Estate Services. Each of the requested land sales are described below and shown on the attached exhibits: 2621 Luther Lane - Steven Jones - 601 SF - $3,101 Total Cost to Acquire Land: $1,000 Admin Fee + $1,500 Survey Fee + $601 Land Value = $3,101. 2626 Luther Lane - Frank and Lorenda Volker - 2,208 SF - $4,708 Total Cost to Acquire Land: $1,000 Admin Fee + $1,500 Survey Fee + $2,208 Land Value = $4,708. 2633 Black Fox Court - Dane and Lynn Brandt - 2,012 SF - $4,512 Total Cost to Acquire Land: $1,000 Admin Fee + $1,500 Survey Fee + $2,012 Land Value = $4,512. 2626 Black Fox Court - Barbara and Thomas Cynkar - 3,235 SF - $5,735 Total Cost to Acquire Land: $1,000 Admin Fee + $1,500 Survey Fee + $3,235 Land Value = $5,735. 4220 Red Fox Road - Steven Huval - 2,948 SF - $5,448 Total Cost to Acquire Land: $1,000 Admin Fee + $1,500 Survey Fee + $2,948 Land Value = $5,448. 2627 Red Fox Court - Robert and Yukari Samuel - 556 SF - $3,056 Total Cost to Acquire Land: $1,000 Admin Fee + $1,500 Survey Fee + $556 Land Value = $3,056. 4526 Red Fox Road - Stephanie Yang/Scott LaVolette - 2,223 SF - $4,723 Total Cost to Acquire Land: $1,000 Admin Fee + $1,500 Survey Fee + $2,223 Land Value = $4,723 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The $7,000 to be collected in administration fees will cover the cost of administrating these seven requests and the sale of the seven parcels; the $10,500 to be collected in surveying fees will cover the cost of surveying the seven parcels; and the $13,783 to be collected in land value will cover the fair market value of the 0.31 acres of land being sold. Total funds received will be $31,283. (The $8,750 received in upfront fees, $1,250 from each resident, has covered the staff administrative and survey costs to date.) BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its December 14, 2016 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted 8-1 to recommend that City Council approve the sale of seven small parcels of land from the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area to seven residential property owners in the Fox Hills Subdivision to resolve long-standing and significant encroachments onto the natural area. (Attachment 4) PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff did not think it was appropriate or necessary to seek public input beyond the input received from the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fox Hills Location Map (PDF) 2. Fox Hills Encroachments on Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (PDF) 3. Natural Areas Encroachment Policy (PDF) 4. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Meeting Minutes, December 14, 2016 (PDF) 6.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (w/o attachments) (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 012, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT CATHY FROMME PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA TO STEVEN JONES WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land located in southwest Fort Collins known as Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Natural Areas Department developed the Natural Areas Encroachment Policy, which defines what constitutes an encroachment on a natural area and how violations will be monitored and enforced; and WHEREAS, in 2016 Natural Areas rangers discovered eleven significant encroachments onto the City Property by residents in the Fox Hills Subdivision including Steven Jones; and WHEREAS, City staff discussed the situation with the encroaching property owners and gave them the option of removing the encroachments or purchasing the portion of the City Property affected by the encroachments; and WHEREAS, City staff does not always consider or recommend conveying away Natural Areas property to resolve encroachments, but in this case the encroachments are long standing and of significant value, and were created in part due to a misunderstanding about ownership of the City Property; and WHEREAS, all but seven of the substantial encroachments have been resolved, and the remaining property owners, including Mr. Jones, have asked that the City sell them the small parcels of land where they are encroaching; and WHEREAS, the portion of the City Property that would be conveyed to Mr. Jones is shown and described on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment Parcel”); and WHEREAS, the City would reserve from the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel any utility, drainage, or other easements needed to accommodate existing City facilities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Jones has agreed to pay a total of $3,101 for the Encroachment Parcel, consisting of $601 for the value of the property as determined by Real Estate Services, a $1,000 administrative fee for processing the transaction, and a $1,500 survey fee; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council sell the Encroachment Parcel to resolve the encroachment issue; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council 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. 6.2 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Ordinance No. 012, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -2- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel to Steven Jones as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Encroachment Parcel on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Encroachment Parcel, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property interest to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 6.2 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Ordinance No. 012, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) EXHIBIT A 6.2 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Ordinance No. 012, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) 6.2 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Ordinance No. 012, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 013, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT CATHY FROMME PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA TO FRANK AND LORENDA VOLKER WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land located in southwest Fort Collins known as Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Natural Areas Department developed the Natural Areas Encroachment Policy, which defines what constitutes an encroachment on a natural area and how violations will be monitored and enforced; and WHEREAS, in 2016 Natural Areas rangers discovered eleven significant encroachments onto the City Property by residents in the Fox Hills Subdivision including Frank and Lorenda Volker (the “Volkers”); and WHEREAS, City staff discussed the situation with the encroaching property owners and gave them the option of removing the encroachments or purchasing the portion of the City Property affected by the encroachments; and WHEREAS, City staff does not always consider or recommend conveying away Natural Areas property to resolve encroachments, but in this case the encroachments are long standing and of significant value, and were created in part due to a misunderstanding about ownership of the City Property; and WHEREAS, all but seven of the substantial encroachments have been resolved, and the remaining property owners, including the Volkers, have asked that the City sell them the small parcels of land where they are encroaching; and WHEREAS, the portion of the City Property that would be conveyed to the Volkers is shown and described on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment Parcel”); and WHEREAS, the City would reserve from the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel any utility, drainage, or other easements needed to accommodate existing City facilities; and WHEREAS, the Volkers have agreed to pay a total of $4,708 for the Encroachment Parcel, consisting of $2,208 for the value of the property as determined by Real Estate Services, a $1,000 administrative fee for processing the transaction, and a $1,500 survey fee; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council sell the Encroachment Parcel to resolve the encroachment issue; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the 6.3 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Ordinance No. 013, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -2- City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel to Frank and Lorenda Volker as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Encroachment Parcel on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Encroachment Parcel, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property interest to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.3 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Ordinance No. 013, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) EXHIBIT A 6.3 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Ordinance No. 013, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) 6.3 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Ordinance No. 013, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 014, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT CATHY FROMME PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA TO DANE AND LYNN BRANDT WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land located in southwest Fort Collins known as Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Natural Areas Department developed the Natural Areas Encroachment Policy, which defines what constitutes an encroachment on a natural area and how violations will be monitored and enforced; and WHEREAS, in 2016 Natural Areas rangers discovered eleven significant encroachments onto the City Property by residents in the Fox Hills Subdivision including Dane and Lynn Brandt (the “Brandts”); and WHEREAS, City staff discussed the situation with the encroaching property owners and gave them the option of removing the encroachments or purchasing the portion of the City Property affected by the encroachments; and WHEREAS, City staff does not always consider or recommend conveying away Natural Areas property to resolve encroachments, but in this case the encroachments are long standing and of significant value, and were created in part due to a misunderstanding about ownership of the City Property; and WHEREAS, all but seven of the substantial encroachments have been resolved, and the remaining property owners, including the Brandts, have asked that the City sell them the small parcels of land where they are encroaching; and WHEREAS, the portion of the City Property that would be conveyed to the Brandts is shown and described on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment Parcel”); and WHEREAS, the City would reserve from the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel any utility, drainage, or other easements needed to accommodate existing City facilities; and WHEREAS, the Brandts have agreed to pay a total of $4,512 for the Encroachment Parcel, consisting of $2,012 for the value of the property as determined by Real Estate Services, a $1,000 administrative fee for processing the transaction, and a $1,500 survey fee; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council sell the Encroachment Parcel to resolve the encroachment issue; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the 6.4 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Ordinance No. 014, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -2- City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel to Dane and Lynne Brandt as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Encroachment Parcel on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Encroachment Parcel, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property interest to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.4 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Ordinance No. 014, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) EXHIBIT A 6.4 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Ordinance No. 014, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) 6.4 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Ordinance No. 014, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 015, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT CATHY FROMME PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA TO BARBARA AND THOMAS CYNKAR WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land located in southwest Fort Collins known as Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Natural Areas Department developed the Natural Areas Encroachment Policy, which defines what constitutes an encroachment on a natural area and how violations will be monitored and enforced; and WHEREAS, in 2016 Natural Areas rangers discovered eleven significant encroachments onto the City Property by residents in the Fox Hills Subdivision including Barbara and Thomas Cynkar (the “Cynkars”); and WHEREAS, City staff discussed the situation with the encroaching property owners and gave them the option of removing the encroachments or purchasing the portion of the City Property affected by the encroachments; and WHEREAS, City staff does not always consider or recommend conveying away Natural Areas property to resolve encroachments, but in this case the encroachments are long standing and of significant value, and were created in part due to a misunderstanding about ownership of the City Property; and WHEREAS, all but seven of the substantial encroachments have been resolved, and the remaining property owners, including the Cynkars, have asked that the City sell them the small parcels of land where they are encroaching; and WHEREAS, the portion of the City Property that would be conveyed to the Cynkars is shown and described on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment Parcel”); and WHEREAS, the City would reserve from the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel any utility, drainage, or other easements needed to accommodate existing City facilities; and WHEREAS, the Cynkars have agreed to pay a total of $5,735 for the Encroachment Parcel, consisting of $3,235 for the value of the property as determined by Real Estate Services, a $1,000 administrative fee for processing the transaction, and a $1,500 survey fee; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council sell the Encroachment Parcel to resolve the encroachment issue; and 6.5 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Ordinance No. 015, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -2- WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel to Barbara and Thomas Cynkar as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Encroachment Parcel on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Encroachment Parcel, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property interest to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.5 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Ordinance No. 015, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) EXHIBIT A 6.5 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Ordinance No. 015, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) 6.5 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Ordinance No. 015, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 016, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT CATHY FROMME PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA TO STEVEN HUVAL WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land located in southwest Fort Collins known as Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Natural Areas Department developed the Natural Areas Encroachment Policy, which defines what constitutes an encroachment on a natural area and how violations will be monitored and enforced; and WHEREAS, in 2016 Natural Areas rangers discovered eleven significant encroachments onto the City Property by residents in the Fox Hills Subdivision including Steven Huval; and WHEREAS, City staff discussed the situation with the encroaching property owners and gave them the option of removing the encroachments or purchasing the portion of the City Property affected by the encroachments; and WHEREAS, City staff does not always consider or recommend conveying away Natural Areas property to resolve encroachments, but in this case the encroachments are long standing and of significant value, and were created in part due to a misunderstanding about ownership of the City Property; and WHEREAS, all but seven of the substantial encroachments have been resolved, and the remaining property owners, including Mr. Huval, have asked that the City sell them the small parcels of land where they are encroaching; and WHEREAS, the portion of the City Property that would be conveyed to Mr. Huval is shown and described on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment Parcel”); and WHEREAS, the City would reserve from the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel any utility, drainage, or other easements needed to accommodate existing City facilities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Huval has agreed to pay a total of $5,448 for the Encroachment Parcel, consisting of $2,948 for the value of the property as determined by Real Estate Services, a $1,000 administrative fee for processing the transaction, and a $1,500 survey fee; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council sell the Encroachment Parcel to resolve the encroachment issue; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the 6.6 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Ordinance No. 016, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -2- City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel to Steven Huval as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Encroachment Parcel on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Encroachment Parcel, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property interest to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk 6.6 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Ordinance No. 016, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) EXHIBIT A 6.6 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Ordinance No. 016, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) 6.6 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Ordinance No. 016, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 017, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT CATHY FROMME PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA TO ROBERT AND YUKARI SAMUEL WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land located in southwest Fort Collins known as Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Natural Areas Department developed the Natural Areas Encroachment Policy, which defines what constitutes an encroachment on a natural area and how violations will be monitored and enforced; and WHEREAS, in 2016 Natural Areas rangers discovered eleven significant encroachments onto the City Property by residents in the Fox Hills Subdivision including Robert and Yukari Samuel (the “Samuels”); and WHEREAS, City staff discussed the situation with the encroaching property owners and gave them the option of removing the encroachments or purchasing the portion of the City Property affected by the encroachments; and WHEREAS, City staff does not always consider or recommend conveying away Natural Areas property to resolve encroachments, but in this case the encroachments are long standing and of significant value, and were created in part due to a misunderstanding about ownership of the City Property; and WHEREAS, all but seven of the substantial encroachments have been resolved, and the remaining property owners, including the Samuels, have asked that the City sell them the small parcels of land where they are encroaching; and WHEREAS, the portion of the City Property that would be conveyed to the Samuels is shown and described on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment Parcel”); and WHEREAS, the City would reserve from the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel any utility, drainage, or other easements needed to accommodate existing City facilities; and WHEREAS, the Samuels have agreed to pay a total of $3,056 for the Encroachment Parcel, consisting of $556 for the value of the property as determined by Real Estate Services, a $1,000 administrative fee for processing the transaction, and a $1,500 survey fee; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council sell the Encroachment Parcel to resolve the encroachment issue; and 6.7 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Ordinance No. 017, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -2- WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel to Robert and Yukari Samuel as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Encroachment Parcel on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Encroachment Parcel, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property interest to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.7 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Ordinance No. 017, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) EXHIBIT A 6.7 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Ordinance No. 017, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) 6.7 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Ordinance No. 017, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 018, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT CATHY FROMME PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA TO STEPHANIE YANG AND SCOTT LAVOLETTE WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of land located in southwest Fort Collins known as Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (the “City Property”); and WHEREAS, in 2011 the Natural Areas Department developed the Natural Areas Encroachment Policy, which defines what constitutes an encroachment on a natural area and how violations will be monitored and enforced; and WHEREAS, in 2016 Natural Areas rangers discovered eleven significant encroachments onto the City Property by residents in the Fox Hills Subdivision including Stephanie Yang and Scott Lavolette; and WHEREAS, City staff discussed the situation with the encroaching property owners and gave them the option of removing the encroachments or purchasing the portion of the City Property affected by the encroachments; and WHEREAS, City staff does not always consider or recommend conveying away Natural Areas property to resolve encroachments, but in this case the encroachments are long standing and of significant value, and were created in part due to a misunderstanding about ownership of the City Property; and WHEREAS, all but seven of the substantial encroachments have been resolved, and the remaining property owners, including Ms. Yang and Mr. Lavolette, have asked that the City sell them the small parcels of land where they are encroaching; and WHEREAS, the portion of the City Property that would be conveyed to Ms. Yang and Mr. Lavolette is shown and described on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Encroachment Parcel”); and WHEREAS, the City would reserve from the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel any utility, drainage, or other easements needed to accommodate existing City facilities; and WHEREAS, Ms. Yang and Mr. Lavolette have agreed to pay a total of $4,723 for the Encroachment Parcel, consisting of $2,223 for the value of the property as determined by Real Estate Services, a $1,000 administrative fee for processing the transaction, and a $1,500 survey fee; and WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council sell the Encroachment Parcel to resolve the encroachment issue; and WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the 6.8 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Ordinance No. 018, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) -2- City, provided that the City Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Encroachment Parcel to Stephanie Yang and Scott Lavolette as provided herein is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are necessary to convey the Encroachment Parcel on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary changes to the legal description of the Encroachment Parcel, as long as such changes do not materially increase the size or change the character of the property interest to be conveyed. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.8 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Ordinance No. 018, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) EXHIBIT A 6.8 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Ordinance No. 018, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) 6.8 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Ordinance No. 018, 2017 (5228 : SR 012-018 Cathy Fromme Encroachments) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Teresa Roche, Chief Human Resources Officer SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2017, Adopting the 2017 Amended Classified Employees Pay Plan to Update Classified Positions as Provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017, amends City's Classified Employee Pay Plan based on a market analysis conducted as agreed upon through the 2016-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Northern Colorado Lodge #3 of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). This agreement was approved by Council by Resolution 2015-104, on December 1, 2015. Although ratified in 2015, the bargaining agreement specifies a salary data collection method and evaluation process that included the postponement of final data collection and analysis until January 2017 when additional benchmark data became available. This data has been collected and analyzed, resulting in the revised 2017 Classified Employee Pay Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 92 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 17, 2017 City Council STAFF Teresa Roche, Chief Human Resources Officer SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2017, Adopting the 2017 Amended Classified Employees Pay Plan to Update Classified Positions as Provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to recommend changes to the City's Classified Employee Pay Plan based on a market analysis conducted as agreed upon through the 2016-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Northern Colorado Lodge #3 of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). This agreement was approved by Council by Resolution 2015-104, on December 1, 2015. Although ratified in 2015, the bargaining agreement specifies a salary data collection method and evaluation process that included the postponement of final data collection and analysis until January 2017 when additional benchmark data became available. This data has been collected and analyzed, resulting in the revised 2017 Classified Employee Pay Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins utilizes a common compensation methodology to assess jobs, combine them into occupational groups and establish pay range structures. The result of this work is a Classified Employee Pay Plan which sets the minimum, midpoint and maximum of pay ranges within each occupational group. A detailed analysis of benchmark data is conducted each year to determine if the market has moved sufficiently to recommend structure adjustments. Council approved the 2017 Pay Plan in December, 2016, with the understanding that an amended plan would be presented in January once data for police collective bargaining unit positions was available. Council approved an agreement by Resolution 2015-104, on December 1, 2015, between the City and the Northern Colorado Lodge #3 of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) establishing the 2016-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The bargaining agreement specified a salary data collection method and evaluation process that included the postponement of the final data collection and analysis until January 2016 when additional benchmark data became available. This analysis included collecting actual salary data for police positions from 13 identified benchmark municipalities. The analysis resulted in the following recommended Pay Plan Structure adjustments:  Police Officer, 3.04%  Police Corporal, 3.04%  Police Sergeant, 3.51%  Police Lieutenant, 4.11%  Community Service Officer, 3.04%  Community Service Officer Supervisor, 3.04% ATTACHMENT 1 7.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2  Emergency Services Dispatcher, 4.80%  Emergency Services Dispatch Supervisor, 4.57%  Emergency Services Communications Manager, 5.38% Actual employee salary increases are determined administratively and will be implemented using existing Police Services resources and the Council adopted employee pay increase budget. 7.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 019, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING THE 2017 AMENDED CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES PAY PLAN TO UPDATE CLASSIFIED POSITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE WHEREAS, Section 2-566 of the City Code requires that the pay plan for all classified employees of the City shall be established by ordinance of the City Council; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 133, 2016, approving a pay plan for its classified employees for pay to go into effect the first pay period of January 2017 (“Pay Plan”); and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 2015-104 approving a collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Northern Colorado Lodge #3 of the Fraternal Order of Police (“CBA”); and WHEREAS, the CBA contains a provision giving the City until January of 2017 to collect market data from 13 identified benchmark municipalities for the classified positions in the collective bargaining unit; and WHEREAS, such market data has been collected and analyzed and the recommended salary ranges for the bargaining unit classified employees are available to amend the Pay Plan; and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Pay Plan recommended by the City Manager are consistent with City Council objectives and the Council-approved CBA, including the philosophy of establishing pay ranges by using the average actual salaries for benchmark positions to set the mid-point of pay ranges for those positions; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adoption of the recommended, amended pay plan is in the best interests of the City and further believes that the allocation of individual salaries within the Pay Plan should be related to employee performance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby adopts the 2017 Amended City of Fort Collins Classified Employees Pay Plan (the “Amended Plan”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. 7.2 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) -2- Section 3. That the effective date of the Amended Plan shall commence no later than the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. That the City Manager shall fix the compensation levels of all classified employees within the pay levels established in the Amended Plan except to the extent that the City Manager determines, due to performance or other extraordinary circumstances, that the pay level of a particular employee should remain below the minimum or be fixed above the maximum for that employee’s job title. Section 5. That the City Manager shall fix the salary for newly-created positions or positions that are modified due to changes in job duties within the approved pay structure based on results of an objective job analysis. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 7.2 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) % & & # # # & % ' $ () " ' #& ' # % & & % & & & 0*1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 0* ' #& ' # % & & % & & ' ! % $ % ' #& ' # % & & % & & $ % $ * * ' #& ' # % & & % & & & $ ' #& ' # % & & % & & $ # $ ' $ ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0 ' #& ' # % & & % & & $ % & ! ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0*1 0* 1 0* ! ' #& ' # % & & % & & ' 0*1 0* 1 0* "#$% & "#$% & "#$% & $&#% & "#$% & "#$% & "#$% & $&#% & "#$% & $&#% & "#$% & $&#% & )*% + ""+ "&"& ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0* )*% + ""+ "&"& , ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0* 1 0 * 1 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager John Stokes, Natural Resources Director SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2017, Amending Land Use Code Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to consider potential changes to various Land Use Code requirements related to the protection and mitigation of impacts to prairie dog colonies, sensitive and specially valued species, and other natural habitats and features on development sites. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Since the original Land Use Code (LUC) provisions regarding prairie dog colonies were adopted in 1997, there has been considerable change in the size and characteristics of prairie dog colonies within the Growth Management Area, best practices for fumigation and relocation, and citywide development patterns. Based on the latest research on the ecosystem value of prairie dog colonies and current best management practices, staff proposes a number of LUC updates regarding prairie dog management and the protection of natural habitats and features on development sites. CURRENT LAND USE CODE REQUIREMENTS Development activities that have the potential to impact natural habitats and features are regulated by Section 3.4.1 of the LUC. In some cases, prairie dog colonies are considered a special habitat feature that warrants protection or mitigation, but provisions for prairie dog management vary depending on the site:  For colonies over 50 acres in size, the developer must either protect and buffer the colony or, if the colony will be removed, replace the resource value lost to the community through some form of mitigation. Mitigation requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis, and may include the creation of grassland habitat, relocation of prairie dogs, donation of euthanized prairies dogs to support black-footed ferret or raptor recovery programs, or payment-in-lieu to fund grassland restoration or prairie dog management elsewhere in the community.  For colonies less than 50 acres in size, no protection or mitigation of impacts to prairie dogs is required. If prairie dogs will be left on-site, and depending on the nature of the project, fencing, underground barriers, or other mechanisms may be required to reduce conflicts between wildlife and the development project.  Before the commencement of grading or other construction on the development site, any prairie dogs inhabiting the site must be relocated or eradicated by the developer using City-approved methods.  If prairie dogs will be removed from the site, they must be humanely relocated or eradicated using City- 8 Packet Pg. 130 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 approved methods and, in some cases, methods approved by Colorado Parks and Wildlife and/or the Humane Society. Fumigation may be used to eradicate prairie dogs, but only by an exterminator or fumigator that is properly licensed by the State of Colorado. Trapping of prairie dogs is permitted, provided that any animals trapped are released or disposed of in the manner required by the Humane Society and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife. PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES Prairie Dog Management Since the original LUC provisions regarding prairie dog colonies were adopted, there has been a considerable reduction in the size and change in characteristics of prairie dog colonies within the Growth Management Area and citywide development patterns. The proposed LUC changes include: 1. Size threshold - Reduce the size threshold for protection and/or mitigation of prairie dog colonies from 50 acres to 1 acre to better align with the current scale and distribution of prairie dog colonies within the Growth Management Area. Prairie dog colonies greater than 1 acre in size would be considered special features during the development review process and therefore treated similarly to other significant resources. The 1-acre threshold would include the majority of remaining prairie dog colonies on private land throughout the City, but would allow for flexibility for smaller areas of prairie dog encroachment on a site. See Attachment 1 (Colony Size Threshold Options) for additional analysis. Attachment 2 illustrates the differences between the current and proposed development review process for sites containing prairie dogs. 2. Mitigation - Continue to determine mitigation requirements (on-site improvements, off-site improvements, relocation, trap and donate, or payment-in-lieu) on a case-by-case basis for development projects, but for prairie dog colonies greater than 1 acre in size. The significance and ecological value of a prairie dog colony would be determined by staff and/or the Director during the development review process. Staff would rely on the general standard in 3.4.1(C) to determine mitigation requirements, and requirements would be applied consistently to applicable development projects. 3. Reporting - Require a report that documents the timing and methods used for prairie dog relocation or eradication for all prairie dog removal activities on development sites. 4. Fumigation (Lethal Control) of Prairie Dogs: Local regulation of the use of fumigants and other pesticides on private property is specifically preempted by state law. As such, no changes to the allowable methods for fumigation are proposed at this time. However, staff will encourage applicants to use carbon monoxide-based methods for lethal management on development sites because it is considered more humane than other fumigants (e.g., aluminum phosphide). This is consistent with the management practices utilized by the Natural Areas Department, and carbon monoxide fumigation services are offered by multiple Northern Colorado exterminators. Sensitive and Specially Valued Species Sections 3.4.1(F)(1) and 3.4.1(N)(4) of the Land Use Code speak to Sensitive and Specially Valued Species. These sections currently reference an outdated list of “Species of Concern” in LUC section 5.1.2 (Definitions). The definition for “sensitive and specially valued species” references a document published by the State of Colorado in 1996, which has subsequently been updated numerous times and includes a number of species without any legal protection by the state or federal government. This document is updated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff administratively, rather than by the State legislature, and relates to the state as a whole and in some cases is not directly relevant to the habitats found in and around Fort Collins. The Fort Collins Natural Areas Department maintains a more relevant list of species that warrant local consideration or protection (Attachment 3). Additionally, LUC 3.4.1(F)(1) mandates protection not only for species with state and federal legal protections (threatened or endangered species), but also for those identified as “species of concern” or “sensitive natural 8 Packet Pg. 131 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 3 communit[ies].” As a result, there is little to no flexibility for a developer if such a species is identified on their property, even if there are no other local, state or federal legal protections for that species. A more current list of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species may include species such as black-tailed prairie dogs, which are considered valuable native species but for which protection may not always make sense in an urban context; in some cases mitigation may be a more appropriate option. Staff proposes the following updates related to Sensitive and Specially Valued Species: 1. Definition of Threatened or Endangered Species - Add a new definition that specifically addresses plant and wildlife species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state or federal government. Species that are included in this definition are subject to additional state and federal protections. 2. Definition of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species - Update the definition for "Sensitive and Specially Valued Species" to reflect the current City of Fort Collins Species of Interest list, which is maintained and updated by the Fort Collins Natural Areas Department. See Attachment 3 - Species of Interest list. 3. Protection of Threatened or Endangered Species - Create a separate standard in 3.4.1(F) that specifically addresses threatened or endangered species, which generally warrant additional protection than sensitive or specially valued species. Habitat for such species shall not be disturbed or diminished. 4. Protection of Sensitive and Specially Valued Species - Update the standard in 3.4.1(F) that describes protections for sensitive and specially valued species. The development plan shall protect, enhance or mitigate impacts to sensitive and specially valued species to the extent reasonably feasible. This would allow for some flexibility and/or mitigation of impacts to species of interest, including prairie dogs, rather than mandating protection in all cases. This is consistent with the Natural Areas Department's wildlife management practices on City-owned properties. Miscellaneous Code Changes A number of other minor updates to Code language throughout LUC section 3.4.1 are proposed to clarify wording, accurately refer to City departments and outside agencies, and reflect current practices. 1. Natural Habitats and Features - Natural resources, habitats and features that warrant protection under LUC section 3.4.1 have been clarified in 3.4.1(A) - Applicability. 2. Colorado Parks and Wildlife - All references to the Colorado Division of Wildlife have been updated to reflect the current name of the agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 3. Natural Areas Policy Plan - The Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP) is no longer a relevant guidance document for the City of Fort Collins. References to this document have been updated to more generally reference the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD). 4. Wetlands - There is language in LUC section 3.4.1(E)(1)(d) regarding the protection of wetlands that conflicts with other sections of 3.4.1. This language has been updated to clarify that wetlands of any size warrant consideration as a natural habitat or feature. 5. Definitions - various definitions in LUC section 5.1.2 have been updated for consistency with the other proposed updates described in this staff report. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS If the proposed changes are adopted, additional staff time may be required to review ecological reports, determine appropriate mitigation requirements, and work with developers to meet the new standards. Additional staff time may also be needed to research, set, and periodically update the fee for payment-in-lieu mitigation. This is already within the typical duties for the City’s environmental planners, so no additional staffing would be needed. 8 Packet Pg. 132 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 4 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board have reviewed the proposed LUC changes:  The Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed LUC changes at its January 12, 2017, hearing. The board unanimously recommended adoption of the Code changes related to sensitive and specially valued species, as well as the miscellaneous Code changes (Attachment 4). However, in a split vote (2-4), the Board did not recommend adoption of the prairie dog code changes. The perspective from some board members was that the Code changes did not create sufficient protection for prairie dogs, others expressed a concern that the changes would result in additional costs and processing for developers, and two board members were supportive of the changes. (Opposed: Carpenter, Schneider, Hansen, Rollins; Supportive: Hobbs, Whitley; Absent: Heinz).  The Land Conservation and Stewardship Board discussed the proposed changes at its July 13, 2016, meeting. The board was generally supportive of the changes, including the reduced colony size threshold and reporting requirement. The Board did not take a vote, but Board members generally expressed support for removing the 50-acre threshold for protection and/or mitigation (Attachment 5). PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff in Community Development & Neighborhood Services and the Natural Areas Department conducted outreach to community members and affected stakeholders throughout 2016 and early 2017, including the following:  Professional workshop with representatives from other Colorado communities to discuss best practices and lessons learned related to prairie dog regulation and management (March 22, 2016)  Open house and meetings with prairie dog advocates regarding the relocation of prairie dogs from a development site to the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area (April 19, 2016)  Discussion of proposed changes at three Planning & Zoning Board work sessions (May and December 2016, January 2017)  Discussion of proposed changes with the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (July 13, 2016)  Open house and panel discussion related to potential Land Use Code changes, relocation considerations, and prairie dog management on Natural Areas properties (July 28, 2016)  Memo to City Council in lieu of a work session (September 2016)  One-on-one conversations with developers, property owners, and prairie dog relocation advocates (ongoing) The results of the community engagement activities are summarized in Attachments 6 and 7. ATTACHMENTS 1. Colony Size Threshold Options and Map (PDF) 2. Prairie Dog Management Flow Charts (PDF) 3. City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (PDF) 4. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (PDF) 5. Land Conservation Stewardship Board Minutes, July 13, 2016 (PDF) 6. Public Comment Received To-Date (PDF) 7. Public Engagement Results Summary (PDF) 8. Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 133 Prairie Dog Code Changes – Size Threshold Options 1 Background Staff is currently evaluating options for updating Land Use Code requirements regarding the protection and management of prairie dog colonies on development sites. Under current standards, for colonies over 50 acres in size the developer must either protect and buffer the colony or, if the colony will be removed, replace the resource value lost to the community through some form of mitigation. However, to staff’s knowledge there are no longer any colonies on private property that are 50 acres or larger in size, so this requirement is unlikely to be triggered. Staff recommends setting a lower threshold for considering impacts to prairie dog colonies to ensure that the ecological value provided by these colonies is accounted for in the development review process. Land Use Code Change Options Option 1: Reduce Threshold to a Specific Acreage – STAFF RECOMMENDATION There is no specific acreage that can be directly correlated to the viability or significance of a prairie dog colony. Depending on the characteristics of a site, a colony can adapt to both small and large sites, so it is difficult to identify a threshold at which a colony can be considered “healthy” or “sustainable.” However, we can observe the conditions that currently exist throughout Fort Collins. Staff in the Natural Areas Department recently conducted a coarse analysis to estimate the location and size of prairie dog colonies on private land within the Growth Management Area. The analysis included a review of aerial photography, rather than field investigation, so it provides a rough but generally representative estimate of the extent of prairie dog colonies across the city. Analysis of Prairie Dog Colonies on Private Lands (2016)* Estimated Number of Colonies 72 Total Acreage 356 ac Average Acreage 4.95 ac Median Acreage 2.24 ac Minimum Acreage 0.15 ac Maximum acreage 39.43 ac *All values are estimated based on analysis of aerial photography. Based on this analysis, more than half of the remaining colonies on private lands are greater than 2 acres in size, and at least 75 percent are greater than 0.88 acres. While the size of a colony can fluctuate greatly over time, this distribution accurately reflects observations staff has made in the field. While the ecological benefits offered by prairie dogs are greater in an undisturbed grassland ecosystem than in an urban context, there is value in retaining prairie dog colonies within the city, particularly to support predators (e.g,. eagles and hawks) and species that are dependent on prairie dogs (e.g., burrowing owls). The majority of the existing prairie dog colonies in the city offer these ecological benefits to some extent. ATTACHMENT 1 1 8.1 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Colony Size Threshold Options and Map (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Prairie Dog Code Changes – Size Threshold Options 2 Staff recommends adjusting the size threshold for considering protection and/or mitigation for prairie dog colonies to better match the size of colonies typically seen in Fort Collins. Staff believes this option will fulfill the purpose of Land Use Code Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features, regarding the protection of natural habitats and features while also accounting for the needs of proposed development. A size threshold of 1 acre or greater would account for the majority of prairie dog colonies throughout the city without placing an unreasonable burden on development projects. The draft Land Use Code provisions for Planning and Zoning Board consideration incorporate this option. Option 2: Reduce Threshold to a Specific Number of Animals Another option for determining whether a prairie dog colony warrants protection and/or mitigation is setting a threshold at a defined number of individual prairie dogs. The Natural Areas Department recently updated their Wildlife Management Guidelines, which specify that the City will only consider the relocation of prairie dogs to Natural Area properties for groups of 60 prairie dogs or greater. This number was determined based on the success of past prairie dog relocation efforts and requirements in other Front Range municipalities, including Boulder, CO. This same number of prairie dogs (60 individuals) could be used to determine whether the requirements in Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 should be triggered, which would be consistent with the Wildlife Management Guidelines, though it would also present some practical challenges. First, prairie dog colony densities are inconsistent and wide-ranging from one site to another, with densities in communities along the Front Range observed to be as low as 4 animals per acre to as high as 30 animals 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Acres Prairie Dog Colonies on Private Lands (Rough Estimate) Colonies (72 total) 1st Quartile (0.88 ac) Median (2.24 ac) 3rd quartile (6.25 ac) 8.1 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Colony Size Threshold Options and Map (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Prairie Dog Code Changes – Size Threshold Options 3 per acre. As such, two development sites of the same size could theoretically be subject to different environmental protection requirements depending on the density of a colony on the property. Second, counting individual animals would require more intensive field survey techniques, which could increase the cost of ecological studies for development applicants. If this option is determined to be the most appropriate, the City would need to develop and provide a standard methodology for ecological consultants to survey for prairie dogs, and more ongoing staff time would be required to verify the surveys conducted by outside consultants. This option is not recommended by staff. Option 3: Remove Threshold Entirely This option would remove any size thresholds for considering impacts to prairie dog colonies, and would instead require staff and decision-makers to consider the ecological value of sites containing prairie dogs (of any size) on a case-by-case basis. A suite of site characteristics and criteria could be used to evaluate the significance of prairie dog colonies on specific sites. Considerations would likely include: x Vegetation type, quality and diversity (e.g., native vs. non-native plant species) x Vegetation coverage and bare spots (indicating overgrazing and erosion issues) x Soil type and depth x Slope and topography x Presence of other species associated with prairie dogs (e.g., predators, burrowing owls, dependent species) Each of these characteristics could be evaluated qualitatively for a development site containing prairie dogs. However, staff has not found a set of standard criteria or metrics for determining whether a colony is “significant,” “healthy,” or “viable.” Establishing a set of consistent, quantitative criteria that can be applied to all development projects (e.g., minimum vegetation coverage of XX%) would require additional research effort beyond staff’s current capacity and expertise. The support of an academic researcher, consultant, or outside organization would be needed to complete a full literature review and any additional research to develop specific metrics. As such, this option is not recommended by staff. Option 4: Keep 50-acre Threshold (Status Quo) If the current code requirement is kept as is, it is unlikely that protection and/or mitigation for impacts to prairie dog colonies will be required on any development sites in the city, as staff has not observed any colonies greater than 50 acres in size on private property. Staff contends that the 50-acre threshold no longer meets the intent of Land Use Code Section 3.4.1, Natural Habitats and Features, regarding the protection of natural habitats and features on development sites. Therefore, this option is not recommended by staff. 8.1 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Colony Size Threshold Options and Map (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Prairie Dog Colonies (not including Fort Collins Natural Areas) Printed: December 28, 2016 Legend Approximate Locations of Prairie Dog Colonies (data collected 2016) 00.511.52 Miles © Path: S:\CDNS\Planning\Current Planning\Environmental PlannerNatural Resources\2_Environmental Planning Guides\2 - Maps\EP_BaseMapMaster.mxd NAD_1983_StatePlane_Colorado_North_FIPS_0501_Feet 8.1 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Colony Size Threshold Options and Map (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Is a development project proposed? No City review required for removal Protect colony in place (buffer from conflicting uses) Relocate Private Property (work with property owner) City Natural Areas (work with Natural Areas Fumigate Dept)* (using City-approved methods) Is the prairie dog colony >50 acres? Prairie dogs must be removed prior to construction Relocate Private Property (work with property owner) City Natural Areas (work with Natural Areas Dept)* Fumigate (using City-approved methods) Natural resource protection standards apply Protect colony in place (with an appropriate buffer) If removed, replace the habitat value lost through mitigation On-site habitat enhancements (for other species) Off-site habitat enhancements (for prairie dogs or other species) Payment-in-lieu (for prairie dog mgmt or grassland restoration) Live trap & donate prairie dogs NO YES Prairie Dog Management in Fort Collins – Development Review Process & Options NO YES Management Options Management Options CURRENT LAND USE CODE STANDARDS Mitigation Options Relocation Options Is a development project proposed? No City review required for removal Protect colony in place (buffer from conflicting uses) Relocate Private Property (work with property owner) City Natural Areas (work with Natural Areas Fumigate Dept)* (using City-approved methods) Is the prairie dog colony >1 acre? Prairie dogs must be removed prior to construction Relocate Private Property (work with property owner) City Natural Areas (work with Natural Areas Dept)* Fumigate (using City-approved methods) Natural resource protection standards apply Protect colony in place (with an appropriate buffer) If removed, replace the habitat value lost through mitigation On-site habitat enhancements (for other species) Off-site habitat enhancements (for prairie dogs or other species) Payment-in-lieu (for prairie dog mgmt or grassland restoration) Live trap & donate prairie dogs NO YES Prairie Dog Management in Fort Collins – Development Review Process & Options NO YES Management Options Management Options PROPOSED LAND USE CODE CHANGES Mitigation Options Relocation Options City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 1 City of Fort Collins Plant Species & Plant Communities of Interest List of plant taxa documented in the Fort Collins Natural Areas. Synonymy follows USDA, NRCS. 2015. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 21 December 2015). National Plant Data Team, North Carolina . * Includes augmentation, reintroduction, and ex-situ conservation. Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status Priorities for Restoration* Fern and Fern Allies Argyrochosma fendleri Fendler's false cloak fern G3 S3S4 Y Documented Azolla mexicana Mexican mosquitofern G5 S4 N Documented Zone 1 Marsilea vestita Hairy waterclover G5 S4 N Documented Aquatics (Submerged or Floating) Callitriche heterophylla Two-headed water-starwort G5 S1 Y Documented Hippuris vulgaris Common mare's tail G5 SNR N Documented Lemna minuta Least duckweed G4 SNR N Documented Ruppia cirrhosa Spiral ditchgrass G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1, 2 Sparganium eurycarpum Broadfruit bur- reed G5 S2 Y Documented Zone 1, 2, 5 Wolffia columbiana Columbian watermeal G5 S4 N Documented Zone 1, 2 Shrubs and Trees Ribes americanum American black currant City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 2 Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status Priorities for Restoration* Carex sprengelii Sprengel's sedge G5 S2 Y Documented Cyperus bipartitus Slender flatsedge G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 Cyperus lupulinus Great plains flatsedge G5 SNR N Documented Cyperus squarrosus Bearded flatsedge G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 Dichanthelium acuminatum var. sericeum Tapered rosette grass G5TNR S1 Y Documented Zone 1 Eleocharis atropurpurea Purple spikerush G4G5 SNR N Documented Zone 5 Lipocarpha aristulata Smallflower halfchaff sedge G5? SNR N Documented Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie dropseed G5 SNR N Documented Wildflowers and Forbs Agalinis tenuifolia Slender false foxglove G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 Agrimonia striata Roadside agrimony City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 3 Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status Priorities for Restoration* Penstemon eriantherus Crested-tongue beardtongue G4 S1 Y Documented Phacelia denticulata Rocky mountain phacelia G3 SU Y Documented Physaria bellii Front Range twinpod G2G3 S2S3 Y Documented Zone 3 Sisyrinchium pallidum Pale blue-eyed grass G3 S2 Y Documented Sium suave Hemlock waterparsnip G5 SNR N Documented Oligoneuron album Prarie goldenrod G5 S1 Y Documented Spiranthes diluvialis Ute lady’s tresses G2G3 S2 Y LT Documented Zone 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Stephanomeria runcinata Desert wire lettuce G5 SNR N Documented Triodanis leptocarpa Slimpod venus' looking-glass G5? S1 Y Documented Zone 3 City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 4 Scientific Name Common Name Authority Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status Gymnocarpium dryopteris Western oakfern (L.) Newman, G5 S2S3 N Potential Pellaea atropurpurea Purple cliffbrake (L.) Link G5 S2S3 N Potential Pellaea glabella ssp. occidentalis Western dwarf cliffbrake (E.Nels.) Windham G5T4 SNR N Potential Pellaea glabella ssp. simplex Simple cliffbrake (Butters) A. & D. Love G5T4? S2 Y Potential Polypodium saximontanum Rocky mountain polypody Windham G3? S3S4 Y Potential Selaginella weatherbiana Weatherby's spikemoss R. Tryon G3G4 S3S4 W Potential Aquatics (Submerged or Floating) Elatine triandra Threestamen waterwort Schkuhr G5 S2 Y Potential Heteranthera limosa Blue mudplantain (Sw.) Willd., G5 SNR N Potential Myriophyllum verticillatum City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 5 Scientific Name Common Name Authority Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status saximontana mountain sedge Carex torreyi Torrey's sedge Tuck. G4 S1 Y Potential Cyperus acuminatus Tapertip flatsedge Torr. & Hook. ex Torr. G5 SNR N Potential Juncus brachycephalus Smallhead rush (Engelm.) Buchenau G5 S1 Y Potential Juncus brevicaudatus Narrowpanicle rush (Engelm.) Fernald G5 S1 Y Potential Juncus tweedyi Tweedy's rush Rydb. G3Q S1 Y Potential Juncus vaseyi Vasey’s rush Engelm. G5? S1 Y Potential Schizachne purpurascens False melic (Torr.) Swallen, G5 SNR N Potential Schoenoplectus saximontanus Rocky mountain bulrush (Fernald) Raynal G5 S1 Y Potential Wildflowers and Forbs Agastache foeniculum Blue giant hyssop (Pursh) Kuntze G4G5 S1 Y Potential Aletes humilis Colorado aletes Coult & Rose G2G3 S2S3 Y Potential Anagallis minima Chaffweed (L.) Krause G5 S1 Y Potential Anemone virginiana var. alba Virginia anemone L., (Oakes) Alph. Wood G5 SNR N Potential Apios americana Groundnut Medik. G5 S1 Y Potential City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 6 Scientific Name Common Name Authority Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status Claytonia rubra Redstem springbeauty (Howell) Tidestr. G5 S1 Y Potential Crassula aquatica Water pygmyweed (L.) Schoenl. G5 SH Y Potential Cryptantha cana Mountain cat's eye (A. Nelson) Payson G5 S2 Y Potential Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens Yellow lady’s slipper Salisb., (Willd.) Knight G5 S2 Y Potential Desmodium obtusum Stiff-tick trefoil (Muhl. Ex Willd.) DC G4G5 S4 N Potential Erigeron nematophyllus Needleleaf fleabane Rydb. G3 S2 Y Potential Eriogonum exilifolium Dropleaf buckwheat Reveal G3 S2 Y Potential Gentiana andrewsii Closed bottle gentian Griseb. G5? SNR N Potential Geranium bicknellii Bicknell’s cranesbill Britton G5 S2 Y Potential Helianthemum bicknellii Hoary frostweed City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 7 Scientific Name Common Name Authority Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status primrose Oonopsis wardii Ward's false goldenweed (A. Gray) Greene G3 S1 Y Potential Packera debilis Weak groundsel (Nutt.) Weber & A. Love G4 S1 Y Potential Parthenium alpinum Alpine fever- few (Nutt.) Torr. & A. Gray G3 S3 Y Potential Pediomelum cuspidatum Largebract indian breadroot (Pursh) Rydb G4 S1 Y Potential Penstemon gracilis Slender beardtongue Nutt. G5 SNR N Potential Penstemon laricifolius ssp. exilifolius Larch-leaf beardtongue Hook. & Arn., (A. Nelson) D.D. Keck G4T3Q S2 Y Potential Penstemon radicosus Mat-root beardtongue A. Nelson G5 S1 Y Potential Potentilla ambigens Southern rocky mountain cinquefoil Greene G3 S2 Y Potential City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 8 Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status Atriplex canescens / Bouteloua gracilis Shrubland Shortgrass Prairie G3 S2 Y Documented Bouteloua gracilis - Buchloe dactyloides Herbaceous Vegetation Shortgrass Prairie G4 S2? P Documented Carex nebrascensis Herbaceous Vegetation Wet Meadows G4 S3 P Documented Carex simulata Herbaceous Vegetation Wet Meadow G4 S3 P Documented Carex utriculata Herbaceous Vegetation Beaked Sedge Montane Wet Meadows G5 S4 P Documented Catabrosa aquatica - Mimulus ssp. Spring Wetland Spring Wetland GU S2 Y Documented Cercocarpus montanus - Rhus trilobata / Andropogon gerardii Shrubland Mountain Mahogany - Skunkbush / Big Bluestem Shrubland G2G3 S2 Y Documented Cercocarpus montanus / Achnatherum scribneri Shrubland Foothills Shrubland G3 S2 Y Documented Cercocarpus montanus / Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus Shrubland Mountain Mahogany/Griffith's Wheatgrass Shrubland GU S2 Y Documented Cercocarpus montanus / Hesperostipa comata Shrubland Mixed Foothill Shrublands G2 S2 Y Documented Cercocarpus montanus / Hesperostipa neomexicana Shrubland Foothills Shrubland G2G3 S2 Y Documented City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 9 City of Fort Collins Wildlife Species of Interest *Documented or potentially occurring on natural areas, *ESA- Endangered Species Act or federal listing status, *State- state listing status Common Name Scientific Name Globa l Rank State Rank Document ed or Potential* Tracked by CNHP/CPW? ES A* Stat e* Mammals Abert's squirrel Sciurus aberti G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis G4 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Bison Bison bison G4 SX Documented/ reintroduced SWAP Tier 2 Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes G1 S1 Documented/ reintroduced CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 E E Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus G4 S3 Documented CNHP partial/ SWAP Tier 2 SC Dwarf shrew Sorex nanus G4 S2 Potential CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes G4 S3 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus G5 S5B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides agrestis G5T3 S3 Potential CNHP partial Olive-backed pocket mouse Perognathus fasciatus G5 S3 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 Preble's meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei G5T2 S1 Documented (historic) CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 T T River otter Lontra canadensis G5 S3S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 T Sagebrush vole Lemmiscus curtatus G5 S1 Potential CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Swift fox Vulpex velox G3 S3 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 10 Common Name Scientific Name Globa l Rank State Rank Document ed or Potential* Tracked by CNHP/CPW? ES A* Stat e* Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri G5 S4B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia G4 S4B Documented CNHP watch/ SWAP Tier 1 T Cassin's finch Peucaea cassinii G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Cassin's sparrow Aimophila cassinii G5 S4B Documented CNHP watch/ SWAP Tier 2 Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus G5 S1B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis G4 S3B, S4N Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 SC Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus G4 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Forester's tern Sterna forsteri G5 S2B, S4N Documented CNHP full Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos G5 S3S4B, S4N Documented SWAP Tier 1 Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum G5 S3S4B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida G5T4 S2B, S4N Potential CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 SC Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys G5 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena G5 S5B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Least tern Sterna antillarum G4 S1B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 E E Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis G4 S4 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus G4 S3S4B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus G5 S2B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 11 Common Name Scientific Name Globa l Rank State Rank Document ed or Potential* Tracked by CNHP/CPW? ES A* Stat e* Short-eared owl Asio flammeus G5 S2B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Snowy egret Egretta thula G5 S2B Documented CNHP full Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni G5 S5B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Upland sandpiper Bartramia longicauda G5 S3B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Veery Catharus fuscescens G5 S3B Documented CNHP watch/ SWAP Tier 2 Virginia's warbler Oreothlypis virginiae G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus G3T3 SB1 Documented CNHP full T SC White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi G5 S2B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus G5 S1B Documented CNHP full Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii G5 S4B Potential CNHP watch Wilson's pharalope Phalaropus tricolor G5 S4B, S4N Documented CNHP full Fish Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni G5 S3 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 T Common shiner Notropis cornutus G5 S2 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 T Iowa darter Etheostoma exile G5 S3 Documented CNHP full SC Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos G5 S1 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 E Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 1 Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus G4 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 1 Reptiles and Amphibians Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens G5 S3 Documented (historic) CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 SC City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 12 Common Name Scientific Name Globa l Rank State Rank Document ed or Potential* Tracked by CNHP/CPW? ES A* Stat e* Dusted skipper Atrytonopsis hianna G4 S2 Potential CNHP full Hairy sallfly Alloperla pilosa G3 S2 Potential CNHP full Hops blue Celastrina humulus G2 S2 Documented CNHP full Larimide sallfly Suwallia wardi G3 S2 Potential CNHP full Lusk's pinemoth Coloradia luski G4 S1 Potential CNHP full Modest sphinx moth Pachysphinx modesta G4 S2 Potential CNHP full Morrison's skipper Stinga morrisoni G4 S3 Potential CNHP full Moss' elfin Calliphorys mossii schryveri G4T3 S2 Documented CNHP full Mottled dusky wing Erynnis martialis G3 S2 Potential CNHP full Ottoe's skipper Hesperia ottoe G3 S2 Documented CNHP full Plains snowfly Mesocapnia frisoni G5 S1 Potential CNHP full Regal frittilary Speyeria idalia G3 S1 Documented CNHP full Rhesus skipper Polites rhesus G4 S2 Documented CNHP full Sandhill fritillary Boloria selene sabulocollis G5T2 S1 Potential CNHP full Simius roadside skipper Amblyscirtes simius G4 S3 Potential CNHP full Smoky eyed brown Satryodes eurydice fumosa G5T3 S1 Documented CNHP full Stevens' torticid moth Decodes stevensi GNR S1 Potential CNHP full Two-banded skipper Pyrgus ruralis G5 S3 Potential CNHP full Two-spotted skipper Euphyes bimacula G4 S2 Documented CNHP full *Northern Bobwhite- There is some uncertainty if the birds seen in the area are native as there were reintroductions across the state historically. 8.3 Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 13 Key to Wildlife Species of Interest Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Ranking (not a legal designation) Level Description G/S-1 Critically imperiled globally/state because of rarity (5 or few occurrences in the world/state; or very few remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G/S-2 Imperiled globally/state because of rarity (6-20 occurrences), or because of other factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. G/S-3 Vulnerable through its range or found locally in a restricted range (21-100 occurrences). G/S-4 Apparently secure globally/state, though it might be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G/S-5 Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. GNR Not yet ranked globally. G#T# Trinomial rank (T) is used for subspecies ranked on the same criteria as G1-G5. S#B Refers to the breeding season imperilment of elements that are not permanent residents. S#N Refers to the non-breeding season imperilment of elements that are not permanent residents. Where no consistent location can be discerned for migrants or non-breeding populations, a rank of SZN is used. SZ Migrant whose occurrences are too irregular, transitory, and/or dispersed to be reliably identified, mapped, and protected. Notes: # represents rank (1-5). Where two numbers appear in a state or global rank (e.g., S2S3), the actual rank of the element falls between the two numbers. State/Federal Status (legal designation) Level Description SE State Endangered--those species or subspecies of native wildlife whose prospects for survival or recruitment within Colorado are in jeopardy, as determined by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). ST State Threatened--those species or subspecies of native wildlife which, as determined by the CPW, are not in immediate jeopardy of extinction but are vulnerable because they exist in such small numbers, are so extremely restricted in their range, or are experiencing such low recruitment or survival that they may become extinct. 8.3 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department, 2016 14 SC State Special Concern--species or subspecies of native wildlife which have been removed from the State threatened or endangered list within the last 5 years; are proposed for Federal listing (or are Federal listed “candidate species”) and are not already State listed; have experienced, based on available data, a downward trend in numbers or distribution lasting at least 5 years which may lead to a threatened or endangered status; or are otherwise determined to be vulnerable in Colorado, as determined by the CPW. E Federal Listed Endangered--defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a species, subspecies, or variety in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T Federal Listed Threatened--defined as a species, subspecies, or variety likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) listed or Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) tracking Level Description SWAP Tier 1 SWAP species are Species of Greatest Conservation Need as determined by CPW. Tier 1 species are a higher relative priority for conservation efforts than are Tier 2 species. Tier 1 species are of highest conservation priority in the state of Colorado. SWAP Tier 2 SWAP Tier 2 species are species in which conservation is important in stalling population trends but the urgency for these species is considered less than for Tier 1 Species. See the CPW State Wildlife Action Plan for more detailed information on Tier1 and Tier 2 Species. CNHP Full Tracked For a species to be fully tracked it has the following ranks: (G1, G2, G3, G4 and G5) with the state rank combo of S1 or S2. CNHP watchlist CNHP maintains information on these species so that if a declining trend becomes apparent, watchlisted species can be changed back to tracked species in the database. CNHP Partial Tracked Partial tracking is only used for the most common plant communities in Colorado. Animals and plants are not partially tracked by CNHP. 8.3 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Planning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 2 x While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. x The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. x Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. x Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. x This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, as well as the tow items under “Other Business”, for the audience. Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from December 15, 2016, P&Z Hearing Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the January 12, 2017, Consent agenda. Member Carpenter seconded the motion. Vote: 6:0. Discussion Agenda: 2. Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Overall Development Plan 3. Land Use Code Changes Related to Natural Resources and Prairie Dog Management 4. Copperleaf PDP Project: Land Use Code Changes Related to Natural Resources and Prairie Dog Management Project Description: Since the original Land Use Code provisions regarding prairie dog colonies were adopted, there has been considerable change in the size and characteristics of prairie dog colonies within the Growth Management Area, best practices for fumigation and relocation, and citywide development patterns. Based on the latest research on the ecosystem value of prairie dog colonies and current best management practices, staff proposes a number of Land Use Code updates regarding prairie dog management and the protection of natural habitats and features on development sites. Recommendation: Approval Project: Land Use e Code Cha Changes Related to Natural Resources and Prairie Dog Management ATTACHMENT 4 8.4 Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Planning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 3 Applicant Presentations Planner Everette provided a detailed presentation of this recommendation, discussing protection of prairie dog colonies and mitigation of impacts for those colonies greater than 50 acres in size. For colonies less than 50 acres in size, no mitigation or protection is required. Based on aerial photography, staff estimates that there are about 72 colonies remaining on private property throughout the city, totaling approximately 356 acres. She showed maps of the growth management areas, showing general distribution and size of these colonies and explained how they could impact future potential annexation areas. Staff is proposing several changes: x a reduction to the size threshold in order to be more in line with actual colony sizes; x mitigation requirements based on those threshold sizes; and x the addition of a reporting provision that requires documentation of all prairie dog removal activities on development sites. She discussed certain terminologies: “species of concern” and “specially-valued species” (including threatened or endangered). Staff is proposing the addition of a new code provision and a definition that helps clarify a section of the LUC that also aligns with State and Federal definitions. The standard 3.4.1 has been updated for clarification for species that don’t have State and Federal protections (there is some flexibility on protections and impact mitigations). She added that there will be a number of “clean- up” items included (i.e.: updated names and clarification of some terms and references). Public Input Bob Miller, 3611 Richmond Drive, is not in favor of this recommendation, saying that he feels these regulations will burden the private sector. Rob Haas, 1994 Kinnison Drive, is opposed to these regulations, saying that additional regulations add to housing costs and result in more negotiations with the City. Eric Sutherland stated his concern that prairie dogs could be an indicator of our environmental health and would like to see more sustainable approaches to development. Rich Maroncelli, 1013 Fox Hills Drive, would like to see a prairie dog reduction, but he is unclear as to the LUC classification of these animals. He isn’t convinced that they should be protected, as they are very invasive. Board Questions and Staff Response Interim Vice Chair Hansen asked if any public lands within City limits were surveyed; Planner Everette believes that Natural Areas may have an estimate, but there is nothing specific for lands within City limits. Member Hobbs asked if a private citizen with a development proposal must also do an inventory of plants and animals to survey for sensitive and specially-valued species; Planner Everette responded that, if City believes there is such a concern, they will require an Ecological Characterization Study (ECS) to be performed, but it isn’t required for all development proposals. Member Rollins inquired as to why the acreage was reduced from 50 to 1 acre; Planner Everette responded that the 50 acres was out of context with the private property communities; therefore, the proposed threshold captures the majority of development sites with prairie dog colonies. Interim Chair Schneider asked if there is an established threshold that would indicate a healthy acreage for prairie dog colonies; Planner Everette said that studies have not identified a standard acreage as such. He also asked what staff’s original concerns were; Planner Everette responded that prairie dogs were treated differently from other resources (i.e. 8.4 Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Planning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 4 foxes, coyotes, birds, raptors). Prairie dogs are considered to be a valuable species that aren’t being acknowledged like other species, so Staff’s purpose was to update the code to be more specific and inclusive. Member Rollins asked what the cost would be to mitigate a prairie dog colony. Based on the colony size, the main cost would be cost of mitigation ($500-800 for an ECS), payment in lieu mitigation approach ($900/acre), and fumigation costs would vary. Member Carpenter asked if there are any places where prairie dogs are endangered; Planner Everette responded that the Black-Tailed prairie dog is a “species of concern” and is dwindling in population. Member Whitley asked if they are a food source for threatened or endangered species; Planner Everette responded that they are a food source for a number of threatened species of raptors, eagles, and owls. Member Hobbs asked if mitigation will always be an option to an Applicant; Planner Everette confirmed that is the case, including sensitive species in some cases. Interim Chair Schneider asked if circumvention of this policy will occur as a way for developers to avoid paying fees; Planner Everette admitted that this is a concern, however, the regulation goal is to set reasonable mitigation requirements to encourage property owners to maintain the prairie dogs rather than eradicate them, thereby retaining some ecological value. He also asked if there is another plan for determining an appropriate acreage size. Staff had discussed the option of reducing the current threshold to 2 acres in order to capture the majority of properties with prairie dogs. Member Rollins questioned the reasonableness of requiring an ECS and asked if lowering the costs might result in more Applicant participation. Planner Everette responded that the ECS applies to many ecological features in the community, so removing that requirement would be inconsistent with other development requirements. Member Carpenter asked if there was an actual relocation site for prairie dogs, and Planner Everette stated that Natural Areas has been reluctant to accept prairie dogs onto their properties but are now considering several suitable habitats. There was more discussion on how to vote on the various topics within this proposal. Assistant City Attorney Yatabe provided some counsel on how to make a motion with conditions. Board Deliberation Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council denial of the Land Use Code changes for the Prairie Dog Management section, based upon the findings of fact contained on page 3-4 in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Rollins seconded. Member Hobbs is not sure the proposed LUC changes will properly protect the prairie dogs, but determines how the prairie dogs are eradicated in a reasonable and humane way. Member Carpenter asked to clarify about the methods of mitigation for this motion; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe stated that the proposed LUC changes do not address the method by which prairie dogs can be exterminated; rather, the City is preempted under State statute for mitigation methods. Interim Chair Schneider does not see the benefit of regulation, and it appears that it will result in higher development costs. Interim Vice Chair Hansen agrees, adding that this would simply establish more hurdles for developers. Vote: 4:2, with Members Hobbs and Whitley dissenting. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the proposed Land Use Code changes relating to “sensitive and specially-valued species” as defined in the staff report for the Prairie Dog Management section. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hansen made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council approval of the miscellaneous LUC pertaining to the natural habitats and definitions along with wetlands for the Prairie Dog Management section, based upon the findings of fact contained in 8.4 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Planning & Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Page 5 the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Chair 8.4 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Land Conservation and Stewardship Board July 13, 2016 ATTACHMENT 5 8.5 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Land Conservation Stewardship Board Minutes, July 13, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.5 Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Land Conservation Stewardship Board Minutes, July 13, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.5 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Land Conservation Stewardship Board Minutes, July 13, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Dear Members of the Board: A few of us from the Fort Collins Prairie Dog Relocation Group had the opportunity to attend your meeting on May 6 and hear the discussion about changes to the current LUC related to prairie dogs. We’d like to provide you with a little more information to consider as you weigh city staff’s recommendations. The Fort Collins Prairie Dog Relocation Group took shape last year as we sought a relocation site for prairie dog colonies along Lemay Ave., between Vine and Lincoln. Many of us have enjoyed watching these colonies for years. When we saw the development signs go up, we couldn’t bear the thought of seeing yet another lively prairie dog community destroyed. In January 2016, we succeeded in our appeal to the Fort Collins City Council, and space within the Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area was designated as a receiving site for these colonies. We’ve received our permits from the city and Colorado Parks and Wildlife and will relocate one colony in the May-June timeframe and another in mid to late August. For decades prairie dogs in Fort Collins have been routinely poisoned to make way for development. We’re working to end that practice and create a new precedent and process to relocate rather than kill our last remaining urban colonies. We know these animals can’t stay where they are, but while extermination is the most expeditious and affordable solution, we believe it’s the wrong one. We shouldn’t be killing our remaining black-tailed prairie dogs when: x It’s widely acknowledged that the species is in decline throughout the west due to poisoning, shooting and plague. x Relocations have taken place for more than 20 years, and current methods are thorough and effective. x We believe there is ample space within city-owned natural areas suitable for receiving the remaining urban colonies. x These colonies could augment populations supporting the black-footed ferret that have been hit by plague in recent years. x This keystone prairie species has a complex community life and language. x Many of the poisons used, such as aluminum phosphide, cause the creatures that inhale or ingest them great pain and suffering. x Relocation provides an opportunity to educate the public about the important role prairie dogs play in a healthy prairie ecosystem and demonstrate that preservation of wildlife is a community value. x Many citizens in this community want to see these animals moved instead of poisoned. At Friday’s meeting Natural Areas Director John Stokes told you that an aerial survey indicates we have something in the neighborhood of 300 acres of prairie dog colonies remaining within the GMA. Natural Areas manages more than 40,000 acres of land. ATTACHMENT 6 8.6 Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Currently only about 2,000 acres have prairie dogs. Four thousand acres at Soapstone Prairie have been designated as a prairie dog conservation area, and right now prairie dogs occupy only about 1,500 acres there. Mr. Stokes also told you that relocated prairie dogs have only a 20-40 percent survival rate, and the cost to relocate is between $150 and $400 per prairie dog. First, while data is scant because it’s very difficult to tag and recapture prairie dogs to do an accurate count, experienced relocation professionals in the region report relocation success rates—that is the number that survive the relocation process—as high as 90-95 percent. More data is needed to determine longer term survival rates. But we would argue that that’s all the more reason to do more relocations. As to the cost, it’s significantly less expensive to place prairie dogs into existing, vacant burrows, like those that are likely plentiful at Soapstone, than to build artificial burrows, as we’re doing for the relocation to Cathy Fromme. The cost also drops depending on the time of year; the best time to move prairie dogs is in late summer or early fall when the population is full grown, numbers are stable and the animals are most easily trapped. Representatives of the Humane Society’s Prairie Dog Coalition say the cost for the relocations is closer to $50 to $150 per animal, or $1,000 to $3,000 per acre. The cost to exterminate can run between $500 and $1,000 per acre. For our relocation this summer, we’re making good use of volunteers and fundraising. There will be no cost to taxpayers. Going forward, we think that modest mitigation fees for developers, as some cities have, will be key to covering relocation costs. At your meeting, Rebecca Everette shared several staff recommendations for changes to the LUC. We agree with some and feel others fall short of what is needed. As representatives of a citizen group involved in prairie dog relocation and eager to see real and lasting improvement in the way we manage urban prairie dogs in Fort Collins, we ask you to consider the following: x We agree with staff that the 50-acre threshold for mitigation is arbitrary and no longer applicable given the sizes of remaining colonies. We believe the city should “eliminate the threshold and require consideration of all prairie dog colonies.” Just as the LUC requires mitigation for other natural features, it should require mitigation for prairie dogs. x Given that the city has adequate space within its natural areas to receive the remaining colonies in the GMA and there are professionals available to perform successful relocations, we believe that developers should be required to explore relocation prior to other mitigation techniques and that professional relocation should become the primary means of removing prairie dogs from a development site. 8.6 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) x In the event that fumigation is necessary, we agree that the city should require the use of carbon monoxide fumigation methods and forbid the use of all other fumigants, long known to inflict a cruel and painful death. x We agree that the city should “require a report to be submitted documenting the timing and methods used to remove prairie dogs.” x We believe that the LUC should be updated to reflect the current Species of Concern List and that the list, whether it is the city’s or the state’s, should include the black-tailed prairie dog. We reject the view that the only “value” these urban colonies have is as a food source for predators and habitat for burrowing owls and other animals. We believe prairie dogs themselves have inherent value as native wildlife worthy of our appreciation and humane management. The indiscriminate extermination of these animal communities has gone on far too long. We want to teach people about these remarkable animals, instill a sense of community pride in how we manage them, and ultimately make relocation the standard rather than the exception. To do that we believe we need a commitment from Natural Areas to provide the relatively small amount of land needed to receive remaining colonies in the GMA and modest economic incentives for developers to relocate rather than exterminate. Thank you for your consideration of our position on these issues. If you’d like to know more about prairie dogs and the relocation process, you’ll find excellent information at the Humane Society’s Prairie Dog Coalition website www.humanesociety.org/about/departments/prairie_dog_coalition/ and at www.growingideas.tv. Sincerely, Helen Taylor (970) 556-3994 Helentaylor3@comcast.net Fort Collins Prairie Dog Relocation Group 8.6 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 1 June 7, 2016 Dear City Staff, RE: Recommendations regarding the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department Prairie Dog Management Review Workshop, March 22, 2016, as prepared by Pam Wanek with the Prairie Dog Coalition Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Workshop and provide comments on the City’s Urban Prairie Dog Management element as found in the 2007 Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines. Our recommendations for changes to your guidelines pertain to: 1. Local connectivity to statewide goals 2. Emphasis on the value of prairie dogs in urban environments 3. Vegetative influence 4. Population and landscape dynamics 5. Disease 6. Local government legal tools 7. Lethal Control 8. Non-lethal Control 9. Mitigation 10. Conclusion As a species, prairie dogs have continuously been one of the most controversial and widely persecuted wildlife species since early European settlement of the North American Grasslands. Prairie dogs have been criticized as destructive rodent pests but also regarded as an essential keystone species for healthy grasslands ecosystems. Agricultural crop conversion, livestock grazing, energy and oil and gas development, urban/ex-urban development, shooting, poisoning, and plague have decimated their numbers and resulted in a 98% loss of their historic range. Therefore, the conservation of this species will be important, not only because of the intrinsic value of prairie dogs, but for the protection of all species that depend on prairie dogs and their habitats for survival. 1. Local connectivity to statewide goals The goal of prairie dog plans should be to adopt policies and land use planning strategies that are consistent with state and local laws for the protection, management, and participation of statewide and region-wide persistence of prairie dogs and associated species, to protect biodiversity for today’s and future generations. 8.6 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 2 Black-tailed prairie dogs (BTPDs) are known to exist in 11 states across the continental U.S.1 Historically in Colorado, BTPDs occupied about 7 million acres.2 In 2003, the state adopted a “Conservation Plan for Grassland Species in Colorado” as a cooperative action with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to avoid species listing. The plan details objectives, population monitoring and a commitment for a shared responsibility among other states to ensure long-term viability of the prairie dog and associated species to avoid listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. This plan may be used as a basis for applying for an umbrella Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) that would apply to all landowners in the state. By securing a CCAA, the state ensures control, management and conservation of grassland species. Species included in the CCAA application would remain unaffected by a federal ESA listing as long as the CCAA terms were met. Landowners can also apply for individual CCAAs. The plan commits the participant to monitoring occupied BTPD habitat on a county by county basis every 3 years. Contained within the state Grassland Plan are 12 objectives that include but are not limited to: working directly with city and county open space departments to encourage statewide persistence and establishing a shared responsibility for prairie dog conservation along the Front Range and eastern plains.3 BTPDs are classified by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) as "other small game," and by the Colorado Department of Agriculture as a "destructive rodent pest." These classifications provide little protection. In addition, landowners, (or an agent of the landowner) may hunt, trap, or kill prairie dogs when they are causing damage to crops, real or personal property or livestock. 4 Statewide, BTPDs are listed as a Species of Special Concern statewide and a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in the 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan. As such, prairie dog persistence and “occupied acreage” is a matter of statewide concern. Recommendations: x Adopt local plans that connect to statewide goals x Remain current on the listing status of prairie dogs and associated species by reviewing the State Wildlife Action Plan, and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) and CPW websites. These agencies are state funded to help local governments, developers and private landowners with guidance to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. 2. Emphasis on the value of prairie dogs in urban environments Prairie dogs are a keystone species because their impact on plant and animal communities is unique and is disproportionately large relative to their abundance; this is critical to the integrity of the grassland ecosystem.5 6 On the landscape, prairie dogs meet two criteria as ecosystem engineers: 1). They create a patch in the landscape with a 1 Luce, R.J. 2003. A Multi-State Conservation Plan For The Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Cynomys ludovicianus, in the United States – an addendum to the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation Assessment and Strategy, November 3, 1999. 2 Gillette, C.P. 1919. 10th Annual Report of the State Entomologist of Colorado. Fort Collins, Colorado. 56 pp. Retrieved from EDAW Inc., (2000) Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Study of Eastern Colorado, October 27, 2000 3 Conservation Plan for Grassland Species in Colorado 2003. http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/Grasslands/wholeplan.pdf#search=grassland%20plan Retrieved 4/6/2016 4 http://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-Black-tailedPrairieDogRelocationFacts.aspx 5 Hoogland, J.L. 2006. 6 Kotliar, N.B., B.W. Baker, A.D. Whicker, and G. Plumb. 1999. A critical review of assumptions about prairie dogs as a keystone species. Environmental Management 24:177-192 8.6 Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 3 combination of conditions that are not present elsewhere in the landscape, and 2). Other species that live in the engineered patches are not present in patches unmodified by the engineer.7 Research published by Magle and Crooks (2008) on 54 fragmented urban colonies throughout the Denver metropolitan area suggests that the urban prairie dogs may still provide a keystone and ecosystem engineering function; however, more studies will need to be conducted for that determination. Magle noted that prairie dog disturbance of vegetation on urban colonies was similar to disturbances on rural colonies; where prairie dogs removed grasses, reduced plant litter and increased bare ground and forbs. Similar to rural populations, urban prairie dog colonies also retained some ecological function. In conclusion, their report suggests that if future findings indicate that prairie dogs function as a keystone species in urban systems, their conservation will be an important step in maintaining functional grassland systems in urban environments.8 Also, Magle et al showed in 2014 that, “Overall, rates of coyote conflict appeared elevated in proximity to undeveloped land, but these rates were highest near habitat fragments where prairie dogs were absent, and 15–45% lower within 400 m of fragments colonized by prairie dogs.”9 Urban raptor studies were conducted by Dave Weber and CPW (2004) to implement an initiative to protect or replace prairie dog towns being lost to development as Denver expands. Their studies indicated that winter raptor use on urban prairie dog colonies was substantially higher than on rural areas. While it would seem that raptors would be much more likely to hunt in more undisturbed areas, this study revealed that raptors were uninhibited by urban disturbances. “The amount of urbanization did not seem to impact raptor use at all. Raptor use seemed more contingent on the number of prairie dogs within each town, more prairie dogs, more raptors.” Four species of raptors were most commonly observed: ferruginous hawks 39.1%, red-tailed hawks 22.5%, bald eagles 15.3%, golden eagles 6.4%, and other/unidentified 16.7%. There was high variability in raptor use from one town to the next, ranging from a high of 12.0/hour to a low of 0.5/hour. The study included a broad spectrum of urban colony sizes from 50 to 300 active burrows. 10 Avian densities may also be higher on prairie dog colonies because prairie dogs create a vegetative patchiness that results in lower amounts of mulch and lower vegetative height, which may result in greater visibility of macroarthropods and seeds.11 Recommendations: x Science supports that urban prairie dogs do play a beneficial role in supplying a food source for wintering raptors x Additional research is needed to determine if urban prairie dogs and colonies may have a keystone role in the urban grassland system x To reduce conflicts with coyotes and domestic animals, urban prairie dog colonies are needed. 3. Vegetative Influence 7 Wright, J.P, Jones, C.G., Flecker, A. S. 2002 An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia (2002) 132:96–101 8 Magle, S. B and Crooks, K.R. 2008. Interactions between black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) and vegetation in habitat fragmented by urbanization, Journal of Arid Environments 72 (2008) 238-246. 9 Magle, S., Poessel, S.A., Crooks, K.R., and Breck, S.W. 2014. Landscape & Urban Planning. More dogs less bite: The relationship between human–coyote conflict and prairie dog colonies in an urban landscape. Urban Wildlife Institute, Department of Conservation and Science, Lincoln Park Zoo, 2001 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60614, USA. 10 Weber, D. 2004. Winter raptor use of prairie dog towns in the Denver, Colorado vicinity, Proceedings 4th International Urban Wildlife Symposium. Shaw et al., Eds. 2004 11 Agnew, William, Daniel W. Uresk, Richard M. Hansen. 1986. “Flora and Fauna Associated with Prairie Dog Colonies and Adjacent Ungrazed Mixed-grass Prairie in Western South Dakota.” Journal of Range Management 39(2), March l986 8.6 Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 4 Prairie dogs not only support a predator/prey relationship, but their influence on the grasslands creates patches of vegetation that are dramatically different by altering graminoids (monocots) towards predominately forb and dwarf shrub (dicots) species; thus, increasing plant diversity supportive of a wide range of animal species. Studies by Detling, J. K., and Whicker, A. D. (1987) noted that these unique patches allow for a greater diversity of plant species to thrive and provide favorable habitat patches for other animals, thus increasing habitat diversity for other wildlife species. Grazing by prairie dogs removes aging plant matter and stimulates the growth of new plant tissue that generally has higher concentrations of nitrogen and greater digestibility than ungrazed plants. Burrowing and grazing activities of prairie dogs may also influence below-ground plant dynamics. Some estimates indicate that most of the energy flow in grassland systems occurs belowground and that soil invertebrate may consume as much or more plant biomass than cattle on the mixed grass prairie.12 Studies conducted on prairie dog occupied sites of mixed grass prairie in South Dakota noted that rapid changes occurred within the first two years following colonization but by the third year bare ground had stabilized at 35% and litter cover had decreased to less than 10%.13 Prairie dogs increase the benefit of soils to plants and soil organisms by adding organic matter and nutrient salts to soils, improving soil structure and increasing water filtration.14 Prairie dog grazing and burrowing also changes the structure of individual plants and plant composition. Over time, plant composition and heterogeneity can change. There are distinct zones on prairie dog occupied sites where the core of a colony that has been occupied the most is predominately comprised of forbs, annuals and shrubs. In transition zones, or newly colonized areas, the composition is a mixture of perennial grasses, short grasses and forbs.15 Burrowing and grazing activities by prairie dogs mixes soils and regulates vegetation diversity. Prairie dogs alter soil structure and chemical composition by their addition of excrement and plant material. Their activities result in the aeration, pulverization, granulation and transfer of soil. When compared to uncolonized grasslands, prairie dog colonies were richer in nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter.16 Vegetative studies of urban versus rural colonies conducted by Lehmer, E.M., et al. on 8 colonies in Boulder in 2010, indicated that although prairie dogs impose substantial changes in vegetation structure upon the landscape; these changes do not seem disproportionate in areas that occur outside of their traditional habitats, and they do not necessarily convert suitable habitat patches into unsuitable patches.17 While prairie dogs prefer graminoids over forbs, their diets will adjust to forage availability.18 Their diet varies with season, location on towns, and vegetative composition.19 And prairie dogs still seemed to thrive on nonnative vegetation.20 12 Detling, J. K., and Whicker, A. D. 1987. "Control of Ecosystem Processes by Prairie Dogs and Other Grassland Herbivores" (1987). Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 57. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/ 13 Ibid. 14 Koford, C.B. 1958. Prairie dogs, whitefaces, and blue grama. Wildlife Monographs 3:1-78. 15 Slobodchikoff, C.N., Perla, B.S., Verdolin, J.L.2006. Prairie Dogs, Communication and Community in an Animal Society. Harvard University Press 16 Sharps, Jon C.,Uresk, Daniel W. 1990. “Ecological Review of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and Associated Species in Western South Dakota,” Great Basin Naturalist 50(4), pp339-345 17 Lehmer, E.M., L. Hartley, J. Lanci and C. Kolb. 2010. Evaluating the Impacts of Black-tailed Prairie dogs on Vegetation in Traditional and non-traditional habitat 18 Fagerstone, Kathleen, A. l981. “A Review of Prairie Dog Diet and its’ Variability Among Animals and Colonies” Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 118 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdwp/118 19 Koford, C.B. 1958. 20 Magle, S. B and Crooks, K.R. 2008. 8.6 Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 5 As prairie dogs have a tendency to keep vegetation short within colonies, prairie dog grazing behaviors may mitigate the proliferation of undesirable weedy species. John Hoogland noted that the following plants were either clipped or consumed by prairie dogs: black nightshade, brome, cocklebur, deathcamus, false pennyroyal, fescue, foxtail, horseweed, knotweed, lambsquarters, milkvetch, mullein, pepperweed, phlox, pigweed, plantain, prairie dog weed, ragweed, Russian thistle, scurfpea, skeleton weed, sorrel, spiny buffalo bur, spurge, stickseed, thistle, threeawn, tumblegrass and verbena.21 Clippinger also observed that prickly lettuce, goosefoot and kochia were either consumed or clipped by prairie dogs.22 Here prairie dogs benefit land managers by removal of nonnative weeds. Best land use practices should only focus on weeds that are problematic and not consumed by prairie dogs. Boulder County reports indicate that opportunistic weedy species were given the chance to establish themselves in the absence of prairie dogs. Weeds were highly likely to germinate each year in areas of colony disturbance, but when prairie dogs were present, they were eaten as sprouts. This not only sustains the prairie dog, but prevents the weeds from growing to heights that would exceed the prairie dogs’ comfort zone. Although introduced weeds are perhaps not welcome from an aesthetic and weed-seed production point of view, the cover they provide is positive from the standpoint of erosion control.23 Prairie dogs are not only beneficial for reduction of weeds, but they also play a role in the creation of firebreaks where land managers want to control vegetative heights.24 Understanding prairie dog influence on vegetation may help determine what, if any, action should be taken to reestablish vegetation on prairie dogs colonies to reduce weeds and erosion. John Vickery, a land resource officer located in Denver, has documented certain features of native plants that prairie dogs seem to avoid: 1. Are poisonous and/or have a disagreeable taste (milkweeds, snakeweed); 2. Are foul smelling or have a strong odor (fetid marigold, cleomes, sage, rabbitbrush, pennyroyal); 3. Are prickly (rosa species, yucca, prickly poppy, prickly pear, purple three-awn); 4. Have an abundance of hairs (blazing star, golden rod, aster, vervain); 5. Are prostrate or abided by clipping behavior (bracted vervain, salt and pepper, wild parsley, wooly plantain, buffalograss); 6. Are sticky or gummy (gumweed and bee plant).25 After working over 20 years in the field on multiple prairie dog relocations and having great desire to protect native plant species, I have also observed plants that seem to withstand prairie dog presence. However, I would not necessarily recommend removal of prairie dogs to reestablish plants. Removing prairie dogs could exacerbate a weedy situation, and if prairie dogs are consuming nonnative weeds, this may reduce grazing pressure on newly introduced native species. In cooperation with funding from the City of Boulder and the Prairie Dog Coalition, Wanek and Wold, J. inter-seeded a mixture of 15 to 20 different forbs, some dwarf shrubs and selected graminoids species on plots located in five active colonies during early winter 2016. While it is still too early to tell what will occur, it is nevertheless a pioneering effort to work with prairie dogs instead of against them. It is important to recognize that many native plants thrive on prairie dog occupied sites. These native plant species are a valuable commodity that are not readily available from commercial markets. These seeds should be harvested and preserved as heirloom seeds for reintroduction into prairie dog occupied sites. Additionally, many open space sites are essentially damaged by troublesome introduced grazing grasses, such as bromes. Bromes are a cool season turf spreading grass that are virtually impossible to remove without extensive manmade interventions (herbicides, manual removal). Since, overtime, these mid-height grasses will succumb to intense grazing pressures, prairie dogs can play a beneficial role by exhausting plant reserves. However, prairie dogs 21 Hoogland, J. 1995. 22 Clippinger, Norman W. l989. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black-tailed Prairie Dog. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82(10.156) July l989 23 Boulder County Grasslands Management Plan, Prairie Dog Habitat Element, Boulder County, Colorado 2009 24 Kotliar, N.B., B.W. Baker, A.D. Whicker, and G. Plumb. 1999. 25 Vickery, J. ND. Vegetation Management in Urban-to-Exurban Prairie Dog colonies: Context, Issues and Native Plan ‘Survivors’, Power Point. JVickery@MCG,net 8.6 Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 6 cannot replace the native plants that once thrived before human’s altered native prairie. In these cases, it would be prudent for resource managers to inter-seed a mix of native short-grasses and forb species into the remaining stubble of bromes before erosion is allowed to occur. Here, prairie dogs have two benefits, one is the removal of an aggressive nonnative grass species and second, maintenance of desirable compatible grassland plant species. Recommendations: x Prairie dogs influence shifts predominately graminoid landscapes towards forb and shrub species x Prairie dog diets adjust to forage availability x Prairie dogs consume many Eurasian weeds x Short vegetative heights are preferred by prairie dogs making colonies useful as firebreaks x Many native plant species are avoided by prairie dogs x Commercial availability of some native plant species varies, thus, native plants on existing colonies are valuable and in some cases priceless x If prairie dogs are not desired in an area, do not mow or reduce the forage height. x Planning in advance of prairie dog colony expansion and migration with tall grass plantings, tall grass or shrub buffers can help prevent conflict. 4. Understanding population and landscape dynamics in managing prairie dogs Understanding natural behaviors of prairie dogs on a landscape will help conservation officers determine the best management direction needed to support prairie dog populations. This section will review how biological and environmental factors influence the birth, death, population size and dispersal of BTPDs. BTPDs are a highly social prey species that lives in family groups called coteries. Coteries usually contain one adult male and several genetically related adult females (mothers, daughters, granddaughters, sisters, nieces and so forth). Coteries can range in size from 1 to 26 individuals where physical coterie boundaries may range from .12 acres to 2.5 acres with an average of about 0.8 acres.26 Colonies are comprised of multiple coteries; extremely large colonies may contain hundreds of coteries. Colony density can range from 10 adults and yearlings per acre, before juvenile emergence, to 20 adults, yearlings and juveniles after emergence. Individual populations can vary in response to vegetation, habitat restrictions, age of colony and predation.27 A study of density in 22 urban colonies in Colorado indicated a range of 13 – 49 prairie dogs per acre.28 Visual counting of prairie dogs is the best method for determining populations of prairie dogs because there is no absolute correlation between density and the number of burrows.29 A metapopulation is a population of populations, in other words, a group of several, interacting local populations or subpopulations that are linked together by immigration or emigration.30 “Colonies must be connected by dispersal so that the negative impact of extinction may be counterbalanced by recolonization management.” And since prairie dog colonies are typically located in swales and seasonal lowlands, they will use natural drainages as dispersal corridors, which increase the likelihood of them encountering other colonies. Potential dispersal corridors, such as drainages, should be maintained to ensure recolonization of unoccupied colonies and continual dispersal among colonies. 26 Hoogland, J. 1995. The Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Social Life of a Burrowing Animal, The University of Chicago Press. 27 Hoogland, J. 2006. 28Johnson, W.C., and S.K. Collinge. 2004. Landscape effects on black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Biological Conservation 115:487-497. 29 Hoogland, J. 1995 and 2006. 30 Gottelli, N.J. 1998. A Primer of Ecology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer and Associates. Retrieved from Slobchikoff, C.N., et al. 2009 8.6 Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 7 Management of other colonies will have impacts on nearby colonies.31 Spacing between colonies will be important as prairie dogs commonly disperse 1 – 2 miles, but sometimes as far as 4 miles.32 Connectivity between colonies significantly influences the ebb and flow of single species populations, metapopulations, and ultimately the species as a whole. The influence of corridors carries both positive and negative potential by providing gene flow, resource flexibility and pathways to population expansion but may also allow for disease pathways; therefore, in some cases, connectivity should be avoided.33 Understanding the function of coteries, colonies and metapopulations can help land managers create effective land use plans for prairie dogs. In some cases you may want connectivity and other populations may need to be more sequestered from plague. In Colorado, probably the largest single conservation efforts of contiguity of lands among multiple local governments are the flood plains. Since prairie dogs are known to use seasonal dry drainages as dispersal corridors, FEMA maps could be an invaluable land use tool for the purpose of creating metapopulation connectivity as these maps indicate natural drainage areas. Prairie dogs breed one time per year, typically February for BTPDs, where female estrus lasts about 4 hours. After a gestation period of approximately 34 days, they give birth to one litter ranging from 1 to 6 individuals; the most common litter size is 3. The pups are born underground and do not appear above ground for approximately 6 weeks. Prairie dogs are aged from the time they first appear from the natal burrow. When prairie dogs have been above ground for less than 9 months they are called pups or juveniles, yearlings are at least 9 months but less than 21 months and adults are at least 21 months old.34 Therefore, from a time period of about February to May or early June, impregnated females and juveniles are the most vulnerable. BTPDs are not commonly sexually mature until they are two years old. However, other prairie dogs species, such as Gunnison’s, Utah and White-tails are sexually mature as one year olds. Some BTPDs females will delay conception until they are three year olds, and not all females that are sexually receptive conceive or they may abort. In these cases, they must wait an entire year to potentially become impregnated.35 The life span of BTPDs varies. Surviving the first year is the biggest hurdle; mortality in the first 12 months averages 53% for males and 46% for females. Males that survive the first year typically live two to three years and females may live four to five years. The three main causes of mortality in prairie dogs are predation, infanticide and the inability to survive the winter.36 The inability to survive the winter is generally caused by a prairie dog’s inability to store enough accumulated fat during late fall, winter and early spring. Middle-aged prairie dogs are heavier and older and are more likely to survive than younger individuals.37 Infanticide among prairie dogs occurs when an adult kills a juvenile. Most killers are lactating females, and most victims are the offspring of close kin.38 Males that invade a territory with juveniles are also infanticidal.39 In some species infanticide is a response to overcrowding, but John Hoogland's documentation of infanticides occurred at colony that did not have an unusually high density.40 "This bizarre behavior [of infanticide] means that prairie dogs are sometimes their own worst enemy," opines Hoogland.41 31 Roach, J.L., Stapp, P., Van Horne, B., and Antolin, M.F. 2001 Genetic Structure of a Metapopulation of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs, Journal of Mammology, 82(4):946-959. 2001 32 Hoogland, J. 2006. 33 Slobodchikoff, C.N. et al. 2009 34 Hoogland, J. 2006. 35 Hoogland, J. 1995. 36 Hoogland, J. 2006. 37 Ibid. 38 Hoogland, J. 1995 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Hoogland, J. 2006. Pg 35. 8.6 Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8 “Short reproduction windows, low litter sizes, and longer periods before sexual maturity make prairie dogs an exception in the rodent world and lead to comparatively lower population growth rates than other rodent species”42 Prairie dogs are not migratory animals, however, they can disperse, singly, not in groups. Most females remain within their natal coterie for life, most males remain in their natal coterie for only the first year, after which they disperse. Peak dispersal of yearling males occurs in May, June and July, a second peak occurs in February, just before breeding season.43 Incest is rare in prairie dog populations so older males also disperse after one or two years inhabiting a coterie, probably to avoid inbreeding with their daughters. Dispersals are more likely to occur within colonies than between or outside of them.44 45 Prairie dog colonies may also become stabilized to one area. Studies conducted outside of plague zones indicate that colonies can remain in the same approximate location for several decades to several centuries46 and prairie dogs show very little variation in burrow density over long periods. 47 In a fourteen year study of a 16 acre colony located on mixed grass prairie in South Dakota that was at least 35 years old, researchers mapped every burrow on the site and noted that although prairie dog densities would fluctuate up or down throughout the years, the physical area and number of burrows remained almost exactly the same.48 “In efforts to predict population dynamics, wildlife managers must evaluate whether colonies under consideration are old and stable or young and expanding. In stable colonies, showing little room for expansion, prairie dogs reproduce slowly. This is probably due to lower survivorship and increased competition for resources (food, suitable mates). Prairie dogs in younger, expanding colonies survive better, grow faster as juveniles, are more likely to mate at a younger age, and rear larger litters.” 49 Also, according to John Hoogland, “several studies have demonstrated that black-tailed prairie dogs survive better and have greater reproductive success following the reduction in colony size, for natural or unnatural reasons. Consequently, ‘thinning’ of prairie dog populations is often short-lived because populations can quickly rebound.”50 Recommendations: x Use FEMA maps as a guide for broad scale landscape planning for migration route corridors important for prairie dog dispersal and other wildlife species. x Designate corridors to be occupied and protected by prairie dogs. Some corridors may need to be sequestered from disease pathways. x Based upon the reproductive and dispersal patterns of prairie dogs, the best opportunity for management is late spring towards early November. x The best time to relocate prairie dogs is late summer into early winter. 42 Pizzimenti, J. J., and McClenaghan, L.R. 1974. Reproduction, growth and development, and behavior in the Mexican prairie dog. American Midland Naturalist 92:130-45. 43 Hoogland, J. 1995 44 Garrett, M.G., J.L. Hoogland, and W.L. Franklin. 1982. Demographic differences between an old and new colony of black- tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). American Midland Naturalist 108-:51-59 45 Hoogland, J. (1995 and 2006). 46 Augustine, David J., Marc R. Matchette, Theodore P. Toombs, Jack F. Cully Jr., Tammi L. Johnson, and John G. Side. 2008. “Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Black-tailed Prairie Colonies Affected by Plague.” Landscape Ecol 23:255-267 47 Hoogland, J. et al. 1987. 48 Garrett, M.G., J.L. Hoogland, and W.L. Franklin. 1982. Demographic differences between an old and new colony of black- tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). American Midland Naturalist 108-:51-59 49 Hoogland, J. 2006. 50 Hoogland, J. 2011. Personal communication, The Prairie Dog Coalition. 8.6 Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 9 x Prairie dogs can remain in the exact same spot for decades if not centuries with very little change in burrow numbers. x Prairie dogs are not migratory; they disperse singly not in groups. x Short reproduction windows, low litter sizes, and longer periods before sexual maturity make prairie dogs an exception in the rodent world and lead to comparatively lower population growth rates than other rodent species. x Visual counting of prairie dogs is the best method for determining populations of prairie dogs because there is no absolute correlation between density and the number of burrows. 5. Disease Primary diseases of prairie dogs are sylvatic plague (Yersinia pestis) and tularemia. Sylvatic plague might pose the most formidable obstacle for long-term conservation of prairie dogs.51 Prairie dogs suffer an almost 100% mortality when exposed, and there is little evidence of their development of immune antibodies. Plague was introduced into the United States ground squirrel population in 1908. Since then, the disease has spread and can infect at least 76 species of rodents, rabbits, hares, shrews, ungulates and primates. Plague is primarily a disease of rodents and it affects each rodent species differently. Plague was first documented in black-tailed prairie dogs in 1946 in Texas. The disease has since infected most areas within the range of prairie dogs.52 Animal susceptibility to sylvatic plague varies. Some species are highly susceptible, for example the prairie dog, and others are more resistant (mice). Resistant species may play a role as reservoir hosts. Carnivores are commonly exposed to plague by eating infected rodents or by being bitten by rodent fleas, but many are resistant to plague. Studies demonstrate that infected domestic dogs, coyotes and foxes may indicate an antibody to plague, meaning they had been exposed, but rarely die from plague.53 For relatively small areas with plague-infected rodents, the use of insecticide dusting powder to kill fleas on rodents is effective. And since plague is in many other wildlife species, the elimination of prairie dogs will not remove plague from the ecosystem.54 Plague is largely controlled by the manual application of Delta-dust. According to D. Tripp, (2016) the best time of the year to apply Delta-dust is in the fall (September or October) or early spring (February or March). While plague can be present in fleas year round but most transmission occurs in early spring and late summer after temperatures drop. 55 A sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV) is indicating great promise in protecting prairie dogs from plague. Management of plague through SPV could prevent precipitous population declines that could lead to future ESA listing.56 A possible strategy to prevent large scale losses of prairie dogs to plague is the design of preserves. The risk of having preserve areas be too large is that a single plague epizootic could result in the demise of the entire preserve. Preserve 51 Cully, J.F., and E.S. Williams 2001. Interspecific comparisons of sylvatic plague in prairie dogs. Journal of Mammology 82:894- 905 52Luce, R. J. 2006 A Multi-state Approach to Prairie Dog Conservation and Management in the United States, Invited Paper, USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-40.2006. 53 Biggens, D. E., M.Y. Kosoy. 2001. Influences of Introduced Plague in North American Mammals: Implications from Ecology of Plague in Asia, Journal of Mammalogy:82(4):906-916, 2001 54 www.cdphe.state.co.us 55 Tripp, D. (2016) Colorado Parks and Wildlife, personal comm. January 7, 2016. 56 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5426465.pdf 8.6 Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 10 areas should be close enough to allow for animal dispersal between them, but not so close that plague epizootics can be easily transmitted.57 Another disease fatal to prairie dogs is tularemia.58 Tularemia, also known as rabbit fever, is a zoonosis affecting more than 150 wildlife species, including prairie dogs, squirrels, rabbits, cats, and humans. Transmission can occur from tick or deer fly bites, handling infected animals (sick or dead), eating undercooked meats of infected animals, and inhaling dusts or aerosols contaminated with the bacteria (farming and landscaping activities) of infected animals. Treatment involves antibiotic medications. Although symptoms may last for several weeks, most patients completely recover.59 Rodents and rabbits are almost never found to be infected with rabies and have not been known to transmit rabies to humans.60 And given the structure and ventilation system of burrows, hanta virus does not occur in prairie dogs.61 Recommendations: x Annual dusting of prairie dog colonies may be required until SPV is ready for regular use. x Plague management and abatement should occur in Natural Areas designated for prairie dog ecosystem conservation. As such, these areas should maintain occupancy by prairie digs via population augmentation or relocation if necessary. x Strategic land use planning to ensure that preserves are dispersed throughout land use areas rather than pooling all large colonies in one area. 6. Local government legal tools In Colorado, local governments have primary authority to protect wildlife habitats, but state wildlife officers have primary authority over the actual animal. It is very important that local governments understand this concept and utilize laws granted to them as part of a core foundation to protect wildlife habitats. Our research indicates that very few counties in Colorado have any conservation plan for prairie dogs and of those plans reviewed, none made reference to Colorado’s conservation strategies for prairie dogs. This disconnect is concerning, as local governments are granted primary authority to protect lands for wildlife under the state’s local land use laws.62 Far more municipalities than counties had conservation plans, yet of those counties that did have plans, none openly stated the importance of municipal, state, federal or private landowner participation in occupied prairie dog acreage. All of these external landowners and agencies play a huge role in county-wide occupied acres and are especially important to counties as they reduce associated prairie dog occupancy costs (land purchases, maintenance, revegetation, disease management and staffing) to county taxpayers. The fact that the majority of local governments have no conservation plan is a matter of statewide concern, as the state’s principal role to avoid federal listing is to ensure countywide occupancy of prairie dogs.63 64 57 EDAW 2000 Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Study of Eastern Colorado Study of Eastern Colorado, Retrieved 9/15 http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/BlackTailedPrairieDog/PDF/Entire_Report.pdf 58 Hoogland, J. 2006. 59 http://www.cdc.gov/tularemia 60 http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/exposure/animals/other.html 61 Pape, John. 2006. Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Personal Communication, P Wanek 62 Duerksen, C. J., Hobbs, N.T., Elliott, D. L., Johnson, E., and Miller, J.R. (n.d) Managing Development for People and Wildlife, A Handbook for Habitat Protection by Local Governments, Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC and Colorado Division of Wildlife for The Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. Retrieved from http://ndisdev2.nrel.colostate.edu/handbook/handbook.html 63 Luce, R.J. 2006. 64 Conservation Plan for Grassland Species in Colorado 2003 8.6 Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 11 One of the conservation objectives of Colorado’s Grassland Plan is a shared responsibility to conserve occupied prairie dog habitat in both urban and rural communities.65 However, each of these environments presents entirely different financial and landowner situations. Development in Front Range counties and cities generates large sales taxes that in many cases includes open space taxes to protect lands from development for agricultural or wildlife habitat uses.However, these rapidly developing cities and counties do not normally plan to protect large acreages for prairie dogs; and many have no vision to protect any prairie dogs. As such, most urban prairie dogs live in unprotected isolated colonies that are rapidly disappearing. Most rural properties are privately owned, and these private holdings contain the bulk of prairie dog acreages in the state.66 Rural counties typically do not share in the economic wealth of their urban counterparts. They do not have open space taxes, nor do they have funding needed to hire resource managers educated in the importance of prairie dog conservation Some private landowners have received prairie dog conservation funding from the state, but the majority of private lands remain unprotected. Conservation plans are important for multiple reasons: x They set establish that prairie dog conservation is important to avoid ESA listing; x They educate politicians, staff and the community about the plight of the species; x They reduce management and maintenance of prairie dog habitat by locating habitats in areas more conducive to natural areas and natural dispersal routes; x They reduce costs to local governments and ultimately taxpayers by having coordinated and shared financial interests in federal, state, local and commercial funding to support prairie dog conservation and habitat protection; x They engender more decision-maker support for translocations of prairie dogs into designated areas; x They identify the legal procedural requirements and responsibilities for all parties involved; x They open the door for joint funding and management of prairie dog protected areas and the development of Inter-governmental agreements; x They create the shared responsibility of all political jurisdictions within the prairie dogs range; x They support region-wide diversity, thus protecting the prairie dog and dependent species by allowing for large scale land use conservation rather than pooling significant prairie dog populations into one area; x They increase efficiency of all resources (land and human); x They support both state and federal goals to conserve the species and protect associated and dependent species. x They promote voluntary conservation-incentive programs or regional conservation programs to prevent species from federal listing According to Duerkson, C. J., et al. the most powerful laws for local governments to protect habitats are known as 1034 and 1041 Powers. “In 1974, the state enacted the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act to ‘clarify and provide broad authority to local governments to plan and regulate the use of land within their respective jurisdictions.’ Those powers are codified at C.R.S. 29-20-101 and are sometimes known as 1034 powers. Two provisions under these powers are of particular importance when it comes to protecting wildlife habitat: ‘29-20-104. Powers of local governments. (1) Without limiting or superseding any power or authority presently exercised or previously granted, each local government within its respective jurisdiction has the authority to plan for and regulate the use of land by: 65 Ibid. 66 Colorado Grasslands Plan, 2003. 8.6 Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 12 … (b) Protecting lands from activities which would cause immediate or foreseeable material danger to significant wildlife habitat or would endanger a wildlife species; … (h) Otherwise planning for and regulating the use of land so as to provide planned and orderly use of land and protection of the environment in a manner consistent with constitutional rights.’ This language should support the adoption of specialized city, town, or county regulations to protect wildlife habitat in ways that are not specifically prohibited or preempted by state statute. Colorado also enacted 1041 Powers that are found under C.R.S. 24-65.1-101 and grant local governments increased authority to adopt regulations controlling specific types of development and activity. The statute details large or broad effects on the surrounding area and then allows local governments to adopt specific criteria to regulate specific aspects of those development and activities. 1041 Powers address areas and activities of statewide interest. These interests include mineral resource areas, natural hazard areas, areas containing historical, natural or archaeological resources, areas around key facilities such as airports, interchanges involving arterial highways, major public facilities and mass transit terminals. This also includes efficient use of municipal and industrial water projects and site selection and construction of domestic water and sewage treatment and new communities. Under certain circumstances, local governments can designate areas or activities within their jurisdiction as matters of statewide concern.”67 Municipal growth is typically driven by some economic benefit to annex developable land. Potential annexations of lands from counties are submitted by local governments to affected counties through what are known as three-mile annexation plans. These plans provide counties the opportunities to render comments about the proposed annexations. In some cases, annexation “wars” may occur when more than one municipal government desires the same tract of land as another municipal government. These ‘wars’ potentially drive up the number of developments to offer the best financial deal for landowners wishing to sell their properties. Some may view these ‘wars’ as a major driver in over developed communities and the associated hindrance of local communities’ ability to protect habitats for wildlife. Additional information about three-mile annexation plans can be found under the Colorado Department of Local Affairs website: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/three-mile-plans In cases where municipalities annex lands, county government’s ability to effect conservation planning in annexed municipal lands may no longer be valid. According to C.R.S. 30-28-106: (1) “It is the duty of a county planning commission to make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the unincorporated territory of the county… (2) (a)…but no such plan shall be effective within the boundaries of any incorporated municipality within the region unless such plan is adopted by the governing body of the municipality…” It is important to keep in mind that although many local governments have their own laws and regulations, they are not sovereign entities of the state, rather they are political subdivisions of the state, existing only for the convenient administration of the state government, created to carry out the will of the state.68 Recommendations: x Connect local policies with statewide goals. x Utilize laws under the local land use act as the key authoritative powers to protect local wildlife habitats. 67 Duerksen, C. J., Hobbs, N.T., Elliott, D. L., Johnson, E., and Miller, J.R. (n.d) 68 C.R.S 30-11-101 Powers of Counties case law. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado 8.6 Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 13 x Keep Natural Areas designated as prairie dog areas occupied by prairie dogs. 7. Non-lethal Control – Non-lethal control of prairie dogs is definitely a safer alternative to lethal control, and in recent years many conservation groups are directing funds from lethal control methods towards non-lethal control choices. One method of non-lethal control is active relocation. While BTPD’s can be removed any time of the year, there are clearly better times than others. For example, birthing, inclement weather and torpor make relocations much more complicated. Generally, prairie dogs can be moved from about June 1st through the end of December. However, the best time to relocate prairie dogs is from September through about November 30th; relocations really should not start later than October. A Wild-to-Wild Relocation permit is secured between CPW and the local governing body. All take sites are required to be treated with delta-methrin (Delta-dust) at least one week prior to capturing the prairie dogs, as a sylvatic plague abatement measure. Active relocations may involve coterie mapping so family members are moved together, assessment of natural releasable burrows, installation of artificial burrows, pre-baiting take sites to trap animals and soapy water flushing if necessary. Additionally, there may be transport guidelines, acclimation and monitoring post released prairie dogs, and finally, reports submitted to CPW. Other methods of non-lethal control include more habitat-based methods. While these methods may not be as immediate as lethal control, non-lethal methods may over time produce better results. Some habitat methodologies include vegetation management such as delayed livestock grazing (cattle, goats and sheep); rotation of livestock tanks, deferred prescribed burns, changes in the type of agriculture crops and timing of harvest, introduction of tall, drought tolerant woodies (tall rabbitbrush, western sage, sumac, etc…). In very large areas, allowing mid-height grasses to grow between prairie dog colonies and urban developments may be a feasible alternative to dissuade prairie dogs from moving onto unwanted areas. However, homeowners may be concerned about potential grass fires next to their communities and so defensible space should be incorporated into these designs. A 200 to 300 foot buffer of mixed-height grasses next to colonies may discourage prairie dogs from moving or expanding into unwanted areas, a defensible space fire buffer may also be needed. Defensible space should include roads next to houses as well. Larimer County recommends the following defensible space for urban-wildland interface: Table 602. Required Defensible Space69 Urban-Wildland Interface Area Fuel Modification Distance (feet) Moderate hazard 30 High hazard 100 Extreme 200 Hardscaping may also discourage undesired animal occupancy. Consider using large cobble, pavers or landscaping stones. Fences such as electric, vinyl, privacy and PVC can be very effective, although some may need modifications. Even irrigation creates undesirable habitat for some wildlife. Another method of passive relocation is called Reverse Dispersal Translocation™ or RDT. The procedure works by successively closing down unoccupied burrows thus allowing the animal to move itself out of contentious areas into more hospitable habitat (where prairie dogs already exist). This method requires receiving burrows. What it does is 69 Farmer, David A. 1997. Colorado State Forest Service, Recommendations for Improving Wildfire Safety in Larimer County, p. 27. Retrieved 4/2016 https://www.larimer.org/wildfire/recommendations.pdf 8.6 Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 14 push back colony expansion. Over time, prairie dog coteries can change in shape and size (smaller to larger and larger to smaller and extinct). Also, prairie dogs will frequently block their own burrows to protect natal nests, block off cold air, protect against predators and possibly to shift coterie boundaries. RDT progressively and sequentially blocks off burrows allowing the prairie dog to decide for themselves what coteries they belong in. Example: The represents four burrows that are moving out of the core colony. RDT progressively begins to block off these burrows causing prairie dogs to move back into the origination colony. This method is used instead of trapping and arbitrarily placing trapped prairie dogs into a colony. Using RDT, prairie dogs will hook up with old coterie members or move into less contentious burrows within the colony. Prairie dogs are much better at figuring out the social complexities of the coteries than humans. Before land managers decide to use any methods to eliminate prairie dogs they should carefully evaluate cost versus benefits. They should also carefully evaluate the negative effects for other species that depend on prairie dogs for survival.70 Recommendations: x Utilize non-lethal methodologies over lethal control first. Non-lethal control methods keep chemicals out of the environment and may help reduce prairie dog management costs over the long-term. x Generally, prairie dogs can be moved from about June 1st through the end of December. However, the best time to relocate prairie dogs is probably from September through about November 30th; relocations really should not start later than October. x Non-lethal methods may not be as immediate as lethal control; however, over time, habitat based methodologies may produce better long-term results. x Hardscaping may also discourage undesired animal occupancy. x Manipulation of vegetation such as introducing shrubs and mid-height grasses can help control prairie dog occupancy into unwanted areas. 8. Lethal Control Lethal control has long been used to exterminate prairie dogs. From about 1903 to 1912, poisoning killed 91% of Colorado’s prairie dogs (Black-tailed, Gunnison’s and White-tailed) and over the next 11 years, poisoning killed another 31 million prairie dogs in Colorado. The idea behind these exterminations was complete eradication of prairie dogs.71 70 Hoogland, J. 2006. 71 Hoogland, J. 2006. Pg 90. Origination Colony Burrows that are beginning to expand territory. 8.6 Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 15 By 1915, the U.S. Federal Government began to assist landowners in control efforts. Control activities continue today on agricultural, urban and city lands.72 From the early 1900s through the late 1960s extensive eradication of prairie dogs by landowners and state and federal agencies was largely funded with federal money.73 Probably the biggest driver of exterminations was the perceived notion that prairie dogs are a major competitor of cattle for food; contemporary research indicates that prairie dogs can have a beneficial or neutral effect on livestock forage. According to Collins, et al., forage competition between black-tailed prairie dogs and livestock grazing on shortgrass rangeland dominated by blue grama and buffalograss was not significant enough to warrant control measures. They reasoned that higher forage quality compensated for reduced available forage. Their results indicated that due to prairie dog repopulation rates, prairie dogs would have to be re-poisoned every 3 years and that annual maintenance control costs would be greater than the annual value of AUMs (animal unit month) gained. Thus, prairie dog control was not economically feasible.74 According to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies 2014 Pesticide Sunset Act, all individuals and businesses that apply restricted use pesticides are regulated by the Pesticide Applicator’s Act (Act) and only individuals and businesses who apply general use pesticides as a commercial endeavor are regulated by the Act. The Commissioner regulates Commercial, Limited Commercial, Public, and Private pesticide applicators. The level of regulation is dependent on multiple factors including the type of pesticide being applied and the physical and economic environments in which it is applied.75 Regulations are necessary because pesticides used to control insects, rodents, weeds, and other forms of life contain toxic substances which may pose a serious risk to public health and safety. The regulation of pesticide applicators is necessary to prevent adverse effects to both individuals and the environment. Because pesticides contain toxic substances that can endanger the public, it is necessary to regulate the individuals that apply pesticides commercially.76 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies should always look at alternatives that utilize non-chemical approaches first and only consider using pesticides as a last resort. Since FIFRA does not fully preempt state, tribal or local law, each state, tribal and local government may also regulate pesticide use; as long as the local authority does not attempt to, directly or indirectly, regulate or prohibit pesticide application by individuals regulated under the Act or federal law. And while state regulations prevent local jurisdictions from enacting and implementing greater notification requirements on regulated applicators, local jurisdictions retain the authority to impose any notification requirements upon private individuals, property owners, and the general public concerning pesticide applications.77 78 In this case, a local government cannot prohibit pesticide use, but they can place restrictions to seek non-lethal control alternatives first before permitting lethal control. While federal and state governments regulate toxicant use, it is the role of the consumer that either directly applies toxicants or hires companies that exterminate to determine whether or not toxicants are necessary. Some questions to ask: x What measures of exclusion have been tried first? Barriers, vegetative buffers, reduced grazing? x Has extermination occurred in the past? If so, what were the long-term and short-term results? 72 Conservation Plan for Grassland Species in Colorado. 2003. 73 Luce, B. 2006. 74 Collins, A. R., Workman, J.P., Uresk, D.W. l984 An Economic Analysis of Black-tailed Prairie Dog [Cynomys Ludovicianus] Control Journal of Range Management 37(4), July 1984 75 Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs (DORA). 2014. 2014 Sunset Review Pesticide Applicators Act, Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 C.R.S. 30-10-112-3 8.6 Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 16 x What non-target wildlife species could be impacted? x How does this chemical control the target species? Is this considered euthanasia? x What type of notifications does the state require on the property and what do those look like? x Exactly where will the notifications be posted? x Is the property fenced or is it an open field? x How close is the property to schools, open space areas, parks or other areas that may have high human interaction? x What additional notification can be provided to avoid accidental exposure? x Will the on-site applicator be an agent with necessary and relevant information for questioning citizens regarding the process or chemicals used? x Will minor children be employed as laborers? x What additional measures will be used to keep people and pets off of the property during and after toxicant uses? x Does the local government have an IPM program and are there any requirements to seek non- lethal alternatives? Products used, toxicity and humaneness: This section reviews the most commonly used methods for lethal control: aluminum phosphide, zinc phosphide, Kaput and Rozol, carbon monoxide cartridges, carbon dioxide, igniting underground explosive gas, and live burial by construction equipment. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – is commonly used to kill prairie dogs, which are then used as donations to wildlife recovery centers for black-footed ferrets and birds of prey. In both cases there is specific timing, storage and procedures that must be followed by each facility. In most cases, prairie dogs will be lethally controlled by capturing the animal and then placing them into carbon dioxide filled chambers. Hawkins, et al. (2006) states that although many laboratory animals, especially rodents, are killed using CO2 according to a variety of protocols, there is currently no definitive guidance on whether and how CO2 can be administered humanely. There is also uncertainty about the feasibility of using alternative gaseous euthanasia agents, with respect to both animal welfare and human health safety. 79 Conlee, K.M, et al. (2005) indicated that the use of carbon dioxide alone did not follow the guidelines of euthanasia as the animals were clearly distressed and recommend that the use of CO2 should only be considered if it were used with a pre-anesthetic.80 Only competent and caring individuals should administer CO2. They should make absolutely sure the animal is dead prior to removing it from the chambers, as individual rodents may become apneic (temporary suspension of breathing) at certain CO2 concentrations giving the false impression that death has occurred. Standard tests used to determine death include a toe pinch, dilated pupil (lack of response to touch on eye), and absence of heartbeat; cessation of breathing is not a sufficient criterion when CO2 is used. Therefore, to ensure death, decapitation should follow after the use of CO2 to be assured that the animal does not revive. Younger animals, such as neonates, are more resistant to CO2 and may require longer exposure for efficacy.81 79 Hawkins, P., L. Playle, H. Golledge, M. Leach, R. Banzett, P. Danneman, P. Flecknell, R. Kirkden, L. Niel and M. Raj. 2006. Newcastle Consensus Meeting on Carbon Dioxide Euthanasia of Laboratory Animals, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 9 August 2006 80 Conlee K. M., Stephens, M.L., Rowan, A.N., and King, L. A. (2005) Carbon dioxide for euthanasia: concerns regarding pain and distress, with special reference to mice and rats The Humane Society of the United States, Animal Research Issues, 2100 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA; Linacre College, Oxford University, St Cross Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK, Laboratory Animals (2005) 81 Gannon, W.L., Sikes, R.S. 2007. And The Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalgists. Guidelines 8.6 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 17 Also, because animals may become distressed due to physical discomfort, anxiety in atypical social settings and physical surroundings, pheromones or odors from nearby or previously euthanized animals, and the presence of humans, euthanasia should be done outside of the perceptive range of other captive animals. CO2 is widely used in laboratories and in the field because most inhaled agents are explosive, for example, carbon monoxide, when discharged into an enclosed chamber .82 While CO2 may be less of a safety hazard to workers, it is not necessarily the most humane choice because it is not a euthanasia. Carbon Monoxide (CO) – are nonrestrictive use cartridge fumigants that are lit and then placed down inside prairie dog burrows. Since carbon monoxide induces unconsciousness before death, it is considered as a euthanasia.83 However, because smoke and heat emits dirty particles that are inhaled into the lungs and nasal passages it is questionable whether this is truly a humane method for the death of animals. Some local governments have accepted CO as a primary agent for field euthanasia of prairie dogs and are using PERC™ (Pressurized Exhaust Rodent Controller) machines that deliver pressurized carbon monoxide down prairie dog burrows. While we do not endorse the death of any declining species, we are encouraged that some communities have accepted that prairie dogs feel pain too and that euthanasia and care during the death of any species is a better approach than inhumane killing. Aluminum Phosphide – is a restricted use fumigant registered for burrowing mammal control in the U.S. in 1981. Aluminum phosphide reacts with moisture in burrows to release phosphine gas. The gas is absorbed through the respiratory passages of burrow residents and enters the bloodstream to block physiological processes in cells and alter hemoglobin. Aluminum phosphide is a potent mammal toxicant. At a concentration of 1000 ppm, phosphine gas is lethal to humans after just a few breaths. Primary non-target poisoning involves the exposure of non-target animals in burrows of target species. It is generally assumed that burrow fumigants will kill all animals residing in treated burrows, so it is important to verify that burrows are occupied only by target animals. Animals potentially affected by primary poisoning include non-target burrowing rodents, burrowing owls, reptiles and amphibians, rabbits, raccoons, foxes, weasels, and skunks. No secondary hazards exist with burrow fumigants because the gases rapidly dissipate. Bio-accumulation does not occur in dead animals.84 In poisoned rodents, phosphine gas gives rise to similar signs of respiratory irritation and pain and other forms of discomfort; displaying face-washing movements suggestive of eye and respiratory irritation, shivering, piloerection, clinging to the walls of the cage, protruding eyeballs, convulsions, and hind limb paralysis followed by full paralysis and death. In laboratory settings, animals may not start being symptomatic until 30 min after exposure, and die usually within 2 h; the range being 50 min to 3 h, depending on dose.85 However, in the field, the time between exposure and death is not well studied. Death by aluminum phosphide is not considered as euthanasia.86 87 Trade names for aluminum phosphide products include Phostoxin, Fumitoxin, PH3, and Weevil-cide. Use is prohibited on residential properties and nursing homes, schools (except athletic fields), daycare facilities and hospitals. It must of The American Society of Mammalogist For The Use of Wild Mammals in Research. Journal of Mammalogy, 88(3): 809– 823. 82 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition Copyright © 2013 by the American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N. Meacham Road, Schaumburg, IL 60173 83 Ibid 84 K.A. Fagerstone, K.A. and Witmer, G.W., Eds. 2003 THE USE OF TOXICANTS IN BLACK-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG MANAGEMENT: AN OVERVIEW Proceedings of the 10th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. 85 Mason, G. and Littin, K.E. 2003. THE HUMANENESS OF RODENT PEST CONTROL, Animal Welfare 2003, 12:000-000 86 Ibid. 87 AVMA 2013 8.6 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 18 not be applied into a burrow system within 100 feet of a building that is, or may be, occupied by humans, and/or domestic animals.88 Aluminum phosphide can be used for prairie dog control only on agricultural areas, orchards, non-crop areas (such as pasture and rangeland), golf courses, athletic fields, airports, cemeteries, rights-of-way, earthen dams, parks and recreational areas and other non-residential institutional or industrial sites. Pellets or tablets must be applied directly to underground burrow systems and the burrows must be sealed with newspaper or soil. Prior to treatment, the applicator must prepare and provide a fumigation management plan (FMP) to the customer. Applicators must post a sign at each application site containing the signal word DANGER/PELIGRO skull and crossbones, the name and EPA registration number of the fumigant, and a 24 hour emergency response number. When used in athletic fields or parks, the signs must be posted at the entrances to the treated site and can be removed within 48 hours of initial treatment.89 Even though the state and EPA have now taken some precautions to avoid unintentional exposure to people or pets with these products, it is difficult to ascertain how chemicals work in the field as opposed to laboratory settings. According to Snider, C. several factors that influence this product are: burrow temperatures, burrow humidity, burrow length and configuration, soil porosity, wind speed and direction, and species specific behavior characteristics.90 Prairie dog burrows probably have temperatures of 5 – 10 C in winter (41F – 50F), and 15 – 25 C (59F – 77F) in summer.91 According to the Fumitoxin instruction manual, phosphide gas exposure periods vary with temperatures. Not only may phosphine gas remain lethal for longer than the 2 day EPA sign warning sign minimums but it may remain toxic for up to 10 days. While we do not support any application of phosphine gas, we also believe that the minimum 2 day warning signs are inadequate, particularly on properties that are not necessarily parks but open space areas where people may hunt, hike or exercise their pets. And while local governments cannot require additional posting and warning requirements on a hired exterminator, they could require additional restrictions on the landowner; for example, larger signs and longer posting periods. Excerpt from the Fumitoxin Manual Operator Instructions (06/2013)92, below: “EXPOSURE CONDITIONS FOR ALL FUMIGATIONS: The following table may be used as a guide in determining the minimum length of the exposure period at the indicated temperatures: Minimum Exposure Periods for FUMITOXIN Temperature Pellets Tablets 40°F (5°C) Do not fumigate Do not fumigate 41°-53°F (5-12°C 8 days (192 hours) 10 days (240 hours) 54°-59°F (12-15°C) 4 days (96 hours) 5 days (120 hours) 60°-68°F (16-20°C) 3 days (72 hours) 4 days (96 hours) above 68°F (20°C) 2 days (48 hours) 3 days (72 hours)” 88 Andelt W.F., and Hopper S.N. 2012 Managing Prairie dogs, Colorado State University Fact Sheet No. 6.506, Colorado State University Extension Office 89 Ibid. 90 Snider, Carl, "Use of Aluminum Phosphide Fumigants For Burrowing Rodent Control" 1983. Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 292. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/292 91 Hoogland, J. 1995. 92 Fumitoxin Applicators Manual. 2013. http://www.pestgon.com/PDF/MSDS- Labels/fumitoxin%20Label%202013.pdf 8.6 Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 19 Zinc Phosphide – is the most commonly used rodenticide worldwide and it acts by producing phosphine gas in the stomach.93 It was introduced into the U.S. during World War II when other imported rodenticides were unavailable. It is an acute (single feeding) rodenticide usually formulated into a pelleted bait or used as a coating on grain. The gas is absorbed through the respiratory passages and enters the bloodstream to block physiological processes in cells and alter hemoglobin. Zinc phosphide is highly toxic to both mammals and some birds. Non-target hazards include the direct consumption of zinc phosphide baits (primary hazard) or indirect exposure by the consumption of animals that have consumed the zinc phosphide bait (secondary hazard). Deaths can conceivably occur if predators consume undigested grain in rodent cheek pouches or gastro-intestinal tracts.94 To reduce exposure to non-target species, dead carcasses should be buried or removed from applicator sites. Zinc phosphide can only be used for prairie dogs on rangeland, rangeland and pasture, or rangeland and adjacent non- crop areas (depending on the specific product label). Zinc phosphide application is restricted to July 1 through early winter.95 Unlike fumigants, zinc phosphide exposes only those species that are in direct consumption of the bait, either from the ground or the consumption of another species that has recently consumed the baits. Additionally, dependent young in their nests that do not consume baits will be left to die. Zinc phoshide is not euthanasia. 96 97 Kaput and Rozol - are anticoagulant baits Chlorophacinone (Rozol Prairie Dog Bait) or Diphacinone (Kaput-D Prairie Dog Bait). Both Rozol and Kaput-D Prairie Dog Baits are federally restricted use pesticides. They can be used only for control of black-tailed prairie dogs on rangeland and adjacent non-crop areas. This species is found on the eastern plains of Colorado. It cannot be used on the species found west of the front range of Colorado, Gunnison’s prairie dogs or white-tailed prairie dogs.98 There are now enforceable endangered species bulletins for anticoagulant prairie dog baits for several Colorado counties. You must check the EPA website to obtain any county bulletins no less than 6 months before applications are to occur. Product can only be applied between October 1 and March 15 of the following year. (In some counties, product cannot be applied until November 1, see endangered species protection bulletins for your county). The applicator must return to the site within 4 days after bait application, and at 1 to 2 day intervals, to collect and properly dispose of any bait or dead or dying prairie dogs found on the surface. Any dead or dying non-target species of animals must be reported as described on the product label. Continue to conduct these searches for at least 2 weeks, but longer if carcasses are still being found. Carcass searches must be performed using a line-transect method that completely covers the baited area. Transect center lines must be 200 feet or less apart (less in more densely vegetated sites). 99 The purported advantage of using Kaput and Rozal is that these products do not require pre-baiting, thus reducing labor and field personnel costs. The disadvantage is that personnel or private property owners are required to monitor and dispose of any carcasses and this increases field time. According to Vyas (2013), applicators have openly admitted that they are not following label guidelines to Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. Applicators feel it is too costly and difficult to recover carcasses. Since these products are mostly used on private lands, it is difficult to completely assess how many non-target species have died from the consumption of carcasses. In one study, non-target mortalities included the deaths of two bald eagles, one ferruginous hawk, one great horned owl, two wild turkeys, one western meadowlark, two thirteen-lined ground squirrels and two American badgers. And while this list seems small, Vyas believes that these mortalities represent the “tip of the iceberg.” Vyas, and many in the conservation community, 93 Mason, G. and Littin, K.E. 2003 94 Fagerstone, K.A. and Witmer, G.W., 2003 95 Andelt W.F., and Hopper S.N. 2012 96 Mason, G. and Littin, K.E. 2003 97 AVMA 2013 98 Andelt W.F., and Hopper S.N. 2012 99 Ibid 8.6 Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 20 question how the EPA and FIFRA can continue to allow the use of the product, especially when applicators have openly admitted they do not follow the product label instructions that is the letter of the law for all pesticides approved by the EPA.100 During the 2006 EPA registration review for Rozol and Kaput, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) received written documents by both the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the USFWS that these products should not be approved for registration for the following reasons: significant data gaps in toxicity data to non-target wildlife species including the sub-lethal exposure effects on survival and reproduction; unconvinced that poisoned animals would remain underground posing primary and secondary poisoning risks to non-target species; searching, collection and disposal of carcasses will not be conducted; reporting requirements of non-target kills by the applicator and the threat of continued use of the product and therefore compliance will be minimal; and based on the potential risks to extensive mammalian and avian predators and scavengers, including state and federally listed species, there is a lack of demonstrated need for these specific compounds.101 Despite these concerns, the EPA approved registration of these products and the CDA approved them for use in the state. Underground ignited explosive gasses and live burial – in lieu of exterminations or donations to animal recovery programs, many developers and ranchers resort to other inhumane methods to kill prairie dogs; namely the use of explosive underground devices or bulldozing prairie dogs directly into the ground thereby suffocating them to death. Both practices are not considered as euthanasia.102 The most notable device used to explode burrows and prairie dogs is the Rodenator™ which pumps a mixture of propane and oxygen into an animal tunnel and then is lit to create an underground explosion. The explosion travels at about 5000 feet per second and creates a concussion of about 10,000 PSI in the tunnels. In conversations with Rodenator™ sales staff, some of the drawbacks of the device are that it is difficult to measure the concentration of propane and oxygen in the tunnel so “you must use a common sense approach.” Also, the device was never meant for use on prairie dogs because their tunnels are too difficult to collapse, additionally, there is no guarantee that the explosion kills prairie dogs and some may just become maimed.103 Yet, the device is readily advertised to eliminate prairie dogs and collapse tunnels but there are no scientific studies that back this claim. Despite these inadequacies, the CDA approved this product for use in Colorado. The Rodenator may also be a fire hazard; therefore, it may be prudent to contact local fire departments regarding its’ usage. In Canada, men using the device to kill gophers did not realize the device was capable of starting a blaze, they said they read the manual and watched the instructional DVD before using the device. According to sources, “the blaze spread rapidly through tinder-dry prairie grass.” Several residents fled their homes, though fire crews managed to stop the flames from damaging houses. Damage has been estimated at $215,000 to barns, sheds and vehicles, while another $40,000 was spent to fight the fire (The Edmonton Journal, March 28, 2008). Recommendations: x Adopt ordinances and policies that reduce the use of toxicants on public and private lands x Adopt a notification system wherein the use of toxicants is a choice of last resort and provide a reasonable notification period prior to toxicant use. x Support private landowners that want to conserve prairie dogs or are willing to pay into mitigation funding programs for lost occupied habitat 100 Vyas, B. Nimish,2013 Untested Pesticide Mitigation Requirements: Ecological, Agricultural, and Legal Implications. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, Volume 18, No. 2, Summer 2013 101 Colorado Division of Wildlife (2006) Response to Laura Quakenbush, Colorado Department of Agriculture, Subject: 24C Request to review ROZOL Prairie dog Bait (EPA Reg. No 7173-184), and Kaput-D Prairie Dog Bait (EPA reg. No. 72500-9). 102 AVMA. 2013. 103 Wanek, P. 2010 Personal Communication with Rodenator Sales Representative 8.6 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 21 x Consider whether the chosen method is truly a humane decision x Local government cannot prohibit pesticide use but they can place restrictions to seek non-lethal control alternatives first before permitting lethal control. x And while local governments cannot require additional posting and warning requirements on a hired exterminator, they could require additional restrictions on the landowner; for example, larger signs and longer posting periods. x In many cases, aluminum phosphide is not a choice if prairie dog are located within 100 feet of a building that is, or may be, occupied by humans, and/or domestic animals. x While we do not endorse the intentional extermination of any declining species, we are encouraged that some communities have accepted that prairie dogs feel pain too and that euthanasia and care during the death of any animal is a better approach than inhumane killing. 9. Mitigation – CCAA, Endowment Fees, Separation of Fees from General Fund Unlike mitigation plans for wetlands, mitigation for prairie dogs is still in its infancy. Local communities are hard pressed to charge mitigation fees to private landowners for fear that this may encourage more exterminations of prairie dogs; however, along the Front Range, prairie dogs are routinely killed for development and developers often pay no mitigation. Not only are these practices inhumane, they also preclude economic opportunity costs to fund mitigation plans that are desperately needed to protect or replace local prairie dog populations. Many developers would readily pay mitigation fees for prairie dogs located on their properties if it moves the construction project along. Some urban developments are too small to support prairie dogs, and, as a result, surviving prairie dogs are pushed into adjacent properties, roadways, medians or killed on site. However, in some cases larger developments can incorporate small prairie dog populations. Each site should be evaluated for its own merits regarding BTPD mitigation or protection. Since local governments receive a tax benefit for developed properties to begin with, it may seem obvious that local governments should also play a role in supplying lands for displaced prairie dogs. Good mitigation plans by local governments can help offset habitat and local species losses. Some local governments already charge mitigation fees for prairie dogs. In some cases the monies are returned to the private landowner if more humane lethal control measures are taken, and in others, monies are collected regardless of what the developer does with the animals. Monies collected are generally used to operate prairie dog mitigation plans. The funds collected should be kept separate from the city’s general fund. Local governments should set goals for their prairie dog mitigation funds. Some of those goals may include the same broad language used in Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs), such as below: “• protecting and enhancing existing populations and habitats; • restoring degraded habitat; • creating new habitat; • augmenting existing populations; • restoring historic populations; and • not undertaking a specific, potentially impacting/damaging activity.”104 104 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Candidate Conservation Agreement. 2011. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa- 8.6 Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 22 To implement mitigation programs, local governments must be very clear on how the money is used and adopt court- defensible language that can be codified into ordinances. Recall 1034 Powers and that local government authority is based on habitat protection, not the animal itself; therefore, local governments must be able to quantify the value of prairie dog colonies. The Prairie Dog Coalition is cooperatively working with other agencies, including CPW to develop a mitigation tool that is very similar to the one already used for mule deer and sage grouse. However, the tool is still in the development and testing phase. In the interim, it may be possible for local governments to use the best science available now to begin a mitigation program. Most simply, attempts to quantify the value of prairie dog habitat are based upon the value of each burrow. First, costs associated with prairie dogs must be established. Take translocation fees as an example. Translocation fees are those costs to replace occupied habitat. Fees can vary from site to site, but the general range to translocate prairie dogs is anywhere between $50 to $200 per prairie dog. In some cases prairie dogs are much more costly to move and in others much less. In this case, let’s assume that on average it costs about $125 per prairie dog. Based upon the best available science, during birthing months, from April through the end of June, prairie dog populations can double in size counting juveniles. However, as the season progresses, this population can drop by half. These population trends offer local government some choices on addressing timing of development. If a developer wants prairie dogs removed or exterminated in the earlier part of the spring or summer when populations are higher, they will be charged more because obviously the burrow is worth more. If they wait until later in the season, they will be charged less. Next, is to determine, on average, the number of burrows utilized by prairie dogs. Using the Johnson, W.C., and S.K. Collinge, 2004 study, they sampled 36 colonies during the months of June-August in 2000, and 40 colonies during September - January in 2001, in Boulder, Colorado. They found on average 255 active* burrow entrances per hectare or 103 per acre, and the average number of prairie dogs was 68 per hectare or 28 prairie dogs per acre. This equates to about 4 active burrows per prairie dog. At $125 per translocation cost per prairie dog, this means that each active burrow is worth about $31 ($125/4). Or on average, 103 burrows x $31 = $3,193 per acre. *active burrow entrances are those with fresh scat and does not include all burrows As referred to earlier, if counts were done in early May to early June specifically, the populations may have almost doubled because of pups, this means the fee could be up to $6,400 per acre. The City may want to negotiate this fee. For example, if the developer is willing to pay for translocation costs to City open space, which is a benefit to the City because taxpayers to do not pay relocations costs, you may want to waive the fee but instead charge fees for use of the land, say $1000 per acre. If they want to donate to ferrets or birds of prey, which is a more humane death than aluminum phosphide, you may give them a credit for this, especially because this alternative is much more costly to the developer than aluminum phosphide. Other studies support these numbers and provide a solid foundation for this mitigation tool and support a mitigation fee based on burrows or habitat lost. Finally, a science team made up of non-governmental organizations, scientists and agencies have worked together to develop a Habitat Quantification Tool (Tool) that quantifies the value of black-tailed prairie dog habitat. This Tool will be used to create mitigation transactions similar to the Colorado Habitat Exchange, currently, the Tool is available to library/pdf/CCAs.pdf 8.6 Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 23 use on one off pilot transactions as prairie dog ecosystem conservation creditors have been identified to be purchased by prairie dog ecosystem debtors.105 Recommendation: x Engage private landowners and landowner actions as critical to prairie dog conservation, both from an environmental and financial standpoint. x Charge mitigation fees for loss of prairie dogs and for the use of city lands for prairie dog relocation x Realize that private landowners can mitigate costs to the city by re-augmenting previously plagued prairie dog colonies on municipal open space, reducing the cost to the city staff and taxpayers to retain “occupied acres.” x Understand that all landowners within counties contribute to “occupied acres” this includes city, state, federal and private landowners. x Require prairie dog ecosystem debtors to mitigate the ecosystem debits they create by contacting the Prairie Dog Coalition to be a part of a pilot mitigation transaction with the HQT Science Team. 10. Conclusion Finally, we would like to thank your staff and the City of Fort Collins for its desire to incorporate the best land use practices for your colonies. Overall we would like to see the following: 1. Decrease defensible space around prairie dog buffer zones and incorporate mid-height grasses as a buffer against the colonies. The City currently uses a 300’ cleared vegetative buffer; per Larimer County fire recommendations in the urban/wildland interface the maximum distance is 200 feet. 2. Adopt a mitigation system based on habitat and what it costs to replace occupied habitat; this should be applicable to private landowners and require or recommend participation in the conservation transactions for black-tailed prairie dogs as described in section 9, page 22. 3. Use FEMA maps to help create broad scale landscape planning for prairie dog metapopulations to protect dispersal corridors. 4. Remove the 50 acre minimum as a measure of prairie dog value; all occupied acres are important. 5. Update plans that incorporate statewide objectives. 6. Utilize habitat protection laws under 1034 and 1041 Powers. 7. Experiment with forb-based planting into active prairie dog colonies. 8. Reconsider “thinning” prairie dog populations and extermination as maintenance tools. Instead use habitat- based alternatives and non-lethal control strategies. 9. Add regulations about permitting for lethal control. According to the Pesticide Applicators Sunshine Act, alternatives should always be considered first before the use of pesticides. 10. Keep prairie dog conservation areas occupied by prairie dogs. 11. Remain flexible and open to new ideas and strategies. 105 Sterling-Krank, L. 2016. Personal Communication 8.6 Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 24 8.6 Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 1 Rebecca Everette From: Rebecca Everette Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 1:23 PM To: 'lori_nitzel@yahoo.com' Subject: FW: New Wildlife Management Comment Hello, WereceivedthecommentbelowontheWildlifeManagementGuidelinesandLandUseCodechangesrelatedtoprairie dogmanagement.Yourfeedbackisveryhelpfultothisprocess,soIappreciateyoutakingthetimetoshareyour thoughts.Iwantedtofollowupwithoneclarificationinresponsetothecommentsbelow.Currently,theLandUseCode requiresdeveloperstoremoveoreradicateprairiedogsfromadevelopmentsitepriortoanyconstructionactivity.The CitydoesnotpermitdeveloperstodigordisturbprairiedogcoloniesuntiltheCityhasreceivedconfirmationthatall prairiedogshavebeenremovedoreradicated. ThisrequirementcanbefoundinSection3.4.1(N)(6)oftheFortCollinsLandUseCode (https://www.municode.com/library/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use): “Prairie Dog Removal. Before the commencement of grading or other construction on the development site, any prairie dogs inhabiting portions of the site within the LOD shall be relocated or eradicated by the developer using city-approved methods as set forth in Chapter 4 of the City Code and, when applicable, using methods reviewed and approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.” ThechangestotheLandUseCodethatarecurrentlyproposedincluderequiringmitigation(compensation)fortheloss ofprairiedogsonadevelopmentsiteandlimitingthetypeoffumigantsthatareallowedtobeused.Additional informationcanbefoundhere:http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/wmgͲsummary.pdf. Thankyouagainforyourinput.Ifyouhaveanyadditionalquestionsorcomments,pleasedon’thesitatetocontactme byemailorphone. Sincerely, Rebecca Everette Senior Environmental Planner Planning Services | City of Fort Collins reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct Begin forwarded message: From: SurveyGizmo <notifications@surveygizmo.com> Date: July 25, 2016 at 2:30:20 PM MDT To: Zoe <zshark@fcgov.com> Subject: New Wildlife Management Comment PAGE 1 QUESTIONS: 8.6 Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 2 PAGE 2 QUESTIONS: 1. Please share your thoughts on the proposed Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines. I wholeheartedly support protecting prairie dogs in the city and requiring all developers to relocate prairie dogs. If relocation is not possible, humanely euthanizing colonies is the only acceptable way for developers to move forward with construction. At this point they are just digging right into colonies, which results in much suffering for these sentient beings. 2. Please share your thoughts on the proposed Land Use Code changes. See above. I will also note that I find the city's lack of prairie dog protections to be very much at odds with what I see throughout town - e.g., the museum encourages protection and prairie dogs are painted on city property. It's hypocritical. 3. Any other comments? 4. Are you a Larimer County resident? Yes 5. How did you hear about this project? City email newsletter 6. If you would like to stay involved as the Wildlife Management Guidelines and Land Use Code changes are developed, please share your email address. We will only contact you about this project. lori_nitzel@yahoo.com 8.6 Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Public Comment Received To-Date (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 1 Wildlife and Prairie Dog Management Public Engagement Results August 10, 2016 This document includes an overview of the Open House and Forum that was held July 28, responses to questions posed there, as well as a list of online comments received through August 10. More information is available at: • Wildlife Management Guidelines proposed updates: www.fcgov.com/naturalareas • Proposed Land Use Code updates: www.fcgov.com/planning Open House and Forum Purpose and Format The open house and forum’s goal was to get input on proposed updates to policies and share the City of Fort Collins’ philosophy for wildlife protection and management, with an emphasis on prairie dog management. Poster stations (pdf) provided an overview of proposed changes to both theNatural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines that impact public lands and the Land Use Code that regulates development on both public and private lands (Land Use Code posters pdf). A panel discussion provided information on prairie dog management (see below). The evening allowed time for participants to ask questions and share ideas with planners, as well as to provide feedback via comment forms. Participants were encouraged to submit additional comments at fcgov.com/naturalareas . While feedback is appreciated any time, comments received by August 10 are included here. Prairie Dog Forum The panelists included: • John Stokes, City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department • Rebecca Everette, City of Fort Collins Planning Services • Tina Jackson, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) • Lindsey Sterling Krank, Prairie Dog Coalition of the Humane Society of the U.S.(PDC) In their opening remarks, the panelists highlighted the following information: CPW: • Colorado is one of only 11 states with black-tailed prairie dogs. There is a significant range- wide effort to conserve them including CPW’s goal to conserve 255,000 acres within the state. The state’s plans are outlined in its 2003 Grassland Management Plan. The last survey that was done in 2006-2007 documented 814,000 acres of prairie dog colonies, which is well above the management plan goal. A new 2016 survey is underway. • Researchers at CPW are working to develop a sylvatic plague vaccine. • CPW is working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide land owner incentives as part of black-footed ferret conservation efforts. Prairie Dog Coalition: • The Prairie Dog Coalition’s mission is to help conserve prairie dogs as they have been in significant decline. The Coalition’s main goal is to focus on prairie dogs with the largest ATTACHMENT 7 8.7 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 2 conservation value such as larger, often rural, areas with contiguous colonies and associated species (Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is an example).They attempt to address potential conflicts with prairie dogs by developing non-lethal solutions such as working with adjacent land owners to prevent migration within buffers, redirecting prairie dogs, etc. The Prairie Dog Coalition has recently worked with the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department on a project to relocate prairie dogs from a private site in east Fort Collins to Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department: • The Natural Areas Department’s management approach includes conservation in the following contexts: A regional context at the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Meadow Springs Ranch (property managed jointly with the Fort Collins Utility Department). The intent at Soapstone Prairie is to have 3,000-4,000 acres of prairie dogs (currently approximately 1,600 acres). Prairie dog colonies are being treated for plague in collaboration with CPW. The department’s capacity to treat colonies for plague is about 3,000 acres a year. Urban natural area sites host about 400 acres occupied by prairie dogs. These areas are more constrained, posing significant management challenges. For a historical perspective, in the mid-2000’s drought caused a lot of problems when prairie dog grazing denuded the land creating areas prone to wind erosion and dust storms. • The Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines initially were adopted in 2007 and are now in the process of being updated. One significant change being proposed is that the city, under certain circumstances, could accept relocation of prairie dogs to Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Fort Collins Planning Services: • The City is proposing updated land use code requirements related to prairie dog management on properties coming through the development review process. Two potential changes are to 1) eliminate the requirement that a private property must have at least a 50 acres or larger colony for additional protections and mitigation and 2)further restrict lethal management methods for development sites to carbon monoxide only (considered the most humane method and consistent with Natural Areas Department practice). Forum questions and verbal responses From your perspective, what is the most significant challenge in Fort Collins related to prairie dog management? 1) loss of habitat, especially in constrained urban areas where there are high densities of prairie dogs, 2) plague, which is a significant range-wide issue and may not be as relevant in smaller urban areas, and 3) interface between land with prairie dog colonies and other property owners. How do you define suitable habitat? What are your goals for occupied acres? Suitable habitat is grassland that would have traditionally supported prairie dogs excluding upland sites with rare plants, shrublands, wetland areas and grassland restoration areas. City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department’s intent is a 10-20% occupation of suitable habitat in natural areas. Are the population numbers for all states set by USFWS a starting point? Is there any guarantee that these numbers will insure long term survival of species? Colorado Parks and Wildlife's goal is 255,000 acres of prairie dogs statewide. The 2006 statewide survey found 814,000 acres of occupied colonies. In the 2016 survey, CPW will implement updated 8.7 Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 3 survey methods that should yield a more accurate count. CPW is also working on a sylvatic plague vaccine for prairie dogs and offers land owner incentives to maintain prairie dog colonies. Describe the difference between CPW and the city’s jurisdiction. States have management authority of wildlife species except for species that migrate over state lines or are threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Prairie dogs are managed by the stateas a non- game, general species. Cities cannot be less restrictive, but can be more restrictive, than the state. Prairie dogs can be controlled on private lands by land owners. Those interested in relocation must go through a CPW permit process. What are the proposed changes to Fort Collins’ relocation policy? Could Soapstone Prairie be a relocation site? The Natural Areas Department got away from relocation in the 2000’s because conservation goals were being met without relocation, prairie dogs were causing damage in urban natural areas, and relocation is an expensive, complicated process that requires a lot of labor and expertise. The Natural Areas Department is now proposing to consider prairie dog relocation at Soapstone Prairie under specific conditions. The Department’s intent is to sustain 3,000 acres of active prairie dog colonies. Relocation of prairie dogs to Soapstone could occur if the population needed to be supplemented, and if required conditions were met including the presence of existing unoccupied burrows, and financing of all costs by private property owners or proponents. How do you determine if a site is good for relocation? If/how does relocation impact prairie dog social structures? If you give prairie dogs food, shelter and their family structure, they won’t leave an area. Replicating the layout of the colony is important to relocation success. Behavioral observations should be collected beforehand to understand family structures so that they can be recreated at the receiving site. Existing burrows are helpful on receiving relocation sites if used sooner rather than later because the tunnels can collapse with time. Existing burrows can make it more difficult to replicate the same burrow and family structure layout as the donating site. In order to prevent plague, it is often required that the take site and receiving site are both dusted with insecticide. What are typical success rates for relocation? There is a lot of debate about success rates. The Prairie Dog Coalition does not collect data to measure its success rates. How does a private property owner get started with relocation? The Natural Areas Department can provide advice on contractors that can relocate prairie dogs. The most significant challenge is finding a place to put them. Private property owners will have to get a permit from the state and follow the state protocols, which are listed on the CPW website. The Prairie Dog Coalition has a website with more information. How much does relocation cost? What is the cost to developers or other private property owners? The Prairie Dog Coalition shared that relocation costs vary and a rough estimate is $100/ prairie dog. City of Fort Collins estimates $150 to $400 per prairie dog. For development properties, other mitigations could include on-site mitigation or payment into a bank that funds off-site mitigation. Mitigation costs have not been determined. Fumigation is typically under $10/burrow. The Prairie Dog Coalition and CPW have been working on an incentive program involving a habitat quantification tool to assess conservation net gain so property owners can purchase conservation credits. How is the relocation of the Lemay Ave prairie dogs going? The Prairie Dog Coalition reports that all but one nest box is being used which is a good sign. The PDC doesn't track success rates. What is the future of prairie dogs at Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area? If the prairie dogs cross Taft Hill Rd, would you allow them to recolonize? 8.7 Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 4 Natural Areas is seeing good population and relocation success. Staff will continue to watch and monitor the colonies. There are areas east of Taft Hill Road that host rare plants, quality grasslands and ecological restoration sites where prairie dogs will not be allowed. At this time there is only a small amount of available habitat east of Taft Hill Road on Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area. Please provide more detail on the plague vaccine that is being developed.Could you describe the relationship between high density of prairie dogs and increase in plague cases? Plague is a disease transmitted by fleas onto prairie dogs and other species. Plague typically emerges in the summer. Flea density plays a role in the spread of plague; when there are higher numbers of fleas, plague tends to spread more rapidly. The more dense the burrows of the prairie dog colony are, the more rapid the spread of fleas carrying plague. Plague can kill an entire prairie dog colony. At the same time, plague may be present without effecting populations at all. CPW currently kills fleas by dusting colonies. It costs approximately $30/acre and lasts about 9 months. Research on a sylvatic plague vaccine is underway. The vaccine doesn’t kill the fleas; it protects (inoculates) the prairie dogs. It is being tested at Soapstone Prairie and there have been positive results. CPW is currently ramping up production of the vaccine bait, with a goal of being able to treat 10,000 acres per year. Focus areas will be black-footed ferret conservation sites and Gunnison prairie dog sites in southern and western Colorado. What is the prairie dog’s experience when fumigation is used? Carbon monoxide is considered the most humane fumigant and is recommended as the only allowable lethal control for development sites in the update to the Land Use Code. Carbon monoxide is the only lethal control method used by the Natural Areas Department. Other fumigants are allowed on private property not undergoing development review. What prairie dog education is currently available? The Prairie Dog Coalition has a goal of reaching 1,000 students per year using a wide range of strategies from puppet shows to presentations on college campuses. The Prairie Dog Relocation Group also is working on an educational video. CPW has an education section that does a lot to teach the public about grasslands, including a video. They’ve been doing a lot of education with private land owners related to black-footed ferret conservation and prairie dogs on their properties. The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department provided over 300 educational activities last year to 18,000 people, many of which focused on the shortgrass prairie ecosystem. Are there opportunities to include Watchable Wildlife Areas as an educational tool? Fort Collins’ City Council adopted a Nature in the City Strategic Plan which coordinates with multiple city departments. There are several natural areas around town that provide prairie dog viewing such as The Coterie Natural Area. Additional Forum Questions Due to time limitations, not all questions were addressed at the Forum. These additional questions were submitted on post-it notes. 8.7 Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 5 Question/ Comment Response Please explain how the current relocation project was approved? By one person, by a committee, by the City Council? Why was there not a vote by the citizens near this site offered? The relocation to Cathy Fromme Prairie Natural Area was approved by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department and Colorado Parks and Wildlife after a public engagement process that included mailings to neighbors and Home Owner Associations within 1/8 mile of the natural area, a trailhead flyer, social media posts, a press release, an article in Natural Areas Enewsletter, posts on the Natural Areas Department webpage, listing on electronic event calendars, emails to City Council, City leadership, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board, and requests for feedback were mailed to Larimer County Commissioners, Larimer County Health Department, and US Geological Survey. An open house was held on April 19 and attended by 70 people. Comments were accepted at the Open House and online; 165 comments were received; 29 concerned, 5 no objections and 131 in support. I recently read in the Coloradoan that policy toward the prairie dogs has changed from "management" (i.e. killing) to relocation. Please comment on the changes. In the update to the Guidelines that is being proposed, lethal control will still be used, especially in urban natural areas where prairie dogs are near exclusion zones that host rare flora or fauna, are near residential developments or are in active grassland restorations. The Natural Areas Department’s intent is to sustain approximately 10%- 20% occupation of suitable habitat. Please note that occupation is only partly influenced by the City, independent factors such as climate and disease play a major role. In certain locations, occupation may be below or above these percentages. Only carbon monoxide is used for lethal management as it is the most humane method. So, if Soapstone Prairie Natural Area has 3,000 or less occupied acres of prairie dogs, other prairie dogs could be augmented or relocated into SSN? In the update to the Guidelines that is being proposed, Soapstone Prairie Natural Area could be a relocation site under certain conditions. City of Ft Collins has an active prairie dog program, but does Larimer County? Is anyone here from County Government? No representatives from Larimer County were present to respond as the Forum was hosted by City of Fort Collins. Are the intentions of the City and Larimer County to grow the number of acres of prairie 6 Question/ Comment Response the prairie dog colonies? (Such as 2007 -2009 - has photos of Cathy Fromme) Will prairie dogs be added to the city's list of species of special concern? The list is yet to be determined, future public outreach will include the opportunity to provide input on the species of concern list. Mitigation for developers is set at $900/acre of disturbed prairie dogs. Will that cost stay the same? In one recent example, a value of $900/acre was required for mitigation of the loss of a prairie dog colony on a development site. However, mitigation requirements for various natural resources are determined on a case-by-case basis and depend on the value of the resource or habitat that is lost. The City of Fort Collins has not yet determined whether a set cost would be applied for the loss of prairie dog colonies, what the appropriate amount would be, and if other mitigation options may be allowable (e.g., relocation instead of eradication, on-site habitat enhancements for other species, etc.). The mitigation strategy will be finalized throughout this process, with ongoing opportunities for community input. Could developers be forgiven paying mitigation if they agree to relocate? The City is currently exploring this as a mitigation option for developers that could be used instead of other forms of mitigation (e.g., payment- in-lieu for habitat loss). Staff is supportive of this option as an alternative form of mitigation for the loss of prairie dog colonies assuming relocation sites can be found. What other incentives could you give developers to use non- lethal means of controlling prairie dogs? Options could include requiring contributions into a "bank" that funds prairie dog relocation or grassland restoration or allowing relocation in place of mitigation requirements. In some cases, prairie dogs may be able to persist on a portion of a development site that remains undeveloped, which may be encouraged by the City in some situations. In addition, the Prairie Dog Coalition is working on a habitat quantification tool to assess habitat value, if the tool were implemented in Fort Collins then conservation credits could be purchased, which could be another option for developers. How many acres of prairie dogs are living on private lands in the city? The Natural Areas Department has used aerial photography to determine that there are approximately 300 acres of prairie dogs on private lands within the City's Growth Management Area. 8.7 Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 7 Question/ Comment Response Is Fort Collins doing anything to limit how much development is happening in the city? In recent years, there has been significant population growth in communities all along the Front Range, including in Fort Collins - this is something that nearly every nearby community is dealing with. Growth and development in Fort Collins can be directly tied to the quality of jobs and quality of life within our community. The community's comprehensive plan, City Plan, provides guidance for how and where development should occur, and seeks to balance the values and priorities of our community with the private property rights of landowners. In addition, the City has established a fixed Growth Management Area to limit outward growth toward other communities. While the City cannot infringe upon the inherent rights of property owners to develop and increase the value of their properties, the City does have extensive regulations that restrict the type and character of the development that occurs. Community residents are strongly encouraged to participate at all stages of the development review process, as well as in long-range planning efforts, such as future updates to City Plan. Are prairie dog den holes dangerous to livestock? Is there any conclusive data? The Forum panel is not aware of resources to answer this question. The City of Ft Collins kills the prairie dogs on their land by the dam off of Frontage Road of I25 and 392. Why do they do that? This spot may be managed by North Poudre Irrigation Company (private land owner), or it may be Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area- we are not sure from the description. In the natural area, prairie dogs are lethally managed to maintain the current occupation rate and prevent erosion and overgrazing. Written Comment Forms A paper comment form was available at the Open House that asked: • Please share your thoughts on the proposed Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines • Please share your thoughts on the proposed Land Use Code changes • Any other comments? • Are you a Larimer County resident? (circle one) Yes No • How did you hear about this project? • If you would like to stay involved as the guidelines and code are developed, please share your email address. We will only contact you about this project. City of Fort Collins responses to the comments are below (comments are in bold, responses follow). If you continue to allow the killing, make it the last choice. Have people relocate first and have regulations in place for public notices to give opportunity for rescue. We vote every year to fund our public land and we should be able to fund land for the prairie dogs. This question applies to both operations by Natural Areas on public properties as well as development regulations applied to private lands: 8.7 Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8 Natural Areas is recommending relocation options as well as continued use of lethal control. Details regarding the proposed revisions to the Wildlife Management Guidelines are at fcgov.com/naturalareas. Planning Services is recommending a number of changes to the Land Use Code that would require additional consideration and mitigation for prairie dog colonies that are impacted by development projects. If approved, these requirements may make relocation more attractive for some property owners and developers. However, it is important to recognize that relocating prairie dogs is significantly more costly and time consuming than eradication for a property owner or developer. All proposed development projects, regardless of whether the contain prairie dog colonies, are required to post a notification sign on the property for the duration of the development review process. Additional information about these projects can be found at any time online at www.fcgov.com/developmentreview, or by contacting the Planning Services office directly. It might be advantageous to develop a program which allows people to volunteer doing hands on conservation work in order to accomplish more without significantly increasing costs. I understand that there is a colony in town being relocated by volunteers. More of this grassroots type of involvement in conservation could go a long way. Volunteers play an important role in wildlife relocations. Relocations also require the leadership of an experienced, professional wildlife management organization. A recommendation: Look into cooperative management plans with private landowners. By collaborating and working with private landowners we have more power to persuade non- lethal management. There are private landowners in Larimer County who have entered into agreements and incentive programs with federal agencies to conserve areas for the conservation of the black-footed ferret recovery. This typically involves protections of the ferret’s habitat including prairie dog towns. Biggest concern for developers is cost, so how will the city address this if non-lethal is more expensive compared to lethal control? One way to do this is for the city to offer some form of assistance. This has been done around the country, specifically with farmers and wildlife species. I cannot recall the name of the program, but I know it has had success as the farmer is essentially being rewarded for promoting healthy habitats and wildlife coexistence. As noted above, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) administers several federal programs that promote grassland-related conservation. The Natural Areas Department is not recommending that the City fund private conservation efforts for prairie dogs. Fumigation is cheaper which is what causes this huge controversy in control and management. It’s cheaper because application is quicker and more convenient than relocation costs. What if we raise the price of fumigation because not only is it painful for the animal, but potentially can be damaging to the environment (other wildlife could consume). This is a cost in itself although it’s not presented by money. Like I mentioned earlier, offering a reward system/credit system for beneficial and healthy practices for the environment. (Also toxins could persist in environment causing more, indirect damage, risks to humans as well.) The City of Fort Collins does not regulate cost of fumigants or cost of services in the private sector for lethal control. For two years now, the Natural Areas Department has used pressurized carbon 8.7 Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 9 monoxide gas that is the most humane and environmentally benign method for lethal management of prairie dogs. The City’s Planning Services staff is proposing that developers be required to use carbon monoxide treatment methods rather than other fumigants. Planning Services is also proposing increased requirements for protection and/or mitigation for the loss of prairie dog colonies, which may make relocation more attractive for some property owners and developers. Building a grasslands nature center and require schools to take a field trip there at certain age (kids are a great population to educate as they are excited and eager to learn – they are our future after all). The Natural Areas Department has conducted a variety of prairie dog and grassland conservation education and outreach for more than 20 years. In 2015, over 300 educational activities reached 18,000 people. The City cannot require local school districts to incorporate mandatory field trips/etc. Doing this could create revenue for grasslands management – with a focus on prairie dogs due to ecological importance. Education is huge; there are a lot of misunderstandings and confusion around the subject of prairie dogs. The Natural Areas Department is the largest environmental education provider in Larimer County with a team of three full-time employees, three seasonal employees, and 1,800 volunteers. In 2015, over 300 educational activities reached 18,000 people. It has been our policy since our program’s early days to provide free, high quality educational programming to local school districts and the community. Soapstone already has black-footed ferrets, which are one of the most endangered mammals in North America, so there is already so much investment in a species that is a prairie dog obligate carnivore. Considering a wide array of tactics to support the grassland ecosystem that is of such conservation value at SSN is necessary. Restoring grasslands is a great endeavor that Ft. Collins is undertaking, but guidelines to determine when a restored grassland can be habitat for native species, such as btpd should be established. It says that it is unknown when btpd will be ok on restored grasslands. What’s the point of doing habitat restoration if it is not to support CO native species? Grassland restorations are conducted within the urban core of Fort Collins, not Soapstone Prairie. Urban natural areas often have widespread non-native plants, developed borders, and other stressors that make maintaining native prairie challenging within the city. The City’s efforts to restore grasslands are making substantial progress: to date there are 1,700 acres of disturbed grasslands and former farmlands on their way to becoming native. These areas already support a myriad of native species, including declining bird species. Nevertheless, it will take time for these areas to mature to a point at which they are sufficiently stable to support heavy grazing by prairie dogs. At this time the City does not have specific criteria to determine when, or if, prairie dogs should be reintroduced to restored grasslands. Key decision factors include: presence/absence of other species of concern/interest; boundary conditions; climatic conditions; and, ecological objectives for all natural areas managed by the City. If there is an educational program for the public to teach them the importance and need of prairie dogs, what/where is it advertised? What about utilizing say Public Radio? For over 20 years the Natural Areas Department has provided educational material, field trips, and other efforts for both adults and children alike. Similarly, the Natural Areas Department has hosted professional field trips and workshops that focused on best practices in managing urban prairie dog towns. With limited budgets, public radio advertising/sponsorship is only used to promote large events 8.7 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 10 and special occasions. Very pleased that the City is opening up space to receive prairie dog relocations and changing LUC in consideration of prairie dogs. Would like to see more done to encourage and incentivize developers to relocate other than exterminate. The City could encourage developers to relocate prairie dogs through regulatory incentives. For example, reducing or eliminating requirements for mitigation of the loss of a prairie dog colony in exchange for relocating the colony instead. The City can also provide information about relocation opportunities to developers who are interested in that approach. However, it is important to recognize that relocating prairie dogs is significantly more costly and time consuming than eradication for a property owner or developer. Thank you for the dialogue and considering these wonderful creatures. Thank you for your comment. What can City do to persuade developers to relocate rather than exterminate prairie dogs? The City could encourage developers to relocate prairie dogs through regulatory incentives. For example, reducing or eliminating requirements for mitigation of the loss of a prairie dog colony in exchange for relocating the colony instead. The City can also provide information about relocation opportunities to developers who are interested in that approach. However, it is important to recognize that relocating prairie dogs is significantly more costly and time consuming than eradication for a property owner or developer. Is it possible to create an animal/wildlife sanctuary on private property? How large would the area need to be? Yes, it is possible for the private sector to establish sanctuaries on private properties within the considerations of the City’s Land Use Code. Financial resources and long-term stewardship would be required to ensure the health and sustainability of the land and wildlife. As a Wildlife Biologist who understands the importance prairie dogs play in healthy ecosystems they should be equally valued by the city. The City agrees that prairie dogs are an important component of urban and regional natural areas. Ft. Collins should celebrate its keystone species such as prairie dogs – I find them endearing and the colonies are the main reason I bring my family members to visit Ft Collins!! Great! Fort Collins’ Natural Areas Program serves as both a respected example to other cities looking to conserve local and regional natural areas as well as being a key factor in what makes Fort Collins such a special place to live. One of the most prominent assets of Fort Collins’ natural areas is wildlife, which is an important part of Fort Collins’ natural and cultural heritage. It is imperative that native wildlife be protected from exotic threats. Feral cats pose such a threat, and need to be kept from natural areas. Scientific studies show that, nationally, feral cats kill billions of native birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians annually. Natural Areas agrees. Scientific studies document the devastating impact of feral cats on native bird populations. 8.7 Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 11 (1). These numbers far exceed the take of native predators and are a significant factor in the decline and extinction of many native wildlife species. Even though many feral-cat supporting organizations desire feral cats to be considered protected wildlife, they are an exotic species (2) and a major problem for wildlife management (3). Trap, Neuter and Release (TNR) programs, sponsored by some organizations, appropriately provide neutering, which helps prevent unwanted reproduction. Unfortunately, many feral cats are then returned to a harsh and cruel life in the wild, where they continue to kill native wildlife. Additionally, numerous scientific studies have shown that Trap, Neuter and Release fails to reduce population numbers (4). Feral and free-roaming cats contract diseases beyond those they have been inoculated against and are subjected to traffic and other accidents, harsh weather, attacks by wild animals and dogs, and human mistreatment. Thank you for your comment. We propose feral cats be trapped, neutered and adopted whenever possible, or if not adoptable, kept in an enclosed area where they can be provided food and water, shelter, veterinary care, regular waste removal, and safety (for both the cats and wildlife). Many animal and wildlife organizations oppose abandoning or returning cats to the wild, including The Wildlife Society, American Bird Conservancy, National Association of Public Health Veterinarians, National Audubon Society, and Fort Collins Audubon Society. Consistent with the City’s current regulations protecting wildlife and against the release of cats into the wild, cats should be kept out of the City’s natural areas. (1)The Impact of Free-ranging Domestic Cats on Wildlife in the U.S. Nature Communications 4, article #1396 (2) The Wildlife Society, Feral Cats: Impacts of an Invasive Species (3) Why American Songbirds Are Vanishing. Scientific American, 226:98-104 (4) Trap-Neuter-Release programs: the reality and the impacts. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 225:1369-1376. Submitted: Bill Miller, Ron Harden – Fort Collins Audubon Society Board Members Current City Municipal code prohibits animals at large (see below). Sec. 4-93. Animals at large prohibited. (a) All pet animals, except birds, shall be kept under restraint. It shall be unlawful for the owner or keeper of any pet animal, except birds, to permit such animal to be at large in the City, with or without the owner or keeper's knowledge. It’s refreshing to see the City working with local and regional groups to find humane ways of dealing with prairie dogs. I was part of a group that tried very hard, 10 – 15 years ago and was rejected, lied to and deceived by City officials. Thank you for your comment. Prairie dogs are a natural part of the world – remove them and a whole ecosystem collapses. They can and always have co-existed with bison and other prairie animals. Thank you for your comment. Prairie dog colonies are much prettier than that horrid development. Thank you for your comment. 8.7 Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 12 Online Comment Form A comment form was available at fcgov.com/naturalareas. The questions were: • Please share your thoughts on the proposed Natural Areas Wildlife Management Guidelines • Please share your thoughts on the proposed Land Use Code changes • Any other comments? • Are you a Larimer County resident? (circle one) Yes No • How did you hear about this project? • If you would like to stay involved as the guidelines and code are developed, please share your email address. We will only contact you about this project. Comments received as of August 10 include: I wholeheartedly support protecting prairie dogs in the city and requiring all developers to relocate prairie dogs. If relocation is not possible, humanely euthanizing colonies is the only acceptable way for developers to move forward with construction. At this point they are just digging right into colonies, which results in much suffering for these sentient beings. See above. I will also note that I find the city's lack of prairie dog protections to be very much at odds with what I see throughout town - e.g., the museum encourages protection and prairie dogs are painted on city property. It's hypocritical. The requirement for a colony to be 50 acres or greater is just silly. The city should take every opportunity to promote and further conservation such as through relocation or fees for mitigation when habitat or colonies are destroyed for development. I agree with the proposed change of removing the 50 requirement. I also think that the 10-20% prairie dog occupation goal has its ups and downs. On one hand it provides a minimum goal to work toward but on the other hand, once that goal is met, it can be used as an excuse to do nothing when something should be done especially with black-footed ferrets in Soapstone. It might be advantageous to develop a program which allows people to volunteer doing hands on conservation work in order to accomplish more without significantly increasing costs. I understand that there is a colony in town being relocated by volunteers. More of this grassroots type of involvement in conservation could go a long way. I think we need more land set aside for prairie dog relocation. I do not agree with lethal control and think we should show / teach compassion. I like the idea of a Prairie Dog Park I like many of the proposed changes as it moves us to consider more details, I do not agree that lethal control is the best way. I think we can come up with some great solutions without killing. If you continue to allow the killing, make it the last choice. have people relocate first and have regulations in place for public notices to give opportunity for rescue. We vote every year to fund our public land and we should be able to fund land for the prairie dogs. A. Moving prairie dogs from private to public lands needs to be an option. If you don't allow this movement it will be too difficult for private landowners to find suitable properties. They'll choose the extermination option. Basically, we're signing prairie dog death warrants. B. The City's proposal to increase the current 1500 acres allotted to prairie dogs in Soapstone and Meadow Springs Ranch to 3000 acres is great. I'd like to see this increased even more in the future. A. The proposal to remove the current rule that lacks any protection or mitigation of impacts to prairie dog colonies less than 50 acres in size is much needed. These smaller colonies are viable, and the proposal that recognizes this is a good one. B. Extermination options need to be removed completely. Regardless of how "humane" we try to frame it, the fact is it is still extermination and it's a lazy and cruel way to deal with matters. 8.7 Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 13 Fort Collins is on the brink of destroying many of our best assets through over development. We have to protect what makes our City special. We're already overloading our roads and green spaces with housing, traffic and overcrowding. We now have to search to find a small place where we can view our foothills, due to parking garages, stadiums and residential development. We'll never get that back. Preserving our wildlife, and the open spaces and land they need to survive, is more important than ever. If we don't, we're just another congested city that went for money over quality of life, with nothing unique or special about it. I appreciate the systems-based approach that the City is taking in addressing not just prairie dogs, but also ferrets, bison, etc. as our Natural Areas, in order to be successful, will need to conserve entire systems -- not just a few animal species. A diverse mix of native plants and animals are an important part of any successful approach. I enthusiastically support the City's proposal to eliminate the 50-acre minimum acreage for prairie dog colonies, understanding that smaller colonies are viable and serve an important role in preserving biodiversity. Prairie dogs are a keystone species and make possible the existence of many other species. Thank you for taking such an enlightened approach to this issue. I think it's important, as we think about managing prairie dogs in Colorado, to keep in mind just how diminished prairie dogs' populations are from what they were naturally, and to also keep in mind that we're one of just a few states that still have prairie dogs in our midst. Because they're commonly seen locally, we can sometimes fall into a mindset of thinking of them as if they're a plentiful species, when in fact there are far fewer of them than might be ideal in a prairie ecosystem. The guidelines that are proposed do seem to acknowledge this, but as we make decisions going forward, it would be helpful to keep prairie dogs' small populations in mind when (as an example) we're faced with the choice between killing them (the quick, cheap choice) and relocating them (the more time consuming, more expensive choice.) Preserving this species, including adequate population numbers to keep its genetic diversity healthy, is important and we should think long and hard before killing any of them. 8.7 Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) ATTACHMENT 8 8.8 Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 8.8 Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Memo to City Council, September 14, 2016 (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 021, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING LAND USE CODE SECTION 3.4.1, NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 1.2.2, Purpose, states that the purpose of the Land Use Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by, among other means, minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development and ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features; and WHEREAS, Land Use Code Section 3.4.1(B), Natural Habitats and Features, further states the purpose of ensuring that when property is developed, the proposed physical elements of the development plan are designed and arranged on the site to protect the natural habitats and features on both the site and in the vicinity of the site; and WHEREAS, changes in prairie dog colony size and characteristics, best practices, and development patterns within the City have necessitated changes to the existing regulations protecting prairie dogs to continue to fulfill the purposes of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, concurrent with the changes to update the prairie dog regulations, changes to Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 to update general provisions for the protection of natural habitats and features are also necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has considered these text amendments to the Land Use Code and made recommendations to the Council; and WHEREAS, the changes to Land Use Code Section 3.4.1 set forth by this Ordinance are in the best interests of the citizens of the City and advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4.1 - Natural Habitats and Features (A) Applicability. This Section applies if any portion of the development site is within five hundred (500) feet of an area or feature identified as a natural habitat or feature on the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, or if any portion of the development site possesses characteristics contains resourcesnatural habitats or features (including, without limitation, wetlands, riparian areas or foothills forest) which that Packet Pg. 230 -2- would have supported their inclusion on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Maphave significant ecological value, and such areas natural habitats or features are discovered during site evaluation and/or reconnaissance associated with the development review process. Resources Natural habitats and features included on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, as described in detail in Technical Memorandum 2, "Identification of Natural Areas," of the Natural Areas Policy Planconsidered to have significant ecological value, are as follows: (1) Natural Communities or Habitats: (a) Aquatic (e.g., rivers, streams, lakes, ponds); (b) Wetland and wet meadow; (c) Native grassland; (d) Riparian forest; (e) Urban plains forest; (f) Riparian shrubland; and (g) Foothills shrubland; and (hg) Foothills forest. (2) Special Features: (a) Significant remnants of native plant communities; (b) Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened or endangered species of plants; (c) Potential habitats and known locations of rare, threatened or endangered species of animalswildlife; . . . (j) Prairie dog colonies one acre or greater over fifty (50) acres in size; . . . (E) Establishment of Buffer Zones. Buffer zones surrounding natural habitats and features shall be shown on the project development plan for any development that is Packet Pg. 231 -3- subject to this Division. The purpose of the buffer zones is to protect the ecological character of the natural habitats or naturaland features from the impacts of the ongoing activity associated with the development. (1) Buffer Zone Performance Standards. The decision maker shall determine the buffer zones for each natural habitat or feature contained in the project site. The buffer zones may be multiple and noncontiguous. The general buffer zone distance is established according to the buffer zone table below, but the decision maker shall reduce or enlarge any portion of the general buffer zone distance, if necessary in order to ensure that the performance standards set forth below are achieved. The buffer zone performance standards are as follows: (a) The project shall be designed to preserve or enhance the ecological character or function and wildlife use of the natural habitat or feature and to minimize or adequately mitigate the foreseeable impacts of development. (b) The project, including, by way of example and not by way of limitation, its fencing, pedestrian/bicycle paths and roadways, shall be designed to preserve or enhance the existence of wildlife movement corridors between natural habitats and features, both within and adjacent to the site. (c) The project shall be designed to preserve significant existing trees and other significant existing vegetation on the site. (d) The project shall be designed to protect from adverse impact species utilizing special habitat features such as key raptor habitat features, including nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado Parks andDivision of Wildlife Division (“CPW”) or in the Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy PlanDepartment (NAPP“NAD”); key production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; heron rookeries; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds; key use areas for migrant songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife or NAPPCPW or NAD; prairie dog colonies one acre or greaterover fifty (50) acres in size as included on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map ; key areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified in the NAPPby the NAD; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified in the NAPPby the NAD; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothill ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and any wetlands greater than one-quarter (¼) acre inof any size. Packet Pg. 232 -4- . . . BUFFER ZONE TABLE FOR FORT COLLINS NATURAL HABITATS AND FEATURES 1, 2 Natural Habitat or Feature Buffer Zone Standard 3 . . . Special Habitat Features/Resources of Special Concern . . . . . . Prairie Dog Colonies site analysis . . . (F) Protection of Wildlife Habitat and Ecological Character. (1) Sensitive or Specially ValuedRare, Threatened or Endangered Species. If the ecological characterization report required pursuant to subsection (D)(1) above shows the existence in sucha natural habitat or feature of a rare, threatened or endangered species of plant or wildlife, species identified by the City as a Sensitive or Specially Valued Species, or by state or federal agencies as "threatened," "endangered," "species of concern," or "sensitive natural community," then the development plan shall include provisions to ensure that any habitat contained in any such natural habitat or feature or in the adjacent buffer zone which is of importance to the use or survival of any such species shall not be disturbed or diminished and, to the maximum extent feasible, such habitat shall be enhanced. (NOTE: Some studies, e.g., rare plant surveys, are time-limited and can only be performed during certain seasons.) Projects that impact habitat areas used by Sensitive or Specially Valued Species shall be subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review. (2) Sensitive or Specially Valued Species. If the ecological characterization report required pursuant to subsection (D)(1) above shows the existence in a natural habitat or feature of a plant or wildlife species identified by the City as a sensitive or specially valued species, excluding threatened or endangered species, then the development plan shall include provisions to protect, enhance, or mitigate impacts to any such natural habitat or feature or in the adjacent buffer zone which is of importance to the use or survival of any such species to the extent reasonably feasible. (32) Connections. If the development site contains existing natural habitats or features that connect to other off-site natural habitats or features, to the maximum Packet Pg. 233 -5- extent feasible the development plan shall preserve such natural connections. If natural habitats or features lie adjacent to (meaning in the region immediately round about) the development site, but such natural habitats or features are not presently connected across the development site, then the development plan shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, provide such connection. Such connections shall be designed and constructed to allow for the continuance of existing wildlife movement between natural habitats or features and to enhance the opportunity for the establishment of new connections between areas for the movement of wildlife. (43) Wildlife Conflicts. If wildlife that may create conflicts for the future occupants of the development (including, but not limited to, prairie dogs, beaver, deer and rattlesnakes) are known to exist in areas adjacent to or on the development site, then the development plan must, to the extent reasonably feasible, include provisions such as barriers, protection mechanisms for landscaping and other site features to minimize conflicts that might otherwise exist between such wildlife and the developed portion of the site. . . . (N) Standards for Protection During Construction. For every development subject to this Division, the applicant shall propose, and the Director shall establish, measures to be implemented during the actual construction phase of the project to ensure protection of natural habitats and features and their associated buffer zones, as follows. . . . (6) Prairie Dog Removal. Before the commencement of grading or other construction on the development site, any prairie dogs inhabiting portions of the site within the LOD shall be relocated or eradicated by the developer. using city-approved methods as set forth in Chapter 4 of the City Code and, when applicable, Prairie dog relocation shall be accomplished using methods reviewed and approved by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife Division. Following relocation or eradication activities, a report shall be provided to the City that documents when prairie dog removal occurred, the method(s) that were used to remove prairie dogs, measures taken to ensure that prairie dogs will not re- inhabit the site, and confirmation that no threatened or endangered species were harmed by removal activities. . . . Section 3. That the definition of “Natural area” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Packet Pg. 234 -6- Natural area shall mean all areas shown as "natural areas" on the City's Parks and Natural Areas Map or the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Any land that qualifies as a "wetland" pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act shall also be deemed a natural area, in addition to the areas designated as wetlands on the City's Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map. Any land area that possesses such characteristics as would have supported its inclusion on the Natural Habitats and Features Inventory Map, or contains natural habitats or features which have significant ecological value listed in subparagraph 3.4.1(A), if such area is discovered during site evaluation and/or reconnaissance associated with the development review process, shall also be deemed a natural area as provided in subparagraph 3.4.1(C)(1)(a). Section 4. That the definition of “Natural area buffer” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Natural area buffer zone shall mean any area described and established pursuant to subsection 3.4.1(CE). Section 5. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new definition “Rare, threatened or endangered species” which reads in its entirety as follows: Rare, threatened or endangered species shall mean those species of wildlife and plants listed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as rare, threatened or endangered. Section 6. That the definition of “Sensitive or Specially Valued Species” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sensitive or sSpecially vValued sSpecies shall mean species included on the City of Fort Collins Species of Interest List, as developed and updated by the Natural Areas Department.the following species: Federally Threatened and Endangered Species; State of Colorado Threatened and Endangered Species; State of Colorado Species of Concern as identified in the document, Colorado's Natural Heritage: Rare and Imperiled Animals, Plants and Natural Communities, April 1996, Volume 2, No. 1, Animals and Plants of Special Concern and/or any other species identified as in need of protection in the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan. Section 7. That the definition of “Special habitat features” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Special habitat features shall mean specially valued and sensitive habitat features including key raptor habitat features, includingsuch as nest sites, night roosts and key feeding areas as identified by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division of Wildlife (“CPW”) or in the Fort Collins Natural Areas DepartmentPolicy Plan (“NAD”PP); key production areas, wintering areas and migratory feeding areas for waterfowl; key use areas for wading birds and shorebirds; heron rookeries; key use areas for migrant Packet Pg. 235 -7- songbirds; key nesting areas for grassland birds; fox and coyote dens; mule deer winter concentration areas as identified by the CPWColorado Division of Wildlife or NADPP; prairie dog colonies one acre or greaterover fifty (50) acres in size as included on the Natural Areas Inventory Map; key areas for rare, migrant or resident butterflies as identified inby the NADPP; areas of high terrestrial or aquatic insect diversity as identified inby the NADPP; remnant native prairie habitat; mixed foothill shrubland; foothills ponderosa pine forest; plains cottonwood riparian woodlands; and any wetlands greater than one-fourth (¼) acre in of any size. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on this 21st day of February, A.D. 2016. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 236 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Adam Jokerst, Water Resources Engineer Carol Webb, Water Resources/Treatmnt Opns Mgr SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2017, Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Lease Agreement with the Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches for Recreational Use of Halligan Reservoir and Certain Surrounding Lands. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is the authorization of a lease agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches (the Association) for recreational use of Halligan Reservoir and certain real property adjacent to Halligan Reservoir owned by the City (Halligan Property). The Association has leased the recreational rights to the Halligan Property for fishing, boating, and similar activities since 1988. Historically, the North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) leased the recreational rights for Halligan Reservoir to the Association. Because the City now owns the Halligan Property, it has the right to lease recreational use of it. The Lease Agreement would maintain historic leasing practices and will benefit the City in various ways, such as gaining certain rights to access to the Reservoir using the Association’s Meadow Creek Road, assisting in the monitoring and maintenance of the Halligan Property, facilitating the ongoing federal permitting process for the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, and generating a revenue stream. The Lease Agreement provides for three ten-year terms, but allows for early termination by the City, if the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir receives authorization or if the City decides to no longer pursue the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Fort Collins owns the Halligan Property, which is various lands under and around Halligan Reservoir, as shown on Attachment 1. Historically, recreational rights for the Halligan Property were leased by NPIC (the City’s predecessor-in-interest) to the Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches, a Colorado nonprofit corporation. In 1993 the City purchased an option to buy the Halligan Property from NPIC, which the City executed in 2004. The option agreement preserved a prior 1988 lease agreement between NPIC and the Association. The 1988 lease has since expired. In June 2016 the City issued the Association a one year, non- exclusive revocable permit for recreational use of the Halligan Property. However, the Association desires a lease arrangement providing exclusive rights and a longer term than the revocable permit. As noted below, the City will also benefit from a longer-term arrangement, as set forth in the Lease Agreement. The Association is composed of approximately 35 members owning property around Halligan Reservoir. The Association is focused on land conservation and habitat enhancement, and established some of the first conservation-focused land covenants in the state. The Association has historically been a good neighbor and steward of the Halligan Property, both before and after the City acquired ownership. 9 Packet Pg. 237 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2 Fort Collins is engaged in the National Environmental Policy Act process to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to enlarge Halligan Reservoir. A permit decision from the Corps on the Halligan Water Supply Project (Halligan Project) is presently scheduled for 2019. As explained below, the Lease Agreement will facilitate the ongoing federal permitting process. The subject Lease Agreement provides the Association exclusive recreational rights to the Halligan Property for fishing, boating, and similar activities. The Lease Agreement contemplates an initial ten-year term and provides the option to renew the lease for two additional ten-year terms, for a total term of up to 30 years. An ordinance is consequently required to approve the Lease Agreement. However, the Lease Agreement contains two early termination options that likely limit its length. Specifically, the Lease Agreement will be terminated if either of the following events occurs: 1. The Corps issues a permit for the Halligan Project and the City commences construction; or 2. The City withdraws from the Halligan Project and re-conveys the Halligan Reservoir property to NPIC pursuant to terms of the 1993 purchase option agreement with NPIC. Staff believes the Lease Agreement is in the best interests of the City and will benefit the citizens of the City for the following reasons:  Through the Lease Agreement the Association has provided to the City the right to use the Association’s Meadow Creek Road and to cross Association property to access Halligan Reservoir. Currently, the only means to launch a boat onto the reservoir is by crossing Association property. The City desires to periodically use Meadow Creek Road to launch boats into Halligan Reservoir for maintenance and monitoring activities. Access rights to the Association’s Meadow Creek Road greatly facilitates the ongoing federal permitting process, and is a key term for the City in the Lease Agreement.  The Lease Agreement continues the Association’s stewardship of the Halligan Property. The Association maintains an aggressive invasive weed control program, hires a resident caretaker, and closely regulates recreational activities on the Halligan Property.  Fort Collins presently does not control or use any water stored in Halligan Reservoir. As such, the Lease Agreement will not impair the viability or operation of the water utility system.  The Lease Agreement will generate a revenue stream of $10,000 per year for the first ten years. From a comparison of lease agreements for similar reservoir properties in Larimer County, staff believes the Lease Agreement’s rental rate is equal to or greater than the fair market value of the Halligan Property. Rental rates for subsequent lease periods will be revised by the consumer price index. The Association desires to prohibit access to the Halligan Reservoir by all persons other than Association members. Exclusive use of the Halligan Property (subject to the City’s rights reserved in the Lease Agreement) is a key term for the Association. Presently Halligan Reservoir is not managed for public recreation. The only public access to potions of the reservoir is across State lands managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), formerly known as the Division of Wildlife. This public property provides limited access via hiking or seasonal 4x4 roads to the very upstream portion of Halligan Reservoir near the mouth of the North Fork of the Poudre River (Attachment 1). A small amount of fishing and boating occurs on the upstream portions of Halligan Reservoir, and is generally limited to periods when the reservoir is at or near full capacity. Also, a small number of more elite kayakers float the North Fork of the Poudre River into these upper portions of Halligan Reservoir. The Association has historically patrolled the Halligan Property border with the CPW land, and has asked non-members crossing this border to vacate the Halligan Property. The Lease Agreement permits the Association to prohibit public access to the Halligan Property only to the extent allowable by law. Following issuance of the permit decision and the termination of the Lease Agreement, City Council could decide to change the leasing arrangement at Halligan Reservoir, including making the City’s lands accessible to the public. The release of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Halligan Project, currently scheduled for late 2017, will provide an opportunity for public comment. Future conditions could also be imposed by various agencies and entities involved in the Halligan Project’s permitting process that would require allowing public access to the reservoir. For example, CPW could seek to require the City to allow public access to Halligan Reservoir through that agency’s Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Planning Process. CPW 9 Packet Pg. 238 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 3 currently manages land abutting Halligan Reservoir that could provide public access. As another example, Larimer County will have an opportunity to seek to impose recreational conditions through its County 1041 permitting process. As part of a now expired 1987 agreement with the City, the Association had agreed to provide land and access rights to the City for the Halligan Project in exchange for perpetual recreational use of the Halligan Property. The Association recently requested a renewed perpetual recreation lease agreement for the Halligan Property. However, staff does not recommend entering into a perpetual agreement given the uncertainties described above. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The Lease Agreement will generate $10,000 per year for the first ten years, subject to early termination. Annual rental rates for subsequent lease periods will be revised by the consumer price index. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its January 19, 2017 meeting, the Water Board unanimously adopted the following resolution: The Water Board recommends City Council’s adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement that is substantially similar to the attached Lease Agreement with the Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches for recreational use of Halligan Reservoir and certain surrounding lands. PUBLIC OUTREACH None. However, the release of the draft EIS for the Halligan Project, currently scheduled for late-2017, will provide an opportunity for public comment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Halligan Landownership Map (PDF) 2. Water Board Minutes Excerpt, January 19, 2017 (draft) (PDF) 9 Packet Pg. 239 HALLIGAN RESERVOIR NW j 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Miles HALLIGAN RESERVOIR- ADDITIONAL INUNDATION AREA AND LAND OWNERSHIP ENLARGED RESERVOIR TOTAL STORAGE- 14,525 ac-ft Legend Contour Elevation- 6,398 ft* Section Quarter Section Existing Halligan Surface Area @ 6,357.6 ft Enlarged Halligan Surface Area @ 6,383.0 ft Land Ownership Bureau of Land Management City of Fort Collins Division of Wildlife Free Enterprises Inc. Landowners Association MAC T J LTD. &XUUHQWVSLOOZD\HOHYDWLRQIHHW Halligan Reservoir UtahColorado Kansas Nebraska New Mexico Wyoming Arizona Texas Oklahoma ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg Excerpt from Unapproved Draft Water Board Minutes, January 19, 2017 Lease Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and The Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches for Halligan Reservoir and Adjacent Property (Attachments available upon request) Water Resources Engineer Adam Jokerst, who is project manager for Halligan Reservoir, summarized the issue and showed maps of the property. The City owns the Halligan Property, which is various lands under and around Halligan Reservoir. Historically, recreational rights for the Halligan Property were leased by North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC)(the City’s predecessor-in-interest) to the Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches, a Colorado nonprofit corporation. In 1993 the City purchased an option to buy the Halligan Property from NPIC, which the City executed in 2004. The option agreement preserved a prior 1988 lease agreement between NPIC and the association. The 1988 lease has since expired. In June 2016 the City issued the association a one year, non-exclusive revocable permit for recreational use of the Halligan Property; the lease contains three 10-year periods with two termination clauses. However, the association desires a lease arrangement providing exclusive rights and a longer term than the revocable permit. The lease agreement would maintain historic leasing practices and will benefit the City in various ways, such as gaining certain rights to access to the reservoir using the association’s Meadow Creek Road for certain purposes, assisting in the monitoring and maintenance of the Halligan Property, facilitating the ongoing federal permitting process for the enlargement of Halligan Reservoir, and generating a revenue stream of $10,000 per year (with future adjustments for inflation). Discussion Highlights Board members commented and inquired about various related topics, such as access rights, other options, other possible lessees, details in the agreement regarding grazing, the lease rate, the lease duration, landowners’ opinions of the Halligan expansion, terms of the agreement with NPIC, citizens’ requests for recreation access, and other reservoirs the City leases. Ms. Webb asked Mr. Jokerst to expand on the relationship between the landowners and the City. Mr. Jokerst stated the City sees the landowners as good stewards of the land, and that the relationship is symbiotic. During dam construction, the reservoir will be drawn down, which will affect the landowners’ recreation; they have agreed to this. Ms. Webb stated all the issues board members have mentioned were considered and discussed among staff. Board Member Michael Brown moved that Water Board recommends City Council’s adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement that is substantially similar to the attached Lease Agreement with the Landowners Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches for recreational use of Halligan Reservoir and certain surrounding lands. Vice Chairperson Brett Bovee seconded the motion Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously 8-0. ATTACHMENT 2 9.2 Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Water Board Minutes Excerpt, January 19, 2017 (draft) (5202 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 022, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR PHANTOM CANYON RANCHES FOR RECREATIONAL USE OF HALLIGAN RESERVOIR AND CERTAIN SURROUNDING LANDS WHEREAS, Halligan Reservoir, also known as North Poudre Reservoir No. 16 (“Reservoir”) is an on-channel reservoir located on the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River, in portions of Section 29, 32, 33, and 34, Township 11 North, Range 71 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the City acquired various rights to the Reservoir and certain surrounding lands (“Property”) pursuant to: the Warranty Deed, dated January 22, 2004, recorded with the Larimer County Clerk on January 26, 2004 at Reception No. 2004-0007821; and the Bargain and Sale Deed, dated January 22, 2004, recorded with the Larimer County Clerk on January 26, 2004 at Reception No. 2004-0007822; and WHEREAS, The Landowners’ Association for Phantom Canyon Ranches (“Association”), is an organization, the members of which own an interest in one or more of the parcels of the Phantom Canyon Ranches in the vicinity of the Reservoir; and WHEREAS, the City’s predecessor-in-interest to the Reservoir and Property historically leased certain recreational rights to the Reservoir and the Property to the Association and its predecessor, and the Association desires to continue to have access to the Reservoir and Property for recreational purposes; and WHEREAS, the City desires access to the Reservoir using the Association’s Meadow Creek Road for certain purposes, such as: conducting studies required for the permitting process by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other federal, state, or local agencies associated with the City’s proposed enlargement of the Reservoir; for maintenance and safety inspections of the Halligan Dam; for regulatory compliance, and for water quality studies; and WHEREAS, the City and the Association has negotiated the proposed Lease Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, pursuant to which the City would lease to the Association certain recreational rights to the Reservoir and the Property, and the City would gain certain rights to access to the Reservoir using the Association’s Meadow Creek Road for certain purposes; and WHEREAS, said Lease Agreement will benefit the City by, among other things, gaining certain rights to access to the Reservoir using the Association’s Meadow Creek Road for certain purposes; assisting in the maintenance of the Reservoir and Property, facilitating certain aspects of the federal permitting process for the City’s Halligan Water Supply Project, and generating a revenue stream from the Reservoir and Property; and Packet Pg. 242 -2- WHEREAS, the City Manager and City staff have recommended to the City Council that it approve the Agreement as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council finds, pursuant to Sections 23-111(a), 23-113(a), and 23-113(b) of the City Code, that the lease of the Reservoir and Property pursuant to an agreement that is substantially similar to the attached Lease Agreement is in the best interests of the City. Section 3. That the City Council finds, pursuant to Sections 23-111(b) and 23-113(a) of the City Code, that the lease of the Reservoir and Property pursuant to an agreement that is substantially similar to the attached Lease Agreement will not materially impair the viability of the water utility system as a whole and that it will be for the benefit of the citizens of the City. Section 4. That the City Council finds, pursuant to Section 23-114 of the City Code, that the lease of the Reservoir and Property pursuant to an agreement that is substantially similar to the attached Lease Agreement will result in the City receiving a value in an amount equal to or greater than the fair market value of the Property. Section 5. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Association that is substantially similar to the attached Lease Agreement, with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, may determine to be necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 243 -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 244 EXHIBIT A 1 Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) 1 Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) SÎ Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Kai Kleer, Planning Technician SUBJECT Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2017, Annexing Property Known as the Rennat Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to annex 57.83 acres located at 6015 South Timberline Road into the City of Fort Collins. The parcel became an enclave with the annexation of the Hansen Farm Annexation on February 15, 2013. As of February 15, 2016, the City was authorized to annex the enclave in accordance with State Statute 31-12-106. Staff is recommending placement into the Residential Neighborhood Sign district. The Rennat Annexation is situated between the Union Pacific Railroad/Southridge Golf Course to the west and South Timberline Road to the east. A related item to zone the proposed annexation presented as the next item on this Agenda. This annexation request is in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, and the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This is an involuntary enclave annexation for a property located within the Growth Management Area (GMA). According to policies and agreements contained in the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement, the City will agree to involuntary annex property in the GMA when the property becomes eligible pursuant to the Colorado Revised Statutes. The City of Fort Collins also has a long-standing history of annexing property within the GMA to ensure that property conforms to the vision, goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Rennat property is a single parcel annexation and was enclaved upon the annexation of the Hansen Farm Annexation on February 15, 2013. The parcel abuts the Union Pacific Railroad/Southridge Golf Course to the west and South Timberline Road to the east. The proposed resolution complies with State Statute 31-12-106 which states that municipalities may, by ordinance, involuntarily annex unincorporated areas that are contained entirely within the boundary of the municipality, if said area has been so surrounded for three years. As of February 15, 2016, the City of Fort Collins was authorized to annex the parcel located at 6015 South Timberline. Due to its location, staff recommends placement into the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. 10 Packet Pg. 257 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 2 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no direct financial impacts as a result of the proposed annexation. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its December 15, 2016, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. Further, the Board recommended that the parcel be placed into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone districts. This unanimous action was taken after the item was pulled for discussion. A community member pulled the item due to concerns with area congestion and traffic that is being caused by new development. However, the area resident left the meeting prior to being able to speak to the Board and the Board was made aware of the resident’s concerns through staff. The discussion pointed out that development was not occurring on the site and that the City initiated annexation and zoning of this property is a fulfillment of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. PUBLIC OUTREACH An outreach process is not required by the Colorado Revised Statues or the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. However, on November 15, 2016, City staff held a stakeholder meeting to answer questions and inform residents of any changes that may result from being annexed into the City. Representatives from the Planning and Light and Power departments were present to explain any potential difference in electrical rates, services, zoning and various issues related to future public improvements associated with land development. Attachment 4 is a summary of the questions and answers provided to residents who attended the meeting. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Structure Plan Map (PDF) 3. Zoning Map (PDF) 4. Neighborhood Meeting notes (PDF) 5. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, December 15, 2016 (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 258 GOLDEN WILLOW DR SANDBAR CT P A C I FIC CT WHITE WILLOW DR COASTAL CT R E D WIL L O W CT N IM M IE D R WI L LOW S PRI N GS WAY ROSEN DR G L EN EA G L E CT ZEPHYR RD WILLINE WAY HUM M EL L N BUCHSTANE PL CAN O P Y CT KECHTER RD CA C TUS CT SANDBAR CT P A C IFIC CT WHITE W ILLOW D R R E D WILL O W C T S TIMBERLINE RD NIM M IE D R WILLOW S PRINGS WAY ROSEN DR WILLINE WAY BUCHSTANE PL RED WILLOW DR S O U T H R IDGE GRE E N S BLVD WEE P ING W A Y SOUTH R I D G E GREEN S RL LMN POL LMN UE NC POL MMN UE MMN GOLDEN WILLOW DR SANDBAR CT P A C IFIC CT WHITE WILLOW DR COASTAL CT R E D WIL L O W CT N IM M IE D R W I LLOW SPRI N GS WAY ROSEN D R G L EN EA G L E CT ZEPHYR RD WILLINE WAY HUM M EL L N 1 November 15, 2016 Enclave Annexation Outreach Summary Question and Answers What is an enclave? An enclave is a property, or group of properties, that are located in unincorporated Larimer County but, due to urban growth and development over time, are now surrounded by the City of Fort Collins municipal boundary. How is it that our properties became enclaves? The properties in the vicinity of South Timberline Road and Kechter Road have been divided into three separate enclave annexations and have become, or will soon become, enclaves in the following manner: • Rennat Property: This is a single 57.834 acre parcel located between Timberline Road and the Union Pacific Railroad. As a result of the Hansen Farm Annexation, this parcel became an eligible enclave on May 21, 2013. • Lehman/Timberline Property: This is a single 5.684 acre City-owned parcel located east of Timberline Road north of Bacon Elementary School, As a result of the Mail Creek Crossing Annexation, this parcel will fulfill the three- year statutory requirements on January 7, 2017. • Mail Creek Second Annexation Properties: This is an enclave that consists of 43.698 acres and 11 parcels located at the northeast and southeast corners of Timberline Road and Kechter Road with the exception of the parcels owned by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church and the Thorland Subdivision, which are already part of the City of Fort Collins. As a result of the Mail Creek Crossing Annexation, these properties will fulfill the three-year statutory requirements on January 7, 2017. What is an enclave annexation? An enclave annexation is a growth management technique used by municipalities that allows Cities and Towns to establish a unified jurisdiction that does not have pockets of unincorporated land. After an enclave is created, three years must elapse before the City or Town can annex the property or multiple properties. Is it normal for the City of Fort Collins to annex properties after the three year period? Yes, it has long been the City’s practice to annex enclaves after three years. ATTACHMENT 4 10.4 Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 2 Can you give us a recent example of an enclave annexation? Yes, there were four Southwest Enclave Annexations totally 1,603 acres that were phased in over time and were adopted by City Council between 2006 and 2013. Does Larimer County have anything to say about enclave annexations? Yes, Larimer County encourages the cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud and Estes Park to annex properties that have become enclaves and have been surrounded by no less than three years. The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (I.G.A.) that establishes a Growth Management Area (G.M.A.). Within this G.M.A., the City and County have agreed that growth and development should be at an urban level and that the City, and/or special districts, is best able to provide an urban level of public services. Under the I.G.A., with regard to land located within the G.M.A., the City has agreed to pursue the annexation of enclaves as those areas become eligible according to state law. What about City zoning? The requested zoning districts for these annexations comply with the City’s Structure Plan Map, an element of the City’s comprehensive plan, and are as follows: • Rennat Property – Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, LMN; Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, MMN; and Neighborhood Commercial, NC. • Lehman / Timberline – Urban Estate, U-E. • Mail Creek Second – Urban Estate, U-E. How long will the annexation process take? Typically an annexation process takes between 3 and 4 months once the annexation process is initiated. Why make us a pay an electric surcharge when we the City of Fort Collins is annexing us unwillingly? There is a Colorado statute that requires annexing utilities, such as Fort Collins Light & Power, to pay to the REA 25% of revenue every month for a period of 10 years after the electric service is transferred (not from the date of annexation). Each customer’s rate will be based on the normal Light & Power rates + this 25%. At the end of the 10 year period, the REA surcharge is discontinued. Even with the 25% adder, the Fort Collins Light & Power residential rates are less than the Poudre Valley REA rates for most classes of customers. Background: 10.4 Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 3 In 1988, the various REA’s in Colorado had a state statute approved by the legislature requiring municipal electric utilities to pay what is called a “service rights fee” to the local REA when provision of electric service is changed. This statute requires municipal electric utilities that transfer electric service after an annexation to pay the local REA 25% of all revenue from existing customers (5% for new customers) starting on the date of electric transfer for a period of 10 years. The REA perspective is this pays for their lost revenue. The municipal utility perspective is it is an attempt to discourage transferring electric customers to the municipal utility. Some municipal utilities in Colorado choose to absorb the service rights fee. Fort Collins Light & Power, at the direction of City Council, passes this expense on to the transferred customers. Fort Collins Light & Power also purchases the REA infrastructure in addition to the service rights fee. This infrastructure purchase cost is not passed on to the annexed customers. What other fees or taxes should I know about? Stormwater Fee: Fort Collins Utilities charges a monthly rate to pay for construction and maintenance of Fort Collins' stormwater system, which helps protect residents and businesses during storms and floods on a city-wide basis. All developed properties within city limits pay stormwater rates, which are based on: Example: Address Estimated Lot SF Estimated Impervious Surface Estimated 2017 Monthly Fee1 Lot 1 2224 Kechter Road 100,188 (2.3 Acres) 5443 $37 Lot 2 2220 Kechter Road 107,158 (2.46 Acres) 4421 $38 Formula: Lot Size - lot area in square feet, plus the customer's share of open space in the development, if applicable Base Rate - $0.00 Rate Factor 2 - based on the percentage of impervious area (surfaces that do not absorb water) such as buildings, parking lots and concrete 1 This is an estimated fee based on 2017 rates. A stormwater fee specialist will be able to calculate the exact fees. 10.4 Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 4 Formula for Estimated Monthly Rates: Single-family Lots Under 12,000 Square Feet Monthly Rate = Lot Size x $0.0041454 x Rate Factor Single-family Lots Over 12,000 Square Feet* Monthly Rate = 12,000 x $0.0043527 x Rate Factor plus (Lot Size - 12,000) x $0.0043527 x Rate Factor x 0.25 *These lots receive a reduction in fees on that portion of the lot greater than 12,000 feet. Rate Factor Table: Rate Factor Percent of Impervious Area (based on land use) Rate Factor Category (based on land use) .25 0 - .30 Very Light .4 .31 - .50 Light** .6 .51 - .70 Moderate .8 .71 - .90 Heavy .95 .91-1.0 Very Heavy **typical for residential 2 See table on next page. 10.4 Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 5 How will the assessor determine the value of our property? According the Assessor’s office: The County Assessor is responsible for valuing all real and personal property, including mobile homes, residential and commercial properties and agricultural land for property tax purposes. The Assessor determines the equitable value of property to ensure that each taxpayer pays only his or her fair share of the taxes. Anyone who disagrees with changes in the actual value of real property can object or file a protest with the Assessor in May. Protests for Commercial Business Personal Property accounts should be filed with the Assessor between June 15 and July 5. 2015/2016 Reappraisal Cycle Colorado property tax law requires assessors to conduct countywide reappraisals every two years in odd-numbered years, and that a specific date, June 30th of the year preceding the reappraisal year, be used to benchmark all property values throughout the state. The benchmark, or "level of value", for this reappraisal cycle is June 30, 2014. For the 2015/2016 reappraisal cycle Larimer County is using 60 months of data. That means our sales study period extends from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014. All sales are trended up or down to the level of value date, June 30, 2014, depending on market factors in the different areas of Larimer County. For 2016, only owners that saw a change in value or ownership from the previous year were mailed a notice with the new value and have the option to protest online. The majority of property values do not change in even numbered years because Colorado is on a two year reappraisal cycle. If you do not have the Notice of Value you may complete and mail a 2015 Protest Form to our office no later than June 1, 2016. Protests can also be filed in person, by letter or fax. We cannot accept appeals sent in by email or taken over the phone. Properties that are appealed during our protest period will be reviewed and a Notice of Determination will be sent to those property owners on June 30, 2016. If you are satisfied with the value after this review, the process ends and your tax will be based on the value reflected in the notice of determination. If you disagree with the Assessor's decision, the next step will be to file an appeal with the County Board of Equalization. More details will be provided in the Notice of Determination that will be sent June 30, 2016. 10.4 Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 6 Is a wood burning stove permitted inside the City of Fort Collins? City Code for Wood Burning Only wood burning units certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be installed in Fort Collins. Only clean, dry, untreated wood may be burned in a wood stove or fireplace. "Pellets" burned in pellet stoves and manufactured fire logs such as DuraFlame burned in a fireplace are acceptable. Burning of garbage and treated wood is prohibited. After the first 15-minutes of start-up, smoke from the chimney must be at or less than 20% opacity (smoke should be barely visible looking at it with your back to the sun). Violation of City Code can result in a summons to appear in municipal court resulting in a fine of up to $1,000 and 180 days in jail. Will the tax on our phone bill change? According to the Colorado Department of Revenue the only taxes that will exist on mobile service will be E911 1.4% surcharge and a 9.44% Colorado State Wireless Tax. What is the difference between City sales tax and County sales tax? Tax Rates effective January 1, 2015: State of Colorado 2.9% Larimer County 0.65% Total Sales Tax (LarimerCounty) 3.55% City of Fort Collins 3.85% 3.85% Tax includes  2.25% Base Rate  .25% Community Capital Improvement Program (Expires 2025)  .25% Street Maintenance (Expires 2025)  .25% Open Space (Expires 2030).  .85%Keep Fort Collins Great (Expires 2020) Total Sales Tax (City of Fort Collins) 7.40% Fort Collins Lodging Tax (in addition to above) 3.0% Total Accommodations Tax 10.40% Fort Collins Tax on Food For Home Consumption (contact State of Colorado regarding taxability) 2.25% Total Food Tax 2.25% 10.4 Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 7 Will the school boundaries change and if so who is responsible for that change? The City of Fort Collins is not involved in determining school boundaries. This is the sole responsibility of the Poudre School District. According to the Poudre School District’s Long Range Planning: Boundary Committee they often recommend “clean-up” of boundaries that have little to no student impact and include modifications like adjusting boundary lines such that they do no bisect fields or lots, adjusting boundary lines to follow the mid-line of roads as opposed to bisecting properties, etc. Ultimately the responsibility of changing school district lines start as a recommendation from the Boundary Committee then is approved by the Superintendent and Colorado Board of Education. In the Poudre School District’s 2015 Majority and Minority Reports it shows proposed changes to the Kruse Elementary School / Werner Elementary School – Middle School and High School Boundary that will impact 0 students. What are some of the upsides of being annexed into the City of Fort Collins?  Faster police response time  Voting for a Mayor and Council Member (District 3)  Less Expensive Electric Rates  Urban level services  Neighborhood Services (http://www.fcgov.com/neighborhoodservices/)  Rebates through energy audit programs (i.e., Solar Installation Incentives) Though these are just a few advantages of being part of the City it is not an exhaustive list. Please visit our website at http://www.fcgov.com/ to find out more. How many horses per acre are you allowed to have in the City as compared to the County? Municipal Code Section 4-72. - Minimum size of pasture area for horses or ponies. Horses or ponies may be kept for the use of occupants of a lot and their guests provided that at least one-half (½) acre of pasture area is available for each horse or pony. City of Fort Collins Larimer County Horses per Acre ½ Acre / Horse ½ Acre / Horse3 3 If the number of horses on the property exceeds one horse per one-half acre, minor special review approval is required unless the chart and formula indicate that special review approval is required. 10.4 Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 8 What if I’m a legal existing use in Larimer County but not in the City of Fort Collins? Legal existing uses are grandfathered-in however if the nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months the nonconforming use is then considered “abandoned” and will not be able to continue. To find more information on nonconforming uses and structures visit Division 1.5 in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. https://www.municode.com/library/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use What if my property is on septic? How will being part of the City of Fort Collins impact me? The City of Fort Collins does not regulate or enforce regulations on septic systems. Septic Systems are solely regulated by Larimer County Department of Health and Environment. For Septic Systems please contact the Larimer County Health Department by phone at (970) 498-6700 or visit http://www.co.larimer.co.us/health/ehs/isds.asp. Will my water or wastewater services change as a result of the annexation? No. The City of Fort Collins does not take over any other utility service except electric. Annexed properties will continue to be served by Fort Collins Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation District (if not currently on septic). For Water and Sewer, please contact the Fort Collins Loveland Water District and the South Fort Collins Sanitation District both of which can be contacted by phone at (970) 226-3104 or visit http://www.fclwd.com/contact/. 10.4 Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 9 How will our property taxes change? Property taxes will go down after being annexed into the City of Fort Collins. Below is a comparison of tax-rates between that the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. Mill Levy :4 Tax Authority Fort Collins Larimer County Poudre R-1 General Fund 39.558 39.558 Larimer County 21.882 21.882 Poudre R-1 Bond Payment 13.072 13.072 Poudre Valley Fire District - 10.595 Fort Collins5 9.797 - Poudre River Public Library District 3.016 3.016 Health District of North Larimer County 2.167 2.167 Fort Collins – Loveland Water 1.500 1.500 Northern Colorado Water Conservation District 1.000 1.000 Larimer County Pest Control District 0.142 0.142 SUBTOTAL 92.134 92.932 South Fort Collins Sanitation District6 0.476 0.476 TOTAL 92.610 93.408 4 The mill levy is the “tax rate” that is applied to the assessed value of a property in order to fund a variety of services. One mill is one dollar per $1,000 dollars of assessed valuation. (0.001) 5 The County’s Poudre Fire District Mill Levy is replaced by the City of Fort Collins upon Annexation. The Fort Collins Mill Levy is lower by 0.748 Mill. 6 South Fort Collins Sanitation District Mill only applies if property is served by the South Fort Collins Sanitation District and not to those served by septic. 10.4 Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 10 Can you explain the difference between Urban Estate (UE) and Farming (FA-1)? Below is a comparative chart of what is allowed in each district. If the use is not listed in the following chart it could be added through a process outlined in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code under 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Use. The conditions in which the added use would be appropriate are outlined under 1.3.4(C) Procedures and Required Findings. Use Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Agriculture Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Animal boarding (limited to farm/large animals). Agricultural labor housing (S) Apiary (R) Commercial poultry farm (S) Equestrian operation (PSP/MS/ S)—See section 4.3.1 Farm (R) Feedyard (S) Fur farm (S) Garden supply center (S) Permitted - See Commercial/Retail Greenhouse (R) Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/ S)—See section 4.3.1 Packing facility (R) Permitted – See Commercial/Retail Pet animal facility (MS/ S)— See section 4.3.1 Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (MS/ S)—See section 4.3.1 10.4 Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 11 Use Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Sod farm, nursery (R) Tree farm (R) Residential Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Dwelling, cabin (R)— See section 4.3.2 Group home for the aged (R) Group homes for up to eight (8) developmentally disabled or elderly persons. Group home (R) Group home for the mentally ill (R) Single-family detached dwellings. Single Family Dwelling Storage buildings and garages (R)—See section 4.3.2 Duplexes Residential cluster developments. Single-family attached dwellings. Institutional Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Cemeteries. Cemetery (S) Permitted –Commercial / Retail Child/elderly care center (S) Places of worship or assembly. Church (MS/S) See section 4.3—See section 4.3.4 Community hall (MS/S)—See section 4.3.4 Hospital (S) Public and private schools for elementary, intermediate and high school education. School, nonpublic (S) 10.4 Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 12 Use Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) State-licensed group home (S) Country club (S) Golf courses. Golf course (S) Membership club (S Shooting range (S) Wildlife rescue and education centers. Minor public facilities. Parks, recreation and other open lands, except neighborhood parks as defined by the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan. Accommodation Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Permitted - See Commercial/Retail Bed and breakfast (MS/S)— See section 4.3.6 Seasonal camp (S) Permitted – See Industrial Mining (S) Oil and gas drilling and production (R) Small solar facility (R/PSP) Small wind energy facility (MS) Utilities Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Commercial mobile radio service (SP/ S) -See section 16 10.4 Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) 13 Use Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Permitted – See Accessory/ Miscellaneous Radio and television transmitters (S) Industrial Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Resource extraction, processes and sales. Composting facilities. Small-scale and medium-scale solar energy systems. Commercial/Retail Bed and breakfast establishments with no more than six (6) beds Plant nurseries and greenhouses. Permitted – See Agriculture Animal boarding (limited to farm/large animals). Permitted – See Agriculture Adult day/respite care centers. Child care centers Permitted – See Institutional Small scale reception centers. Accessory/Miscellaneous Urban Estate (UE) Farming (FA-1) Accessory buildings containing more than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or floor area. Wireless telecommunication equipment. Permitted – See Utilities Farm animals. Permitted – See Agriculture Urban agriculture. 10.4 Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting notes (5213 : Rennat Annexation) ATTACHMENT 5 10.5 Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, December 15, 2016 (5213 : Rennat Annexation) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 023, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ANNEXING PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE RENNAT ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO WHEREAS, Resolution 2016-089 stating the intent of the City to annex and initiating annexation proceedings for the Rennat Annexation, as defined therein and described below, has heretofore been adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that the area proposed to be annexed has been entirely contained within the boundaries of the City for a period of not less than three years prior to this date and complies with all requirements for enclave annexation set forth in Colorado Revised Statutes Section 31-12-106; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to annex said area to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the following described property, to wit: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 TO BEAR N00°00'47"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS SOUTH END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 34995, AND ON ITS NORTH END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, S89°59'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 736.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG NORTHERLY BOUNDARIES OF THE JOHNSTON AND UNION PACIFIC SOUTH FOURTH ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, S89°59'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,860.30 FEET; Packet Pg. 276 -2- THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID UNION PACIFIC SOUTH FOURTH ANNEXATION, THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1) N00°18'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,480.42 FEET; 2) 973.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,719.95 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°59'57", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N07°11'03"E A DISTANCE OF 971.04 FEET; 3) N14°41'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 100.96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WILLOW SPRINGS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, N89°11'13"E, A DISTANCE OF 82.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE HANSEN FARM ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING SIXTEEN (16) COURSES: 1) S09°31'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 49.44 FEET; 2) S02°51'40"E, A DISTANCE OF 122.76 FEET; 3) S11°32'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 221.70 FEET; 4) S05°59'10"E, A DISTANCE OF 117.72 FEET; 5) S03°02'12"E; A DISTANCE OF 367.61 FEET; 6) S74°09'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 184.15 FEET; 7) S55°06'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 318.91 FEET; 8) S47°12'09"E, A DISTANCE OF 783.31 FEET; 9) S49°45'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 330.86 FEET; 10) S63°34'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 198.72 FEET; 11) S48°06'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 109.43 FEET; 12) S57°52'43"E, A DISTANCE OF 191.24 FEET; 13) S45°20'48"E, A DISTANCE OF 193.08 FEET; 14) S43°24'38"W, A DISTANCE OF 68.46 FEET; 15) N80°52'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 140.66 FEET; 16) S18°53'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 280.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: CONTAINING 2,519,258 SQUARE FEET (57.834 ACRES), MORE OR LESS is hereby annexed to the City of Fort Collins and made a part of said City, to be known as the Rennat Annexation. Section 3. That, in annexing said property to the City, the City does not assume any obligation respecting the construction of water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, electric service lines, streets or any other services or utilities in connection with the property hereby annexed except as may be provided by the ordinances of the City. Section 4. That the City hereby consents, pursuant to Section 37-45-136(3.6), C.R.S., to the inclusion of said property into the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (the “Subdistrict”). Packet Pg. 277 -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 278 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Kai Kleer, Planning Technician SUBJECT Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2017, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Rennat Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, and Approving Corresponding Amendments to the Sign District Map. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. The purpose of this item is to zone the property included in the Rennat Annexation into the Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (LMN), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone districts. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Proposed Zoning The requested zoning for this annexation is Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhood (MMN), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone districts. The proposed zoning for the subject annexation is:  Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN); 55.073 Acres  Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN); 0.700 Acres  Neighborhood Commercial (NC), 2.062 Acres These districts are intended to be a setting for development with a wide range of community uses. The primary zoning of the property is Low Density Mixed-Use, which can accommodate a wide range of housing types. The eastern edge of the property is proposed as Medium Density Mixed-Use and Neighborhood Commercial to encourage more intense densities and uses. The zoning is meant to accommodate neighborhood oriented services such as a grocery store or neighborhood retail. Context The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: LMN: Farm MMN: Farm; Crowne on Timberline, Multifamily Residential; and Single Family Residential 11 Packet Pg. 279 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 2 NC: Farm POL: Southridge Golf Course Fossil Creek Reservoir Plan The parcel is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, a joint plan between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County and adopted in 1998. The planning area covers 5,062 acres of the southeast region of Fort Collins within the GMA. The objectives of the Plan are to: 1. Build a self-supporting group of neighborhoods with a full complement of parks, schools and community facilities linked by open space systems and consistent with the County’s Master Plan and Fort Collins’ City Plan, Principles and Policies. 2. Provide for protection of sensitive wildlife habitat around the Reservoir as well as provide standards for such habitat conservation. 3. Provide neighborhood centers as a focal point for neighborhood activity. Provide a Neighborhood Commercial Center to serve surrounding neighborhoods including a grocery store or supermarket and other neighborhood oriented retail services. 4. Link the area to other districts and neighborhoods, encourage walking and bicycling, and accommodate transit service to the Neighborhood Commercial Center and other neighborhood centers. 5. Complement, but not compete with, development in the Harmony Corridor. 6. Provide a "Transfer of Density units" (TDU) program in which development units may be transferred from the region between Fort Collins and Loveland to the Receiving Area portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. 7. Achieve higher densities where they are appropriate and feather to lower densities as development nears Fossil Creek Reservoir. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no direct financial impacts as a result of the proposed zoning. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its December 15, 2016, regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the annexation. Further, the Board recommended that the parcel be placed into the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN), and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone districts. This unanimous action was taken after the item was pulled for discussion. A community member pulled the item due to concerns with area congestion and traffic that is being caused by new development. However, the area resident left the meeting prior to being able to speak to the board and the board was made aware of the resident’s concerns through staff. The discussion pointed out that development was not occurring on the site and that the City initiated annexation and zoning of this property is a fulfillment of the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. PUBLIC OUTREACH An outreach process is not required by the Colorado Revised Statues or the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. However, on November 15, 2016, City staff held a stakeholder meeting to answer questions and inform residents of any changes that may result from being annexed into the City. Representatives from Planning and Light and Power were present to explain any potential difference in electrical rates, services, zoning and various issues related to future public improvements associated with land development. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning Map (PDF) 11 Packet Pg. 280 RL LMN POL LMN UE NC POL MMN UE MMN GOLDEN WILLOW DR SANDBAR CT P A C IFIC CT WHITE WILLOW DR COASTAL CT R E D WIL L O W CT N IM M IE D R W I LLOW SPRI N GS WAY ROSEN D R G L EN EA G L E CT ZEPHYR RD WILLINE WAY HUM M EL L N -1- ORDINANCE NO, 024, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND CLASSIFYING FOR ZONING PURPOSES THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE RENNAT ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, AND APPROVING CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO THE SIGN DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the zoning of land; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed zoning of the Rennant Annexation property, as described below (the “Property”) is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property; and WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed zoning against the applicable criteria set forth in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code and finds the proposed zoning to be in compliance with all such criteria; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the zoning of the Property described below, finds it to be in the best interests of the City, and has determined that the Property should be zoned as hereafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including a 55.073 acre portion of the property known as the Rennat Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 TO BEAR N00°00’47”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS SOUTH END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 34995, AND ON ITS NORTH END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT Packet Pg. 282 -2- COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, S89°59'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 852.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG NORTHERLY BOUNDARIES OF THE JOHNSTON AND UNION PACIFIC SOUTH FOURTH ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, S89°59'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,744.74 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID UNION PACIFIC SOUTH FOURTH ANNEXATION, THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1) N00°18'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,480.42 FEET; 2) 973.82 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,719.95 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°59'57", AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N07°11'03"E A DISTANCE OF 971.04 FEET; 3) N14°41'01"E, A DISTANCE OF 100.96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WILLOW SPRINGS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, N89°11'13"E, A DISTANCE OF 82.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE HANSEN FARM ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING TEN (10) COURSES: 1) S09°31'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 49.44 FEET; 2) S02°51'40"E, A DISTANCE OF 122.76 FEET; 3) S11°32'04"E, A DISTANCE OF 221.70 FEET; 4) S05°59'10"E, A DISTANCE OF 117.72 FEET; 5) S03°02'12"E, A DISTANCE OF 367.61 FEET; 6) S74°09'53"E, A DISTANCE OF 184.15 FEET; 7) S55°06'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 318.91 FEET; 8) S47°12'09"E, A DISTANCE OF 783.31 FEET; 9) S49°45'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 330.86 FEET; 10) S63°34'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 185.84 FEET; THENCE S00°00’47”E, A DISTANCE OF 608.59 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 2,398,981 SQUARE FEET (55.073 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. Section 3. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including a .700 acre portion of the property known as the Rennat Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-N”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 TO BEAR N00°00’47”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS SOUTH END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 34995, AND ON ITS NORTH END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; Packet Pg. 283 -3- THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, S89°59'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 852.00 FEET; THENCE N00°00’47”W, A DISTANCE OF 394.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N00°00’47”W, A DISTANCE OF 214.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE HANSEN FARM ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES: 1) S63°34'46"E, A DISTANCE OF 12.88 FEET; 2) S48°06'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 109.43 FEET; 3) S57°52'43"E, A DISTANCE OF 191.24 FEET; 4) S45°20'48"E, A DISTANCE OF 45.83 FEET; THENCE S89°43'26"W, A DISTANCE OF 287.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 30,475 SQUARE FEET (0.700 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. Section 4. That the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins adopted pursuant to Section 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by including a 2.062 acre portion of the property known as the Rennat Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, in the Neighborhood Commercial (“N-C”) Zone District, which property is more particularly described as: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 7, AND CONSIDERING THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7 TO BEAR N00°00’47”W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS SOUTH END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 34995, AND ON ITS NORTH END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 7, S89°59'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 736.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE JOHNSTON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, S89°59'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 115.56 FEET; THENCE N00°00’47”W, A DISTANCE OF 394.50 FEET; THENCE N89°43’26”E, A DISTANCE OF 287.52 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE HANSEN FARM ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES: 1) S45°20'48"E, A DISTANCE OF 147.25 FEET; 2) S43°24'38"W, A DISTANCE OF 68.46 FEET; 3) N80°52'41"W, A DISTANCE OF 140.66 FEET; 4) S18°53'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 280.05 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 89,802 SQUARE FEET (2.062 ACRES), MORE OR LESS Packet Pg. 284 -4- Section 5. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby changed and amended by showing that the property known as the Rennat Annexation and described herein is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 6. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 285 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Ted Shepard, Chief Planner SUBJECT Items Relating to Gateway at Prospect Plan Amendment to the City Structure Plan Map and Rezoning of Two Parcels. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2017-009 Amending the City’s Structure Plan Map. B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2017, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Making Corresponding Changes to the Sign District Map. This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda it will be considered in accordance with the procedures described in Section 1(d) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2015-091. These items are related to a development application being submitted for an Overall Development Plan (ODP) on a parcel of vacant land located at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. The purpose of these items is twofold: first to amend the City’s Structure Plan map (which is a component of the City’s comprehensive plan) to change two land use designations applicable to the site; and second to rezone the site. The Structure Plan amendment proposes to change the existing land use designations applicable to the site to promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of the City Plan and the elements thereof by reflecting land uses consistent with changed conditions within the neighborhoods surrounding and including the site. The rezoning proposes to change the existing zoning of the entire 22.43-acre site, which includes 12.40 acres of land currently zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and 10.03 acres of land currently zoned E, Employment. The proposed rezoning amends the zoning map for the entire site to M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District. Both the rezoning and the ODP are designed to facilitate a future multi-family development project on the subject 22.43 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the amended ODP). While multi-family is a permitted use in the L-M-N zone district, it is capped at 12 dwelling units per gross acre, 12 units per building and 14,000 square feet per building. The applicant seeks to develop a project that exceeds these parameters. While multi-family is also a permitted use in the E zone district, and not restricted by the L-M-N metrics, the applicant has voluntarily requested a down-zoning to M-M-N in order to create a unified development parcel with singular, unified zoning. The request to rezone the two subject parcels complies with the standards and criteria of Land Use Code Section 2.9(H). In addition, and in compliance with Section 2.9(I), staff is recommending seven conditions of approval to ensure that all aspects of the future multi-family development measures up to the principles and policies of City Plan. 12 Packet Pg. 286 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 2 On January 12, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend approval to City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N County, R, Residential (Sunrise Acres) S E, Employment (Colorado Welcome Center and Colorado State University Research Foundation- owned parcel) E C-G, General Commercial (Vacant) E I, Industrial (Vacant) W County R, Residential and FA, Farming (Boxelder Estates and other County Residential Parcels) The property was included in the City’s Growth Management Area and was annexed in 1989 as the Interstate Lands Annexation containing 192 acres. At that time, the parcel was zoned H-B, Highway Business (157 acres) and R-P, Planned Residential (35 acres) with both zone districts conditioned that any application for development be processed as a Planned Unit Development under the Land Development Guidance System. In 1997, the property was rezoned in the following manner:  C, Commercial (44.7 acres)  E, Employment (104 acres)  L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres);  U-E, Urban Estate along the western edge as a buffer (21 acres). This rezoning was part of a citywide rezoning to implement the City’s new comprehensive plan, City Plan, and the new Land Use Code which created new zone districts and replaced the old districts and the PUD system. About 20 years ago, the landowner at the time sold a parcel of land along the western edge of the ODP to the Cooper Slough Association/Boxelder Estates HOA for a buffer. This rectangular strip ranges in width between 100 and 125 feet for a length of about 1,880 feet and contains approximately 4.7 acres. This conveyance essentially precludes any street connection between the ODP and Boxelder Estates. Then, in 2000, the size of the four zone districts was adjusted as part of a rezoning to reflect changing market conditions. The effect of the rezoning was primarily to reduce the size of the E zone by 43 acres and increase the size of the L-M-N zone by 53 acres. This rezoning affected 65 acres. In 2004, an Overall Development Plan was approved that showed various configurations for the four zone districts in the following manner:  U-E, Urban Estate (21 acres);  L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (68.6 acres);  E, Employment (60.9 acres);  C-G, General Commercial (26.9 acres). Interstate Land First Filing PUD for a Harley Davidson dealership was approved in 1996 and consisted of a 26,000 square foot building on a four-acre lot located along the Southwest Frontage Road. In summary, since annexation in 1989, the parcel has been rezoned three times in 28 years. 12 Packet Pg. 287 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 3 1. Structure Plan Map Amendment City Plan allows amendments to the Structure Plan Map to be processed concurrently with rezoning applications. In conjunction with the more detailed analysis regarding the rezoning request, staff finds that amendment to the Structure Plan Map satisfies the requirement that the proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. 2. Summary of the Review Criteria for Rezoning of Parcels Less Than 640 Acres Per Section 2.9 of the Land Use Code: Per Section 2.9 of the Land Use Code, any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi-judicial versus legislative) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is:  Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or  Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi-judicial):  Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land;  Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.  Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. 3. Section 2.9(H)(2)(a) - Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan The request to upzone 12.4 acres from L-M-N to M-M-N and downzone 8.4 acres from E to M-M-N is supported by the following City Plan Principles and Policies: A. “Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability - Economy: A mix of housing options throughout the community also accommodates residents of all income levels in the city near places of work or other activity centers.” (Page 47.) The request to rezone the subject parcels to M-M-N would add a housing type, multi-family, to the mix of housing options in this area of the City at development parameters that exceed L-M-N metrics. The nearest multi-family development is located 1.2 miles to the southwest. Multi-family housing is envisioned to be in close proximity to major employment areas and the subject parcels are located near existing and future workplaces in the following manner:  Existing - Prospect East Business Park (1.05 miles to the west)  Existing - Seven Lakes Business Park (.9 mile to the west)  Future C-G, General Commercial (adjoining)  Future I, Industrial (.5 mile to the east)  Future E, Employment (adjoining) Multi-family housing is one of 33 permitted uses in the M-M-N zone district. In order to ensure that rezoning the subject parcels to M-M-N results in actual development of multi-family housing in furtherance of the City Plan policy, and not one of the other permitted non-residential land uses, staff recommends the following condition of approval: 12 Packet Pg. 288 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 4  Condition Number One: Development on the subject 21.98 acres shall be limited to multi-family dwellings. B. “Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability - Environment: Emphasis on redevelopment, infill, historic preservation, and high-efficiency housing and buildings also helps to divert waste and conserve water, energy and other environmental resources. Lastly, a compact development pattern and transportation options help reduce carbon emissions, reduce impacts on climate change, and improved air quality. (Page 47) In terms of utilization of public services and land consumption, multi-family housing is efficient and promotes compact urban growth. In addition, Prospect Road is designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor, which means it will be served by transit in the future which offers an option in mobility. C. “Growth Management Principle LIV 1: City development will be contained by well-defined boundaries that will be managed using various tools including utilization of Growth Management Area, community coordination, and Intergovernmental Agreements.” (Page 49) The subject site has been annexed into the City for 28 years. The site does not represent an urban edge condition, nor is I-25 considered a hard edge, as the City’s eastern boundary extends east to CR 5, a distance of greater than one mile. The City’s boundary and Growth Management Area have been established in conjunction with Larimer County and the Town of Timnath through a series of jointly adopted Agreements. While the site may appear to be disconnected from the urban area, this is due to the Poudre River floodplain, and three natural areas (Riverbend Ponds, Cottonwood Hollow and Running Deer). The areas that are not protected are zoned for urban levels of intensity. (See the City Zoning Map attached.) For example:  East of I-25: C-G, General Commercial (15 acres) and I, Industrial (117 acres)  South of Prospect: E, Employment (143 acres) Development of the subject site, and the larger Gateway at Prospect ODP, represents sound growth management practice within existing City limits, within the GMA and in fulfillment of City Plan. D. “Principal LIV 4: Development will provide and pay its share of the cost of providing needed public facilities and services concurrent with development.” (Page 50-51) The site is capable of being served with water and sanitary sewer by the East Larimer County Water and the Boxelder Sanitation Districts. Electricity and natural gas can be extended to serve the site. Widening Prospect Road to the arterial standard will be accomplished by multiple established mechanisms that ensure growth shall pay its own way. This includes improving the development’s direct frontage and any off-site improvements as may be necessary to mitigate the project’s impacts and achieve the City’s adopted levels of service. E. “Housing - Principal LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area.” (Page 59) Multi-family housing has been identified as a critical component in the City’s mix of housing on a citywide basis. For decades, the historic split between single family and multi-family housing has held at a consistent 60%/40% ratio. City Plan reinforces long-standing policies that multi-family housing must be widely distributed and not concentrated around the Downtown or the CSU campus. (Land Use Policies Plan, 1979; City Plan, 1997, 2011.) F. “Housing - Policy LIV 7.1: Encourage a Variety of Housing Types and Locations. Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed-use developments that are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities.” (Page 59) 12 Packet Pg. 289 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 5 Rezoning the subject parcels to M-M-N will allow multi-family development within the 177-acre Gateway at Prospect ODP, thus enriching the mix of housing. Currently, there is no M-M-N zoning within a radius of greater than one mile. The subject parcels are within close proximity to land zoned for employment, industrial shopping and services. Amenities include the active and passive outdoor recreation offered by Riverbend Ponds, Cottonwood Hollow and Running Deer natural areas and the future regional trail along Boxelder Creek. G. “City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies - Focus on a Compact Development Pattern: Growth within the City will be focused to promote a compact development pattern by directing urban development to well-defined areas within the Growth Management Area (GMA). The compact form of the city will also contribute to preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural lands, efficiently providing public services, and encouraging infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas.” (Page 66) Gateway at Prospect ODP is not sprawl or leapfrog development. The 177 acres are annexed, zoned and not at the edge of the Growth Management Area. The development pattern is expected to provide three key objectives:  Clustering the allowable density in the Urban Estate zone district will result in open space and provide a land use transition along the western and northern edges;  Compact development and urban character will be placed on the parcels zoned L-M-N, C-G, I, and the prospective M-M-N;  Natural resource protection will be provided along Boxelder Creek. As noted, surrounding zoning is mixed ranging from Urban Estate to Industrial. I-25 adjoins the ODP to the east. Since multi-family housing is expected to be distributed to all portions of the GMA, and contribute to the vision for a compact development pattern, the rezoning fulfills the principles and policies of the Structure Plan Map. H. “City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies - Provide an Interconnected Transit System: An expanded public transit system is an integral component of the City Structure Plan Map. The system is designed to provide for high-frequency transit service along major arterials and Enhanced Travel Corridors. Feeder transit lines will provide connections from all major districts within the city. The City’s compact form will help make comprehensive, convenient, and efficient transit service possible.” (Page 66) Prospect Road is designated on the Structure Plan Map as an Enhanced Travel Corridor. The density gained by multi-family housing will help support transit as an alternative mode of travel. I. “Components of City Structure Plan Map - Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods will serve as the primary building blocks of the community’s built environment. Neighborhoods will be walkable and connected and will include a mix of housing types. Neighborhoods will include destinations within walking distance such as schools, parks, neighborhood shopping, and places of work and civic uses.” (Page 68) Rezoning the subject parcels to M-M-N will enrich the mix of housing types. At the master plan level, Gateway at Prospect includes a public neighborhood park, regional trail, future shopping and employment opportunities. J. “Principle LIV 21: New neighborhoods will be integral parts of the broader community structure, connected through shared facilities such as streets, schools, parks, transit stops, trails, civic facilities and a Neighborhood Commercial Center or a Community Commercial District.” (Page 73) As noted, the vision for Gateway at Prospect ODP is to build on the success of other large-scale master- planned neighborhoods such as Rigden Farm, Oak Ridge, Miramont, The Landings, Sidehill/Bucking Horse and the like. All of these mixed-use neighborhoods include multi-family housing at typical M-M-N densities. With 177 acres, the goal is to create a neighborhood with a variety of housing types, a neighborhood park, a regional trail and a commercial area. Multi-family housing will contribute to fulfilling these policies in a manner 12 Packet Pg. 290 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 6 that is customary to the City’s established development pattern. K. “Principle LIV 22: The design of residential neighborhoods should emphasize creativity, diversity and individuality, be responsive to its context, and contribute to a comfortable, interesting community.” (Page 74) Multi-family housing on 22.43 acres of a 177-acre ODP will add housing diversity and help create a mixed-use neighborhood. L. “Policy LIV 22.1: Vary Housing Models and Types. Provide variation in house models and types in large development, along with variations in lot and block sizes, to avoid monotonous streetscapes, increase housing options, and eliminate the appearance of a standardized subdivision.” (Page 74) Adding M-M-N zoning to the Gateway at Prospect ODP will contribute to the mix of housing types and options within a large, unified development. Streetscapes will include buildings facing streets with front doors and connecting walkways to avoid the appearance of a standardized subdivision. Per Section 3.8.30(F)(2) - Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings - Variation Among Buildings, projects containing more than five buildings must provide at least three distinctly different building designs (excluding clubhouse). In order to ensure compliance with this City Plan policy, and to ensure the elimination of the appearance of standardized land development, staff recommends the following condition of approval:  Condition Number Two: Multi-family development on the subject 22.43 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the Amended O.D.P.) must include four distinctly different building designs as defined by the Section 3.8.30(F)(2) - Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings - Variation Among Buildings. M. “Policy LIV 22.2: Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design. Design smaller multi-family buildings to reflect the characteristics and amenities typically associated with single family detached houses. These characteristics and amenities include orientation of the front door to a neighborhood sidewalk and street, individual identity, private outdoor space, adequate parking and storage, access to sunlight, privacy and security.” (Page 74) As mentioned, Gateway at Prospect ODP will include public streets, a public neighborhood park, a regional trail, a commercial center and employment uses. South of Prospect Road there are 143 acres zoned Employment and east of I-25 there are 132 acres zoned C-G and I. The proposed multi-family component will include buildings that front on public streets with individual street-facing ground floor units featuring their own entrance and connecting walkways to the maximum extent feasible. The multi-family dwellings will be within approximately one-quarter of a mile of the future public neighborhood park, a future commercial center and adjacent to the proposed Boxelder Creek Regional Trail. Staff finds that the multi-family component, as proposed, would be integrated into the larger neighborhood in a town-like pattern unlike a prototypical apartment complex with series of inward-facing buildings served by common breezeway entrances and perimeter parking lots. M-M-N zoning would contribute to supporting commercial uses that would serve the larger neighborhood. The proposed rezoning is found to conform to the basic design characteristics and amenities of the M-M-N zone. In order to ensure that any subsequent PDP comply with these basic design characteristics, staff recommends the following condition of approval:  Condition Number Three: Multi-family development on the 22.43 acres that are the subject of the rezoning, must be designed with a framework of streets (public or private) and that buildings are oriented to these streets to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, street-facing ground floor units must include each unit having an individual entrance. Further, such street-facing units must include a front porch or stoop that is connected to the sidewalk through a walkway. Where it is not possible to orient a building to a street, such buildings must comply with the pedestrian connectivity standards of Section 3.5.2(D) - Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. 12 Packet Pg. 291 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 7 A. “Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods - Purpose: …are intended to be setting for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate-intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks.” (Page 80) The prototypical arrangement of M-M-N zoning on a city-wide basis is that such zones are generally located between N-C, Neighborhood Commercial or C-C, Community Commercial and L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. This hierarchy places the commercial properties along the arterial streets, bounded by M-M-N, which in turn is then bounded by L-M-N. As proposed, the subject 22.43 acres are bounded by the following:  North: L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (55.6 acres)  South: East Prospect Road (500 linear feet of frontage)  East: C-G, Commercial (27 acres)  West: County Residential While the proposed rezoning arrangement does not perfectly comply with the prototypical relationship among the three zones, all three zones are represented, and concentrated M-M-N housing is in close proximity to transit, commercial services and employment. In addition, the proposed M-M-N parcel is within easy walking or biking distance to the future public neighborhood park and the proposed regional bike trail. Finally, the three zone districts are all part of the ODP and will function together by virtue of a connected pattern of streets and blocks. A. “Principal LIV 29: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods include a mix of medium density housing types, providing a transition and link between lower density neighborhoods and a Neighborhood, Community Commercial or Employment district.” (Page 80.) As noted, the subject parcels include 22.43 acres which are located between the lower density existing County subdivision to the west and the L-M-N parcels within the ODP and the parcels zoned C-G, General Commercial and E, Employment per the Gateway at Prospect ODP. The proposed M-M-N zone would adjoin County Residential zoning. There are eight abutting properties. Initially, from strictly a zoning perspective, this juxtaposition may seem abrupt but distances between the existing houses to the west and the subject site are significant. (The applicant has prepared an illustrative map showing these separations.) The land development standards in Article Three of the Land Use Code are specifically intended to ensure that new development is of high quality, and that impacts are identified and mitigated in order to achieve compatibility. The applicant has included, for information purposes, a conceptual site plan indicating a multi-family project that shows up to 276 dwelling units. Distributed over 22.43 acres, the average residential density would be 12.30 dwelling units per gross acre. This slightly exceeds the required minimum density of 12.00 d.u./ac. for parcels greater than 20 acres in the M-M-N zone. (For comparison purposes, it is interesting to note that in the L-M-N zone, a single phase is allowed to be developed multi-family dwelling units up to a maximum of 12.00 d.u./ac. but only as long as the overall project does not exceed 9.00 du/ac., there are no more than 12 units per building and no more than 14,000 square feet per building.) 12 Packet Pg. 292 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 8 In order to ensure that future multi-family development at this location, under M-M-N zoning, takes its place within the transitional hierarchy called for in the City Plan policy; staff recommends the following condition of approval:  Condition Number Four: Multi-family development on the subject 22.43 acres (also designated as Parcel J on the Amended Gateway at Prospect Overall Development Plan), shall be capped at 276 dwelling units. B. “Principal LIV 29-3: Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street.” (Page 80) Access from the proposed M-M-N parcels to the areas zoned General Commercial would be via an east-west local connector street and the existing north-south Southwest Frontage Road, designated as a collector roadway, both of which include public sidewalks. C. “Principal LIV 29-3: Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street.” (Page 80) Access from the proposed M-M-N parcels to the areas zoned General Commercial would be via an east-west local connector street and the existing north-south Southwest Frontage Road, designated as a collector roadway, both of which include public sidewalks. D. Catalyst Project Area: Catalyst areas are viewed as places for ongoing and new public and private sector initiatives that use a multi-disciplinary and triple bottom line approach, addressing economic, environmental and social factors in a balanced manner. City Plan focuses on City actions that can inspire private sector response and create catalytic change. (Page 157) The Prospect/I-25 Gateway is identified as one of 14 Catalyst Project Areas and is one of three Catalyst Areas that is not presently zoned to allow multi-family at greater than 12 du/ac. (Portions of the other two areas include land that is not yet annexed and zoned.) Staff contends that the greater the mix of land uses and variety housing choices, the greater the potential for creating a critical mass that would position the area for catalytic change per the vision outlined in City Plan. 4. Section 2.9(H)(2)(b) - Warranted by Changed Conditions Within the Neighborhood Surrounding and Including the Subject Property Changes since the last rezoning in 2004:  A commitment by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to widen I-25 to three lanes between Mulberry Street and Loveland at an estimated cost of $235 million dollars to be constructed beginning in 2018.  A commitment by the owners of land at the four quadrants of I-25 and Prospect Road to collectively contribute up to $7 million dollars to widen the I-25/Prospect Road interchange estimated to cost a total of $28 million dollars. This interchange improvement is not currently a part of the lane widening project of 2018. If not included in this lane widening, then the interchange improvement would be delayed until 2035.  A feasibility analysis by the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath to collectively contribute up to $7 million dollars to widen the I-25/Prospect Road interchange.  A commitment by CDOT to match the aforementioned $14 million dollars to construct the interchange improvement so that the interchange could be improved at the same time as the lane widening project and benefit from economies of scale.  Improvements by the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority to control flooding along Boxelder 12 Packet Pg. 293 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 9 Creek adjacent to the Gateway at Prospect ODP at an estimated cost of $10.5 million dollars. This will remove a significant amount of land area outside the floodplain and will be documented by a Letter of Map Revision by F.E.M.A.  Passage of the Poudre School District Bond Issue which funds the construction of a high school and middle school campus on the 110-acre parcel north of Prospect Road and east of I-25 at an estimated cost of $125.5 million dollars.  Adoption of the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Trails Master Plan which calls for a regional trail along Boxelder Creek and between the two irrigation ditches within the Gateway at Prospect ODP.  Adoption of the City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Master Plan which calls for a future public neighborhood park within the Gateway at Prospect ODP.  The conveyance (by trade) of the former (143 acres) City of Fort Collins Sludge Farm, south of Prospect Road, to Colorado State University Research Foundation, and rezoning the parcel from P-O- L, Public Open Lands, to E, Employment.  Ratification of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath on the boundaries of their respective Growth Management Areas. Based on the Timnath GMA, existing agricultural land is expected to develop at an urban level of residential density. As can be seen, there are a number of significant changes within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property over the past 12 years. Staff contends that proposed rezoning is warranted by these changes. 5. Section 2.9(H)(3)(a) - Whether and the Extent To Which the Proposed Amendment is Compatible With Existing and Proposed Uses Surrounding the Subject Land and is the Appropriate Zone District for the Land. The 177 acres of Gateway at Prospect ODP are undeveloped. Regarding the various residential parcels to the west, the applicant has provided an exhibit that illustrates an on-site transitional buffer ranging from 9 to 88 feet, located between the rear property lines of the County parcels to the edge of the future north-south street. The exhibit also shows the off-site separation between the existing houses to the west to the ODP’s onsite transitional buffer ranging from 35 to 787 feet. These physical separations are effective in achieving compatibility. The owner of the nearest house has provided a letter in support of the rezoning and amended ODP. In addition, while not a buffer, the future north-south public street will include 76 feet of total right-of-way plus 18 feet of total utility easement (94 feet) which contributes to separation. Finally, there would be on-site design aspects, such as building setbacks and front yard landscaping on the east side of the future street that will contribute to overall buffering and separation. Combined, these buffers, distances and setbacks contribute to buffering and mitigation of any negative impacts. The proposal to introduce M-M-N zoning, in relationship to Boxelder Estates and other adjacent properties, is proportional to that of similar relationships found within the City’s Growth Management Area. Due to the privately-owned buffer, there will be no street connections and thus no traffic impacts. The multi-family housing can be placed at distances that are equal to or greater than similar land use relationships found throughout the City. In addition, compatibility can be achieved by requiring the elements of compatibility to be implemented at the PDP stage. Consistent with City Plan and existing development patterns, the existence of a County semi-rural, residential subdivision does not preclude the City from realizing the goals of compact urban form and opportunities for a variety of housing in all parts of the City. In order to ensure that any subsequent PDP complies with the applicable compatibility criteria, Staff recommends the following three conditions of approval:  Condition Number Five: Multi-family development on the subject 21.98 acres must be designed 12 Packet Pg. 294 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 10 such that buildings do not exceed 40 feet in height. Masonry exterior materials must be provided on the front elevations up to at least the top of the first floor. Off-street parking must not be located between buildings and streets (public or private) to the maximum extent feasible.  Condition Number Six: A transitional landscape buffer ranging between 9 and 88 feet must be provided between the rear (east) property lines of the adjoining County parcels and the western edge of the future north-south collector road, as well as along the north property line of 3604 E. Prospect Road. Further, such area shall be densely landscaped, with an emphasis on the northern portion, and overall, must include a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and other plants, undulating earthen berms, sustainable ground covers and proper irrigation in order to establish an effective and aesthetically pleasing land use transition.  Condition Number Seven: The multi-family buildings that are placed along the future north-south street that intersects with Prospect Road must be setback from the property line by no less than 15 feet. Staff, therefore, finds that the proposed rezoning of the subject 21.98 acres to M-M-N, as conditioned, is compatible with existing and proposed uses and is the appropriate zone district for the land. 6. Section 2.9(H)(3)(b) - Whether and the Extent to Which the Proposed Amendment Would Result in Significantly Adverse Impacts on the Natural Environment, Including, But Not Limited to Water, Air, Noise, Stormwater Management, Wildlife, Vegetation, Wetlands and the Natural Functioning of the Environment. Under current L-M-N zoning, multi-family is permitted but capped at three specific metrics. In addition, there are over 30 permitted uses ranging from single-family detached to convenience retails stores with fuel sales. This wide range is intentional and specifically calibrated to create mixed-use neighborhoods as envisioned by City Plan. Under current E zoning, multi-family housing is also permitted with no caps on the three aforementioned metrics. In addition, there are over 67 permitted uses ranging from single family detached to light industrial. This wide range of uses is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces. Secondary uses are allowed to support primary uses and to allow residential in close proximity to employment. Up-zoning 12.40 acres of L-M-N and down-zoning 10.03 acres of E to 22.43 acres of M-M-N would not create any different impact on natural habitats and features than the impacts associated with the permitted uses in the underlying zone districts. The wide range of currently permitted uses is roughly comparable to M-M-N permitted uses, particularly the non-residential commercial uses. The rezoning to M-M-N would not result in significant adverse impact on the stated criteria. 7. Section 2.9(H)(3)(c) - Whether and the Extent to Which the Proposed Amendment Would Result in a Logical and Orderly Development Pattern. The current zoning around the four quadrants of the I-25/Prospect Road interchange is as follows: Northwest (Vacant - Gateway at Prospect O.D.P.):  C-G, General Commercial 27 acres  E, Employment 60 acres  L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood 68 acres  U-E, Urban Estate 22 acres Southwest (Vacant - CSURF):  E, Employment 143 acres 12 Packet Pg. 295 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 11 Southeast (Vacant - Paradigm Properties):  C-G, General Commercial 17 acres Northeast (Vacant - White Brothers):  C-G, General Commercial 15 acres  I, Industrial 117 acres Total: 469 acres As can be seen, there is no M-M-N zoning within the four quadrants of the interchange covering a total of 469 acres. In contrast, a square mile section is 640 acres and defined by section line roads typically classified as arterial streets. On a city-wide basis, with the exception of natural areas, it is rare to find such a large area as 469 acres that does not include either M-M-N zoning, or comparable multi-family housing developed under different zoning or under prior law. Allowing M-M-N on the subject site would result in creating opportunities to locate housing in close proximity to a variety of potential workplaces. Further, such M-M-N zoning would be the only such zone within a 1.5 mile radius. Staff finds that this arrangement of zoning would also result in a logical and orderly development pattern for east-central Fort Collins. In conclusion, the request to rezone two parcels to M-M-N complies with the applicable criteria of City Plan to amend the Structure Plan Map and Section 2.9 of the Land Use Code. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no direct financial or economic impacts resulting from the Structure Plan Map amendment and the rezoning request that would be any different than if the land development occurred under existing zoning. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On January 12, 2017, at its regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously (6 – 0) to approve the Structure Plan Map Amendment and the rezoning of two parcels from L-M-N and E to M-M-N. PUBLIC OUTREACH Per Section 2.9(B), a neighborhood meeting is not required except that with respect to quasi-judicial map amendments (rezoning) only, the Director may convene a neighborhood meeting to present and discuss a proposal of known controversy and/or significant impacts. A neighborhood meeting was held on December 19, 2016. Note that two earlier meetings were held in conjunction with the amended ODP and the Request for an Addition of Permitted Use. The request for an APU was withdrawn and replaced by a request for rezoning. All three neighborhood meeting summaries are attached since the issues related to potential multi-family development are similar whether entitled by an APU or rezoning. One of the results of this public outreach is the recommendation of seven conditions of approval. 12 Packet Pg. 296 Agenda Item 12 Item # 12 Page 12 ATTACHMENTS 1. Aerial Vicinity Map (PDF) 2. Proposed Structure Plan Map Amendment (PDF) 3. Existing Zoning (PDF) 4. Proposed Rezoning (PDF) 5. East Prospect Corridor Features Map (PDF) 6. East Prospect Corridor Zoning Map (PDF) 7. Rezoning Map/Legal Descriptions (PDF) 8. City Plan M-M-N Purpose and Policies (PDF) 9. Applicant's Rezone Justification (PDF) 10. Gateway at Prospect Amended ODP (PDF) 11. First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) 12. Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) 13. Third Neighborhood Meeting Summary (PDF) 14. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (draft) (PDF) 12 Packet Pg. 297 ATTACHMENT 1 12.1 Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Aerial Vicinity Map (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) ATTACHMENT 2 12.2 Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Proposed Structure Plan Map Amendment (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) EXISTING ZONING ATTACHMENT 3 12.3 Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Existing Zoning (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) PROPOSED REZONING ATTACHMENT 4 12.4 Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Proposed Rezoning (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) EAST PROSPECT CORRIDOR FEATURES MAP ATTACHMENT 5 12.5 Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: East Prospect Corridor Features Map (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) EAST PROSPECT CORRIDOR ZONING MAP ATTACHMENT 6 12.6 Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: East Prospect Corridor Zoning Map (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) ATTACHMENT 7 12.7 Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Rezoning Map/Legal Descriptions (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) ATTACHMENT 8 12.8 Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: City Plan M-M-N Purpose and Policies (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 1 December 14, 2016 Gateway at Prospect Justification of Rezoning Request Ownership The owner of Gateway at Prospect (“Gateway”) is Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner, LLC (“FCIC”), a 14 member group that acquired the Gateway property in 2013 for investment purposes. The Property Gateway is the 177-acre property located at the northwest corner of I-25 and Prospect Road. Recent History Gateway was previously owned by a Great Britain based investment group called Western VII Investments LLC, which called the property “Interstate Land.” It was annexed to the City and zoned in April 1989. It has been rezoned twice since, most recently in April 2000. An Overall Development Plan (“ODP”) was approved in 2004. Adjacent Properties In addition to Gateway at the northwest corner, the other properties at the corners of Prospect and I- 25 are:  Southwest Corner: 142-acre tract owned by Colorado State University Research Foundation (“CSURF”). The property is annexed to the City and zoned for employment and commercial development. Its proposed use is for a high-tech campus to house spin-offs from CSU and other R&D uses.  Northeast Corner: 129.4 acres owned by Rudolph Farms. The property is annexed and zoned for commercial development. Its proposed uses include retail, industrial, assisted living facilities and a church.  Southeast Corner: 17.4 acres owned by Paradigm. The property is annexed and zoned for commercial development. Proposed uses are the permitted commercial uses, and would include retail, restaurants, fast food and office/warehouse. Additional properties surrounding Gateway  To the South, the Colorado Welcome Center owned by Colorado State University, a CDOT rest area, a strip owned by the City, and a 12.5-acre tract owned by K and M Company.  To the West, Boxelder Subdivision and Sunrise Acres Subdivision, both older Larimer County residential subdivisions.  To the North, a fully developed Larimer County industrial park.  In addition to the foregoing, the 110 acre Poudre School District site is just east of the Northeast Corner, on the north side of Prospect Road, and is planned for a Senior High/Middle School and associated athletics fields. Construction of the school was approved as part of the recent $375 Million Poudre School District Bond Issue. 12.9 Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 2 Request For Rezone This is a request to rezone approximately 12.4 acres of LMN (Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods) district and approximately 8.4 acres of E (Employment) district land at Gateway at Prospect (a total of 20.8 acres) to MMN (Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods). The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for an increased level of residential intensity, for an already permitted use within both of the existing zone districts. The MMN parcel would provide a more gradual transition in development intensity and use between lower density development to the west and higher intensity development proposed to the east. The MMN zone district also allows for the opportunity to provide more diversity in housing product within the City. There are several other neighborhoods in Fort Collins that have MMN zoning situated in a similar way to what is proposed at Gateway at Prospect including: a) Carpenter and College Ave b) Harmony and College Ave c) Harmony and Boardwalk d) Harmony and Lemay e) Timberline and Zephyr f) College and Crestridge g) Harmony and Shields h) Horsetooth and Shields i) Drake and Shields j) Prospect and Shields k) Prospect and Overland l) Taft Hill and Elizabeth m) Shields and Elizabeth n) College and Willox o) Vine and Timberline p) Mulberry and Greenfield q) Timberline and Drake r) Timberline and Horsetooth The MMN at Gateway at Prospect, as proposed, would be the only MMN property in the I- 25/Gateway district, as it is not zoned in any of the other quadrants of the interchange. 1. Text Amendments and Legislative Zonings or Rezonings. Amendments to the text of this Code, and amendments to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of more than six hundred forty (640) acres of land (legislative rezoning), are matters committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council, and decisions regarding the same are not controlled by any one (1) factor. The proposed area for rezoning is less than six hundred forty (640) acres of land. 2. Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings. Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land or less (a quasi- judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is: a. consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or The rezone to MMN (Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood) at Gateway at Prospect meets the intent of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and City Plan which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: 1. Introduction – Community and Neighborhood Livability a. Defining how neighborhoods will accommodate future population and lifestyle shifts. 12.9 Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 3 2. Introduction – Urban design and Historic Preservation a. Defining gateways that help distinguish Fort Collins from surrounding communities. 3. Introduction – Housing a. Serving the housing needs of many diverse groups and changing demographics. b. Providing high-performing housing for all income groups. 3. Community and Neighborhood Livability Vision a. A compact pattern of development within a well-defined community boundary. b. Cohesive, distinct, vibrant, safe and attractive neighborhoods c. Quality and accessible housing options for all household types and income levels. d. Distinctive and attractive community image, design, and identity. 4. Community and Neighborhood Livability a. Overview: …By increasing the overall average density of the city, the community’s neighborhoods will foster efficient land use, support a mix of housing types, increase efficiency of public utilities, streets, facilities, and services, and accommodate multiple mode of travel (including vehicle, bus, bike and walking). b. Supporting land uses are to be brought together in a development pattern designed to create a pleasant environment for walking and bicycling as well as automobile and transit travel. c. Activity centers generally correspond to Commercial Districts identified on the City Structure Plan Map and are intended to be vibrant, walkable, bicycle friendly, transit-supportive places that contain a mix of housing, employment, retail, culture, arts and dining. d. Earlier versions of City Plan also envisioned a community with a wide variety of housing types (including single-family houses, duplexes, townhomes, apartment, and condos/lofts) – ideas which are carried forward in this chapter of the 2010 City Plan so that people from all income levels may have choices of affordable and quality housing in diverse neighborhoods throughout the community. e. Finally, the earlier versions of City Plan introduced the introduced the City Structure Plan Map to guide ongoing growth and evolution of the community. It translates the overall vision for our built environment into a map with four basic kinds of components that make up the physical form and development pattern of the city: Neighborhoods, Districts, Edges, and Corridors. These components are structured around the following key themes: - Focus on a Compact Development Pattern - Provide an interconnected Transit System - Accommodate Multiple Means of Travel - Provide Transit-Oriented Activity Centers - Provide an Interconnected System of Open Lands - Reduce Carbon Emissions 5. Community and Neighborhood Livability and Sustainability a. The economic, environmental and human aspects of the City’s sustainability relate to community and neighborhood livability in the following ways: b. Economy: A mix of land uses (housing, retail, employment, etc.) provides opportunities to grow and diversity the economy throughout the community and for citizens to meet their retail an services needs in a variety of locations. A mix of housing options throughout the community also accommodates residents of all income levels in the city near places of work or other activity centers. c. Human: Community and neighborhood livability is related to human well-being in that a mix of land uses and housing and transportation options provide opportunities for citizens to be self- sufficient and to live, work, and travel within the community. 6. Subarea Plans a. Prospect Road Streetscape Plan 12.9 Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 4 7. Housing – Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. a. Policy LIV 7.1 – Encourage Variety in Housing Types and Locations: Encourage a variety of housing types and densities, including mixed use developments that are well-served by public transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services, and amenities. b. Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop and Adequate Supply of Housing: Encourage public and private for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain and adequate supply of single- and multiple-family housing. 8. City Structure Plan Map Principles and Policies a. Focus on a Compact Development Pattern Growth within the city will be focused to promote a compact development pattern, by directing urban development to well-defined areas within the Growth Management Area (GMA). The compact form of the city will also contribute to preserving environmentally sensitive areas and rural lands, efficiently providing public services, and encouraging infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas. b. Provide an Interconnected Transit System An expanded public transit system is an integral component of the City Structure Plan Map. The system is designed to provide for high-frequency transit service along major arterials and Enhanced Travel Corridors (including Prospect Road). Feeder Transit lines will provide connections from all major districts within the city. The City’s compact form will help make comprehensive, convenient, and efficient transit service possible. c. Accommodate Multiple Means of Travel The City’s form and structure will facilitate pedestrians, bicycles, and transit, as well as cars and trucks. New development will be organized and woven into a compact pattern that is conducive to automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit travel. d. Components of the City Plan Structure Plan Map Neighborhoods: Neighborhoods will serve as the primary building blocks of the community’s built environment. Neighborhoods will be walkable and connected, and will include a mix of housing types. Neighborhoods will include destinations within walking distance such as schools, parks, neighborhood shopping, places of work and civic uses. e. Policy LIV 22.1 – Vary Housing Models and Types Provide variation in house models and types in large developments, along with variations in lot and block sizes, to avoid monotonous streetscapes, increase housing options, and eliminate the appearance of standardized subdivision. f. Policy LIV 22.2 - Provide Creative Multi-Family Housing Design Design smaller multi-family buildings to reflect the characteristics and amenities typically associated with single-family detached houses. These characteristics and amenities include orientation of the front door to a neighborhood sidewalk and street, individual identity, private outdoor space, adequate parking and storage, access to sunlight, privacy and security. g. Policy LIV 22.3 – Offer Multi-Family Building Variation Offer variation among individual buildings within multi- building projects, yet stay within a coordinated overall “design theme. Achieve variation among buildings through a combination of different footprints, facade treatment, roof forms, entrance features, and, in specialized cases, building orientation. Avoid monotonous complexes of identical buildings, although there may be ways to achieve visual interest among substantially identical buildings with a high degree of articulation on each building, combined with variation in massing on the site. 9. MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOODS (MMN) a. Purpose: Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate-intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed- 12.9 Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 5 Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks. b. Policy LIV 29.2 – Mix of Uses Include other neighborhood-serving uses in addition to residential uses. Although the actual mix of uses in each neighborhood will vary, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods may include the following: Principal uses: Detached single-family homes on small lots (under 6,000 square feet), duplexes, townhouses, accessory dwelling units, group homes, live-work units, and multi- family housing. Supporting uses: Non-retail uses such as places of worship; day care (adult and child); parks and recreation facilities; schools; small civic facilities; offices and clinics; small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops, studios, workshops bed-and- breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity; neighborhood serving retail uses; dwelling units stacked above retail or office space; and live- work units. Home occupations are permitted provided they do not generate excessive traffic and parking, or have signage that is not consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. c. Policy LIV 29.3 – Neighborhood or Community Commercial District Integrate the design of a Medium Density Mixed-Use neighborhood with a Neighborhood Commercial District or Community Commercial District. Residents should be able to easily get to the Commercial District without the need to use an arterial street. d. Policy LIV 29.4 – Mix of Housing Types Include a variety of housing types suitable to a Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood’s transitional, higher- activity location. Mix and distribute housing types at the neighborhood and block level, rather than creating isolated pockets of a particular housing type. Incorporate low- and medium-cost housing with higher-cost housing and non-residential uses. e. Policy LIV 29.5 – Transitions Encourage non-residential uses and larger buildings of attached and multiple-family housing near the commercial core, with a transition to smaller buildings, such as duplex and detached houses, closer to surrounding lower density neighborhoods. 10. Enhanced Travel Corridors a. Policy LIV 43.3 – Support Transit-Supportive Development Patterns Support the incorporation of higher intensity, transit- supportive development along Enhanced Travel Corridors through infill and redevelopment. Encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. 11. Longer Term Action Item a. Gateway Design Standards (including Prospect Road) b. Prospect Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan 12. Catalyst Project Areas a. During the Plan Fort Collins process project team members, City Council, and the public identified areas throughout the city that have the potential to “showcase” opportunities to embrace the Plan Fort Collins vision themes of Innovate, Sustain, and Connect. Through a combination of public and private actions that complement and build upon one another, these areas have the potential for lasting, desirable change. Catalyst areas are viewed as places for ongoing and new public and private sector initiatives that use a multi-disciplinary and triple bottom line approach, addressing economic, environmental, and social factors in a balanced manner. While each area requires City and private sector engagement, City Plan focuses on City actions that can inspire private sector response and create catalytic change. The intent of this section of City Plan is to identify these areas as those that are positioned for catalytic change, and to use several case studies as examples to illustrate how change might 12.9 Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 6 occur in a synergistic manner. The timing and pace of activity in these areas will ultimately be determined by market forces, community interest, and City and private sector investment. There are multiple areas and projects that can be viewed as Catalyst Project Areas throughout the City. The planning team initially identified 12 areas, and others may surface as the plan is implemented over time: Prospect/I-25 Gateway b. warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. There has been significant change in character of this property since it was originally zoned. These changes include: 1. Boxelder Floodplain: Over the course of the last 16 years, dramatic development has occurred at all the intersections of I-25 from Loveland (Hwy 34 and Crossroads) to Fort Collins (Hwy 392, Harmony Road and Mulberry) except one – the I-25 and Prospect intersection. The primary cause of this isolation is the Boxelder Floodplain. Boxelder Creek starts north of Ft. Collins and flows down the east side of I-25 until it reaches the north end of Gateway, where it crosses under I-25 onto Gateway. It passes through Gateway and crosses under Prospect Road at the south end of Gateway. Prior to remediation work being completed, it passed under I-25 through 2 culverts (there are 4 culverts under I-25, but two have been blocked), and under Prospect Road through one culvert. The small size of the culverts caused the highway and road to act as a dam in a 100 year storm event, causing flooding of the northeast and southwest corners of I-25 and Prospect, hundreds of acres in Timnath, and the portions of Gateway adjacent to Prospect. As a consequence, no development could take place on these lands. During 2016, the Boxelder Stormwater Authority (Ft. Collins, Wellington and Larimer County) and Timnath contributed $10,851,588 Million dollars to remediate the floodplain caused by Boxelder Creek. Among other improvements, the two closed culverts under I- 25 were opened, and the City closed Prospect Road for June, July and August in order to install 7 culverts under Prospect Road. The remediation work removed from the floodplain all of the property located in Timnath, all of the northeast and southwest corners of the I-25 at Prospect Road intersection, and the portion of Gateway adjacent to Prospect, making all of that property available for development. The engineers for the City and the Boxelder Stormwater Authority have submitted the “as built” data to FEMA and are awaiting the issuance of a Letter Of Map Revision (“LOMAR”) to formally remove the floodplain. The LOMAR will allow development to take place on all the properties formerly in the flood plain. 2. Prospect and I-25 Interchange improvements: At a cost of approximately $235 Million, the Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) plans to expand I-25 to 3 lanes on each side from Mulberry to Loveland. CDOT proposes to accomplish this through a “Design-Build” process in which CDOT prepares the engineering work up to a 30% level and sends it out to contractors to complete the engineering work and bid on the construction. The Design-Build bid is planned to be sent to contractors in January, 2017. The original bid proposal did not include any intersection construction. FCIC and the three other owners of the other I-25 and Prospect Road corners (together, the “Prospect Interchange Task Force”, or “PTIF Group”) contacted the City and CDOT this past September, in hopes of persuading CDOT to include a new intersection (including a new 7 lane overpass bridge, on and off ramps and expansion of Prospect in the vicinity of the interchange) at Prospect Road (the “Prospect Intersection”) in the Design-Bid process. The objective was to accelerate the construction of the intersection from 2035 or beyond, to 2018. 12.9 Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 7 CDOT responded by indicating that the Prospect Intersection was estimated to cost $28 Million, and that CDOT could be willing to include it in the Design Build bid if the City and private parties would come up with half the cost, $14 Million, split $7,000,000 each from the PTIF Group and from the City. Construction of an improved intersection is critically important to the City and CDOT. The intersection is currently reaching its capacity, and has significant traffic issues. The City Plan and the Transportation Plan both identify the Prospect Road interchange as the “Gateway” to the City, and deem it to be a “Catalyst Project “, critical to future of the City. After many meetings and significant efforts by all parties, The City Council, on November 25, 2016, adopted a resolution to include the Prospect Intersection in “CDOT’s North I-25 Improvement Project” through cooperative public-private funding. FCIC and the rest of the PTIF Group have agreed to provide up to $7,000,000 for the project. And finally, CDOT has agreed to include the project in its Design Build bid. It is anticipated that construction of the North I-25 Improvement Project, including the Prospect Interchange, will commence in January, 2018. 3. Floodplain Weir: As part of the Boxelder floodplain remediation construction, the City requested that FCIC convey to the City an exclusive easement of a 2.7-acre site fronting on Prospect Road for the construction of a “weir” (a ditch) to carry overflow water from Boxelder Creek to the 5 culverts to be built under Prospect Road. At no cost to the City, FCIC conveyed the easement requested to the City. The weir consumes 2.7 acres of Gateway’s property, eliminates 110 feet of Gateway’s frontage along Prospect Road and eliminates 110 feet from the east side of the Gateway tract on which FCIC had hoped to sell for multifamily development. 4. CSURF: Until 2007, when CSURF acquired its 142 acres, the property belonged to the City and was used as a “sludge farm”. After its acquisition by CSURF, it was zoned for commercial and employment uses, adding significant potential commercial uses to the area. 5. Additional ROW for Prospect Road widening: Also at the request of the City, FCIC has conveyed to the City 27.5 feet of Prospect Road frontage and granted an additional, parallel, 15-foot easement for utilities for a 42.5-foot setback from the current Prospect Road right-of-way. The conveyance of the 27.5 frontage was for the future widening of Prospect Road. These conveyances were also made at no cost to the City. 6. New PSD Middle/High School: On November 8, 2016, voters in the Poudre School District approved a bond issue of $375 Million, a portion of which will be used to construct a Middle School /High School and an associated athletic complex on the District’s 110-acre site ½ mile east of Gateway. Construction is scheduled to start in 2017. The middle/high school is expected to cost $125.5 Million and to open in 2020. 7. Dramatic growth and changes in land use in north Timnath: There has been significant development on the east side of I-25. What was previously farm land has either developed into residential property or has approvals for future construction of residential development. c. Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors: 12.9 Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 8 1. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land; Boxelder Estates, a County subdivision with platted lots, is located to the west of Gateway at Prospect. This neighborhood consists of semi-rural ranchettes which were platted in the 1960’s. The zoning for the majority of the neighborhood is R – Residential with a few lots zoned FA-Farming. Streets in this neighborhood are paved and lot sizes range from 0.41 acres – 5.41 acres. There is an existing strip of land which separates Boxelder Estates from Gateway at Prospect which is owned by the Boxelder HOA. This land was purchased approximately 20 years ago, is roughly 110 feet wide and 1,880 feet long. This land was purchased by the Boxelder HOA, from a former owner of Gateway, to ensure that street connections could not be made with any future adjacent development. There is a significant, existing buffer between the houses in Boxelder Estates that area located to the west of the proposed MMN parcel. With the exception of one house, all of the Boxelder Estate houses are currently located 640 feet – 787 feet from the Gateway at Prospect property boundary. The one house that is closer, is located approximately 35 feet from the Gateway at Prospect property boundary. This property owner has reviewed the planned development and provided written consent to the proposed development. In addition to the existing buffer, a transitional landscape buffer is planned which will range from 9 feet – 88 feet. A North-South collector road is planned adjacent to the transitional landscape buffer which will have a 76-foot right-of-way. We anticipate some additional land area on the east side of the collector road, in the form of building setbacks, which will be determined at the time of PDP/FDP applications. In total, this provides a buffer that ranges from 110 feet (which includes the nearest house)– 875 feet between Boxelder Estates houses and the nearest possible building within the multi-family parcel. The multi-family parcel also serves as a transition between the County subdivision and a planned high intensity commercial development to the east of both the multi-family parcel and the Boxelder Creek, and will act as a buffer to the noise associated with I-25. I-25 is located to the east of the commercial zone district with overall intensity in zoning planned, per City of Fort Collins zoning maps, increasing as you move from Boxelder Estates to the east. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. This parcel would serve as a transition between the platted County subdivision to the west and future commercial development to the east. Multi-family is currently a permitted use in the existing zone district. A change to MMN zoning will allow for an increased level of residential intensity providing housing more diversity within the City. The increased intensity of housing works symbiotically to support adjacent neighborhood commercial development and promote non-auto oriented development. 2. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment; We do not anticipate any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed multi-family development would be arranged in a manner that protects the adjacent Boxelder Creek. In addition, a regional trail, per the City’s Master Trails Plan, is 12.9 Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Page 9 proposed along the eastern side of the multi-family parcel providing additional buffer between the natural environments and the residential units. 3. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to be settings for a diverse mix of concentrated housing within easy walking or biking distance of transit, commercial services, employment, and parks or recreational amenities. Neighborhoods may also contain other moderate-intensity, neighborhood serving uses of a complementary scale and character. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, and open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment. Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods are intended to function together with surrounding Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods and a centrally located Neighborhood or Community Commercial District, providing a more gradual transition in development intensity and use. Medium Density Mixed- Use Neighborhoods will be further unified with surrounding neighborhoods and districts through a connected pattern of streets and blocks. This District is intended to function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods (typically the L-M-N zone district) and a central commercial core (typically an N-C or C-C zone district). The intent is for the component zone districts to form an integral, town-like pattern of development, and not merely a series of individual development projects in separate zone districts. The Prospect and I-25 interchange is identified as an enhanced travel corridor per City Plan. Development within the MMN zone designation would allow for higher intensity, transit- supportive development. The MMN zone district would encourage the densities and broader mix of uses necessary to support walking, bicycling, and transit use while accommodating efficient automobile use. It would serve as a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district. 12.9 Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Applicant's Rezone Justification (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) ATTACHMENT 10 12.10 Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Gateway at Prospect Amended ODP (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 1 FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use. LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road DATE: April 21, 2016 APPLICANT: Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner LLC CONSULTANTS: Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer Project Description As proposed, the project consists of developing the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. The site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. The request also includes an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi-family dwellings with greater than 12 units per building, and with buildings exceeding 14,000 square feet in size, and on a single phase that exceeds 12.00 dwelling units per acre, to be allowed on 12.4 acres within the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone. Per the City’s Land Use Code, multi-family is permitted in the L-M-N zone but capped at the aforementioned parameters. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi-family apartments in buildings that are larger than would otherwise be permitted on 12.4 acres in the L-M-N zone. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. ATTACHMENT 11 12.11 Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 2 Questions, Comments, Concerns 1. Could you describe the access point on Prospect Road? A. This will be a ¾ access, not a full-turning access. This means left turns exiting the site will not be allowed. Allowable turn movements would include right-in, right-out, and left-in, but no left-out. 2. So the access point on the Frontage Road will allow for full turning movements? A. Yes, full access will be allowed at the Frontage Road access point. 3. Can you estimate the total number persons at full build-out? A. We are not able to provide a precise number at this time as we do not know the number of houses that may be designed on the single family portion of the site. The L-M-N zone district requires no less than 4.00 dwelling units per net acre and no greater than 9.00 per gross acre. Residential development in the Employment zone must be no less than 7.00 dwelling units per net acre and there is no density minimum or maximum in the General Commercial zone. For the proposed multi-family project, at this time, we estimate there would be approximately 276 units. 4. The proposed apartment project needs the Addition of Permitted Use to allow the larger buildings both in terms of number of units, size of building and overall average density for one phase of larger project. Do any other proposed uses need an Addition of Permitted Use? A. No, just that portion of the apartment project that is in the L-M-N zone. All other proposed uses are permitted in their respective zone districts. 5. You mentioned that the L-M-N zone allows for a mix of housing. Could you describe what types of housing? A. Yes, the L-M-N allows for single family detached, single family detached – alley load, single family attached (townhomes), two-family dwellings (duplexes), multi- family, mixed-use dwellings and mobile home parks. The standard requires that no one type of housing comprise more than 80% or less than 5% of the total. 6. Will there be a traffic signal at the Prospect Road access drive? A. No, placing a traffic signal at this point would be too close to the existing signal at the S.W. Frontage Road. This is one reason why this intersection is limited to ¾ turning movements only. 12.11 Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 3 7. Is the Cooper Slough a protected wetland? A. Please note that the Cooper Slough is not on our property. 8. What are the plans for increased traffic on Prospect Road? I’m concerned about the new stadium being on Prospect and the game day traffic. Also, it seems there are more commuters driving into Fort Collins on a daily basis from outlying areas and towns. 9. I would like to follow-up on that comment by asking about why we don’t have an eastbound protected left-turn signal to turn north onto Summitview? With the heavy traffic, this left turn is getting more and more difficult and dangerous. We need to get into our subdivision (Boxelder Estates) from eastbound Prospect and the high speed and volume of westbound traffic, we are taking more risks with an unprotected left. A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: Please note that at this time, the project has not been submitted yet. One of our submittal requirements is that the applicant submits a Transportation Impact Study. This analysis will assess the traffic impact generated by the proposed project based on the number of units and the amount of commercial square footage. These impacts will be evaluated and the appropriate mitigation measures will then be required. In general, this may mean dedicating additional public right-of-way and building the requisite auxiliary turn lanes. In terms of the present situation, we will look into adding a protected left turn signal for eastbound Prospect. 10. Can you talk about the construction on Prospect planned for this summer? A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: Where Boxelder Creek crosses under Prospect Road will be totally reconstructed this summer with a new bridge. This will result in a temporary full road closure. Summitview will get the detour traffic. 11. If Summitview gets the detour traffic, then you will need to adjust the signal timing at the Summitview/Mulberry intersection. As it’s timed now, northbound traffic turning left (west) onto Mulberry allows for only about five cars per cycle. This is not long enough to accommodate the detour traffic. A. Response from City Traffic Operations Engineer: We will look into increasing this signal timing for northbound left turns. 12. You mentioned in your presentation but could you confirm that there is to be no access from the O.D.P. west into Boxelder Estates and north into the County Subdivision? A. That is correct. 12.11 Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 4 13. Question for the City: Are you factoring in the future development of the 100- acre Poudre School District campus on the east side of I-25? Traffic around schools can be heavy at times especially given the options available under the school of choice policy. A. Response from City: Yes, we will be looking at development of that parcel. 14. Why not a new traffic signal on Prospect at the site access? A. Response from City: It’s simply too close to the existing signal at the Frontage Road. Since Prospect will carry significantly more traffic than the site access drive, we need to allow for a signal progression that favors east-west traffic. Residents within the O.D.P. that need to go westbound during peak times would be making a right turn which does not necessarily need a signal. Or, residents may choose to exit the site on the east to gain access to the Frontage Road which will take them to the signal at Prospect. This will allow for a safe left turn to go east on Prospect. Now, having said that, as development occurs in this area, we may have to coordinate with CDOT on the signal timing at the Prospect Road/Frontage Road signal so that traffic in all four directions is accommodated. 15. Is a round-about under consideration? A. Yes, a round-about may be a practical and efficient traffic control device at the site access intersection with the Frontage Road on the east side of the site, north of Prospect. 16. I just want to make sure – you are not proposing to build a road across the irrigation ditch and tie into Locust Street in Sunrise Acres to the north? A. That is correct. 17. Does the City plan on annexing our Sunrise Acres (to the north)? A. Response from City Planner: There are no immediate plans to annex either County subdivisions (Boxelder Estates and Sunrise Acres). 18. I’m concerned about the O.D.P., and subsequent phases, complying with the Adequate Public Facilities provisions of the Land Use Code particularly with regard to the ever increasing traffic on Prospect. Timnath continues to grow and the School District’s upcoming bond issue calls for new schools on their parcel east of the interstate. I’m not seeing how all the projected growth can be handled on our streets and still maintain safe levels of service. A. Response from City: You are correct. We will continue to be challenged to keep our level of service standards (measure of delay at intersections) at the level that we have committed to. Our job is to make sure that as development occurs, the 12.11 Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 5 proper amount of mitigation is provided commensurate with the impact being created. 19. I see congestion at the CDOT ramps that impacts through traffic on Prospect. As growth continues in this area, the City will need to coordinate with CDOT to make sure that traffic flows smoothly. A. Response from City: You are correct. CDOT plays a major role in this area. 20. What does the green area on the map mean? Is this area developable? A. Yes, this area is in the City and zoned. But, developing this area is challenging due to the need to cross the ditch (Cache La Poudre Inlet Canal). At this time, the developer prefers not to develop this area due to the constraints with access, utilities, etc. 21. What about crossing ditch with a footbridge? A. Yes, that is possibility that we have discussed. We have also talked to the City’s Parks Department about developing a public neighborhood park on that parcel but the City is concerned that it’s a bit isolated. The Parks Department has also indicated that a regional trail on the south side of the ditch may be worth pursuing, especially if it can be connected to a larger trail system. 22. Have you talked to the ditch company about potential crossings? A. Not yet. 23. You need to be aware that the Greeley Water Line is in that area. A. Yes, we are aware of the Greeley Water Line Easement. 24. Who will provide the water and sewer? A. Elco Water and Boxeleder Sanitation special districts. 25. Can the applicant tell us what other properties or projects that he has developed? A. Response from Mr. McKenna: I represent a small ownership group. We do not intend to be the developer. Rather, we are interested in doing the master planning but would prefer to sell to a development company. 26. Will the condos be one story? A. We don’t know yet. 12.11 Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 6 29. We need a Transfort bus route out here on East Prospect in time to serve the proposed high school. A. Transfort plans on providing a bus route in this area in the long term. 30.I live on Sherry Drive and concerned about trespassing. A. We don’t anticipate residents trespassing on private property. 31. In general, I oppose the project. It’s too dense for our area. 32. In Boxelder Estates, we have adjudicated wells. I’m concerned about the increase in impervious surface that may impact our wells. 33. Boxelder Creek flooded in 1963. With the newly formed Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority, we pay $83 per month. As the O.D.P. develops, new residents should pay into this District as well. A. We will abide by the financial requirements and obligations of the special district. 34. We like the quiet of Boxelder Estates. It seems like we are being bombarded by new growth. We like our peace and quiet and do not support your project. 35. I like single family detached homes that are owned by the occupants, not rental apartments. 36. I seems like this project represents just dumping renters out on the fringe of the city. It’s like East Vine Drive with Waterglen and Trailhead with all those houses but no amenities for the residents. These types of projects are isolated from the city. 37. Traffic on Prospect is unbearable. With the upcoming road closure, it will just become worse. What are the traffic counts on Prospect? A. Approximately 24,000 trips per day. 38. East Prospect needs a separate right turn lane for the I-25 southbound entrance ramp. There’s just too much traffic and not enough improvements. 39. I would like to point out that PSD plans not only to build new schools on their 100 acres but a district-wide athletic facility as well. This will just add to the traffic problems. 40. What is your timeframe for developing and constructing the first phase apartments? A. It’s hard to say because as we noted, our ownership group does not plan on being the actual developer. But we anticipate that we would gain approval of our 12.11 Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 7 Overall Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use, which requires a public hearing, this summer. Then if we are successful in finding an interested party to become the developer, then that group has to submit for a phase one Project Development Plan for the apartments which also requires a public hearing which takes us into Fall / Winter. Then that group would have to submit a Final Plan and complete a Development Agreement with the City which takes us into Spring of 2017. The earliest we could expect to begin earth work would be Spring / Summer of 2017. 12.11 Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: First Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 1 SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and Addition of Permitted Use. LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road DATE: August 10, 2016 APPLICANT: Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner LLC CONSULTANTS: Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group Kristin Turner, The Birdsall Group Nick Haws, Northern Engineering Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer Project Description As proposed, the project consists of developing the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. The site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.) is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. The request also includes an Addition of Permitted Use (A.P.U.) for Phase One of the O.D.P. to allow multi-family dwellings with greater than 12 units per building; and with buildings exceeding 14,000 square feet in size in the L-M-N zone. Per the City’s Land ATTACHMENT 12 12.12 Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 2 Use Code, multi-family is permitted in the L-M-N zone but capped at the aforementioned parameters. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi-family apartments in buildings that are larger than would otherwise be permitted on 12.4 acres in the L-M-N zone. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or consulting team. Questions, Comments, Concerns 1. In reviewing the Transportation Impact Study (T.I.S.), I see where the “short term” is defined as five years out which take us to 2021. My concern is that widening Prospect Road to four lanes will not take place in five years. And, there is a need for a separate Prospect eastbound right-turn lane to turn south on I-25. A. Yes, that is correct. The City requires the T.I.S. to consider two timeframes: the short term is five years to 2021 and the long term is 20 years out to 2035. In addition, the project itself will be phased. Phase One will include the residential portion of the site and the gas/convenience store. The short range analysis factors in the Phase One extent of the O.D.P. as opposed to a Project Development Plan (P.D.P.). In the short term, the developer will be required to improve their frontage to the four-lane arterial standard and build the required auxiliary turn lanes. But, in the short term, Prospect will not be widened to four lanes as a larger public capital project between the Poudre River and I-25. 2. Could you expand on the Prospect / I-25 interchange? A. This interchange is the least improved of the five interchanges serving Fort Collins. Operationally, this interchange is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and they are aware of the existing deficiencies. We are aware of the congestion due to the eastbound through lane being combined with eastbound to southbound right turn. The City, Poudre School District, CDOT and Timnath have been in discussions regarding the funding and timing of the long term improvements required at this interchange. 3. What are the traffic impacts associated with Phase One? A. The T.I.S. analysis for the ODP is a high level analysis and indicates that traffic generated by Phase One will result in mostly acceptable Levels Of Service (LOS, rated A – D on a scale of A – F) at the affected intersections with the recommended construction of the necessary turn lanes. A more detailed T.I.S. will be required for a site specific development plan for phase one with specifics related to LOS and the applicant has to meet City standards for LOS, or request a variance if standards are not met. 12.12 Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 3 4. Do the findings you just mentioned include the gas/convenience store? A. Yes. 5. What about the future employment and commercial Phases? A. We expect that future Phases will be responsible for submitting an updated T.I.S. to account for conditions that are being experienced at that time. This would include all the improvements done for Phase One and the increase in background traffic. 6. How does all this factor into Adequate Public Facilities (APF)? Without Prospect being widened to four lanes, or without a separate eastbound to southbound right-turn lane from Prospect to I-25, does Phase One comply with the A.P.F. standards? A; Response from City of Fort Collins Traffic Engineer: The Adequate Public Facilities standard, as locally adopted Ordinance, cannot be applied to an intersection that is outside the jurisdiction of the City. The interchange is under the control of CDOT. As mentioned, we coordinate with CDOT on operational aspects of the all the City’s interchanges on a continual basis. 7. It seems to me that if the City is successful in working with CDOT on jointly constructing a round-about at the easterly site access and the Frontage Road, then it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch to expect the City and CDOT to work together to build the necessary improvements to the I-25 / Prospect interchange. A. Response form City Traffic Engineer: CDOT is in the process of designing a new interchange. We estimate that they are at about 30% design. But, at this time, there is no project funding. The City is looking at improvements to all four quadrants in conjunction with CDOT, the Poudre School District and Timnath. 8. I find that response to not be very comforting. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: While the response may seem to indicate that improvements are a long way off, please note that multiple jurisdictions are actively working together to try to develop an improvement plan that can be funded from various sources and improvements can move forward. 9. For those of us who live in Sunrise Acres (north of the subject parcel), we have a hard time getting out of our subdivision on Greenfields at the East Mulberry intersection. With the road closures on Prospect, there is heavy traffic on Mulberry and we need more green time to make a left turn to go west on Highway 14. 12.12 Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 4 A. Larimer County is in the process of improving that intersection. Once construction is complete on Prospect, the heavy traffic on Mulberry should be reduced. 10. Overall, Prospect needs four lanes, not two, to handle the traffic that is coming in from around the region. I’m concerned about the 100 acres that PSD has east of I-25 and Timnath’s plans for growth. A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: As mentioned, the City will require the developer to dedicate the necessary public right-of-way and construct the public improvements along their frontage to the four-lane arterial standards. In addition, we have the ability to require the necessary off-site improvements as identified in the T.I.S. to mitigate the impacts caused by the proposed development. But, widening Prospect from the Poudre River to I-25 is a much larger capital project that involves multiple jurisdictions and will require a large capital outlay. The burden of widening Prospect Road as a four-lane arterial does not fall on one particular development. Funds for this widening have not been approved by the City. 11. I live in Boxelder Estates and we are experiencing too much traffic associated with all the construction on Prospect. As we drive east on Prospect, we need a left turn arrow to go north on Summitview from. With so little green time, it takes several cycles to get through the intersection. A. Response from City: We understand that with all the traffic that is re-routed due to construction projects on Prospect, there is undue delay for left turns at the major intersections. When Prospect reopens, we can analyze signal timing. As traffic engineers, we are responsible for keeping traffic moving on a system-wide basis. This means that the legs of the intersections that carry the most volume get the most green time at the signal. Obviously, the east-west traffic on Prospect carries more volume than Summitview so to keep the city-wide system at optimum efficiency, Summitview green time is impacted. Another reason we allocate more green time for the legs with the most volumes is that it reduces the number of rear-end collisions. 12. A lot of us in Boxelder Estates are elderly. It’s unnerving to have to make a right turn on red to go west from Summitview to Prospect. We have to accelerate rapidly because of the speed of the drivers on Prospect. My car is small and it takes a bit of time to get up to speed after I make the right turn and the looks (and hand gestures) I get from drivers are rude. 12.12 Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 5 13. Northbound Summitview to westbound Mulberry (left turn movement) is dangerous due to the diagonal geometry of the intersection, and the fact that east-west trucks have a hard time slowing down and stopping at the red light. A. Response from City: We are aware of the conditions of this intersection which is under the jurisdiction of the CDOT. 14. When do you think widening Prospect to four lanes will be funded? It’s not part of the current round of capital projects and was not voted in for the next round. That means it will have to be approved in the following round. A. Response from City: You are correct. As an unfunded project, it’s difficult to predict when the project would be approved. It has to be approved as a project first and then funded as revenue becomes available. Based on this timeframe, the widening will not occur in the short term. 15. How many apartments are planned and is there any interest from the multi-family market in its development? A. We are planning on 276 apartments and we are receiving significant interest from the development community. 16. Are there any similar projects where we could see the scale and size of the project? A. The apartments at Timberline and Drake are roughly comparable. The new apartments that are under construction on South Timberline Road across from the Bacon Elementary School are similar. In addition, the apartments at the Foothills Mall along Stanford Road are similar but are not fully constructed yet. And, the recently approved apartments at Bucking Horse are comparable but are not yet under construction. 17. What do the colors on the map represent? A. The green is Boxelder Creek (and floodplain), the yellow is residential (Urban Estate and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone districts) and the red is commercial (Employment and General Commercial zone districts). 18. How big are the lot sizes in the residential area? A. In the Urban Estate, the minimum lot size is one-half acre, or less if located within a cluster plan where one-half of the U-E ground is preserved as open space. In the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N), because we are over 30 acres, we are required to have a minimum of four housing types. These can be single family detached, single family detached with alleys, duplexes, townhomes, and multi-family. The density range in the L-M-N is no less than 12.12 Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 6 4.00 dwelling units per net acre at the low end and no greater than 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre at the high end. Therefore, there will be a variety of lot sizes in the L-M-N. 19. Will your proposed multi-family buildings in the L-M-N be three stories? A. Yes. Three story multi-family buildings are already allowed in the L-M-N zone. 20. I live west of the project on a large lot in the County. Three-story apartments don’t conform to our area. I’m concerned that the apartment folks will trespass on my property and I have animals. I’m concerned about liability. I’m concerned that the new development will impact my well. And, I’m concerned that the new development will cause flooding on my property. A. We will be using potable water from Elco, not groundwater. We are required by the City’s Stormwater Utility to not route any stormwater from our property onto your property. B. Response from City Planner: Please note that the property was included in the City’s Growth Management Area and was annexed in 1989 as the Interstate Lands Annexation containing 192 acres. At that time, the parcel was zoned H-B, Highway Business (157 acres) and R-P, Planned Residential (35 acres) with both zone districts conditioned that any application for development be processed as a Planned Unit Development under the Land Development Guidance System. Then in 1997, the property was rezoned in the following manner: C, Commercial (44.7 acres); E, Employment (104 acres); L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (15.7 acres); U-E, Urban Estate along the western edge as a buffer. This rezoning was part of a city-wide rezoning to implement the City’s new comprehensive plan, City Plan, and the new Land Use Code which created new zone districts and replaced the old districts and the P.U.D. system. About 20 years ago, the landowner at the time sold a parcel of land along the western edge of the O.D.P.to the Cooper Slough Association / Boxelder Estates H.O.A. for a buffer. This rectangular strip ranges in width between 100 and 125 feet for a length of about 2,100 feet and contains approximately 5.18 acres. This conveyance essentially precludes any street connection between the O.D.P. and Boxelder Estates. Then, in 2000, the size of the four zone districts was adjusted as part of a rezoning to reflect changing market conditions. The effect of the rezoning was primarily to reduce the size of the E zone by 43 acres and increase the size of the L-M-N zone by 53 acres. This rezoning affected 65 acres. In 2003, a Final Plan was approved on four acres along the Frontage Road for the Harley Davidson dealership. 12.12 Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 7 In 2004, an Overall Development Plan was approved that showed various configurations for the four zone districts in the following manner: U-E (21 acres); L-M-N (68.6 acres); Employment (60.9 acres); and Commercial (26.9 acres). 21. What are the two current construction projects on Prospect that are causing the full road closure? A. The two projects are related to the improvements being constructed by the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA). First, Boxelder Creek is being routed under Prospect by the installation of the new culverts. This involves a new bridge which is being designed for the ultimate four-lane arterial cross-section. Second, since the culverts are sized to only carry approximately the 10-year storm, an overflow channel, or weir, is being excavated to handle the amount of flood water associated with the 100-year storm. This overflow channel will be between 85 feet and 100 feet wide and about ten feet deep and may carry flows in more frequent events due to local tributaries. These two projects are being constructed in conjunction with the new Grays Lake flood control reservoir that has been built upstream on Boxelder Creek. The entire system-wide project is designed to prevent flooding in areas along Boxelder Creek in Larimer County, Timnath and Fort Collins. 22. And these are the improvements being constructed with the new annual stormwater service fee assessed on our properties? A. Yes, all residential properties within the BBRSA are assessed an annual fee of $60.00 to cover all the new construction, and, as time goes on, to cover the long term maintenance of the facilities. In addition, for any new construction in the BBRSA that results in new impervious surface, there is a stormwater system development fee based on the amount new impervious surface area that is created. 23. Can you describe the details of the A.P.U. for the multi-family in the L-M-N? A. Yes, as mentioned, multi-family, per se, is a permitted use in the L-M-N but is capped in the following manner: no greater than 12 units per building; no greater than 14,000 square feet per building; and on an individual phase that is no greater than 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre of land. Our proposal would increase the number of units per building to exceed 12, increase the size of the building to exceed 14,000 square feet, and to increase the density to greater than 12.00 dwelling units per gross acre. 12.12 Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 8 24. By how much would you exceed these limits? A. Our buildings would be a mix of 24-plex and 36-plex structures. The size of the buildings has not yet been determined but will exceed 14,000 square feet. And, we estimate that our phase of multi-family in the L-M-N will come in around 13 dwelling units per gross acre. 25. Would the multi-family phase cause the overall 67-acre L-M-N area to reach a density that exceeds the maximum allowable 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre? A. No, our overall L-M-N density on the entire 67 acres, plus the multi-family, would not exceed 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre. 26. I don’t support the request for the A.P.U. The expectation under zoning is that the property will develop as L-M-N, not M-M-N. How do you justify this request? A. We see a multi-family component as adding to the mix of housing types for a mixed-use neighborhood. With close proximity to I-25, we do not want to develop the ground as an isolated truck stop with highway-oriented uses like you see along the interstates in other jurisdictions. We see value in developing a neighborhood that offers a wide range of housing for a variety of people in a wide range of incomes. We see the multi-family component has a part of the highest and best use for this portion of the site. 27. You cannot use an economic benefit argument as a justification for an A.P.U. A. Understood. 28. An L-M-N neighborhood is supposed to have an L-M-N neighborhood center. I don’t see the gas/convenience store as being an L-M-N neighborhood center. I don’t see any amenities. The development appears isolated from the City. A. We see multi-family as adding diversity to the neighborhood. We recognize that we are separated from the City but this is primarily due to the Poudre River floodplain, natural areas and existing County subdivisions. The parcel, however, is inside the Growth Management Area, and was then annexed and zoned, and then master planned as Interstate Lands Overall Development Plan. We see the land as being a unique parcel that is near I-25 and major employment areas. There are other neighborhoods in the City where the neighborhood center is a gas/convenience store. 29. But I still don’t see a walkable neighborhood center. Access from the L-M-N to the gas/convenience store is via a round-about which is difficult to cross as a pedestrian. It looks to me like the gas/convenience store will be highway oriented, not neighborhood oriented. And, it’s located in the commercial zoned area, not in the L-M-N. You still need an L-M-N neighborhood center. 12.12 Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 9 A. We understand the requirement for an L-M-N neighborhood center. 30. In general, I’m not seeing any neighborhood amenities. A. As noted, we intended to pursue the conveyance of a parcel to the City Parks Department for a future public neighborhood park. In addition, the Parks Planning Department has identified a portion of our northeast area as logical segment for the future regional bike trail. Our goal is to develop the commercial area for neighborhood oriented businesses and services. As mentioned, we don’t want to replicate the highway oriented land uses found at the I-25 and Highway 14 interchange. 31. I’m concerned that Phase One represents a five year build out and we would still experience congestion and failing levels of service for certain turn movements at I-25 and Prospect. A. We understand your concerns. The T.I.S., at this stage, is intended to provide a broad analysis at the appropriate level for an Overall Development Plan. As noted, the big picture issues have been identified. With each subsequent phase that is submitted for a Project Development Plan, a new T.I.S. will be required that provides analysis at a more refined level of detail. 32. Does the City keep data on accident statistics? A. Response from City: Yes, keeping track of accident statistics is very important to us. We continually analyze crash data city-wide as one of our core functions. 33. I would like to remind everyone that an A.P.U. in the L-M-N zone goes on to City Council for consideration. It is my opinion that the request for an A.P.U. is speculative and for purposes of the developer trying to enhance the marketability of the property. A. As we have mentioned, for an O.D.P. that is 177 acres in size, having a multi- family component enriches the mix of housing on a city-wide basis. 34. Do you already have a buyer lined up for the multi-family? A. No, we do not. 35. Where exactly is the A.P.U. parcel and how big is it? A. It is at the south end of the area zoned L-M-N, closest to Prospect Road. It is about 12.4 acres in size. It’s designated as Parcel k on the O.D.P. 12.12 Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 10 36. What will be the density on the L-M-N as a result of the A.P.U.? A. The density will be about 13.00 dwelling units per gross acre which is slightly over the maximum allowed in any on phase in L-M-N of 12.00 d.u./a. 37. Will there be a buffer between the apartments and the existing homes to the west? A. Yes, we estimate that the closest house will be about 130 feet away from the nearest apartment building. Other houses will be further away by a distance ranging from 793 feet to 875 feet. 38. What will be the size of the lots on the very west edge of the site north of the A.P.U. parcel? A. This area is zoned Urban Estate. As a result, this area will have our largest lots. As noted, in the U-E, lots must be a minimum of one-half acre. Or, lots can be smaller but only if arranged within a Cluster Development where one-half of the land area is preserved as open space and the other half is the clustered lots that can be smaller than one-half acre. 39. I live to the west and in my opinion; our large lots will need more of a transition than what you are describing. A. We are aware of your concerns. As you know, Boxelder Estates purchased from the previous owner a swath of land about 110 feet in width along their eastern edge. This buffer will contribute to making a transition and also precludes any street connections. 40. I live on three acres. Multi-family doesn’t conform to our neighborhood character. 41. When was the property annexed into the City? A. 1983. 42. When do you think you will break ground? A. The first thing we have to do is apply to F.E.M.A. for an amendment to their floodplain maps based on the improvements being done by the Boxelder Creek Flood Control Project. This requires a process known as a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). This could take us into 2018. We can be submitting our Phase One plans and having our plans reviewed by the City somewhat concurrently to the F.E.M.A. process. So as you can see, it may be at some point in 2018 when we can break ground on Phase One. 12.12 Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 11 43. Will the requested density associated with the A.P.U. in the L-M-N zone be capped? A. Response from City Planner: Yes, all requested A.P.U. metrics will be capped and not open-ended. This is what was done for the multi-family project in Bucking Horse which was also an A.P.U. 44. I live in Sunrise Acres to the north. Is the proposed public neighborhood park still indicated to be north of the ditch? If so, I’m concerned about trespassing. A. No, we are now discussing with Parks Planning about conveying a parcel that is south of the ditch and just north of the proposed multi-family parcel. This parcel would be about four acres and is centrally located within the larger residential area. This would a public neighborhood park. 45. Will you be putting any of the ditches into a pipe to gain more ground? A. No, we are not thinking about putting any ditches into a pipe. 46. We need to be realistic that a City-funded Prospect Road widening capital project will not happen in the short term (2021). Such a project would likely have to be put to the voters as part of a package to renew one of the sales taxes that is dedicated to transportation improvements. And then, if approved by the voters as part of a sales tax capital projects package, it would then have to wait for revenues to come in. As a result, it may be at least 10 years out or longer before Prospect could be widened to four lanes. A. Response for City Traffic Engineer: That is correct. It is unlikely that Prospect will be widened to four lanes by 2021. Large capital projects that benefit the City’s arterial system as a whole are generally funded by one of the dedicated sales taxes specifically earmarked for transportation improvements. As you mentioned, these funding sources expire after their term and must be renewed by the voters. These projects are intended to address existing deficiencies and are not considered the obligation of any one particular development proposal. Please note that dedicated sales tax revenue is just one funding source. Other sources include the City’s Street Oversizing Fund, and grants from the Metropolitan Planning Organization, State of Colorado and the federal government. Oftentimes, multiple funding sources are consolidated to move a project up on the priority list. 47. I’m concerned about the future development of PSD property on the east side of I-25. This is a 100-acre parcel that PSD has indicated could be used for schools serving grades K through 12 as well as a district-wide athletic facility. PSD is seeking voter approval this Fall for a bond issue that would fund these planned schools and facilities. 12.12 Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 12 A. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We are in discussions with PSD. We have been told that the schools planned for this parcel will draw primarily from students who already reside east of I-25. We are also aware that the planned athletic facility would be the new French Field and draw participants district-wide. 48. With the Boxelder Buffer now owned by the H.O.A., does this mean there will be no road connection? A. Yes, that’s correct – no road connection. 49. Could you tell me how much new traffic we can expect on Summitview as a result of this project? A. Our trip assignment estimate in the short term is shown as Figure 7 in our T.I.S. Based on our assumptions, we see most of the trips using Prospect and the Frontage Road versus Summitview. For example we estimate for southeast flow, there will be six trip ends in the a.m. and 17 trip ends in the p.m. during the peak hours. For the northwest flow, there will be 16 a.m. and 10 p.m. trip ends during the peak hours. Please note, however, that it may be more accurate to measure the delay at the Prospect / Summitview intersection. 50. Will the Frontage Road be widened? A. No, but the intersections will add capacity with the auxiliary turn lanes as recommended in the T.I.S. 51. Will there be only one access onto the Frontage Road? A. Yes, that’s correct due to the constraints of Boxelder Creek. 52. Do you have an idea about the alignment of the proposed regional trail? A. Within our O.D.P., and between Prospect and Mulberry, this trail will generally follow the alignment of Boxelder Creek and the two ditches. The alignment of this trail is loosely based on the preliminary concept per the Parks 2013 Trails Master Plan. 53. Is the applicant involved at all in the current construction on Prospect? A. Yes, but only to the extent that we have conveyed 42 feet along our frontage to the City of Fort Collins for the project. 54. Are you intending to sell the land for a profit? A. Yes. 12.12 Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 13 55. I see a big benefit in providing a safe sidewalk along Prospect from your project to the Summitview intersection to tie into the existing trail along Prospect west of Summitview. Since your project does not extend west to Summitview, there is a gap. It seems like pedestrians, runners and bike riders from your project would want to safely gain access to this trail without having to deal with unimproved frontage along Prospect. A. Thank you for this comment and this something we may consider for their first phase. 56. Will there be sufficient sanitary sewer capacity to serve the site as proposed? A. Yes, we have had conversations with the Boxelder Sanitation District and they have indicated that there is capacity available. As you know, their treatment plant is just south of Prospect. 57. Will there be any commercial development south of Prospect? A. The large vacant land south of Prospect is owned by Colorado State University Research Foundation. We do not know their plans for the property except to say that they typically hold land for the long term for the various needs of the University. 12.12 Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Second Neighborhood Meeting Summary (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) 1 ATTACHMENT 13 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PROJECT: The Gateway at Prospect Road Overall Development Plan and Rezoning LOCATION: Northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road DATE: December 19, 2016 APPLICANT: Tim McKenna, Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner LLC CONSULTANTS: Jim Birdsall, The Birdsall Group Kristin Turner, The Birdsall Group Stephanie Thomas, Northern Engineering Matt Delich, Delich and Associates CITY STAFF: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations Engineer Project Description This item was formerly a Request for an Addition of Permitted Use to allow multi-family on 12.4 acres of land zoned L-M-N due to the request exceeding three development standards. Since multi-family is already a permitted use in the L-M-N per se, the development review process has now been adjusted to delete this request. This item now consists of a Rezoning of 12.4 acres of L-M-N and 8.4 acres E, Employment, a total of 20.8 acres, to M-M-N. This item is also being submitted in conjunction with an Amended Overall Development Plan (O.D.P.) on 177 acres land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This area was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The purpose of an O.D.P. is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. Approval of an O.D.P. does not establish any vested right to develop property in accordance with the plan. The requests for Rezoning and an Amended O.D.P. would have the effect of reducing the L-M-N zone from 68 to 55.6 acres, reducing the E zone from 60 to 51.6 acres and adding 20.8 acres of M-M-N zoning. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from the applicant or the consulting team. 2 Questions, Concerns, Comments 1. Could you explain the progress that is being made with regard to future widening of the I-25 / Prospect Road interchange? A. Yes, we are working with CDOT to find a joint public/private funding mechanism to leverage the interstate widening project between Mulberry and Loveland by adding the interchange widening to the project scope. As you know, for this segment of the highway, CDOT plans on sending out for bid the widening of I-25 from two lanes to three. This project is estimated to cost $235 million dollars. But, this project is funded for widening the lanes only and does not include improving the Prospect Road interchange. The cost of widening the interchange (bridge, ramps and roadway) is estimated to be an additional 28 million dollars. As a result of this added cost, we, along with the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Timnath and the other three adjoining properties (Colorado State University Research Foundation, Paradigm Properties LLC and the White Brothers) have committed to raising the 28 million dollars so the interchange is widened in conjunction with the larger CDOT project. If not done now, CDOT estimates that interchange improvements would be delayed until 2035. The four adjoining property owners have agreed to raise seven million with the balance raised by Fort Collins and Timnath (seven million dollars each.) B. The widened interchange would include a new seven-lane cross-section bridge, new ramps and widening of Prospect Road. CDOT anticipates that construction would begin in early 2018. 2. How far in each direction would be the extent of the four-lane widening? A. Our understanding at this time is that the four lanes would extend to the frontage roads. 3. That may not be sufficient to mitigate the traffic generated by the development. A. Keep in mind that as developers, we are obligated to improve the linear front footage along our property that adjoins Prospect Road. And, in conjunction with the recent stormwater improvements, we have already dedicated 43 feet of additional right-of-way along Prospect Road. Further, as each building permit is issued, for both commercial and residential buildings, the City will collect the Street Oversizing Fee which is earmarked for funding improvements to arterial and collector streets and sidewalks on a city-wide basis. In 2016, the Street Oversizing Fee for a multi-family dwelling unit is $2,143. (This fee is typically increased annually to keep pace with capital construction costs.) For 276 units, the total Street Oversizing Fee would be, based on 2016 rates, $591,468. 4. Is the area north of the Dry Creek Ditch still slated to be open space? 3 A. Yes, this has not changed. The area between the two ditches will be set aside as open space. This area would be difficult to develop. The exception is that this area is being considered as a logical location for the future regional bike trail per the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 5. As the land owner going through the entitlement process, is it still your intention to sell the property in the future to a developer? A. Yes. 6. Will the future developer be obligated by the parameters of the both the Rezoning and O.D.P.? A. Yes, that is correct. 7. I live to the north in Sunrise Acres. Will any of our neighborhood streets be extended into your development? I’m concerned about Locust Street and Sherry Drive being used by future residents of your project. A. Due to the constraints of the two ditches, and consistent with our previous presentations, we are not planning on extending any of the streets in Sunrise Acres into our project. Response from City Traffic Engineer: As you can see, Locust Street currently terminates in a dead-end at the applicant’s property. In order to provide a standard turn-around on a public street, we will be requiring the developer to provide a turn-around on their property. This will help fire trucks navigate Sunrise Acres. 8. And, just to be sure, your plan still shows no street connections to the west into Boxelder Estates? A. Yes, as we have discussed in our previous presentations, due to the H.O.A. purchasing a buffer strip, we are precluded from any street connections to the west. And, south of the H.O.A. buffer strip, we do not plan for any street connections. 9. Are you still willing to discuss various options as to long term maintenance of the buffer with the H.O.A.? A. Yes, we think we may have a mutual interest in how best to manage this buffer with the H.O.A. and we look forward to having that conversation. 10. Could you review the floodplain issues and timing associated with amending the FEMA maps? 4 A. As we have noted, there is a significant portion of the site that is mapped as being the Boxelder Creek floodplain. But, this area will reduced as a result of the new culverts under both I-25 and Prospect Road and overflow weir that were constructed this past year by the Boxelder Basin Stormwater Regional Authority. This included five new culverts (total of seven) under Prospect and opening two closed culverts under I-25 (total of four). The overflow weir is 2.7 acres. This is why Prospect was closed for three months this past summer. In addition, the BBSRA is in the process of constructing a system of flood control improvements, including a new reservoir, further upstream from our property. The result is that the extent of the floodplain on our property will be reduced. Once these improvements have been completed, FEMA will amend their floodplain maps accordingly and remove the floodplain. We anticipate that the new mapping will be in place in 2018. All told, these flood control improvements cost $10,851,588 million dollars. 11. Are there areas of the site that are not in the Boxelder Creek floodplain? A. Yes, the further away from Boxelder Creek to the west, this area is not impacted by the FEMA floodplain. 12. Will you be making any changes to the two ditches? A. No, there will be no changes to the two ditches. 13. With a potential of 20.8 acres of M-M-N, combined with the fact that multi-family is a permitted use in the E, Employment zone, of which there are an additional 51.6 acres within the O.D.P., I’m concerned about a possible massive multi- family project on 72.4 acres. A. We are not intending to develop the site in that fashion. And, we are restricted from this happening by the Land Use Code. This is because multi-family in the E zone is a secondary use and is restricted from taking up more than 25% of the 51.6 acres. The balance of the E zone, 75%, must be developed as primary uses. 14. I’m concerned about the additional traffic generated by the density allowed by rezoning to M-M-N. A. Yes, based on our previous meetings we are keenly aware of the traffic issues related to our project within the context of the immediate area. Please keep in mind that we are rezoning only 12.4 acres of L-M-N. Overall, across a multi- phased project, residential gross density in the L-M-N is capped at 9.00 dwelling units per acre. L-M-N zoning also allows a single phase to be up to 12.00 dwelling units per acre as long as the overall does not exceed 9.00 d.u./a. Our multi-family project comes in around 13 to 14 d.u./a. Regarding the rezoning of 5 the Employment parcel (8.4 acres), please note that there is no residential development density cap in the E zone. 15. If there are no density caps in either the M-M-N or the E zones, then how can we expect the future developer to hold to your commitment to density of 13 to 14 dwelling units per acre? A. We are willing to add a condition to our Rezoning request that would cap our gross residential density just as we did for our A.P.U. 16. So if the 12.4 acres remained as L-M-N, the maximum allowable density could range from 112 units (9.00 d.u./a) to 149 units (12.00 d.u./a)? A. That’s correct and we are suggesting that these 12.4 acres come in between 13 and 14 d.u./a for a range of 161 to 174 units under M-M-N zoning but as conditioned by the same parameters as the request for an Addition of Permitted Use. B. We would like to emphasize that our Rezoning to M-M-N will be conditioned just like the request for an Addition of Permitted Use. We would commit to a cap of 14 dwelling units per acre. We are proposing a multi-family project of approximately 276 units on a total combined M-M-N parcel of 20.8 acres which equates to 13.27 dwelling units per acre. We are suggesting a cap of 14 d.u./a due to the fact that after surveying the site, land may be taken out of the gross acreage for public roads, private roads and various other dedications and easements for utilities which would drive up the dwelling-units-per-acre ratio but without adding units. 17. Do the extra units gained by the M-M-N zoning have any bearing on the recommendations of the Traffic Study? A. The gain in multi-family units versus L-M-N zoning results in approximately an increase of 100 trips during the peak hour. This increase does not result in any changes to the recommendations in the T.I.S. (Seems high – 174-149 = 25, so how do we get up to 100?) 18. I’m concerned that you are putting 276 units of multi-family, and all those residents, in area where there is no walkability to a grocery store or other convenient services. Under typical City Plan zoning, M-M-N would be near commercial area that would have a grocery store and similar services. A. While we may not have N-C (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning next to our proposed M-M-N, we do have 27 acres of land zoned C, Commercial, which, as I recall, allows most of the same uses as allowed under N-C. In terms of walkability, we will be providing a trail along Boxelder Creek and we have approached the City about widening the public sidewalk on the future east-west 6 street that goes over Boxelder Creek and ties into the commercial area. Please note that multi-family residents will be able to walk to the future public neighborhood park (distance xx) and the future regional trail which abuts the site (Running Deer Natural Area distance xx). 19. So a grocery store is allowed in the C, Commercial zone? A. Yes, that’s correct. 20. As I mentioned, last time, it seems like an abrupt transition between our County lots and the proposed M-M-N parcel. A. We are aware of this concern that has been raised at the previous two meetings. As a result, we have committed to providing a landscape buffer on the west side of our future north-south street that ranges in width from nine to 88 feet that can be densely landscaped. Most of the houses to our west front on Summitview Drive and are separated from our multi-family parcel by varying distances. One house is 35 feet west of our site and we have met with this owner and this person has indicated support for our project. All the other houses front on Summitview and range from 640 to 787 feet from our project boundary. In addition, our future buildings will also be setback from our future north-south street (76 feet of public right-of-way) creating even more separation. We think with these separations, combined with effective landscaping, we will successfully mitigate any impacts associated with our multi-family project. We also think that be capping our density, our project will be roughly similar in scope as if it were an L-M-N development. 21. I’m concerned that even if the CDOT project, with the City and Town and landowner participation, results in widening Prospect Road, and combined with the developer’s obligation for their frontage, there will still be gaps between the river and the Frontage Road. When can we expect these gaps to be fully improved? Response from City Traffic Engineer: As you know, we are aware of these concerns. At this time, there currently is no City capital project that is designated to address this segment of East Prospect Road. Since this gap is considered an existing deficiency as part of the regional arterial system, it is not the developer’s obligation to address. Instead, the completion of this segment to the arterial standard will fall to the City as a future capital improvement just like what you see going on at the intersection of Prospect and Timberline. 22. I’m concerned about the wildlife that uses the area. There are typically lots of geese that are attracted to the site. A. Keep in mind that we will not develop the open space to the north between the two ditches. And, we will be required to provide a buffer along Boxelder Creek. 7 These two attributes will complement the existing City of Fort Collins Natural Areas (Riverbend Ponds and Running Deer) and the Poudre River floodplain. 23. Is the open space between the ditches zoned Urban Estate and, if so, can this acreage be used to determine the number of potential units under a Cluster Development Plan? A. Yes, this area is zoned U-E and, therefore, these acres could be counted as part of the basis that determines the maximum allowable number of dwelling units that could be within a Cluster Plan. Keep in mind that under a Cluster Plan, no less than 50% of the total land area (zoned U-E) must be preserved as open space. Without a Cluster Plan, the required minimum lot size in the U-E is .5 acre. 24. From what I see, there are two access points into the portion of the O.D.P. that is west of the Frontage Road. Is that correct? A. Yes, there is full-turning access, by way of a planned round-about, at the Frontage Road. And there is three-quarter access (no left-out) at a planned intersection at Prospect Road. 25. Will this round-about be a single lane or a two-lane? A. A single lane will have sufficient capacity to handle the anticipated level of traffic. 26. Will the developer be required to construct any public improvements along Summitview Drive? A. No. (What about a westbound right-turn lane?) 27. At one point, for eastbound Prospect traffic, we had a separate left-turn arrow at the traffic signal so we could make a protected left turn to north on Summitview. Then, mysteriously, this left turn arrow was taken away. With all the westbound traffic coming in to town from I-25, this left-turn arrow was very convenient. Could the City bring back this protected left turn? Response from City Traffic Engineer: We can look into this. From traffic engineering perspective, there are pros and cons to providing a separate left-turn arrow. On the one hand, the protected left turn makes it safer to turn left to go north. On the other hand, our crash data suggest that there would be an increase in rear-end collisions. 28. With 276 multi-family units on 20.8 acres, what is the traffic impact? A. This would generate approximately 230 peak hour trips during the peak hour. This a ratio of .833 trips per unit during peak. 8 29. How do you define “peak hour?” A. The a.m. peak is between 7:30 – 8:30 and the p.m. peak is between 4:30 and 5:30. 30. Does the traffic study account for stadium traffic? A. No, stadium traffic, as is currently the case with Hughes Stadium and will be the case with the new stadium, is a considered an event and not a daily occurrence. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Our analysis for the new stadium is that the traffic will on a game day (typically Saturday) will be roughly equivalent to the peak traffic on a Thursday p.m. 31. I mentioned at the last meeting that by not having four lanes on Prospect between I-25 and the Poudre River causes the project to fail the requirements for having adequate public facilities. Response from City Traffic Engineer: Please note that we measure traffic levels of service at intersections and not along any particular segment of roadway. Since congestion occurs at intersections with turn movements, through traffic volumes between intersections is not measured. Now, having said that, we are looking at requiring a westbound right turn lane on Prospect to go north on Summitview. 32. Turning left out at Hageman’s on a Saturday afternoon is pretty scary. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We know. We are thinking of constructing a three-lane cross-section along Hageman’s so exiting vehicles can make a two- stage left-turn exit and then merge with through traffic. Again, please note that there is no capital funding available for this improvement at this time. 33. At the previous meetings, we have mentioned that there will soon be a cumulative effect of increasing traffic on Prospect due to the stadium, Poudre School District plan for a high school/middle school campus in Timnath and the new C.S.U. Health Center at College and Prospect. Are these facilities accounted for in the traffic studies? A. Yes, our traffic studies include pending developments, existing background traffic and an annual growth rate in the background traffic. Then we factor in the proposed project and project out the traffic impacts for five years. The scope of our traffic studies are approved by the City. Response from City Traffic Engineer: We are aware of the PSD plans for a high school and middle school campus. Most of the trips for these two schools should 9 be east of I-25 since boundaries for these schools will not include areas west of I- 25. We acknowledge, however, that PSD has a school of choice option if schools are not at capacity serving their boundary area. 34. To what extent will you be improving the open space between the ditches? A. Our plan is to keep this area unimproved and natural. For example, there would be no bluegrass turf and irrigation. As mentioned, the City’s regional trail is planned to go through this area so there may be some benches, and the like, but overall, the area is expected to serve passive not active uses. 35. Will Buckeye Street be extended to the east? A. No, we do not intend to extend Buckeye and it currently terminates at a house. 36. We need a transition in density for the benefit of the County residents. A. As mentioned, we think that a sensitive transition can be provided by not only the significant distances between the existing houses but also by the landscaping and buffering that we commit to providing per the conditions that we have already agreed during the A.P.U. process. Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Minutes (draft) Project: Gateway at Prospect Rezoning and Overall Development Plan Project Description for Rezoning: This is a request to rezone 12.27 acres of land currently zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood and 9.71 acres of land currently zoned E, Employment, a total of 21.98 acres, to M-M-N, Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. The rezoning request is being submitted in conjunction with an Amended Overall Development for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands O.D.P. The site is presently zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. Project Description for ODP: This is a request for an amended Overall Development Plan (ODP) for the vacant land located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road. This area includes 177 acres and was formerly known as Interstate Lands ODP. The site is zoned, from east to west, C-G, General Commercial, E, Employment, L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, and U-E, Urban Estate. Proposed land uses include a mix of permitted uses allowed on a per zone district basis. The O.D.P. also includes 12.27 acres zoned L-M-N and 9.71 acres zoned E (Parcel J) that are the subject of a separate and preceding request to rezone 21.98 acres to M-M-N. This rezoning request must be considered prior to this Amended ODP as the Parcel J is designated “Multi-Family, 276 total units & 13 DU/A” which requires M-M-N zoning without the need to modify any L-M-N standards. The purpose of an Overall Development Plan is to establish general planning and development control parameters for projects that will be developed in phases, with multiple submittals, while allowing sufficient flexibility to permit detailed planning in subsequent submittals. There is no established vested right with an ODP. Recommendation: Approval Applicant Presentations Chief Planner Shepard introduced the project, explaining that the Rezoning of this project must first be approved before the Overall Development Plan (ODP) can be approved. He provided some history of the project, including the current and proposed zoning and the conditions for approval. Secretary Cosmas reported that, since the work session, a letter has been received that was written by Fort Collins/I-25 Interchange Corner (FCIC) to an abutting resident that appears to be a signed contract acknowledging concerns over property impacts because of this development. Tim McKenna, Co-Manager of FCIC (the Applicant), gave a detailed presentation of this project. He gave some history of the investor group and ownership, how the name, “Gateway”, came into being, the land acquisition and subsequent zoning. He stated that there is no street connection between Gateway and Boxelder Estates. He reviewed the FEMA rezoning process, including flood plain removed or modified. In addition, modified maps must be submitted for a review period, which isn’t expected to be issued until September 2018. He described the difficulties of obtaining funding for the design build improvements. He stated that this project is designated in City Plan as a “catalyst” project, indicating it is critically important to the City. He stated how the intersection will look as the “Gateway” to the City, including the proposed ATTACHMENT 14 12.14 Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (draft) (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Minutes (draft) landscaping. He described CSURF’s ownership of the 143-acre parcel south of Prospect Road, which began in 2007. He illustrated how the road will be widened, the proposed easements, the water lines, the new school proposed, potential traffic generated, and the impacts of the removal of the flood plain. Jim Birdsall, Planner with the TB Group, continued the presentation by discussing the goals for the project, the zoning, commercial aspect, non-auto-oriented project, amended ODP, higher density multi-family project to support the commercial and employment aspect, modifications needed, the proposed rezone rather than Addition of Permitted Use (APU). They have agreed to a number of parameters for this project. He discussed a list of changes related to the ODP, including the removal of the flood plain, the sale of a strip of land on the west side of the ODP to Boxelder Estates for open space, which prevents a road connection, transportation connections update, land uses allowed within the LMN zone, and a neighborhood park location for the multi- family housing. He described the proposed rezoning and the changes from the original APU process, saying he would rather have the same zone throughout the project rather than two different zone districts, resulting in the down-zoning of the Employment parcel. He discussed the modification of units, the rezoned parcel size, the difference in units/acre being requested, and the building sizes (LMN zone requires smaller buildings and they are asking for some larger buildings). He stated that his company is trying to be sensitive in addressing compatibility issues. He cited a letter from an abutting resident indicating acceptance of their proposal. He is in favor of a large diversity of housing, adding the importance of live/work balance. The rezoning area will be restricted to only multi-family, which will support a living area close to commercial and retail. He also discussed the acreage discrepancy, the height restrictions for compatibility, an enhanced landscape, and a larger setback. Staff Analysis Chief Planner Shepard gave a brief analysis, responding to a question from the work session regarding edge condition perception. He discussed this topic at length, showing slides of similar projects to justify Staff’s decision. He discussed the Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC), concluding that this is a logical area for urban development, adding that the conditions of approval are written specifically for providing compatibility. He pointed out that the rezone request must first be approved, and then the ODP may be considered; both items are conditioned. Interim Vice Chair Hansen asked if there is a maximum density in the MMN zone; Chief Planner Shepard said that there is no maximum - only a minimum. Public Input Sally Craig, 1409S. Summit View, has a concern about the rezoning, and she feels that there are many options for zoning. Since the owner has a specific project, he wants to change the zoning and structure maps, and she is questioning the justification. She feels that MMN is not a good transition to urban estates. She has a concern with high density that has no complementary service in place. She is worried that this will be a high density development with no support services, saying the rezoning is not justified and there is a future concern that, if this project falls through, the property will then be opened up to all uses of MMN. Nancy Deadmond, 1424 S. Summit View Drive, is opposed to the rezoning, as her home abuts 12.14 Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (draft) (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Minutes (draft) to this property. She doesn’t feel this development is compatible with surrounding areas. She doesn’t feel that others should benefit from the flood plain improvements that have been paid for already. She stated that school numbers are down, so she questions how a new school will be filled. She doesn’t want to see high-rise apartments from her backyard. Robert Slate, 726 Sherry Drive, has a concern with the canal overflowing, and he feels there is good reason to be concerned with future flooding. He also doesn’t believe that the buffers are adequate, and he feels the rezoning is wrong. Bob Thydean, 1110 S. Summit View, has some questions about ingress/egress into this property. He also questioned plans for traffic on Highway 14 and related traffic hazards, like poor visibility. Pat Griego, 1116 Greenbriar, is opposed to the rezoning. She noted that the City Traffic Engineer predicted that this project would result in an additional 3-4 cars per minute, and traffic is already heavy. Based on the traffic impacts, she does not agree with the reason for rezoning. Becky Bedan, 3445 Kenwood Drive, asked if there are any plans for affordable housing in this development. Applicant and Staff Response Mr. McKenna stated he is very sympathetic with resident’s concerns, but he doesn’t think that community growth should be halted, adding that this multi-family housing will be affordable. This property has not been rezoned in 28 years, and it is an opportunity for the City to have a project that will create a beautiful community with wonderful services. Regarding traffic issues, the developer will pay a good amount of the cost to upgrade the their frontage along two public streets and his group is working with other property owners to help fun improvements to the I- 25/Project Road interchange. The four owners are committing to raise $7 million. In response to a comment from the public, Chief Planner Shepard clarified that the list of change conditions noted in the staff report are not dependent on the rezoning; therefore, the LUC would stay the same. He added that the Cooper Slough and Boxelder improvements upstream have taken away all of the drainage issues in this area. He confirmed that there will be no street connections to west or north. The standard for the criteria for rezoning states that there are change conditions, which is not dependent on MMN rezoning. Joe Olson, City Traffic Operations Department, stated that there is already a previously-approved ODP for this property; at this phase, there are no real concerns about traffic. Subsequent development phases will require in-depth traffic studies. Board Questions Member Hobbs asked whether there would be egress to the frontage road; Mr. Olson confirmed that there will be, adding there will most likely be a roundabout installed, but that would be decided during future phases. Member Rollins asked about the number of access points; there are 2 access points, which will include one full access point and one with a ¾ movement. 12.14 Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (draft) (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) Planning and Zoning Board January 12, 2017 Minutes (draft) Interim Chair Schneider clarified for the audience that a traffic impact study will be prepared at the Project Development Plan phase. Member Hobbs asked whether, in the event that the general surrounding properties and the one owned by CSURF are transferred to CSU, the current zoning will not apply; Chief Planner Shepard confirmed that this would be the case, and he shared some of the ownership history of this parcel. Board Deliberation Member Hobbs observed that, although the rezoning of this portion of the project changes the overall density, he does not feel that this change is incrementally significant, and he will support the rezoning. Member Carpenter agreed; while she sympathizes with the upcoming changes for the surrounding residents, she will also support the rezoning. Interim Vice Chair Hansen described how a mixed-use development will be important, adding that there will be a minimal change in density, so he feels this is an appropriate rezone. Chair Schneider also agreed with the rezoning proposed and will support it. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a recommendation to Council for the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning #REZ160001, including the 7 proposed conditions, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hobbs asked whether the rules for setbacks and buffers are different for MMN versus the LMN zones; Chief Planner Shepard detailed the differences and similarities, adding that the Applicant is aware of concerns. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Gateway at Prospect amended Overall Development Plan #160001, based upon the findings of fact contained in the staff report that is included in the agenda materials for this hearing and the board discussion on this item, and subject to the following condition: that the approval of the ODP is contingent on City Council approval of the accompanying and preceding request for rezoning. Member Hansen seconded. Vote: 6:0. 12.14 Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, January 12, 2017 (draft) (5236 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning) -1- RESOLUTION 2017-009 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY’S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP WHEREAS, the City has received an application to rezone certain property located generally at the northwest quadrant of I-25 and East Prospect Road; and WHEREAS, under the rezoning application, known as the “Gateway at Prospect Rezoning,” 12.40 acres of such property would be rezoned from the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District to the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M- M-N”) Zone District and 22.43 acres of such property would be rezoned from the Employment (“E”) Zone District to the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-N”) Zone District; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, while the proposed Gateway at Prospect Rezoning does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the City’s Structure Plan Map for that location, it complies with the Principles and Policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key Principles of the City’s Structure Plan; and WHEREAS, accordingly, the City Council has determined that the proposed Gateway at Prospect Rezoning is in the best interests of the citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that the City’s Structure Plan Map should be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, so that the proposed rezoning will comport with the City’s Comprehensive Plan in its entirety, including the City’s Structure Plan Map. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning. Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment promotes the public welfare and is consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Packet Pg. 349 -2- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 350 Weld County Larimer County Terry Lake Cobb Lake Timnath Reservoir Fossil Creek Reservoir Trilby Horsetooth Reservoir Cache La Poudre River Shields Taft Hill College Overland Trail Mulberry Prospect Drake Horsetooth Timberline Harmony Vine 25 Lemay 287 287 Willox Mountain Vista Ziegler Douglas CR 52 Carpenter Country Club SH 392 Lindenmeier Lake Long Pond Windsor Reservoir SH 1 CR 56 SH 14 CR 5 CR 38E 25 CR 54G CR 58 CR 30 CR 3 WCR 1 CR 23 Cache La Poudre River Loveland Windsor Timnath Horsetooth Mountain Park -1- ORDINANCE NO. 025, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE GATEWAY AT PROSPECT REZONING AND MAKING CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO THE SIGN DISTRICT MAP WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Land Use Code”) establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for reviewing the rezoning of land; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on January 12, 2017, the City Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended rezoning the property that is the subject of this Ordinance as set forth below and determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the rezoning of the property that is the subject of this Ordinance and has determined that said property should be rezoned as hereinafter provided; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property; and WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS: Section 1. That the findings set forth above are incorporated into the body of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of 12.40 acres from Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District, to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-N”) Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning: A tract of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Packet Pg. 352 -2- Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, T7N, R68W as bearing North 00° 33' 51" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: PARCEL 2: COMMENCING at the South Quarter corner of Section 16; thence along the West line of the Southeast Quarter of Section16, North 00° 11' 16" East, 360.01 feet; thence, North 00° 11' 16” East, 14.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 00° 11” 16” East, 761.98 feet; thence, North 90° 00” 00” East, 835.33 feet; thence, South 48° 21” 44” East, 46.60 feet; thence, South 30° 17” 28” West, 565.44 feet; thence, South 05° 36” 07” West, 81.76 feet; thence along a curve concave to the west having a central angle of 19° 03” 45” with a radius of 610.00 feet, an arc length of 202.95 feet and the chord of which bears South 19° 01” 34” West, 202.01 feet; thence, South 88° 21” 50” East, 20.33 feet; thence, South 01° 38” 10” West, 96.90 feet; thence, North 88° 21” 50” West, 60.00 feet; thence, North 56° 32” 31” West, 208.88 feet; thence, North 88° 02” 35” West, 297.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 540,254 square feet or 12.403 acres, more or less. The above described area is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. Section 3. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3.2 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of 22.43 acres from Employment (“E”) Zone District, to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M- N”) Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Gateway at Prospect Rezoning: Tracts of land being a portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being more particularly described as follows: Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, T7N, R68W as bearing North 00° 33' 51" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: PARCEL 1: COMMENCING at the South Quarter corner of Section 16; thence along the West line of the Southeast Quarter of Section16, North 00° 11' 16" East, 360.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, North 00° 11' 16” East, 14.91 feet; thence, South 88° 02' 35” East, 297.10 feet; thence, South 56° 32' 31” East, 208.88 feet; thence, South 88° 21' 50” East, 60.00 feet; thence, North 01° 38' 10” East, 96.90 feet; thence, North 88° 21' 50” West, 20.33 feet; thence along a curve concave to the west having a central angle of 19° 03' 45” with a radius of 610.00 feet, an arc length of 202.95 feet and the chord of which bears North 19° 01' 34” East, 202.01 feet; thence, North 05° 36' 07” East, 81.76 feet; thence, North 30° 17' 28” East, 565.44 feet; thence, South 48° 21' 44” East, 400.32 feet; thence, South 58° 32' 55” West, 129.64 feet; thence, South 24° 25' 35” West, 303.45 feet; thence, South 00° 50' 59” West, 222.69 feet; to the Northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 2, Boxelder Estates Second Filing; thence along the North and West lines of said Lot 3 the following 2 courses and distances: North 88° 21' 50” West, 290.40 feet; South 01° 38' 10” West, 269.97 feet to the North right-of-way line of East Prospect Road; thence along said North line, North 88° 21' 25” West, 515.72 feet to the East line of Lot 1, Block 1, Boxelder Estates Second Filing; thence along the East and North lines of said Lot 1 the following 2 courses and distances: North 00° 11' 10” East, 330.01 feet; thence, North 88° 21' 50” Packet Pg. 353 -3- West, 120.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 437,090 square feet or 10.034 acres, more or less. The above described area is subject to all easements and rights-of-way now on record or existing. Section 4. That, as authorized by Section 2.9(I) of the Land Use Code, the following seven conditions of approval shall apply to the land subject to this rezoning: 1. Development shall be limited to multi-family dwellings. 2. Multi-family development must include four distinctly different building designs as defined by Land Use Code Section 3.8.30(F)(2), Design Standards for Multi-Family Buildings, which states: (2) Variation Among Buildings. For any development containing at least three (3) and not more than five (5) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least two (2) distinctly different building designs. For any such development containing more than five (5) buildings (excluding clubhouses/leasing offices), there shall be at least three (3) distinctly different building designs. For all developments, there shall be no similar buildings placed next to each other along a street, street-like private drive or major walkway spine. Building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape. Building designs shall be further distinguished by including unique architectural elevations and unique entrance features within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms, massing proportions and other characteristics. Such variation among buildings shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features. 3. Multi-family development must be designed with a framework of public or private streets and the front of buildings must face such streets to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, ground floor units located along the front of any building facing a street must have an individual entrance and must include a front porch or stoop that is connected to the sidewalk through a walkway. Where it is not possible to orient a building to a street, such buildings must comply with the pedestrian connectivity standards of Land Use Code Section 3.5.2(D) which states: (D) Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking. (1) Orientation to a Connecting Walkway. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Every front facade with a primary entrance to a dwelling unit shall face a connecting walkway with no primary entrance more than two hundred (200) feet from a street sidewalk. The following exceptions to this standard are permitted: (a) Up to two (2) single-family detached dwellings on an individual lot that has frontage on either a public or private street. Packet Pg. 354 -4- (b) A primary entrance may be up to three hundred fifty (350) feet from a street sidewalk if the primary entrance faces and opens directly onto a connecting walkway that qualifies as a major walkway spine. (c) If a multi-family building has more than one (1) front facade, and if one (1) of the front facades faces and opens directly onto a street sidewalk, the primary entrances located on the other front facade(s) need not face a street sidewalk or connecting walkway. (2) Street-Facing Facades. Every building containing four (4) or more dwelling units shall have at least one (1) building entry or doorway facing any adjacent street that is smaller than a full arterial or has on-street parking. 4. Multi-family development shall be capped at 276 dwelling units total. 5. Multi-family development must be designed such that buildings do not exceed forty feet in height. Masonry exteriors materials must be provided on the front elevations up to at least the top of the first floor. Off-street parking must not be located between buildings and streets (public or private) to the maximum extent feasible. 6. A transitional landscape buffer ranging between nine and eighty-eight feet must be provided between the rear (east) property lines of the adjoining parcels, currently located in unincorporated Larimer County, and the western edge of the future north-south collector road, as well as along the north property line of 3604 E. Prospect Road. Further, such area shall be densely landscaped, with an emphasis on the northern portion, and overall, must include a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and other plants, undulating earthen berms, sustainable ground covers and proper irrigation in order to establish an effective and aesthetically pleasing land use transition. 7. A future north-south public street (the “Street”) is proposed to be constructed to serve development within the land subject to this rezoning. The Street will intersect E. Prospect Road, run north along the western edge of the M-M-N zone district, and continue north to serve the adjacent U-E and L-M-N zone districts. The Street will be located approximately 1,122 feet west of the intersection of E. Prospect Road and the Southwest Frontage Road. All multi-family buildings that are placed along the Street must be set back from the property line by no less than fifteen feet. Section 5. That the Residential Neighborhood Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E) of the Land Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above-described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 6. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance. Packet Pg. 355 -5- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 21st day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 356 Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Darin Atteberry, City Manager SUBJECT Resolution 2017-010 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District and Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Said District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to authorize the City Attorney to file a petition in Larimer County District Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2016 from the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the District) in accordance with state law. The properties affected by this resolution are Lodgepole Investments, LLC Annexation, Maverik First Annexation, Mountain’s Edge Annexation, East Prospect at Boxelder Creek Annexation, Majestic Place Annexation, and the Cache la Poudre River Annexation. C.R.S. Section 32-1-502 requires an order of exclusion from the district court to remove these annexed properties from special district territories. The properties have been receiving fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority and will continue to do so. The City Attorney’s Office files the petition in Larimer County District Court each year seeking exclusion for all properties annexed in the previous year that should be removed from the District to avoid double taxation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Property that is within a fire protection district continues to be subject to the District’s property tax assessment even after annexation to the City until the property is officially excluded from the District. Exclusion must occur pursuant to state law (C.R.S. Section 32-1-502). The law allows the City to seek exclusion of annexed property from the district so that the property is not subject to property tax assessment by both the District and the City. In 2016, the City annexed six areas within the territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District, the legal descriptions of which are set forth in Exhibit “A” to the proposed Resolution. Consistent with the state law, this proposed Resolution authorizes: 1. the City Attorney to file a petition on behalf of the City to exclude the annexed properties from the District, and 2. the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the District for the continuation of fire protection services within the annexed properties. 13 Packet Pg. 357 -1- RESOLUTION 2017-010 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS OF ANNEXED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTAND AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTWITH SAID DISTRICT WHEREAS, in 2016, the City annexed six properties within the territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District (the “District”); and WHEREAS, C.R.S. Section 32-1-502 requires an order of exclusion from the district court to remove annexed properties from special district territories; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of C.R.S. Section 32-1-502(2)(a), an order excluding property from the boundaries of a special district requires the governing body of the annexing municipality to agree, by resolution, to provide the services previously provided by the special district to the area described in the petition for exclusion from and after the effective date of the exclusion order; and WHEREAS, from the date of such annexations, the City has provided municipal services to said properties, including fire services; and WHEREAS, the residents within the properties described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Annexed Properties”) have paid ad valorem property taxes to the District for fire protection services prior to exclusion, and subsequent to exclusion, will instead pay ad valorem property taxes to the City for City services, including fire protection; and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent of the City Council to reflect by this Resolution its willingness to provide fire protection services to the Annexed Properties and to exclude the Annexed Properties from the District; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to properly exclude the Annexed Properties from the District in accordance with law and to allow for the provision of fire protection services to such properties by the Poudre Fire Authority, which is an independent entity providing fire protection services to both the District and the City pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby agrees that the Annexed Properties should be excluded from the District. Packet Pg. 358 -2- Section 3. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in the Larimer County District Court pursuant to C.R.S. Section 32-1-502 for an order to exclude the Annexed Properties, the boundaries of which are described on Exhibit “A”. Section 4. That the City Council hereby agrees to provide fire protection service, through the Poudre Fire Authority, to the Annexed Properties. Section 5. That the City Council hereby finds that a plan for the disposition of assets or continuation of service is unnecessary as the Poudre Fire Authority has in the past served, and continues to serve, both the District and the City. Section 6. That the City Manager is authorized to enter into an agreement with the District for the continuation of services for the Annexed Properties, which agreement shall be substantially in the form of Exhibit “B” attached hereto, subject to such modifications as the City Manager may, in consultation with the City Attorney, deem necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. ____________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 359 LODGEPOLE INVESTMENTS, LLC ANNEXATION TRACTS A AND B, FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539 AND A PORTION OF THE CARPENTER ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PER THE PLAT OF FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539, ALL SITUATE IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO BEING MORE PARTICULALY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Considering the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22 as bearing North 89°40'32" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Section 22; thence along the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22 South 00°28'50" West 56.17 feet, more or less, to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the North having a central angle of 00°35'38" and a radius of 5790.00 feet, the long chord of which bears South 87°50'44" East a distance of 60.02 feet; said point being on the Southerly Line of that certain parcel of land as described in Deed recorded at Reception No. 92049221, records of said County and a point on the Southerly line of FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence departing said West line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22 and along said Southerly Line of that certain parcel of land as described in Deed recorded at Reception No. 92049221 and along said Southerly line of FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION and Easterly along the arc of said curve 60.02 feet; thence departing said curve and said Southerly Line of that certain parcel of land as described in Deed recorded at Reception No. 92049221 and departing said Southerly line of FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION and along the Westerly and Southerly lines of FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION, City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado South 00°28'50" West 566.63 feet and again North 89°34'58" East 2279.35 feet, more or less, to the Southeast corner of said FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION; said Southeast corner also being o point on the Westerly right-of-way line for Interstate Highway No. 25 and the Northeast corner of said FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539; thence departing said Southerly line of said FOSSIL CREEK 392 ANNEXATION and along the Westerly lines of said right-of-way line for Interstate Highway No. 25 and along the Easterly lines of said FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539 South 18°25'02" East 193.89 feet and again South 04°06'44" East 523.98 feet, more or less, to the Southeast corner of said FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539; thence departing said Westerly line of said right-of-way line for Interstate Highway No. 25 and said Easterly line of said FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539 and along the Southerly line of said FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00- S1539 South 89°40'57" West 2444.06 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539; thence departing said Southerly line of said FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539 and along the Westerly line of said FOSSIL CREEK FARM M.L.D. NO. 00-S1539 North 00°28'50" East 1272.45 feet, more or less, to a point on the Southerly Line of that certain parcel of land as described in Deed recorded at Reception No. 92049221 and a point on said Southerly line of FOSSIL CREEK RESERVOIR OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION; said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 39.77 Acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements and/or rights-of-way now existing or of record. EXHIBIT A 1 Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Exhibit A (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) MAVERIK FIRST ANNEXATION A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 15, NORTH 89°15'00” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1084.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0°45'00” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 208.55 FEET TO THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN RECEPTION NUMBER 2001007054, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 17 OR SAID INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK; THENCE SOUTH 82°18'06” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 170.83 FEET ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID INTERCHANGE BUSINESS PARK AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 17 TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 35°29'11” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 274.66 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SOUTHEAST FRONTAGE ROAD SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NONTANGENT CURVE; THENCE 113.59 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 260.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 25°01'50”, HAVING A CHORD WHICH BEARS SOUTH 30°43'25” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 112.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35°26’29” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 141.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 54°19’21” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 83.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35°31’08” WEST, A DISTANCE OF 271.26 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY 14, ALSO KNOWN AS EAST MULBERRY STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: THENCE NORTH 66°38'30” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 19.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82°18'06” EAST, A DISTANCE OF 189.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 55,087 SQUARE FEET, OR 1.265 ACRES (MORE OR LESS). 1 Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Exhibit A (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) MOUNTAIN’S EDGE ANNEXATION A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SW CORNER OF SECTION 21 AND RUN THENCE EAST 655.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1393.18 FEET; THENCE WEST 651.78 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 21; THENCE SOUTH 1393 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; LESS THAT PORTION AS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS JANUARY 25, 1967 IN BOOK 1353 AT PAGE 280, AND THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO LARIMER COUNTY FEBRUARY 21, 1968 IN BOOK 1380 AT PAGE 296 SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINS 18.516 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 1 Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Exhibit A (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) EAST PROSPECT AT BOXELDER CREEK ANNEXATION A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 16 AND THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16, AND CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16 TO BEAR N88°21'25"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS EAST END BY A 2-1/2" BRASS CAP STAMPED LS 14823, AND ON ITS WEST END BY A 2-1/2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 14823, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, N88°21'25"W, A DISTANCE OF 1,716.87 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF INTERSTATE LANDS FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, S01°38'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE VISITOR CENTER AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, N88°21'25"W, A DISTANCE OF 215.33 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID ANNEXATION; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION, S00°15'50"W, A DISTANCE OF 42.51 FEET; THENCE N88°21'25"W, A DISTANCE OF 709.34 FEET; THENCE N00°15'33"E, A DISTANCE OF 42.51 FEET; THENCE N88°22'55"W, A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE FLATIRON EAST PROSPECT ROAD FIRST ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE, N00°15'33"E, A DISTANCE OF 60.02 FEET; THENCE S88°22'55"E, A DISTANCE OF 159.97 FEET; THENCE S88°21'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE INTERSTATE LANDS SECOND ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS; THENCE ALONG THE WEST AND SOUTH LINES OF SAID ANNEXATION THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES: 1. S00°11'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 60.02 FEET; 2. S88°21'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 514.24 FEET; 3. N01°38'35"E, A DISTANCE OF 102.50 FEET; THENCE S88°21'25"E, A DISTANCE OF 290.40 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF SAID INTERSTATE LANDS SECOND ANNEXATION; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY, S01°38'35"W, A DISTANCE OF 72.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 76,714 SQUARE FEET (1.761 ACRES), MORE OR LESS. 1 Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Exhibit A (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) MAJESTIC PLACE ANNEXATION A tract of land situate in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, to-wit: A parcel of land being all of lot 3, the amended plat of lots 1-4 of the Leistikow M.R.D. S- 21-92 recorded under reception number 20110065177 in the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, being further described as follows: Basis of bearings: the south line of the northwest 1 / 4 of the northwest 1 / 4 of Section 17, Township 6 N orth, Range 68 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, assumed to bear S89° 54'32"w, a distance of 1,325.03 feet, as shown on said amended plat; Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Northwest 1 / 4 of the Northwest 1 / 4 of Section 17, said point being the northeasterly corner of said Lot 3; Thence on the easterly and southerly lines of said Northwest 1 / 4 of the Northwest 1 / 4 of Section 17 the following two (2) courses: 1) S00°00’44”E a distance of 1323.93 feet; 2) S89°54’32”W a distance of 865.03 feet; Thence N00°09’18”E a distance of 275.00 feet; Thence S89°54’32”W a distance of 52.21 feet to the easterly line of the Leistikow Annexation to the City of Fort Collins; Thence on said easterly line the following five (5) courses 1) N07°22’24”W a distance of 175.33 feet; 2) on the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left whose center bears N06°56’31”W, having a radius of 528.00 feet, a central angle of 98°02’18” and an arc length of 903.46 feet; 3) N14°58’49”W a distance of 95.52 feet; 4) N75°01’11”E a distance of 126.44 feet; 5) N00°04’00”E a distance of 91.40 feet to the southerly line of the Westchase Annexation Number 2 to the City of Fort Collins; Thence on said southerly line, S89°56’00”E a distance of 394.92 feet to the point of beginning; Containing a calculated area of 868,230 square feet or 19.9318 acres. 1 Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Exhibit A (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION: A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11, AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.M.; COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; BEING ALL THAT PORTION OF THE BED OF THE CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER AND ALL OF THE LAND CONTIGUOUS TO SAID BED THAT HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED BY THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, BY THE ANNEXATION OF BUCKINGHAM PLACE, BY THE CORRECTED PLAT OF THE GRIFFIN ADDITION, BY THE NORTH COLLEGE ANNEXATION, BY THE LINDEN STREET TECH CENTER ANNEXATION, OR BY THE McMURRY NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION; SAID TRACT ALSO BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12, AND CONSIDERING THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12 TO BEAR S00°23'32"W, SAID LINE BEING MONUMENTED ON ITS NORTH END BY A 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP WITH ILLEGIBLE MARKINGS, AND ON ITS SOUTH END BY A 2" ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 17497, BASED UPON GPS OBSERVATIONS AND THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COORDINATE SYSTEM, WITH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, S00°23'32"W, A DISTANCE OF 226.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH COLLEGE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: 1. S66°30'10"E, A DISTANCE OF 42.00 FEET; 2. S51°53'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET; 3. S67°13'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 37.00 FEET; 4. S74°51'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 176.40 FEET; 5. S79°06'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 66.50 FEET; 6. S74°16'24"E, A DISTANCE OF 94.11 FEET; 7. S71°59'41"E, A DISTANCE OF 360.45 FEET; 8. S42°21'29"E, A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET; 9. S36°35'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 151.52 FEET; 10. S19°45'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 287.91 FEET; 11. S60°22'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 205.90 FEET; 12. S32°05'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 93.79 FEET; 13. S71°00'23"E, A DISTANCE OF 31.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE LINDEN STREET TECH CENTER ANNEXATION; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 176 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE ANNEXATION OF BUCKINGHAM PLACE; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ANNEXATION OF BUCKINGHAM PLACE, A DISTANCE OF 135 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH BANK OF THE CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH BANK, BEING THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF THE TOWN OF FORT COLLINS, A DISTANCE OF 5607 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE MCMURRY NATURAL AREA ANNEXATION; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 81 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON THE NORTH BANK OF THE CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH BANK, BEING THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH COLLEGE ANNEXATION, A DISTANCE OF 2993 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CORRECTED PLAT OF THE GRIFFIN ADDITION; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH BANK, BEING THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE CORRECTED PLAT OF THE GRIFFIN ADDITION, A DISTANCE OF 622 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 70 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 12.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 1 Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Exhibit A (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICE (POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT/CITY OF FORT COLLINS) THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this _______day of ________, 2017, by and between the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal home-rule corporation (the "City"), and the POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a special statutory district within the State of Colorado (the "District"); WHEREAS, the City has recently filed pursuant to Section 32-1-502(1)(a), C.R.S., a Petition with the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado for an Order excluding certain properties from the territory of the District, which properties are shown on Exhibit "A" (the “Properties”) hereto attached, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, said Petition is premised upon the prior annexation and inclusion of the Properties within the municipal boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the City and the District to set forth their understanding and agreement with regard to the continuation of fire protection services to the Properties, as well as remaining properties within the boundaries of the District and Poudre Fire Authority, as defined below; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and obligations herein contained, the parties agree: 1. From and after the effective date of any Order of Exclusion issued by the District Court in response to the City's Petition, filed pursuant to Section 32-1-502(1)(a), which effective date is anticipated to be January 1, 2018, the City will continue to assume full and complete responsibility for fire protection services to the Properties. Such fire protection services shall be provided by Poudre Fire Authority (“PFA”) pursuant to that certain intergovernmental agreement effective November 3, 1987, by and between the City and the District. 2. From and after the effective date of the Exclusion Order entered by the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado, the District shall have no further liability or responsibility with regard to the provision of fire protection services for the Properties or any improvements thereon, other than the obligations existing under the aforementioned intergovernmental agreement creating PFA for the provision of regional fire services. 3. From and after the effective date of any Exclusion Order entered by the District Court in and for Larimer County, Colorado, the District agrees that the Properties shall be free from taxation by the District, other than mill levies assessed for purposes of paying outstanding bonded indebtedness and interest thereon, owed by the District effective immediately prior to the effective date of such Exclusion Order. Exclusion of the Properties from the District and entry EXHIBIT B 2 Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Exhibit B (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) Page 2 of 3 of an Exclusion Order by the District Court shall not affect any claim the District may have or the District's ability to make such claim for taxes which were certified by the District prior to the effective date of the Exclusion Order. 4. The District will retain ownership of all equipment and facilities now owned by the District, including such facilities as may be located within the Properties, if any. 5. The District will, through its agreement with PFA, continue to provide fire protection services to those properties located within the boundaries of the District, as modified by the exclusion of territory pursuant to the anticipated Exclusion Order requested from the District Court. 6. In the event that any bonded indebtedness exists as of the effective date of the anticipated Exclusion Order, the Board of Directors of the District shall continue to assess a proportional mill levy against the Properties, together with other properties within the boundaries of the District, sufficient to repay the principal and accrued interest on any such bonded indebtedness in accordance with the terms and provisions of the instruments pursuant to which said obligations have been created and incurred. 7. Nothing within this Agreement shall modify or terminate any obligations of the City or the District with respect to existing obligations under the intergovernmental agreement forming the PFA, including any future amendments or modifications thereto as the parties may hereafter agree. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, ATTEST: a municipal home-rule corporation ______________________ ________________________ City Clerk Darin Atteberry, City Manager Approved as to form: ________________________ Assistant City Attorney 2 Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Exhibit B (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) Page 3 of 3 POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a special statutory district within the State of Colorado __________________________________ By: ________________ Chairman, Board of Directors Approved as to form: __________________________________ By: Robert G. Cole Attorney for Poudre Valley Fire Protection District 2 Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Exhibit B (5179 : Annexation Exclusion RESO) Agenda Item 14 Item # 14 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Clark Mapes, City Planner SUBJECT Resolution 2017-011 Adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Decision to Approve the Landmark Apartments Expansion, PDP#160013. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision to approve the Landmark Apartments Expansion Project Development Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On November 10, 2016, the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Landmark Apartments Expansion Project Development Plan (PDP). On November 22, 2016, two separate Notices of Appeal were filed:  Per Hogestad filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Decision Maker failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings, which was substantially false or grossly misleading.  Colleen Hoffman and Ann Hunt filed a Notice of Appeal alleging that the Decision Maker failed to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board improperly failed to receive all relevant information offered by the appellant; and also alleging that the Board failed to properly interpret and apply specified provisions of the Land Use Code. On January 31, 2017, City Council considered the appeal allegations and testimony from parties in interest. All specific assertions in the two appeals were discussed. City Council denied the appeals and thus upheld the Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the PDP, with the following additional conditions which are intended to address compatibility issues raised in the appeals: 1. The applicant must install signage requesting that drivers dim lights to reduce headlight glare into surrounding residential windows; 2. The applicant must add landscaping and other features to the Project as reasonably feasible to mitigate headlight glare into surrounding residential windows; 3. The applicant must remove all balconies from the east side of Building A; 4. The applicant must remove any balconies that would extend into any natural area buffer; 14 Packet Pg. 369 Agenda Item 14 Item # 14 Page 2 5. The applicant must shift the emergency access road on the Project five feet to the west from the location shown on the plans approved by the Planning and Zoning Board; 6. The applicant must add landscaping and other features to the Project to discourage pedestrian traffic on the voluntary trail that currently exists to the east of the proposed emergency drive. 14 Packet Pg. 370 -1- RESOLUTION 2017-011 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DECISION APPROVING THE LANDMARK APARTMENTS EXPANSION, PDP#160013 WHEREAS, on November 10, 2016, the Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) reviewed and approved the Landmark Apartments Expansion Project Development Plan PDP#160013 (the “PDP” or "Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, two separate Notices of Appeal of the Board's approval of the PDP were filed with the City Clerk on November 22, 2016; one by Per Hogestad (the “Hogestad Appeal”) and the other by Colleen Hoffman and Ann R. Hunt (the “Hoffman-Hunt Appeal”) (Hogestad, Hoffman and Hunt are referred to collectively as the “Appellants”); and WHEREAS, the Hogestad Appeal asserts that the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing because it considered evidence relevant to its findings that was substantially false or grossly misleading related to standards set forth in the Land Use Code (the “LUC”) in rendering its decision, specifically LUC Sections 3.4.1 (related to natural habitats and features), 3.4.6 (related to glare or heat), 3.5.1 (related to privacy as a component of compatibility) and 3.8.30 (related to compliance with standards regarding a 25 foot side-yard buffer); and WHEREAS, the Hoffman-Hunt Appeal asserts that Board: (1) failed to conduct a fair hearing because it improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the appellant; and (2) failed to properly interpret and apply LUC Section 3.5 regarding compatibility; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2017, the City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, consolidated and considered both Appeals, reviewed the record on appeal and the applicable LUC provisions, and heard presentations from the Appellants and the opponent of the Appeals, the applicant for the PDP (the “Applicant”); and WHEREAS, after discussion, the City Council found and concluded based on the evidence in the record and presented at the January 31, 2017, hearing (the "Appeal Hearing") that: 1. The Board did conduct a fair hearing on November 10, 2016 in its consideration of the PDP and did not consider evidence relevant to its decision that was substantially false or grossly misleading or improperly fail to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants; and 2. The Board properly interpreted and applied the provisions of the City Code and LUC when it approved the PDP, except that pursuant to City Code Section 2-55(f), the Board’s decision approving the PDP shall be modified to include the following additional conditions, as proposed or agreed by the Applicant at the Appeal Hearing: Packet Pg. 371 -2- i. The Applicant must install signage requesting that drivers dim lights to reduce headlight glare into surrounding residential windows; ii. The Applicant must add landscaping and other features to the Project as reasonably feasible to mitigate headlight glare into surrounding residential windows; iii. The Applicant must remove all balconies from the east side of Building A; iv. The Applicant must remove any balconies that would extend into any natural area buffer; v. The Applicant must shift the emergency access road on the Project five feet to the west from the location shown on the plans approved by the Planning and Zoning Board; vi. The applicant must add landscaping and other features to the Project to discourage pedestrian traffic on the voluntary trail that currently exists to the east of the proposed emergency drive; These conditions are intended to address issues raised in the Hoffman-Hunt Appeal regarding compatibility of the proposed buildings and uses included in the Project when considered in the context of the surrounding area; and 3. Except as so stated, based on the evidence in the record and presented at the Appeal Hearing, the Hogestad Appeal and the Hoffman-Hunt Appeal are without merit and are denied. WHEREAS, City Code Section 2-55(g) provides that no later than the date of its next regular meeting after the hearing of an appeal, City Council shall adopt, by resolution, findings of fact in support of its decision on the Appeals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that, pursuant to Section 2-55(g) of the City Code, the City Council hereby makes and adopts the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1. That the grounds for appeal stated in the Hogestad Appeal and the Hoffman-Hunt Appeal conform to the requirements of Section 2-48 of the City Code. 2. That based on the evidence in the record and presented at the January 31, 2017, Appeal Hearing, the recitals set forth above are adopted as findings of fact. 3. That the Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing on November 10, 2016 when it approved the PDP and it did not consider evidence relevant to its decision that was substantially false or grossly misleading or improperly fail to receive all relevant evidence offered by the Appellants. 4. That the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply LUC Division 3.5-Building Standards, including but not limited to LUC §3.5.1-Building and Project Compatibility, when the Board approved the PDP on November 10, 2016, except that pursuant to City Code Section 2-55(f), the Board’s decision approving the PDP shall be modified to Packet Pg. 372 -3- include the additional six conditions, as proposed or agreed by the Applicant at the Appeal Hearing, set forth above in the recitals, which conditions are intended to address issues raised in the Hoffman-Hunt Appeal regarding compatibility of the proposed buildings and uses included in the Project when considered in the context of the surrounding area. 5. That the Hogestad Appeal and the Hoffman-Hunt Appeal are without merit and are denied. 6. That adoption of this Resolution shall constitute the final action of the City Council in accordance with City Code Section 2-55(g). Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 373 Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Ellen Martin, Visual Arts Administrator SUBJECT Resolution 2017-012 Approving an Art Project for the Lincoln Corridor Plan Project and Authorizing Expenditures from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create the Art Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is it to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account to commission an artist to create art for the Lincoln Corridor Plan Project. The expenditures of $91,995 will be for design, materials, signage, fabrication, installation, and contingency for Mark Leichliter to create a series of artworks for the Lincoln Corridor Plan Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Section 23-303 of City Code established the Art in Public Places Reserve Account, and designated it for use in acquiring or leasing works of art, maintenance, repair or display of works of art, and administrative expenses related to the Art in Public Places (APP) Program, in accordance with the APP Guidelines adopted by the Council in Ordinance No. 020, 1995. In 2012, City Council permanently adopted the APP Program, and reenacted City Code Chapter 23, Article IX, with certain modifications. Fort Collins artist Mark Leichliter worked with the Project Team to develop the concept for art at the site. The artist was selected through a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) process. The art installation, entitled Terralogue Totems, is intended to accentuate the corridor and create wayfinding elements. The artworks comprising the installations are executed in different formats dispersed along the corridor and consist of three sculptural monoliths, eighteen bike racks, and six bollards. The monoliths are approximately eleven feet tall. The artworks are created out of stainless and Corten steel and stone. Terralogue Totems consists of three motifs, each relating to specific locations along the corridor:  "Course" represents the River; the physical, actual course of the Poudre -- and the flowing passage of time.  "Construct" (as a noun not a verb) speaks to the influence of humans on the landscape and represents the built environment. This Totem's placement in the center of the corridor serves as the balance and the nexus between the natural and the man-made.  "Crop" placed at the Eastern most end of the project, harkens to both the natural, endemic plant life and the history of agriculture in the area. This design concept was reviewed and recommended by the Project Team, incorporated into Lincoln Corridor public engagement materials for the neighborhood meeting on June 22, 2016, and recently recommended for Council approval by the Art in Public Places Board at the Board's December 21, 2016 regular meeting. Agenda Item 15 Item # 15 Page 2 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The funds for this item have been appropriated in the APP Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund. The Art in Public Places program also has available appropriated maintenance funds for the long- term care of the subject artwork along with the rest of the APP art collection. The Lincoln Corridor APP art budget is $91,995 to be used for design, materials, fabrication, installation, and contingency for the artworks. The Lincoln Corridor Plan capital improvement project will contribute an additional $10,855 towards the art project. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The design concept and budget for the Art Project was reviewed and recommended for City Council approval by the APP Board at its December 21, 2016 regular board meeting. PUBLIC OUTREACH This project was promoted in a public call to artists through an RFQ process. In an RFQ process all submissions are reviewed and the artist selection is based on her/his portfolio of work. Submissions are reviewed by the APP Board, a Purchasing representative, and representatives of the project team. The selected artist(s) then collaborates with the Project Team to develop concepts for the artwork based on the goals of the project and input from the team. The final design and budget is reviewed and approved by the Project Team and then the APP Board, who then recommends the ultimate project to City Council for approval. The artist concept was incorporated into the project boards shared at the public meeting for the Lincoln Corridor Plan Project on June 22, 2016. ATTACHMENTS 1. Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (PDF) 2. Art in Public Places Board Minutes, December 21, 2016 (PDF) ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Lincoln Corridor Project Artist: Mark Leichliter Fort Collins artist Mark Leichliter worked with the Lincoln Corridor Project team to develop concepts for art at the site. The artworks are integrated into the design of the corridor and are located throughout the project. The artwork is intended to accentuate the corridor and provide wayfinding elements. The artworks, entitled Terralogue Totems, consists of sculptural metal monoliths, bike racks, and stone and metal bollards. Each location along the corridor includes a large sculptural monolith, accompanied by combinations of bike racks and bollards. PoudreRiverBridgeArtSite ATTACHMENT 1 15.1 Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (5211 : APP Lincoln Corridor Project) Monoliths(LeŌtoRight:Course,Construct,Crop) Terralogue Totems consists of three motifs, each relating to specific location along the Lincoln Corridor: x "Course" represents the River; the physical, actual course of the Poudre — and the flowing passage of time. x "Construct" (as a noun not a verb) speaks to the influence of humans on the landscape and represents the built environment. This Totem's placement in the center of the corridor serves as a balance and the nexus of the natural and the man-made. x "Crop" placed at the Eastern most end of the project, harkens to both the natural, endemic plant life and the history of agriculture in the area. 15.1 Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (5211 : APP Lincoln Corridor Project) Overview: x Total number of Monoliths: 3 x Total number of Bike Racks: 18 x Total number of Bollards: 6 x Material for the sculptures will be stainless steel and weathering steel (Corten) x Bollards scope includes metal parts only; stone provided by the City x Surface finish on stainless will be a hand-honed swirl in a random, looping pattern; weathering steel to be allowed to “rust” naturally BikeRacks(LeŌtoRight:Course,Construct,Cropdesigns) Bollards(LeŌtoRight:Construct,Crop,Coursedesigns) 15.1 Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (5211 : APP Lincoln Corridor Project) ATTACHMENT 2 15.2 Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Art in Public Places Board Minutes, December 21, 2016 (draft) (5211 : APP Lincoln Corridor Project) 15.2 Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Art in Public Places Board Minutes, December 21, 2016 (draft) (5211 : APP Lincoln Corridor Project) -1- RESOLUTION 2017-012 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN ART PROJECT FOR THE LINCOLN CORRIDOR PLAN PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FROM THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND TO COMMISSION AN ARTIST TO CREATE THE ART PROJECT WHEREAS, the City is in the process of constructing neighborhood and right of way improvements known as the Lincoln Corridor Plan project (the “Project”), located along Lincoln Avenue between Jefferson Street to Lemay Avenue; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 23-303 and 23-304 of the City Code, one percent of the funds appropriated for the Project was set aside for use in the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of works of art in accordance with the Art in Public Places Guidelines adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 047, 1998 (the “Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, through a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) process, artist Mark Leichliter (the “Artist”) was selected to develop the artwork concept for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Artist proposed artwork for the Project consisting of several stone and steel pieces executed in different formats, including three 11’-tall sculptural monoliths, 18 bike racks, and six bollards; the sculptural series entitled “Terralogue Totems” will incorporate three design motifs corresponding to different locations along the corridor- Course, Construct, and Crop (the “Art Project”); and WHEREAS, the Art in Public Places Board (“the Board”) evaluated and approved the Art Project at its regular meeting on December 21, 2016 pursuant to the Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the budget for the Art Project including design, materials, fabrication, installation, and contingency for the Art Project is $91,995, and another $10,855 will be contributed from the Project capital improvement budget; and WHEREAS, the funds for the Art Project, as already appropriated in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund, will be used to provide for the Artist’s design fees, materials, fabrication, installation and contingency for the Art Project; and WHEREAS, Section 23-308 of the City Code requires the Board’s selection of the recommended art be presented for Council review and approval because the cost of the art exceeds $30,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23-308 of the City Code, the Board recommends City Council approve the Art Project and authorize expenditure of appropriated funds from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Packet Pg. 381 -2- Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves the Art Project and authorizes the expenditure of appropriated funds in an amount not to exceed NINETY ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE DOLLARS ($91,995) from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund, for the Art Project as proposed by the Artist, the conceptual designs for which were selected by the Art in Public Places Board on December 21, 2016. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 382 Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Ellen Martin, Visual Arts Administrator SUBJECT Resolution 2017-013 Approving an Art Project for the Twin Silos Park and Authorizing Expenditures from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund to Commission an Artist to Create the Art Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is it to approve expenditures from the Art in Public Places Reserve Account to commission an artist to create art for the Twin Silo Park Project. The expenditures of $67,000 will be for design, materials, signage, fabrication, installation, and contingency for Tim Upham to create a sculpture at the site of Twin Silo Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Section 23-303 of City Code established the Art in Public Places Reserve Account, and designated it for use in acquiring or leasing works of art, maintenance, repair or display of works of art, and administrative expenses related to the Art in Public Places (APP) Program, in accordance with the APP Guidelines adopted by the Council in Ordinance No. 020, 1995. In 2012, City Council permanently adopted the APP Program, and reenacted City Code Chapter 23, Article IX, with certain modifications. The City of Fort Collins has begun the construction of Twin Silo Park, located on Ziegler and Kechter Roads. Fort Collins artist Tim Upham worked with the Project Team to develop the concept for art at the site. The artist was selected through a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) process. The artwork, entitled Harvest Sky, is designed to complement the adjacent Harvest Room community social space and the theme of a fruiting orchard. The artwork will be integrated into the top of the 60-foot long orchard arbor that is adjacent to the Harvest Room in the park. During the day visitors will pass under the canopy of over forty 22-inch colored circles of polycarbonate that create a stained glass effect in the sunshine. The colored circles will be yellow, red, and green, inspired by the colors of fruit. A matrix of stainless steel pipe creates a latticework of geometrical vines and stems that act as the structure and support for the colorful “fruit.” This design concept was reviewed and recommended by the Project Team and the Art in Public Places Board (APP). CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The funds for this item have been appropriated in the APP Reserve Account in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund. The APP Program also has available appropriated maintenance funds for the long-term care of the subject artwork along with the rest of the APP art collection. 16 Packet Pg. 383 Agenda Item 16 Item # 16 Page 2 The Twin Silo Park Project art budget is $67,000 to be used for design, materials, fabrication, installation, contingency, and maintenance for this artwork. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The design concept and budget for this project was reviewed and recommended for City Council approval by the Art in Public Place Board at its regular January 18, 2017 board meeting. PUBLIC OUTREACH The Twin Silo Park APP Project was promoted in a pubic call to artists through an RFQ process. In an RFQ process all submissions are reviewed and the artist selection is based on her/his portfolio of work. Submissions are reviewed by the APP Board, a Purchasing representative, and representatives of the project team. Artists then collaborate with the project team and together develop concepts for the artwork based on the goals of the project and input from the team. The final design and budget is reviewed and approved by the project team and then the APP Board, who recommends the project to City Council for approval. The APP Program will promote the project throughout the fabrication, installation, and completion of the artwork. ATTACHMENTS 1. Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (PDF) 2. Art in Public Places Board Minutes Draft, January 18, 2017 (PDF) 16 Packet Pg. 384 Fort Collins artist Tim Upham worked with the Twin Silo Park Project Team to develop a concept for art at the site of this new park. The artwork, entitled Harvest Sky, is designed to complement the adjacent Harvest Room space and the theme of a fruiting orchard. The artwork will be integrated into the top of the orchard arbor that is adjacent to the Harvest Room. During the day visitors pass under the canopy of over forty 22" colored circles of polycarbonate that create a stained glass effect in the sunshine. A matrix of stainless steel pipe creates a latticework of geometrical vines and stems that act as the structure and support for the colorful “fruit.” LocaƟon of the artwork within Twin Silo Park ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Twin Silo Park Project Artist Tim Upham ATTACHMENT 1 16.1 Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (5207 : APP Twin Silo Park Project) Example of Proposed Materials Design SchemaƟc for one 30’ length of the arbor Harvest Sky Concept Overview: x Artwork is 60' long x 5' wide x 3' height from the top of the Harvest Arbor x Forty 22" × ½" thick colored polycarbonate circle disks in red, yellow, and green x 200' of ¾" stainless steel pipe 16.1 Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Written Description and Images of Proposed Artwork (5207 : APP Twin Silo Park Project) Art in Public Places Board January 18, 2017 ATTACHMENT 2 16.2 Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Art in Public Places Board Minutes Draft, January 18, 2017 (5207 : APP Twin Silo Park Project) -1- RESOLUTION 2017-013 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AN ART PROJECT FOR THE TWIN SILOS PARK AND AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES FROM THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND TO COMMISSION AN ARTIST TO CREATE THE ART PROJECT WHEREAS, the City is in the process of constructing public park improvements known as the Twin Silos Park Project (the “Project”), located at Ziegler and Kechter Roads; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 23-303 and 23-304 of the City Code, one percent of the funds appropriated for the Project was set aside for use in the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of works of art in accordance with the Art in Public Places Guidelines adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. 047, 1998 (the “Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, through a Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) process, artist Tim Upham (the “Artist”) was selected to develop the artwork concept for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Artist has proposed artwork for the Project consisting of 40 colored polycarbonate discs installed to a steel lattice on the 60-foot orchard arbor adjacent to the Harvest Room community space in the park; the sculptural piece entitled “Harvest Sky” will use the effect of stained glass to create a sense of being in a fruiting orchard (the “Art Project”); and WHEREAS, the Art in Public Places Board (“the Board”) evaluated and approved the Art Project at its regular meeting on January 18, 2017 pursuant to the Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the budget for the Art Project include design, materials, fabrication, installation, and contingency for the Art Project is $67,000; and WHEREAS, the funds for the Art Project are already appropriated in the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund, and will be used to provide for the Artist’s design fees, materials, fabrication, installation and contingency for the Art Project; and WHEREAS, Section 23-308 of the City Code requires the Board’s selection of the recommended art be presented for Council review and approval because the cost of the art exceeds $30,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23-308 of the City Code, the Board recommends City Council approve the Art Project and authorize expenditure of appropriated funds from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Packet Pg. 388 -2- Section 2. That the City Council hereby approves the Art Project and authorizes the expenditure of appropriated funds in an amount not to exceed SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($67,000) from the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund, for the Art Project as proposed by the Artist, the conceptual designs for which were selected by the Art in Public Places Board on January 18, 2017. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 389 Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager Dan Coldiron, Chief Information Officer SUBJECT Resolution 2017-014 Approving and Adopting an Open Data Policy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to adopt an Open Data Policy in support of the City’s commitment to improving the community by fostering open, valuable, effective, and accessible government through data transparency. Publishing structured, standardized data in machine-readable formats creates new opportunities for information from different sources to be combined and visualized in new and unexpected ways, creating a platform for innovation, and for citizens to browse, interpret and draw attention to trends or issues with greater ease and efficiency. This Policy also addresses the very real need to balance transparency with protecting privacy and security concerns. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City of Fort Collins has been on a journey of transparency and data-driven performance for many years. In 2015, City Council added Open Data as a work plan priority. 17 Packet Pg. 390 Agenda Item 17 Item # 17 Page 2 Over the last 18 months, staff has been laying the foundation to move into the open data world. In 2016:  An International County Managers Association (ICMA) leadership capstone group assisted staff in completing internal and external stakeholder meeting regarding open data, interests, and identifying necessary processes to implement an open data portal.  Staff attended open data events at Galvanized and met with numerous instructors to explore opportunities to collaborate with open data.  Internal “Data Champions” were identified and informed of the possibilities, disruptions, and overall plan of moving into an open data world.  The Mayor read a Proclamation on March 15, 2016, stating the City’s commitment to Open Data.  An RFP was released seeking a vendor to support an Open Data Portal.  The Council-adopted 2017-18 Budget will provide funding for an Open Data Officer in 2018. A vendor has been selected and staff anticipates the launch of an open data portal in Late Q1/early Q2. The policy presented here will help guide and direct the processes and governance of making data available to the public. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS Being an open data city and having an open data portal is an ongoing activity. The vendor/portal will be approximately $60,000 annually. This next step in transparency also requires the addition of the open data officer position to manage and oversee the publishing of existing data and the identification and publishing of new datasets. The creation of an open data portal has the potential to also save money by giving citizens direct access to desired information without staff needing to pull the information. PUBLIC OUTREACH No formal outreach has been conducted; however, staff has engaged specific stakeholders to inquire about data interests and potential collaborations. 17 Packet Pg. 391 -1- RESOLUTION 2017-014 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN OPEN DATA POLICY WHEREAS, the City is committed to engaging the community by working with citizens and soliciting their ideas, input, and creative energy; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to using technology to foster open, transparent, and accessible government; and WHEREAS, the City is committed to maintaining the public trust through openness and transparency; and WHEREAS, access to public information promotes a higher level of civic engagement and allows citizens to provide valuable feedback to government officials regarding local issues; and WHEREAS, to help further these purposes, City staff has prepared the Open Data Policy, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, one goal of the Open Data policy is to proactively provide information currently sought through public records requests, thereby saving the community time, money, and resources; and WHEREAS, in commitment to the spirit of open government, the City will consider public information to be open by default and will proactively publish public data and public data- containing information, unless relevant laws permit or require the records to be withheld; and WHEREAS, by freely sharing public data, the City seeks to develop opportunities for increased engagement and participation for citizens of the City in achieving desired community results; and WHEREAS, the protection of privacy, confidentiality and security will be maintained as a paramount priority while also advancing the government’s transparency and accountability through open data; and WHEREAS, publishing structured, standardized data in machine-readable formats creates new opportunities for information to be combined and visualized in new and unexpected ways, creating a platform for niche markets to be identified and developed, and for citizens to browse, interpret and draw attention to trends or issues with greater ease and efficiency; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to encourage the local creative community to develop applications, tools, and analyses to view, explore, organize, communicate, and share public data in new and innovative ways; and Packet Pg. 392 -2- WHEREAS, an open data platform and tools which enable citizens to access, visualize, and analyze public information will promote greater civic engagement and encourage citizens to provide feedback on local issues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the City to approve and adopt the Open Data Policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Open Data Policy attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is hereby approved and adopted. Passed and adopted on at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 393 1 EXHIBIT A Open Data Policy February 7, 2017 It is the policy of the City that public data will be made open and freely available to all online in a machine-readable, open format that can be easily retrieved, downloaded in bulk format and reused utilizing readily-available and free web search applications and software, subject only to valid policy, privacy, confidentiality, security, and other legal restrictions. Definitions. As used in this open data policy, these terms shall have the following meanings unless it is apparent from the context that a different meaning is intended: (1) Agency means any City office, department, commission, board, advisory committee or other division of City government; (2) Data means statistical, factual, quantitative, or qualitative information that is regularly maintained or created by or on behalf of the City; (3) Dataset means a named collection of related records, with the collection- containing data organized or formatted in a specific or prescribed way, often in tabular form; (4) Open data means public data or information made readily available online, utilizing best practice structures and formats when possible, with no legal restrictions on use or reuse, unless otherwise required by law; (5) Open data officer means the staff person designated by the City Manager to coordinate and implement the City's open data program and policy; (6) Open data portal means the internet site established and maintained by or on behalf of the City, available from the City’s website or its successor website; (7) Open format means any widely-accepted, nonproprietary, searchable, platform- independent, machine-readable method for formatting data which permits automated processes; (8) Protected information means any dataset or portion thereof to which the City department or agency may deny access pursuant to any law, rule or regulation; (9) Public data or information means any data or information generated or received by the City that can be made public, to the extent such action is lawful and prudent; EXHIBIT A 1 Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Exhibit A (5244 : Open Data RESO) 2 (10) Publishable data means data that is not protected or sensitive and has been prepared for release on the open data web portal; and (11) Sensitive information means any data, which, if published on the open data portal, could raise privacy, confidentiality or security concerns or have the potential to jeopardize public health, safety, or welfare, to an extent greater than the potential public benefit of publishing that data. Procurement, processes and publishing of open data. (a) To the extent prudent and practical, the City shall: (1) Proactively publish high quality, public data with documentation (metadata) online; (2) Make publishable data freely available to all in machine-readable open formats, in both its raw and processed form, including a description of the source and quality of the data; (3) Ensure publishable data is in the public domain and can be easily retrieved, downloaded, indexed, sorted, searched, analyzed and reused utilizing readily- available and free web search applications and software; (4) Minimize limitations on the disclosure of public information while appropriately safeguarding protected and sensitive information; (5) Encourage innovative uses of the City's publishable data by agencies, the public, and other partners; and (6) Maintain the City's open data portal, which shall provide a central location for publishing City data. (7) Procure and use efficient processes in a way that advances the policy of making public data and information open and available through the use of open data standards and formats, whenever possible. (b) The development and implementation of these practices shall be overseen by the open data officer. (c) The requirements of this policy shall apply to all City departments and shall include data prepared on behalf of the City by outside parties, to the extent permitted by law and agreements with such outside party. 1 Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Exhibit A (5244 : Open Data RESO) 3 Governance. The City Manager shall designate an open data officer, who shall oversee the open data process, including: (1) Managing the open data portal; (2) Working with each agency to identify a designee responsible for managing the collection and release of data, who, in coordination with the open data officer, shall prioritize public data for publication based on the frequency of public records requests and additional interest from the public; (3) Working with the City Attorney’s Office to develop and implement a process for identifying the relative level of risk and public benefit associated with potentially sensitive and protected information, and recommending which public data should not be published online; (4) Overseeing the creation of a comprehensive inventory of datasets held by each department and agency published to the open data portal and regularly updated; (5) Establishing processes for optimizing methods of data collection, as well as publishing datasets and creation processes to the open data portal, including processes for ensuring that datasets contain unique identifiers and are reviewed for use-appropriate formats, quality, timeliness, and exclusion of sensitive and protected information; and that data published is complete, reliable, highly detailed, and presented in a way that maximizes public connectivity; (6) Maintaining written justification for why certain information is not published online; and (7) Establishing timelines, in coordination with agency and departmental designees, for publishing public data on the open data portal. Open data portal. The City will establish an open data portal in March, 2017. The open data portal shall be maintained by or on behalf of the City and shall be administered by the open data officer. The open data portal shall be available at the City’s website or a successor website. In the event a successor website is used, the open data officer shall notify the City Council and shall provide notice to the public on the main City website. The open data portal shall be the central location where the City's open data can be found, and datasets published on the open data portal shall be explicitly placed into the public domain, thereby ensuring that there are no restrictions or requirements placed on use of these datasets. 1 Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Exhibit A (5244 : Open Data RESO) 4 Open data report and review. (a) Within one year of the effective date of the adoption of this policy, and thereafter no later than November 1 of each year, the open data officer shall publicly report on the progress toward achieving the goals of the City's open data program, an assessment of the current scope of compliance, a list of datasets currently available on the open data portal, and a description and publication timeline for datasets envisioned to be published on the portal in the following year. (b) During the review and reporting period, the open data officer should also make suggestions for improving the City's open data management processes in order to ensure that the City continues to move towards the achievement of the policy's goals. 1 Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Exhibit A (5244 : Open Data RESO) Agenda Item 18 Item # 18 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Christine Macrina, Boards and Commissions Coordinator SUBJECT Resolution 2017-015 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions of the City of Fort Collins. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appoint individuals to fill vacancies that currently exist on boards and commissions due to the resignation of a board member and a vacancy created upon the expiration of a term. Applications were solicited from October through December. Council teams interviewed applicants in January. This Resolution appoints individuals to fill current vacancies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION This Resolution appoints John Parks to the Economic Advisory Board to fill an expired term to begin immediately on February 7, 2017 with a term to expire on December 31, 2019. This Resolution names Serena Robb to the Community Development Block Grant Commission to fulfill a vacancy created by the resignation of Deborah Wescott with a term to expire on December 31, 2017. Carey Hewitt is named to the Parking Advisory Board to fulfill a vacancy created by the resignation of Stephanie Napoleon with a term to expire on December 31, 2017. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applications (PDF) 18 Packet Pg. 398 APPLICATION FOR BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION MUST BE LIMITED TO TWO PAGES INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT If you have questions or need more information, contact: City Clerk's Office (300 LaPorte Avenue) at 970.416.2525 Eligibility Requirements - 1 year residency within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Board or Commission: Economic Advisory Commission Name: John Parks Mailing Address: 224 E Elizabeth St Zip:80524 Residence: 224 E Elizabeth St Zip:80524 Home Phone: 970-631-6786 Work Phone:970-613-5282 Cell Phone: 970-631-6786 E-Mail Address: john@jparks.org Have you resided in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year? Yes No Which Council District do you live in? District 1 Current Occupation: Int'l Baccalaureate Coordinator Employer:Thompson School District Recent and/or relevant work experience (please include dates) IB Coordinator:August 2014 - present I currently coordinate both the IB Middle Years and Diploma Programmes (9th-12th grades) at Loveland High School, as well as the k-12 district-wide IB leadership.IB & AP Spanish and French Teacher: Loveland High School August 2007 - August 2014International Bicycle Tour Leader: Experience Plus Bicycle Tours 2000-2002, 2004 Recent and/or relevant volunteer experience (please include dates) 2016, 2015: Organize annual Loveland Volunteer Fair with 20+ local volunteer organizations2012-2014: Founder and director of Loveland Mountain Bike Racing Team (affiliated with NICA)2010-2012: Chess club sponsor and coach, Loveland High School2009-2011: Sponsor of the Latinos United in the Community, Loveland High School Rams Cycling Team President: Colorado State University 2005-2006: Are you currently serving on a City board or commission? Yes No If so, which one? Why do you want to become a member of this particular board or commission? Fort Collins has some very progressive plans for smart growth, with various plans for keeping sustainability and the triple bottom line at the heart of all city growth. I would like to work with city leaders to achieve our common goals. Have you attended a meeting of the board or commission you are applying to or talked to anyone currently on the board? Yes No If yes, please share your experience: List any abilities, skills, certificates, specialized training, or interests you have which are applicable to this board or commission: Coordination skills: organizing diverse stakeholders to work towards a common goal; meeting planning, facilitation, and recording; event planning; conducting extensive review processes with diverse stakeholders; community outreach; social media campaign managerTrilingual in English, Spanish and FrenchLicensed teacher (Spanish, k-12) ATTACHMENT 1 18.1 Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Applications (5237 : BC Appointments) Briefly explain what you believe are the three most important issues facing this board or commission, and how do you believe this board or commission should address each issue? 1) City of Fort Collins Climate Action Plan: This is one of the most forward-thinking and aggressive city-lead climate change mitigation plans. The city's clear attention to the triple bottom line is clearly defined and laid out in city documents. Every effort should be made to meet the goals set out with the Climate Action Plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while also working towards maintaining the balance of the triple bottom line. The EAC can recommend the step by step transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. 2) Increasing connections between the education and business sectors for improved school to work readiness as well as future innovation: The EAC can make recommendations and incentives for local businesses to offer school visits for elementary and middle school students, as well as job shadowing and internships for high school and university students. Additionally, the EAC can encourage the growth of education to work programs and direct connections between schools and places of work. 3) Increasing assistance programs and access to these programs for low-income individuals and families in our city: The recession and subsequent housing pricing boom has resulted in a higher number of individuals and families experiencing low income and even homelessness. In order to assist these people to achieve a more comfortable living status, the EAC can recommend the creation of a site, both online and a centrally-located office, that offers a one-stop information center for city and other services, including reduced fees, housing, educational, transportation and employment assistance. Please specify any activities which might create a serious conflict of interest if you should be appointed to this board or commission: None to my knowledge. Have you ever been convicted of a crime (except for minor traffic offenses that resulted only in a fine)? Yes No If yes, please explain in complete detail. State the nature and approximate date of the conviction, the sentence imposed, whether the sentence has been completed, and any other information you consider to be relevant Upon application for and acceptance of appointment, board and commission members demonstrate their intention and ability to attend meetings. If appointed, frequent nonattendance may result in termination of the appointment. By typing your name in the space provided, I submit my electronic signature and application to the City of Fort Collins and swear or affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado: -that I meet the eligibility requirements of the position sought and -that the information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: John Parks Date: Jan-03-2017 Optional: How did you learn of a vacancy on this board or commission: Newspaper Cable 14 City News (Utility Bill Insert) Website Other (please specify) 18.1 Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Applications (5237 : BC Appointments) Objective I am seeking a environmental coordinator position with the City of Fort Collins. I can contribute the skills I have gained as an International Baccalaureate Coordinator, Spanish and French teacher, bicycle tour leader, and and crew leader with the Youth Conservation Corps in Yellowstone NP and City of Boulder Open Spaces. I have a high degree of motivation to follow projects through to their end, engaging all the necessary people involved to make them feel part of an effective team. Coordination Is a multifaceted profession which brings together many of my qualities and skills, including interpersonal communication, teambuilding enthusiasm and an ability to work independently and in a team. Environmental sustainability and education has always been my passion. Experience International Baccalaureate Coordinator: Thompson School District August 2014 - present I currently coordinate both the IB Middle Years and Diploma Programmes (9th-12th grades) at Loveland High School, as well as the k-12 district-wide IB leadership. I work with over 35 teachers in coordinating 50 courses for nearly 300 students. I organize events including annual volunteer fairs, student outreach, alumni reunion and convocation, as well as lead two schools through a year and a half evaluation process of our IB MYP partnership. I was recognized as highly effective in my most recent annual evaluation. Under my leadership, this program has grown 100% in 2.5 years. IB & AP Spanish and French Teacher: Loveland High School August 2007 - August 2014 I shared my passion for languages and cultures as an interactive world language educator with students at all levels of language acquisition. I used a communicative approach, encouraging students to use and expand their language skills. I worked closely on the district-wide curriculum development and attended both regional conferences and national trainings. International English Teacher: Mexico and France 2006-2007; 2002-2003 I taught English at a private IB school in Puebla Mexico and at a public high school in southeast France. Rams Cycling Team President: Colorado State University 2005-2006 As leader of this Sport Club team with 16 officers and over 120 active student athletes, we won our first divisional championship and hired on our first professional coach. International Bicycle Tour Leader: Experience Plus Bicycle Tours 2000-2002, 2004 I had the amazing opportunity to be the head tour leader on 1-2 week bicycle tours in Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Colorado and Utah. I also worked to develop and refine the tour offerings in all of these locations in this independent position with this Fort Collins based company. Trail Crew Member: Rocky Mountain 18.1 Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Applications (5237 : BC Appointments) National Park 2005, 2003 Youth Conservation Corps Crew Leader. City of Boulder Open Space Summer 1999 Organizing and leading a crew of 8-12 teenage workers on trail maintenance and environmental education. Youth Conservation Corps Crew Leader. Yellowstone National Park Summers 1993-96 Organizing and leading crews of 5-30 teenage workers on trail maintenance, backpacking, and environmental ed. Education Masters of Educational Leadership (M.Ed.): Colorado State University 2005-2006 College of Education Project Promise graduate, including teaching licensure and student teaching in diverse schools. Bachelors of Spanish Language, Culture & Literature (B.A.): CSU 2004-2005 Received department award for Outstanding Spanish Language Graduate Bachelors of Environmental Studies and International Development: CU Boulder 1995-2000 Keynote speaker for the interdisciplinary environmental studies program May 2000 graduation. Ecuador Study Abroad: Minnesota Studies in International Development 1998-1999 Academic year program including various homestays in two cities and a 7-month internship with an indigenous mountain guide association. Skills I have a wide skill set which make me an effective coordinator. I have strong organizational skills and am comfortable working with diverse stakeholders, including administrators, 18.1 Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Applications (5237 : BC Appointments) APPLICATION FOR BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION MUST BE LIMITED TO TWO PAGES INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR APPOINTMENT If you have questions or need more information, contact: City Clerk's Office (300 LaPorte Avenue) at 970.416.2525 Eligibility Requirements - 1 year residency within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area Board or Commission: CDBG Commission Name: Serena Robb Mailing Address: 749 Sandpiper Point Zip:80525 Residence: 749 Sandpiper Point Zip:80525 Home Phone: 970-412-2476 Work Phone: Cell Phone: E-Mail Address: serena.robb@gmail.com Have you resided in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for at least one year? Yes No Which Council District do you live in? District 2 Current Occupation: Volunteer Prog Mgr+Program Officer Employer:PoudreLibraries+RealitiesForChildre Recent and/or relevant work experience (please include dates) 1995-2005: Engineer/Engineering Manager HP2011-2013: Volunteer Coordinator at CASA of Larimer County2013: Volunteer Coordinator at Hearts & Horses Riding Center2013-2014: Volunteer Program Manager for the Circles Program at Education & Life Training Center (ELTC)2015-present: Volunteer Program Manager at the Poudre Libraries2015-present: Program Officer at Realities For Children Recent and/or relevant volunteer experience (please include dates) 2000-2005: Volunteer Project Leader for Way Make A Difference Day through HP2007-2014: CASA volunteer (court advocate for children who have been abused or neglected)2008-2015: Board Member/webmaster for Steppin' Out (serving foster children who age out of foster care)2008-present: Board Member/Founder/Treasurer of Kids On Computers (providing access to technology to schools Are you currently serving on a City board or commission? Yes No If so, which one? Why do you want to become a member of this particular board or commission? I have been volunteering and working in the local non-profit field for 10+ years in various capacities, and have a vested interest in helping them succeed in the valuable services they provide to our community, while working collaboratively. Have you attended a meeting of the board or commission you are applying to or talked to anyone currently on the board? Yes No If yes, please share your experience: I have spoken briefly with Holly Carroll, Annette Zacharias and Sharon Thomas about my interest in this commission. Holly Carroll was my manager when she was Executive Director of the Poudre Libraries, and we spoke often of the agencies we both serve through our positions. I work directly with Annette Zacharias, as Faith Family Hospitality is one of Realities For List any abilities, skills, certificates, specialized training, or interests you have which are applicable to this board or commission: Influencing for Results; Dynamic Leadership; U.S. Employment Law for Managers; Standards of Business Conduct for Managers; United Way's Board Bank training; Recognition & Intervention for Child Abuse & Neglect; Legal & Welfare Processes; Communication & Negotiation; Interviewing Techniques; Bridges out of Poverty; Bridging Intercultural Differences 18.1 Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Applications (5237 : BC Appointments) Briefly explain what you believe are the three most important issues facing this board or commission, and how do you believe this board or commission should address each issue? 1) An important issue is that agency requests far outpace existing funding, so determining where to allocate the resources is difficult. Other resources such as United Way and CCAP are being reduced. I don't know the answer to this problem, but maybe learning how other funders (such as the Bohemian Foundation) are being used, as well as a better understanding of agency budgets, will help the commission make better educated decisions. 2) There is a definite lack of affordable housing in the area. The commission needs to continue to support the City's Affordable Housing Strategic Plan by continuing to approve funds that increase inventory, especially in the rental market. I would love to see a program that encourages more private landlords to accept rental housing vouchers, support the renter/landlord relationship, and be supported by CDBG funds, if not already. There should also be more education to the public about how private citizens can help in this issue. 3) I believe there are multiple agencies with overlapping services, who then compete for similar funds. The CDBG commission is in a unique position of being able to learn about many of these programs during the application program, and encouraging the agencies to collaborate, instead of compete. Please specify any activities which might create a serious conflict of interest if you should be appointed to this board or commission: I currently work for Realities For Children, a local non-profit, but we do not request CDBG funding. We raise money for our partner agencies, many of which request CDBG funds, through our Cause Marketing business. Our Board decides how our agencies are funded, and I assist the agencies in meeting their Have you ever been convicted of a crime (except for minor traffic offenses that resulted only in a fine)? Yes No If yes, please explain in complete detail. State the nature and approximate date of the conviction, the sentence imposed, whether the sentence has been completed, and any other information you consider to be relevant Upon application for and acceptance of appointment, board and commission members demonstrate their intention and ability to attend meetings. If appointed, frequent nonattendance may result in termination of the appointment. By typing your name in the space provided, I submit my electronic signature and application to the City of Fort Collins and swear or affirm under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado: -that I meet the eligibility requirements of the position sought and -that the information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature: Mary "Serena" Robb Date: Aug-25-2016 Optional: How did you learn of a vacancy on this board or commission: Newspaper Cable 14 City News (Utility Bill Insert) Website Other (please specify) word of mouth 18.1 Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Applications (5237 : BC Appointments) 18.1 Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Applications (5237 : BC Appointments) 18.1 Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Applications (5237 : BC Appointments) -1- RESOLUTION 2017-015 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS WHEREAS, a vacancy currently exists on the Economic Advisory Commission of the City due to an expiration of term and vacancies currently exists on the Community Development Block Grant Commission and Parking Advisory Board due to resignations; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make appointments to fill the vacancies that exist on the various boards and commissions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the following named persons are hereby appointed to fill current vacancies on the boards, commissions, and authorities hereinafter indicated, with terms to begin immediately and to expire as set forth after each name: Community Development Block Grant Commission Expiration of Term Serena Robb December 31, 2017 Economic Advisory Commission Expiration of Term John Parks December 31, 2019 Parking Advisory Board Expiration of Term Carey Hewitt December 31, 2017 Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 407 Agenda Item 19 Item # 19 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Jon Haukaas, Operations Mgr-Water Engineer & Field Svc Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director Ken Sampley, Water Systems Engineering Manager SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to Pay 2017 Fees for the City of Fort Collins Areas within the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on January 17, 2017 by a vote of 6-1 (Nays: Cunniff) appropriates $330,000 from prior year reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to pay stormwater service and stormwater system development fees in advance to the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA) for those developed areas of the City of Fort Collins that also are located within the BBRSA service area boundary based on existing development (i.e., impervious surface area) conditions. Prior to expenditure of the funds appropriated under this Ordinance, it is anticipated that an intergovernmental agreement between the City and BBRSA will be negotiated clarifying the provisions on which a prepayment will be made. Such an intergovernmental agreement requires Council approval under City Code Section 1-22. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 009, 2017 (PDF) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY January 17, 2017 City Council STAFF Jon Haukaas, Water Engr Field Operations Mgr Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Finance Director Ken Sampley, Stormwater/Floodplain Program Mgr SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to Pay 2017 Fees for the City of Fort Collins Areas within the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $330,000 from prior year reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund to pay stormwater service and stormwater system development fees in advance to the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (BBRSA) for those developed areas of the City of Fort Collins that also are located within the BBRSA service area boundary based on existing development (i.e., impervious surface area) conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The BBRSA was established by Intergovernmental Agreement dated August 20, 2008 (IGA) to protect life safety, reduce 100-year floodplain extents, protect existing structures (including schools and critical facilities), protect existing residences and businesses, reduce flood overtopping of 33 roads and 4 irrigation canals, reduce the costs to construct new stormwater infrastructure, improve emergency response, and reduce flooding on currently undeveloped areas that regional planning shows will be developed in the future. Providing regional stormwater improvements to increase life safety and reduce flooding of properties is a major positive factor for the entire region. Fort Collins Utilities collects stormwater utility fees citywide (including within the BBRSA service boundary) based on the fee schedule for residential and commercial properties. The BBRSA also has adopted a fee schedule based on the rate structure outlined in the IGA that describes how fees are to be calculated for the areas within its boundaries. The City of Fort Collins pays these fees from collected stormwater revenues in the year after they are collected (i.e., 2016 fees are paid in early 2017). This is done so that any additional stormwater system development fees [typically called Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)] and growth related fee increases can be included in the annual payment. The BBRSA Board of Directors has suggested that it may be helpful for its members to pay their 2017 estimated annual stormwater service and system development fees in advance based on existing conditions and then pay for the growth related portions in the following year. This, in effect, has the members paying both the 2016 fees and the 2017 fees in early 2017. Only a single year’s estimated payment (budgeted at $350,000) was included in the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process this cycle. Therefore, the additional funding needs to be appropriated from prior year reserves to make this payment. ATTACHMENT 1 19.1 Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (5226 : SR 009 Boxelder Basin) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS As of December 31, 2015, available reserves in the Storm Drainage fund were $4.1M and are estimated to increase slightly; therefore, adequate funding is available for this appropriation. PUBLIC OUTREACH The option to pay in advance has been discussed at the BBRSA Board meetings. 19.1 Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, January 17, 2017 (5226 : SR 009 Boxelder Basin) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 009, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE STORM DRAINAGE FUND TO PAY 2017 FEES FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AREAS WITHIN THE BOXELDER BASIN REGIONAL STORMWATER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Boxelder Basin Regional Stormwater Authority (“BBRSA”) was established in 2008 by Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Wellington to protect life safety, reduce 100-year floodplain extents, protect existing structures, protect existing residences and businesses, reduce flood overtopping of 33 roads and 4 irrigation canals, reduce the costs to construct new stormwater infrastructure, improve emergency response, and reduce flooding on currently undeveloped areas that regional planning shows will be developed in the future; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities collects stormwater utility fees citywide based on our fee schedule for residential and commercial properties; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins pays these fees from our collected Stormwater Revenues in the year after they are collected (i.e., 2016 fees are paid in early 2017). This is done so that any additional stormwater system development fees [typically called Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)] and growth related fee increases can be included in the annual payment; and WHEREAS, the BBRSA Board of Directors has indicated that it may assist BBRSA if its members pay their 2017 estimated annual stormwater service and system development fees in advance based on existing conditions and then pay for the growth related portions in the following year, which has the members paying both the 2016 fees and the 2017 fees in early 2017; and WHEREAS, only the 2016 estimated payment (budgeted at $350,000) was included in the BFO process for 2017, therefore, additional funding will need to be appropriated from prior year reserves to make the 2017 payment of $330,000; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the Storm Drainage Fund the sum of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($330,000) for 2017 BBRSA member fees. 19.2 Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Ordinance No. 009, 2017 (5226 : SR 009 Boxelder Basin) -2- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of January, A.D. 2017, and to be presented for final passage on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 19.2 Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Ordinance No. 009, 2017 (5226 : SR 009 Boxelder Basin) Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA STAFF Talisa Gula-Yeast, Licensing Coordinator Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager SUBJECT Items Relating to the Submission of a City-Initiated Ordinance Relating to Medical Marijuana Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the April 4, 2017, Regular Municipal Election. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language. B. Resolution 2017-016 Submitting a City-Initiated Ordinance Dealing with Medical Marijuana Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at the Municipal Election to be Held on April 4, 2017. The purpose of this item is to submit a City-Initiated Ordinance to the registered electors of the City at the April 4, 2017 municipal election. The proposed Ordinance amends Section 15-491 (a) and (b) of Article XVI of the City Code to allow Council to change or add any provisions in Chapter 15, Article XVI to be consistent with state laws, rules and regulations relating to medical marijuana. Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, February 6, at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Resolution 2017-016. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Chapter 15, Article XVI of the City Code regulating medical marijuana businesses is the result of a citizen- initiated ordinance approved by the voters in November 2012. As such, the provisions contained therein can only be amended by the voters. However, since that time, state laws concerning medical marijuana businesses have changed considerably, and will continue to do so for some time. In order to address changes in the state law and to make new types of licenses available in Fort Collins, the voters would have to vote repeatedly on issues relating to medical marijuana. To facilitate updates to the City Code to reflect the most current laws, staff is proposing submitting a question to the voters that would allow Council to change or add provisions in Chapter 15, Article XVI of the City Code to be consistent with applicable state laws, rules and regulations without going to the voters each time. Some of the changes in state law that should be or are desirable to be added to the City Code include, by way of example, changes in types of ownership structures, medical marijuana testing facilities, transporter licenses, and off-premise storage facilities. Agenda Item 20 Item # 20 Page 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff met with representatives of the local marijuana business industry to discuss the limitation of a voter approved initiative, and to discuss staff’s desire to make it easier to amend the Code for consistency with State law. Original drafters of the citizen-initiated ordinance support updating the Code to be consistent and wanted to ensure that the referred ballot would not allow Code changes beyond the scope of remaining consistent with state law. The proposed amendment to be put to the voters addresses both the needs of the City while protecting the original intent of the citizen-initiated ordinance. Staff does not anticipate any impact to the general public and staff informed TEAM Fort Collins of the initiative and impacts. They did not have any concerns. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 1 City Council Meeting February 7, 2017 Medical Marijuana Ballot Referral ATTACHMENT 1 20.1 Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5216 : Marijuana Ballot) Medical MJ Background § November 2010 - March 2011- temporary ban § March 2012 - licensing mechanism in place § October 2011 - 20 licensed medical marijuana centers § November 2011 - citizen initiated measure banning all marijuana businesses passes § February 14, 2012 - all businesses shuttered § November 2012 - citizen initiated measure (#301) allowing medical marijuana businesses passed 2 20.1 Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5216 : Marijuana Ballot) Rationale § Because #301 was citizen initiated, no changes may be made without a vote of the people § State continues to update medical marijuana regulations and we are unable to reflect these changes in our code § Measure would only allow changes to reflect state changes 3 20.1 Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5216 : Marijuana Ballot) Examples Examples of updates include additions of: § Types of ownership structures § Medical marijuana testing facilities § Transporter licenses § Off-premise storage facilities 4 20.1 Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5216 : Marijuana Ballot) Amended Section Sec. 15-491. - Administrative regulations; action by City Council. (a) The City Manager is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to effectuate the implementation, administration and enforcement of this Article. (b) The City Council shall be permitted to lessen any restriction contained in this Article. (c) The City Council shall be permitted to adopt additional provisions in this Article or change any provision in this Article in order to conform this Article to applicable state laws, rules and regulations. 5 20.1 Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5216 : Marijuana Ballot) Ballot Question Shall the proposed Ordinance amending Section 15-491 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins be adopted, so as to allow the City Council to adopt additional provisions in or change any provision in Chapter 15, Article XVI of the City Code pertaining to Medical Marijuana Businesses in order to be consistent with applicable state laws, rules and regulations? 6 20.1 Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (5216 : Marijuana Ballot) -1- RESOLUTION 2017-016 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS SUBMITTING A CITY-INITIATED ORDINANCE DEALING WITH MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES TO A VOTE OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON APRIL 4, 2017 WHEREAS, on November 6, 2012, the registered electors of the City approved a citizen- initiated measure that became Chapter 15, Article XVI, of the City Code which strictly regulates, controls and permits a limited number of State-authorized medical marijuana businesses within the City of Fort Collins; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter, Article X, Section 4, a citizen-initiated measure submitted to the registered electors of the City by the City Council, and adopted by electoral vote, cannot be repealed or amended except by a subsequent electoral vote; and WHEREAS, Section 15-491 (b) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to lessen any restriction in the provisions related to medical marijuana, but does not specifically allow for modifications to the provisions to conform to new or additional state law provisions; and WHEREAS, the state marijuana laws, rules and regulations are ever-evolving; and WHEREAS, staff has recommended that Council submit a city-initiated ordinance to the registered electors to add a new subsection to Chapter 15, Article XVI, Section 15-491 to permit the City Council to make changes or additions to the City Code consistent with the state laws, rules and regulations; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 6 of the City Charter requires that the Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution in order to set a ballot title and submission clause for an initiative or referendum measure; and WHEREAS, the ballot title for the measure must identify the measure as either a city- initiated or citizen-initiated measure; and WHEREAS, the submission clause must be brief, must not conflict with those selected for any petition previously filed for the same election and must unambiguously state the principle of the provision sought to be added. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That there is hereby submitted to the registered electors of the City at the regular municipal election to be held on Tuesday, April 4, 2017, the following proposed City- initiated ordinance: Packet Pg. 421 -2- ORDINANCE NO. 026, 2017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING A NEW SUBSECTION TO CHAPTER 15, ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 15- 491, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERMITTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE CHANGES OR ADDITIONS TO ARTICLE XVI OF CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE CONSISTENT WITH THE COLORADO MEDICAL MARIJUANA CODE, RULES AND REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the State of Colorado’s medical marijuana laws, rules and regulations are ever-evolving; and WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire of the citizens of the City of Fort Collins, in an effort to keep up with the ever-evolving state medical marijuana laws, rules and regulations, that a new Subsection (c) be added to Chapter 15, Article XVI, Section 15- 491 of the City Code that would permit the City Council of the City of Fort Collins to make changes or additions to Article XVI consistent with the state laws, rules and regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, that a new Subsection (c) is added to Section 15-491 of Article XVI of the Code of the City of Fort Collins which reads in its entirety as follows: (a) The City Manager is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to effectuate the implementation, administration and enforcement of this Article. (b) The City Council shall be permitted to lessen any restriction contained in this Article. (c) The City Council shall be permitted to adopt additional provisions in this Article or change any provision in this Article in order to conform this Article to applicable state laws, rules and regulations. Section 3. That the foregoing proposed City-initiated ordinance is hereby submitted to the registered electors of the City at said municipal election to be held on April 4, 2017, in substantially the following form: CITY-INITIATED PROPOSED ORDINANCE Shall the proposed Ordinance amending Section 15-491 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins be adopted, so as to allow the City Council to adopt additional provisions in or change any provision in Chapter 15, Article XVI of the City Code pertaining to Medical Marijuana Businesses in order to be consistent with applicable state laws, rules and regulations? ________ YES/FOR _______ NO/AGAINST Packet Pg. 422 -3- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 423 Agenda Item 21 Item # 21 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY February 7, 2017 City Council STAFF Carrie Daggett, City Attorney SUBJECT Resolution 2017-017 Adopting Amended Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings and Council Work Sessions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to update the Rules of Procedure for special Council meetings, to set out a procedure for election protest hearings, to prohibit signs during quasi-judicial hearings before Council, and to clarify where citizens may sit or stand during City Council meetings and work sessions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Since 2003, the Council has conducted its meetings under rules of procedure that govern the length of meetings, citizen comment, Council questions and debate, and basic rules of order. These Rules of Procedure have been amended on occasion to reflect changes, refinements, and clarifications to the procedures, and were most recently amended in 2015. Revisions are proposed that amend the Rules to more clearly state citizen conduct during Council meetings and procedures for protest hearings. In summary, the revisions to the Rules of Procedure will:  prohibit signs during quasi-judicial hearings;  amend order of conduct of special Council meetings;  set out formally the procedure for protest hearings;  limit where citizens can stand when videotaping; and  more clearly limit citizens from sitting and standing throughout the chambers, and from speaking out during the meeting at inappropriate times. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Rules of Procedure redlined (PDF) 21 Packet Pg. 424 Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings and Work Sessions Adopted February 7, 2017 Resolution 2017-017 Section 1. Order of Business for Regular or Special Council Meetings. a. Council business at regular Council meetings shall be conducted in the following order (except as provided in Subsection 1.c, 1.d, or 1.e or 1.f, below): (1) Proclamations and Presentations. (Prior to the meeting) (2) Pledge of Allegiance (3) Call Meeting to Order (4) Roll Call (5) City Manager’s Agenda Review (6) Opportunity for City Council to Pull Consent Items (7) Opportunity for Citizens to Pull Consent Items (8) Citizen Participation (9) Citizen Participation Follow-up (10) Consent Calendar (11) Consent Calendar Follow-up (12) Staff Reports (13) Councilmember Reports (14) Council-Pulled Consent Items (15) Items Needing Individual Consideration (16) Citizen-Pulled Consent Items (17) Other Business (18) Adjournment b. Council business at special Council meetings shall be conducted in the following order (except as provided in Subsection 1.c, 1.d, or 1.e or 1.f, below): (1) Pledge of Allegiance (2) Call Meeting to Order (3) Roll Call (4) Citizen Participation (5) Citizen Participation Follow-up (46) Individual Consideration of Items Identified in the Call of Special MeetingItems Needing Individual Consideration (7) Other Business (58) Adjournment c. Appeals to Council shall be conducted in accordance with Division 3 of Article II of Chapter 2 of the City Code of the City of Fort Collins. ATTACHMENT 1 21.1 Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 2 d. Addition of a Permitted Use applications pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(c)(3) and zonings and rezonings of land with an area of six hundred forty acres or less (“Quasi-judicial Rezonings”), pursuant to the Land Use Code Section 2.9.4, shall be conducted as follows subject to such limitations in time and scope as may be imposed at the discretion of the presiding officer: (1) Announcement of Item; (21) Consideration of any procedural issues; (32) Explanation of the application by City staff; (43) Presentation by the applicant; (54) Public testimony regarding the application; (6) Rebuttal testimony by the applicant; (75) Councilmember questions of City staff, the applicant and other commenters; and (86) Motion, discussion and vote by the City Council. e. Protest hearings pursuant to City Code Section 7-88 (regarding re-districting) and Section 7-156 (regarding ballot title and/or submission clause) shall be conducted in the following order, as part of the agenda item for the item under protest: (1) Announcement of Item; (2) Staff Presentation for Agenda Item; (3) Presentation by each person who timely filed a Protest; (4) Councilmember questions of City staff and the protesting parties; and (7) Motion on each Protest, discussion and vote on each Protest the by the City Council. After completion of the Protest Hearing, Council will return to the Agenda Item and receive citizen comments from any persons desiring to speak on the Agenda Item. fe. Procedures for conduct of protest hearings or other types of special proceedings by the Council shall be established by the presiding officer and shall comply with any applicable legal requirements. Section 2. Length of Regular Meetings a. Regular Council meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m. Proclamations will be presented prior to the meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m., and will end no later than 6:00 p.m. b. Appropriate breaks will be taken during meetings at the presiding officer’s discretion based on meeting length and agenda. c. Every regular 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 21.1 Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 3 concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the Council may, at any time prior to adjournment, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than midnight for the purpose of considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed on the discussion agenda for such meeting, unless Council determines otherwise. Section 3. Citizen Comment During Regular and Special Council Meetings. a. Comment during Citizen Participation. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens except the following: (1) items the Council will consider at that night’s meeting that include time for citizen comment (discussion items); (2) matters that are the subject of a board or hearing officer decision that will be appealable to the Council, if a submittal has been made to initiate the decisionmaking process. b. Comment on Agenda Items. Citizen input will be received with regard to: (i) each item on the discussion agenda; (ii) each item pulled from the consent agenda; and (iii) any item that is addressed by formal Council action under the “Other Business” segment of the meeting that may directly affect the rights or obligations of any member of the general public. Such citizen input will be permitted only once per item regardless of the number of motions made during Council’s consideration of the item. c. Time Limits for Speaking. The amount of time to be allotted to each speaker will be set by the presiding officer based upon the number of persons expected to speak, in order to allow as many as possible to address the Council within a reasonable time given the scheduled agenda. The presiding officer may ask those intending to speak to indicate their intention by a show of hands or some other means, and to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby for those not able to stand while waiting). Each speaker will generally be limited to three minutes. If necessary in order to facilitate Council’s understanding of the item, or to allow the Council to consider and act upon the item in a timely fashion, 21.1 Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 4 the presiding officer may increase or decrease the time that would otherwise be allowed for each speaker. d. Manner of Addressing the Council. Comment and testimony are to be directed to the Council. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding officer, all comments must be made into the microphone. e. Yielding the Lectern. Each speaker shall promptly cease his or her comments and yield the lectern immediately upon the expiration of the time allotted by the presiding officer. f. Yielding of Time. No speaker may yield part or all of his or her time to another speaker, and no speaker will be credited with time requested but not used by another. Section 4. Public Conduct During Regular and Special Council Meetings and Work Sessions. a. General Comment, or Expressions of Support or Opposition. Members of the audience are not entitled to speak except as provided in these Rules of Procedure, or as expressly requested by the presiding officer or City staff, and shall not engage in expressions of support or opposition, such as clapping, whistling, cheering, foot stomping, booing, hissing, speaking out, yelling, or other acts, that disturb, disrupt, or impede the meeting or any recognized speaker. b. Signs and Props. (1) Signs and props no larger than 11" x 17" are permitted in the City Council Chambers or in the Council Information Center or other Council meeting room (collectively referred to as the “Meeting Room”), except no such signs or props shall be displayed during the conduct of a quasi-judicial hearing during which general public comment is not taken. (2) Such signs or props must be held directly in front of one's body so as not to impede the view of others. (3) Signs or props may not be waved, held by more than one person at a time, or used in a manner that, in the judgment of the presiding officer, disrupts the orderly conduct of business. (4) Signs or props may not be left unattended anywhere in the Meeting Room or left unattended on display in the City Hall lobby area. (5) Signs or props attached to sticks, poles, or other objects are prohibited. 21.1 Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 5 c. Distribution of Literature. Distribution of fliers or other literature is permitted in the public lobby areas of City Hall only when City Hall is open for a public event. Distribution of fliers and other literature is permitted on the sidewalks and grounds around City Hall. Persons wishing to engage in such activities may do so only in a manner that does not interfere with the movement of persons or obstruct the passage of pedestrians or vehicles. d. Video and Audio Recording. Video and audio recording by the press or other members of the public is permitted in the Meeting Room only if the person making the recording is seated, standing in a side aisle or standing in the back of the Meeting Room behind all seated persons, or standing in any other area pursuant to the direction of the presiding officer in his or her reasonable discretion or designated for that purpose in advance by the City. e. Areas Permitted for Seating and Standing. Except for persons waiting in line to speak in accordance with the presiding officer’s instructions, no persons shall sit in the Meeting Room except in chairs or seats provided by the City or in wheelchairs or other assistive devices, and no persons shall stand in the aisles or other locations in the Meeting Room except in the back of the Meeting Room, and only in accordance with other applicable limits for fire and building safety. Section 5. Procedural Decisions Subject to Modification by Council. Decisions by the presiding officer regarding procedures and procedural issues, including but not limited to time limits for public comment, may be overridden by a majority vote of the Council. Section 6. Council Questions and Debate. Council questions and debate regarding an agenda item during a regular or special Council meeting will occur immediately following citizen input and prior to entertaining any main motion related to the item. Except when raising a point of order at a regular or special Council meeting, Councilmembers seeking to ask questions or participate in debate or discussion will do so only when recognized by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may limit or curtail questions or debate as he or she deems necessary for the orderly conduct of business. Section 7. Basic Rules of Order for Regular and Special Council Meetings. The following commonly used rules of order will govern the conduct of City Council business at regular and special Council meetings. Except as specifically noted, all motions require a second. These rules of order are based upon Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and have been modified as necessary to conform to existing practices of the Council and to the 21.1 Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 6 requirements of the City Charter. For example, while a two-thirds vote is necessary for the passage of some of the motions listed below under Robert’s Rules of Order, all motions of the Council, except a motion to go into executive session or a motion to adopt an emergency ordinance, may be adopted upon approval of a majority vote of the members present at a Council meeting, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 11 of the City Charter. If there is a question of procedure not addressed by these rules, reference may be made to Robert’s Rules of Order for clarification or direction, however, adherence to Robert’s Rules of Order shall not be mandatory, and, in the event of any conflict between these rules of order and Robert’s Rules of Order, these rules of order shall prevail. In the event of any conflict between these rules of order or Robert’s Rules of Order and a City Charter or City Code provisions, the City Charter or City Code provision shall prevail. Any councilmember and the presiding officer may make or second any motion, except as specifically limited by these rules. MAIN MOTIONS  Main motions are used to bring business before the Council for consideration and action.  A main motion can be introduced only if no other business is pending.  All main motions require a second and may be adopted by majority vote of those Councilmembers present and voting, except that: (1) a motion to go into executive session requires a two-thirds vote of those present and voting and (2) a motion to adopt an emergency ordinance requires the affirmative vote of at least five (5) Councilmembers for approval.  A main motion may be made or seconded by any Councilmember, including the presiding officer.  A main motion is debatable and may be amended. SUBSIDIARY MOTIONS These are motions that may be applied to another motion for the purpose of modifying it, delaying action on it, or disposing of it. 1. Motion to Amend. The point of a motion to amend is to modify the wording - and, within certain limits, the meaning - of a pending motion before the pending motion itself is acted upon.  A motion to amend, once seconded, is debatable and may itself be amended once.  A "secondary amendment," which is a change to a pending "primary amendment," cannot be amended.  Once a motion to amend has been seconded and debated, it is decided before the main motion is decided.  Certain motions to amend are improper. o For example, an amendment must be “germane” to be an order. To be germane, an amendment must in some way involve the same question that is raised by the motion to which it is applied. 21.1 Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 7 o Also, some motions to amend are improper, for example, a motion that would merely make the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion, or one that would make the question as amended identical with, or contrary to, one previously decided by the Council during the same session.  “Friendly” amendments acceptable to the maker and the seconder of the main motion do not require a second and are permissible at any time before a vote is taken on motions to amend the main motion. 2. Withdrawal of a Motion. After a motion has been seconded and stated by the presiding officer it belongs to the Council as a whole and the maker may withdraw his or her motion unless one or more members of the Council objects, in which case the majority of the Council must consent to withdrawal of the motion. 3. Motion to Postpone to a Certain Time (or Definitely). This is the motion by which action on an agenda item or a pending motion can be put off to a definite day, meeting or hour, or until after a certain event has occurred.  A motion to postpone definitely can be debated only to the extent necessary to enable the Council to determine whether the main motion should be postponed and, if so, to what date or time.  Similarly, it is amendable only as to the date or time to which the main motion should be postponed. 4. Motion to Lay on the Table. A motion to table is intended to enable the Council to lay the pending question aside temporarily, but only when something else of immediate urgency has arisen.  Adoption of a motion to lay on the table immediately halts the consideration of the affected motion, since a motion to table is neither debatable nor amendable. 5. Motion to Postpone Indefinitely. A motion to postpone indefinitely is, in effect, a motion that the Council decline to take a position on an agenda item or main motion.  Adoption of a motion to postpone indefinitely kills the agenda item or main motion and avoids a direct vote on the item or motion. It is useful in disposing of an item or motion that cannot either be adopted or expressly rejected without undesirable consequences.  A motion to postpone indefinitely is debatable but not amendable. 6. “Calling the Question”. "Calling the question" may sometimes motivate unanimous consent to end debate. If it does not, however, then debate does not automatically end.  If any member objects to ending the debate, the presiding officer should ask if 21.1 Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 8 there is a second to the motion and, if so, he must immediately take a vote on whether to end debate.  A motion to call the question is not debatable or amendable. INCIDENTAL MOTIONS. These are motions which usually apply to the method of conducting business rather to the business itself. 1. Point of Order. If a Councilmember thinks that the rules of order are being violated, he or she can make a point of order, thereby calling upon the presiding officer for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules.  A “point of order” takes precedence over any pending question out of which it may arise and does not require a second.  A “point of order” is not amendable.  Technically, a “point of order” is not debatable; however: o With the presiding officer's consent, the member raising the point of order may be permitted to explain his or her point. o In response to a point of order, the presiding officer can either immediately rule, subject to appeal to the Council, or the presiding officer can refer the point of order to the judgment of the Council, in which case the point becomes debatable. o In making his or her ruling, the presiding officer may consult with the City Attorney or request the advice of experienced members of the Council. o No member has the right to express an opinion unless requested to do so by the presiding officer.  When the presiding officer has made a ruling, any two Councilmembers can appeal the ruling (one making the appeal and the other seconding it). o When an appeal is taken, the matter is decided by majority vote of the Council. o A tie vote sustains the decision of the presiding officer.  If a point of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the perceived violation of the rules occurs. 2. Point of Information. Robert’s Rules of Order provides for a “point of information” or a “request for information” which is appropriate in the formal setting of a large legislative body. Because Council consideration of an item is generally an opportunity to request information and ask questions, the formal “point of information” procedure provided in Robert’s Rules is not needed or appropriate for City Council meetings. 3. Motion to Divide a Question. If a motion relating to a single subject contains several parts, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition by itself, the parts of the motion can be separated for consideration and voted on as if they were distinct questions by the adoption of a motion for division of the question. 21.1 Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 9  A motion to divide a question, if seconded, takes precedence over the main motion and is not debatable.  The motion to divide must clearly state the manner in which the question is to be divided, and while the motion to divide is pending, another member can propose a different division by moving an amendment to the motion to divide, in which case the amended form of the motion, if seconded, would be decided first.  Often, little formality is involved in dividing a question, and it is arranged by unanimous consent. 4. Motion to Suspend the Rules. When the Council wishes to do something that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to suspend the rules that interfere with the proposed action.  A motion to suspend the rules can be made at any time that no question is pending and can be applied to any rule except those that are fundamental principles of the City Charter, City Code or other applicable laws.  This motion is neither debatable nor amendable. RESTORATIVE MOTIONS These are motions that bring a question again before the Council for its consideration. 1. Motion to Take from the Table. The object of this motion is to take from the table and make pending again before the Council a motion or series of adhering motions that previously had been laid on the table.  A motion to take an item from the table is neither debatable nor amendable.  When a question is taken from the table, it is before the Council with everything adhering to it, exactly as it was when laid on the table. 2. Motion to Reconsider. This motion enables a majority of the Council to bring back for further consideration a motion which has already been voted on.  A motion to reconsider is in order only if made on the same date that the vote to be reconsidered was taken, and can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side of the vote to be reconsidered.  The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit the correction of hasty, ill- advised, or erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of a vote.  When a member who cannot make a motion for reconsideration believes that there are valid reasons for one, he or she can try, if there is time or opportunity, to persuade someone who voted with the prevailing side to make such a motion.  A motion to reconsider is debatable whenever the motion proposed to be reconsidered was debatable. And, when debatable, opens to debate the merits of the question to be reconsidered. 21.1 Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 10  A motion to reconsider is not amendable.  The effect of the adoption of a motion to reconsider is that the question on which the vote was reconsidered is immediately placed before the Council in the exact position it occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. 3. Motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. By means of the motions to rescind or to amend something previously adopted, the Council can change an action previously taken or ordered.  A motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted is debatable and amendable.  In contrast to a motion to reconsider, there is no time limit on making a motion to rescind or a motion to amend something previously adopted (provided that no action has been taken by anyone in the interim that cannot be undone), and these motions can be moved by any member of the Council, regardless of how he or she voted on the original question.  The effect of passage of this motion is not to place the matter back before the assembly as it was just prior to a vote being taken. o Instead, it either entirely nullifies the previous action or modifies it, depending upon which motion is used. o For that reason, adoption of a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted should be carefully considered if third parties may have relied to their detriment on the previous action.  In order to modify an adopted ordinance, Council must adopt a new ordinance making the desired modification, in compliance with all formalities applicable to adoption of an ordinance. PRIVILEGED MOTIONS These motions are of such urgency or importance that they are entitled to immediate consideration, even when another motion is pending. This is because these motions do not relate to the pending business but have to do with special matters of immediate and overriding importance which, without debate, should be allowed to interrupt the consideration of anything else. 1. Motion to Adjourn. Generally the presiding officer adjourns the meeting at his or her discretion at the completion of the agenda. However, any Councilmember may move to adjourn the meeting at any time.  A motion to adjourn requires a second.  A motion to adjourn is always a privileged motion except when the motion is conditioned in some way, as in the case of a motion to adjourn at, or to, a future time. o Such a conditional motion is not privileged and is treated just as any other main motion. o A conditional motion to adjourn at or to a future time is always out of 21.1 Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 11 order while business is pending.  An unconditional, privileged motion to adjourn takes precedence over most other motions.  The privileged motion to adjourn is neither debatable nor amendable, while a conditioned motion to adjourn is debatable and may be amended. 2. Motion to Recess. A motion to recess is essentially a motion to take a break during the course of a Council meeting.  A motion to recess must be seconded. o A motion to recess that is made when no question is pending is a main motion and should be treated as any other main motion. o A motion to recess is said to be privileged if it is made when another question is pending, in which case it takes precedence over all subsidiary and incidental motions and most other privileged motions. It is not debatable and is amendable only as to the length of the recess.  After a recess, the meeting resumes when the presiding officer has called the meeting back to order. 21.1 Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Council Rules of Procedure redlined (5246 : Council Rules of Procedure) -1- RESOLUTION 2017-017 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING AMENDED RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted certain Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings (the “Rules of Procedure”), which Rules of Procedure have been amended from time to time by the Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to further amend the Rules of Procedure to give greater clarity to order of business for Special Council Meetings; and WHEREAS, in addition, Councilmembers have noted that the use of signs and signboards during quasi-judicial hearings before Council is distracting and contrary to the limited purpose and proper conduct of such hearings; and WHEREAS, staff has recommended that persons videotaping Council meetings be required to either sit in provided seating or stand at the back of the room in order to reduce disruption to the Council meeting; and WHEREAS, in light of the numerous hearings on protests of proposed ballot titles since these Rules of Procedure were last updated, clarification of the procedures for such protest hearings is needed to increase public transparency in connection with protest hearings; and WHEREAS, the Rules of Procedure are intended to promote the orderly and efficient conduct of the meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that such regulations are in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the revised Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings and Work Sessions (“Rules of Procedure”), attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted by the City Council: Section 3. That the Rules of Procedure shall supersede all previous rules of procedure that have heretofore have been adopted by the City Council including, but not limited to, Resolution 2015-091. Packet Pg. 436 -2- Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th day of February, A.D. 2017. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 437 Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings and Work Sessions Adopted February 7, 2017 Resolution 2017-017 Section 1. Order of Business for Regular or Special Council Meetings. a. Council business at regular Council meetings shall be conducted in the following order (except as provided in Subsection 1.c, 1.d, 1.e or 1.f, below): (1) Proclamations and Presentations. (Prior to the meeting) (2) Pledge of Allegiance (3) Call Meeting to Order (4) Roll Call (5) City Manager’s Agenda Review (6) Opportunity for City Council to Pull Consent Items (7) Opportunity for Citizens to Pull Consent Items (8) Citizen Participation (9) Citizen Participation Follow-up (10) Consent Calendar (11) Consent Calendar Follow-up (12) Staff Reports (13) Councilmember Reports (14) Council-Pulled Consent Items (15) Items Needing Individual Consideration (16) Citizen-Pulled Consent Items (17) Other Business (18) Adjournment b. Council business at special Council meetings shall be conducted in the following order (except as provided in Subsection 1.c, 1.d, 1.e or 1.f, below): (1) Pledge of Allegiance (2) Call Meeting to Order (3) Roll Call (4) Individual Consideration of Items Identified in the Call of Special Meeting (5) Adjournment c. Appeals to Council shall be conducted in accordance with Division 3 of Article II of Chapter 2 of the City Code. d. Addition of a Permitted Use applications pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(c)(3) and zonings and rezonings of land with an area of six hundred forty acres or less (“Quasi-judicial Rezonings”), shall be conducted as follows subject EXHIBIT A 1 Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 2 to such limitations in time and scope as may be imposed at the discretion of the presiding officer: (1) Announcement of Item; (2) Consideration of any procedural issues; (3) Explanation of the application by City staff; (4) Presentation by the applicant; (5) Public testimony regarding the application; (6) Rebuttal testimony by the applicant; (7) Councilmember questions of City staff, the applicant and other commenters; and (8) Motion, discussion and vote by the City Council. e. Protest hearings pursuant to City Code Section 7-88 (regarding re-districting) and Section 7-156 (regarding ballot title and/or submission clause) shall be conducted in the following order, as part of the agenda item for the item under protest: (1) Announcement of Item; (2) Staff Presentation for Agenda Item; (3) Presentation by each person who timely filed a Protest; (4) Councilmember questions of City staff and the protesting parties; and (5) Motion on each Protest, discussion and vote on each Protest the by the City Council. After completion of the Protest Hearing, Council will return to the Agenda Item and receive citizen comments from any persons desiring to speak on the Agenda Item. f. Procedures for conduct of other types of special proceedings by the Council shall be established by the presiding officer and shall comply with any applicable legal requirements. Section 2. Length of Regular Meetings a. Regular Council meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m. Proclamations will be presented prior to the meeting at approximately 5:30 p.m., and will end no later than 6:00 p.m. b. Appropriate breaks will be taken during meetings at the presiding officer’s discretion based on meeting length and agenda. c. Every regular 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 Council may, at any time prior to adjournment, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than midnight for the purpose of considering additional items of 1 Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 3 business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting which have not yet been considered by the Council, will be continued to the next regular Council meeting and will be placed on the discussion agenda for such meeting, unless Council determines otherwise. Section 3. Citizen Comment During Regular and Special Council Meetings. a. Comment during Citizen Participation. During the “Citizen Participation” segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens except the following: (1) items the Council will consider at that night’s meeting that include time for citizen comment (discussion items); (2) matters that are the subject of a board or hearing officer decision that will be appealable to the Council, if a submittal has been made to initiate the decisionmaking process. b. Comment on Agenda Items. Citizen input will be received with regard to: (i) each item on the discussion agenda; (ii) each item pulled from the consent agenda; and (iii) any item that is addressed by formal Council action under the “Other Business” segment of the meeting that may directly affect the rights or obligations of any member of the general public. Such citizen input will be permitted only once per item regardless of the number of motions made during Council’s consideration of the item. c. Time Limits for Speaking. The amount of time to be allotted to each speaker will be set by the presiding officer based upon the number of persons expected to speak, in order to allow as many as possible to address the Council within a reasonable time given the scheduled agenda. The presiding officer may ask those intending to speak to indicate their intention by a show of hands or some other means, and to move to one of the two lines of speakers (or to a seat nearby for those not able to stand while waiting). Each speaker will generally be limited to three minutes. If necessary in order to facilitate Council’s understanding of the item, or to allow the Council to consider and act upon the item in a timely fashion, the presiding officer may increase or decrease the time that would otherwise be allowed for each speaker. 1 Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 4 d. Manner of Addressing the Council. Comment and testimony are to be directed to the Council. Unless otherwise directed by the presiding officer, all comments must be made into the microphone. e. Yielding the Lectern. Each speaker shall promptly cease his or her comments and yield the lectern immediately upon the expiration of the time allotted by the presiding officer. f. Yielding of Time. No speaker may yield part or all of his or her time to another speaker, and no speaker will be credited with time requested but not used by another. Section 4. Public Conduct During Regular and Special Council Meetings and Work Sessions. a. General Comment, or Expressions of Support or Opposition. Members of the audience are not entitled to speak except as provided in these Rules of Procedure, or as expressly requested by the presiding officer or City staff, and shall not engage in expressions of support or opposition, such as clapping, whistling, cheering, foot stomping, booing, hissing, speaking out, yelling, or other acts, that disturb, disrupt, or impede the meeting or any recognized speaker. b. Signs and Props. (1) Signs and props no larger than 11" x 17" are permitted in the City Council Chambers or in the Council Information Center or other Council meeting room (collectively referred to as the “Meeting Room”), except no such signs or props shall be displayed during the conduct of a quasi-judicial hearing during which general public comment is not taken. (2) Such signs or props must be held directly in front of one's body so as not to impede the view of others. (3) Signs or props may not be waved, held by more than one person at a time, or used in a manner that, in the judgment of the presiding officer, disrupts the orderly conduct of business. (4) Signs or props may not be left unattended anywhere in the Meeting Room or left unattended on display in the City Hall lobby area. (5) Signs or props attached to sticks, poles, or other objects are prohibited. c. Distribution of Literature. Distribution of fliers or other literature is permitted in the public lobby areas of City Hall only when City Hall is open for a public event. Distribution of fliers and other literature is permitted on the sidewalks and grounds around City Hall. Persons wishing 1 Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 5 to engage in such activities may do so only in a manner that does not interfere with the movement of persons or obstruct the passage of pedestrians or vehicles. d. Video and Audio Recording. Video and audio recording by the press or other members of the public is permitted in the Meeting Room only if the person making the recording is seated, standing in the back of the Meeting Room behind all seated persons, or standing in any other area pursuant to the direction of the presiding officer in his or her reasonable discretion or designated for that purpose in advance by the City. e. Areas Permitted for Seating and Standing. Except for persons waiting in line to speak in accordance with the presiding officer’s instructions, no persons shall sit in the Meeting Room except in chairs or seats provided by the City or in wheelchairs or other assistive devices, and no persons shall stand in the aisles or other locations in the Meeting Room except in the back of the Meeting Room, and only in accordance with other applicable limits for fire and building safety. Section 5. Procedural Decisions Subject to Modification by Council. Decisions by the presiding officer regarding procedures and procedural issues, including but not limited to time limits for public comment, may be overridden by a majority vote of the Council. Section 6. Council Questions and Debate. Council questions and debate regarding an agenda item during a regular or special Council meeting will occur immediately following citizen input and prior to entertaining any main motion related to the item. Except when raising a point of order at a regular or special Council meeting, Councilmembers seeking to ask questions or participate in debate or discussion will do so only when recognized by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may limit or curtail questions or debate as he or she deems necessary for the orderly conduct of business. Section 7. Basic Rules of Order for Regular and Special Council Meetings. The following commonly used rules of order will govern the conduct of City Council business at regular and special Council meetings. Except as specifically noted, all motions require a second. These rules of order are based upon Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised and have been modified as necessary to conform to existing practices of the Council and to the requirements of the City Charter. For example, while a two-thirds vote is necessary for the passage of some of the motions listed below under Robert’s Rules of Order, all motions of the Council, except a motion to go into executive session or a motion to adopt an emergency ordinance, may be adopted upon approval of a majority vote of the members present at a Council meeting, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 11 of the City Charter. 1 Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 6 If there is a question of procedure not addressed by these rules, reference may be made to Robert’s Rules of Order for clarification or direction, however, adherence to Robert’s Rules of Order shall not be mandatory, and, in the event of any conflict between these rules of order and Robert’s Rules of Order, these rules of order shall prevail. In the event of any conflict between these rules of order or Robert’s Rules of Order and a City Charter or City Code provisions, the City Charter or City Code provision shall prevail. Any councilmember and the presiding officer may make or second any motion, except as specifically limited by these rules. MAIN MOTIONS  Main motions are used to bring business before the Council for consideration and action.  A main motion can be introduced only if no other business is pending.  All main motions require a second and may be adopted by majority vote of those Councilmembers present and voting, except that: (1) a motion to go into executive session requires a two-thirds vote of those present and voting and (2) a motion to adopt an emergency ordinance requires the affirmative vote of at least five (5) Councilmembers for approval.  A main motion may be made or seconded by any Councilmember, including the presiding officer.  A main motion is debatable and may be amended. SUBSIDIARY MOTIONS These are motions that may be applied to another motion for the purpose of modifying it, delaying action on it, or disposing of it. 1. Motion to Amend. The point of a motion to amend is to modify the wording - and, within certain limits, the meaning - of a pending motion before the pending motion itself is acted upon.  A motion to amend, once seconded, is debatable and may itself be amended once.  A "secondary amendment," which is a change to a pending "primary amendment," cannot be amended.  Once a motion to amend has been seconded and debated, it is decided before the main motion is decided.  Certain motions to amend are improper. o For example, an amendment must be “germane” to be an order. To be germane, an amendment must in some way involve the same question that is raised by the motion to which it is applied. o Also, some motions to amend are improper, for example, a motion that would merely make the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion, or one that would make the question as amended identical with, or contrary to, one previously decided by the Council during the same session. 1 Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 7  “Friendly” amendments acceptable to the maker and the seconder of the main motion do not require a second and are permissible at any time before a vote is taken on motions to amend the main motion. 2. Withdrawal of a Motion. After a motion has been seconded and stated by the presiding officer it belongs to the Council as a whole and the maker may withdraw his or her motion unless one or more members of the Council objects, in which case the majority of the Council must consent to withdrawal of the motion. 3. Motion to Postpone to a Certain Time (or Definitely). This is the motion by which action on an agenda item or a pending motion can be put off to a definite day, meeting or hour, or until after a certain event has occurred.  A motion to postpone definitely can be debated only to the extent necessary to enable the Council to determine whether the main motion should be postponed and, if so, to what date or time.  Similarly, it is amendable only as to the date or time to which the main motion should be postponed. 4. Motion to Lay on the Table. A motion to table is intended to enable the Council to lay the pending question aside temporarily, but only when something else of immediate urgency has arisen.  Adoption of a motion to lay on the table immediately halts the consideration of the affected motion, since a motion to table is neither debatable nor amendable. 5. Motion to Postpone Indefinitely. A motion to postpone indefinitely is, in effect, a motion that the Council decline to take a position on an agenda item or main motion.  Adoption of a motion to postpone indefinitely kills the agenda item or main motion and avoids a direct vote on the item or motion. It is useful in disposing of an item or motion that cannot either be adopted or expressly rejected without undesirable consequences.  A motion to postpone indefinitely is debatable but not amendable. 6. “Calling the Question”. "Calling the question" may sometimes motivate unanimous consent to end debate. If it does not, however, then debate does not automatically end.  If any member objects to ending the debate, the presiding officer should ask if there is a second to the motion and, if so, he must immediately take a vote on whether to end debate.  A motion to call the question is not debatable or amendable. 1 Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 8 INCIDENTAL MOTIONS. These are motions which usually apply to the method of conducting business rather to the business itself. 1. Point of Order. If a Councilmember thinks that the rules of order are being violated, he or she can make a point of order, thereby calling upon the presiding officer for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules.  A “point of order” takes precedence over any pending question out of which it may arise and does not require a second.  A “point of order” is not amendable.  Technically, a “point of order” is not debatable; however: o With the presiding officer's consent, the member raising the point of order may be permitted to explain his or her point. o In response to a point of order, the presiding officer can either immediately rule, subject to appeal to the Council, or the presiding officer can refer the point of order to the judgment of the Council, in which case the point becomes debatable. o In making his or her ruling, the presiding officer may consult with the City Attorney or request the advice of experienced members of the Council. o No member has the right to express an opinion unless requested to do so by the presiding officer.  When the presiding officer has made a ruling, any two Councilmembers can appeal the ruling (one making the appeal and the other seconding it). o When an appeal is taken, the matter is decided by majority vote of the Council. o A tie vote sustains the decision of the presiding officer.  If a point of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the perceived violation of the rules occurs. 2. Point of Information. Robert’s Rules of Order provides for a “point of information” or a “request for information” which is appropriate in the formal setting of a large legislative body. Because Council consideration of an item is generally an opportunity to request information and ask questions, the formal “point of information” procedure provided in Robert’s Rules is not needed or appropriate for City Council meetings. 3. Motion to Divide a Question. If a motion relating to a single subject contains several parts, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition by itself, the parts of the motion can be separated for consideration and voted on as if they were distinct questions by the adoption of a motion for division of the question.  A motion to divide a question, if seconded, takes precedence over the main motion and is not debatable.  The motion to divide must clearly state the manner in which the question is to be 1 Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 9 divided, and while the motion to divide is pending, another member can propose a different division by moving an amendment to the motion to divide, in which case the amended form of the motion, if seconded, would be decided first.  Often, little formality is involved in dividing a question, and it is arranged by unanimous consent. 4. Motion to Suspend the Rules. When the Council wishes to do something that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to suspend the rules that interfere with the proposed action.  A motion to suspend the rules can be made at any time that no question is pending and can be applied to any rule except those that are fundamental principles of the City Charter, City Code or other applicable laws.  This motion is neither debatable nor amendable. RESTORATIVE MOTIONS These are motions that bring a question again before the Council for its consideration. 1. Motion to Take from the Table. The object of this motion is to take from the table and make pending again before the Council a motion or series of adhering motions that previously had been laid on the table.  A motion to take an item from the table is neither debatable nor amendable.  When a question is taken from the table, it is before the Council with everything adhering to it, exactly as it was when laid on the table. 2. Motion to Reconsider. This motion enables a majority of the Council to bring back for further consideration a motion which has already been voted on.  A motion to reconsider is in order only if made on the same date that the vote to be reconsidered was taken, and can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side of the vote to be reconsidered.  The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit the correction of hasty, ill- advised, or erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of a vote.  When a member who cannot make a motion for reconsideration believes that there are valid reasons for one, he or she can try, if there is time or opportunity, to persuade someone who voted with the prevailing side to make such a motion.  A motion to reconsider is debatable whenever the motion proposed to be reconsidered was debatable. And, when debatable, opens to debate the merits of the question to be reconsidered.  A motion to reconsider is not amendable.  The effect of the adoption of a motion to reconsider is that the question on which the vote was reconsidered is immediately placed before the Council in the exact 1 Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 10 position it occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. 3. Motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. By means of the motions to rescind or to amend something previously adopted, the Council can change an action previously taken or ordered.  A motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted is debatable and amendable.  In contrast to a motion to reconsider, there is no time limit on making a motion to rescind or a motion to amend something previously adopted (provided that no action has been taken by anyone in the interim that cannot be undone), and these motions can be moved by any member of the Council, regardless of how he or she voted on the original question.  The effect of passage of this motion is not to place the matter back before the assembly as it was just prior to a vote being taken. o Instead, it either entirely nullifies the previous action or modifies it, depending upon which motion is used. o For that reason, adoption of a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted should be carefully considered if third parties may have relied to their detriment on the previous action.  In order to modify an adopted ordinance, Council must adopt a new ordinance making the desired modification, in compliance with all formalities applicable to adoption of an ordinance. PRIVILEGED MOTIONS These motions are of such urgency or importance that they are entitled to immediate consideration, even when another motion is pending. This is because these motions do not relate to the pending business but have to do with special matters of immediate and overriding importance which, without debate, should be allowed to interrupt the consideration of anything else. 1. Motion to Adjourn. Generally the presiding officer adjourns the meeting at his or her discretion at the completion of the agenda. However, any Councilmember may move to adjourn the meeting at any time.  A motion to adjourn requires a second.  A motion to adjourn is always a privileged motion except when the motion is conditioned in some way, as in the case of a motion to adjourn at, or to, a future time. o Such a conditional motion is not privileged and is treated just as any other main motion. o A conditional motion to adjourn at or to a future time is always out of order while business is pending.  An unconditional, privileged motion to adjourn takes precedence over most other motions. 1 Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) City Council Rules of Procedure (February 7, 2017) 11  The privileged motion to adjourn is neither debatable nor amendable, while a conditioned motion to adjourn is debatable and may be amended. 2. Motion to Recess. A motion to recess is essentially a motion to take a break during the course of a Council meeting.  A motion to recess must be seconded. o A motion to recess that is made when no question is pending is a main motion and should be treated as any other main motion. o A motion to recess is said to be privileged if it is made when another question is pending, in which case it takes precedence over all subsidiary and incidental motions and most other privileged motions. It is not debatable and is amendable only as to the length of the recess.  After a recess, the meeting resumes when the presiding officer has called the meeting back to order. 1 Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Exhibit A (5247 : Council Rules of Procedure RESO) Lory State Park CSU Foothills Campus GMA Expansion Area La Porte Wellington Bellvue Fort Collins - Loveland Separator Fort Collins - Wellington Separator CSU Stadium Carpenter CSU FRCC City Structure Plan Printed: January 26, 2017 Boundaries Fort Collins GMA Potential GMA Expansion Other City GMA Planning Area Adjacent Planning Areas City Limits County Boundary Districts Downtown District Community Commercial District General Commercial District Neighborhood Commercial District Campus District Employment District Industrial District Neighborhoods Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Medium Density Mixed-Use Edges Community Separator Foothills Rural Lands Corridors Open Lands, Parks and Water Corridors Poudre River Corridor Enhanced Travel Corridor (Transit) 00.511.52 Miles CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. EXHIBIT A 1 Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Exhibit A (5240 : Gateway at Prospect Rezoning RESO) BUCHSTANE PL CAN O P Y CT KECHTER RD CA C TUS CT HIWA N C T S TIMBERLINE RD RED WILLOW DR FAN T AIL CT WEE P IN G W A Y S OUTHR I DG E G REENS BL V D Rennat Zoning CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: November 21, 2016 Legend City Limits Railroad Lines Water Rennat Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Public Open Lands (POL) Low Density Residential (RL) Urban Estate (UE) 0 0.045 0.09 0.135 0.18 Miles Scale 1 inch equals 475 feet © Path: S:\CDNS\Planning\Current Planning\Annexations\Rennat_T1\VicinityMap.mxd Annexation Area ATTACHMENT 1 11.1 Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Zoning Map (5215 : Rennat Zoning) BUCHSTANE PL CAN O P Y CT KECHTER RD CA C TUS CT HIWA N C T S TIMBERLINE RD RED WILLOW DR FAN T AIL CT WEE P IN G W A Y S OUTHR I DG E G REENS BL V D Rennat Zoning CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: November 21, 2016 Legend City Limits Railroad Lines Water Rennat Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Public Open Lands (POL) Low Density Residential (RL) Urban Estate (UE) 0 0.045 0.09 0.135 0.18 Miles Scale 1 inch equals 475 feet © Path: S:\CDNS\Planning\Current Planning\Annexations\Rennat_T1\VicinityMap.mxd Annexation Area ATTACHMENT 3 10.3 Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Zoning Map (5213 : Rennat Annexation) B L V D Rennat Annexation Structure Plan CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: December 01, 2016 Legend City Limits Railroad Lines Water Growth Management Area Neighborhood Commercial District Urban Estate Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhoods Open Lands, Parks and Stream Corridors 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 Miles Scale 1 inch equals 417 feet © Path: S:\CDNS\Planning\Current Planning\Annexations\Rennat_T1\VicinityMap.mxd Annexation Area LMN MMN NC Union Pacific Railroad ATTACHMENT 2 10.2 Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Structure Plan Map (5213 : Rennat Annexation) HIWA N C T S TIMBERLINE RD RED WILLOW DR FAN T AIL CT WEE P IN G W A Y S OUTHR I DG E G REENS BL V D CITY OF FORT COLLINS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM MAP PRODUCTS These map products and all underlying data are developed for use by the City of Fort Collins for its internal purposes only, and were not designed or intended for general use by members of the public. The City makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness, and in particular, its accuracy in labeling or displaying dimensions, contours, property boundaries, or placement of location of any map features thereon. THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USE FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESE MAP PRODUCTS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of these map products, map applications, or data, accepts them AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, and assumes all responsibility of the use thereof, and further covenants and agrees to hold the City harmless from and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from any use of this map product, in consideration of the City's having made this information available. Independent verification of all data contained herein should be obtained by any users of these products, or underlying data. The City disclaims, and shall not be held liable for any and all damage, loss, or liability, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, which arises or may arise from these map products or the use thereof by any person or entity. Printed: November 21, 2016 Legend City Limits Railroad Lines Water Rennat 0 0.045 0.09 0.135 0.18 Miles Scale 1 inch equals 475 feet © Path: S:\CDNS\Planning\Current Planning\Annexations\Rennat_T1\VicinityMap.mxd Annexation Area 8QLRQ3DFLILF5DLOURDG 5HQQDW$QQH[DWLRQ$QG=RQLQJ 9LFLQLW\0DS ATTACHMENT 1 10.1 Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Vicinity Map (5213 : Rennat Annexation) " # # # ## # Ì ! # # ÂÎÆ Î ÎÎ ¶ÎÎ °ÎIÎ {2Î `cÎÎ²Î d}xÎÎ vÎÎ ÊÎUÎ p Î 6 Î 4 Î ? Î @Î 0Î 1Î AÎ .9Î !"'5Î :"«Î e³Î ÇºÎ ÎR»ÎÎPÎ inÎ¤Î 7Î #ÎWÎ·¿Î¬Î 8Î )Î~BÎTÎ ¼ÎQÎÎ $%/Î (1-8 ,.8 )*0358 +2/4 ÎÎ;3;Î ÁÎ *ÎÀÎqÎµÎCÎZÎ D¾ÎÎmÎYÎ HÎ½(Î$8Ë Î JÎÎXÎsÎ yEÎ#8 rÎÎFÎlÎ§Îª ÍÎ\ÎÎÎwÎÉÎ ¨Î V´Î_Îa©ÎtÎ f[®¡Î M Î oÎ¢k|bgÎ ¯h]£Î 68 7''"8 jÎ jÎ jÎ N±ÎOGzÎ ¦Î uÎ +<Î KÎ ,=Î ¥^LÎ &>Î -Î #!# # " # # # # &!%8 8 8 8 8 ÄÅ¹È¸Ã A 1 Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Exhibit A (5205 : Halligan Reservoir Recreational Use ORD) dog colonies? No representatives from Larimer County were present to respond as the Forum was hosted by City of Fort Collins. As noted above, the Natural Areas Department’s intent is to sustain approximately 10%- 20% occupation in suitable habitat. The City’s ability to sustain these percentages depends on some factors outside of, or only partially, within its control (for example climate and disease). What defines a "suitable habitat" for relocation near housing areas? The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department requires a 300 foot buffer from residential areas. Should there be another drought, what is the plan to protect the prairie grasses from over consumption by The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department's intent to manage for a 10%-20% prairie dog occupation urban natural areas was set based on experience from the mid-2000's and accounts for drought conditions. 8.7 Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Public Engagement Results Summary (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Common garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis NA NA Documented SWAP Tier 2 SC Lined snake Tropicdoclonion lineatum G5 S3 Documented CNHP watch Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum G5 S2 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Ornate box turtle Terrapene ornata NA NA Documented NA Painted turtle Chrysemys picta G5 S5 Documented CNHP partial Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi G5 S5 Documented CNHP watch Invertebrates Arapahoe snowfly Capnia arapahoe G1 S1 Potential CNHP full Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos G3 S2 Documented CNHP full Autumn springfly Pictetiella expansa G3 S2 Potential CNHP full Backswimmer Notonecta unifasciata GNR S1 Documented CNHP full Colorado blue Eupholies rita coloradensis G3T3 S2 Potential CNHP full Crossline skipper Polites origenes G5 S3 Documented CNHP full 8.3 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Tier 2 SC McCown's longspur Calcarius mccownii G4 S2B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Mountain plover Charadrius montanus G3 S2B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 SC Northern bobwhite* Colinus virginianus G5 S4 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis G5 S3B Documented CNHP watch/ SWAP Tier 2 Northern harrier Circus cyaneus G5 S3B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Northern pygmy owl Glaucidium gnoma G4G5 S3B Documented CNHP watch Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi G4 S3S4B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla G5 S2B Documented CNHP full Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus G5 S5 Documented SWAP Tier 2 Piping plover Charadrius melodus G3 S1B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 T T Plains sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesi G4T4 S1 Potential reintroduction CNHP full SC Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus G5 S4 Documented CNHP watch/ SWAP Tier 2 Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus G5 SNA Documented SWAP Tier 2 8.3 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Tier 2 SC Townsend's big-eared bat Coryhnorhinus townsendii pallescens G3T3 S2 Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 1 SC Birds American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus G4 S3S4B Documented SWAP Tier 2 American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum G4T4 S2B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Deli ste d SC American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos G4 S1B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus G5 S1B, S3N Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Deli ste d SC Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica G5 S2B Documented CNHP full/ SWAP Tier 2 Black tern Chlidonias niger G5 S2B Documented SWAP Tier 2 Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus G5 S3B Documented CNHP full Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus G5 S3B Documented CNHP watch/ SWAP Tier 2 8.3 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Vegetation Salt Meadows G5 S3 P Documented Krascheninnikovia lanata / Pascopyrum smithii - Bouteloua gracilis Dwarf- shrub Herbaceous Vegetation Western Slope Grasslands G4 S1 Y Documented Pinus ponderosa / Cercocarpus montanus / Andropogon gerardii Wooded Herbaceous Vegetation Foothills Ponderosa Pine Scrub Woodlands G2 S2 Y Documented Populus deltoides / Carex pellita Woodland Plains Cottonwood Riparian Woodland G2 S2 Y Documented Hesperostipa comata - Bouteloua gracilis - Carex filifolia Herbaceous Vegetation Montane Grasslands G5 S2 Y Documented Typha (latifolia, angustifolia) Western Herbaceous Vegetation Narrow-leaf Cattail Marsh G5 S4 P Documented 8.3 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Potentilla rupincola Rock cinquefoil Osterh. G2 S2 Y Potential Psoralidium argophyllum Silverleaf scurf pea (Pursh) Rydberg G5 SNR N Potential Rotala ramosior Lowland rotala (L.) Koehne G5 S1 Y Potential Silphium integrifolium Michx. var laeve Wholeleaf rosinweed Torr. & A. Gray G5 SH Y Potential Silphium laciniatum Compass plant L. G5 SH Y Potential Sisyrinchium demissum Stiff blue-eyed grass Greene G5 S2 Y Potential Suckleya suckleyana Poison suckleya (Torr.) Rydb. G5 SNR N Potential Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England aster (L.) G.L. Nesom G5 S1 Y Potential Trillium ovatum Pacific trillium Pursh G5 S3S4 W Potential Viola pedatifida Prairie violet G. Don G5 S2 Y Potential Viola selkirkii Selkirk’s violet Pursh ex Goldie G5? S1 Y Potential List of rare plant communities tracked by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program that occur in Fort Collins Natural Areas. Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status 8.3 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Fernald G5 S1 Y Potential Lesquerella alpina var. alpina Alpine bladderpod (Nutt.) S. Watson G5T4 SNR Y Potential Lesquerella arenosa var. argillosa Secund bladderpod Rollins and Shaw G5T4 S1 Y Potential Lewisia rediviva var. rediviva Bitterroot Pursh G5 S2 Y Potential Lewisia triphylla Threeleaf lewisia (S. Watson) B.L. Rob G4? S2 Y Potential Liatris lancifolia Lanceleaf blazing star (Greene)Kittell G4 S1 Y Potential Lilium philadelphicum Wood lily L. G5 S3S4 W Potential Listera borealis Northern twayblade Morong G4 S2 Y Potential Listera convallarioides Broad-leaved twayblade (Sw.) Nutt. Ex Elliott G5 S2 Y Potential Lomatium nuttallii Nuttall's desert-parsley (A. Gray) J.F. Macbr G3 S1 N Potential Machaeranthera coloradoensis Colorado tansy- aster (A. Gray) Osterhout G3 S3 Y Potential Malaxis brachypoda White adder's- mouth orchid (A. Gray) Fernald G4Q S1 Y Potential Mertensia humilis Rocky mountain bluebells Rydb. G2 S1 Y Potential Mimulus gemmiparus Weber's monkeyflower W.A. G1 S1 Y Potential Mimulus ringens Square-stem monkeyflower L. G5 SH Y Potential Oenothera grandis Showy evening (Britton) Smyth G5? S1 Y Potential 8.3 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Aquilegia chrysantha var. rydbergii Golden columbine A. Gray, Munz G4T1Q S1 Y Potential Aralia nudicaulis Wild sarsaparilla L. G5 S2 N Potential Asclepias hallii Hall's milkweed A. Gray G3 S3 Y Potential Asclepias stenophylla Slimleaf milkweed A. Gray G4G5 S2 Y Potential Asclepias uncialis ssp. uncialis Greene's milkweed Greene G3G4T2T3 S2 Y Potential Astragalus americanus American milkvetch (Hook) M.E. Jones G5 SH Y Potential Astragalus bodinii Bodin's milkvetch Sheldon G4 S2 Y Potential Astragalus gilviflorus Plains milkvetch Sheldon G5 S1 Y Potential Astragalus plattensis Platte river milkvetch Nutt. G5 S1 Y Potential Astragalus sparsiflorus Front range milkvetch A. Gray G2 S2 Y Potential Campanula aparinoides Marsh bellflower Pursh G5 SH Y Potential Chenopodium cycloides Sandhill goosefoot A. Nelson G3G4 S1 Y Potential 8.3 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Whorled water milfoil L. G5 S1 Y Potential Potamogeton diversifolius Waterthread pondweed Raf. G5 S1 Y Potential Sagittaria brevirostra Shortbeak arrowhead Mackenzie & Bush, G5 S2? N Potential Sagittaria calycina var. calycina Hooded arrowhead Engelm. G5T5? S1 Y Potential Stuckenia vaginata Sheathed pondweed (Turcz.) Holub G5 SNR N Potential Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort L. G5 S2 Y Potential Wolffia borealis Northern watermeal (Engelm. Ex Hegelm.) Landolt ex Landolt & Wildi G5 SNR N Potential Shrubs and Trees Amorpha nana Dwarf false indigo Nutt. G5 S2 Y Potential Betula papyrifera var. papyrifera Paper birch Marshall G5 S1 Y Potential Crataegus chrysocarpa Fireberry hawthorn Ashe G5 S1 Y Potential Salix serissima Autumn willow (L.H. Bailey) Fernald G4 S1 Y Potential Grass and Grass-like Achnatherum contractum Contracted ricegrass (B.L. Johnson) Barkworth G3G4 SU Y Potential Carex conoidea Field sedge Schkuhr ex Willd G5 S1 Y Potential Carex oreocharis Grassy slope sedge T. Holm G3 S2 Y Potential Carex peckii Peck's sedge Howe G5 S1 Y Potential Carex sartwellii Sartwell's sedge Dewey G4G5 S1 Y Potential Carex Rocky Mack G5 S1 Y Potential 8.3 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Triodanis perfoliata Clasping Venus' looking-glass G5 SNR N Documented Zone 3 List of plant taxa that could potentially occur in Fort Collins Natural Areas based on the presence of suitable habitat. Synonymy follows USDA, NRCS. 2015. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 21 December 2015). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. Scientific Name Common Name Authority Global Rank State Rank Tracked by CNHP? ESA Status FC Natural Areas Status Fern and Fern Allies Asplenium adiantum-nigrum Black spleenwort (L.) A. Nelson G5 S1 Y Potential Asplenium septentrionale Forked spleenwort (L.) Hoffman G4G5 S3S4 W Potential Botrychium campestre Prarie dunewort W.H. Wagner & Farrar G3G4 S1 Y Potential Botrychium lineare Narrowleaf grapefern W.H. Wagner G2G3 S2S3 Y Potential Botrychium multifidum Leathery grapefern (S.G. Gmel.) Trev G5 S1S2 Y Potential Botrychium virginianum Rattlesnake fern (L.) Sw. G5 S1 Y Potential Dryopteris filix- mas Male fern (L.) Schott G5 SNR N Potential Equisetum variegatum var. variegatum Variegated horsetail Schleich Ex, F. Weber & D. Mohr G5 S1 Y Potential Goodyera repens Lesser rattlesnake plantain (L.) R. BR G5 S3S4 W Potential 8.3 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 Ammannia robusta Grand redstem G5 SNR N Documented Besseya wyomingensis Wyoming coral- drops G5 S1 Y Documented Calystegia sepium Hedge false bindweed G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1, 2 Cirsium flodmanii Flodman's thistle G5 SNR N Documented Eustoma exaltatum ssp. russellianum Prairie gentian G5 S3S4 W Documented Zone 1, 2, 3 Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis Colorado butterfly plant G3T2 S1 Y LT Documented Zone 1, 5 Glaux maritima Sea milkwort G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 Liatris ligulistylis Rocky mountain blazing star G5? S2 Y Documented Lobelia siphilitica var. ludoviciana Great blue lobelia G5T5? SNR N Documented Zone 1 Lysimachia ciliata Fringed loosestrife G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1, 2, 3 Lysimachia thyrsiflora Water loosestrife G5 S1 Y Documented Zone 1 Mentzelia speciosa Jeweled blazingstar G3 S3 Y Documented Musineon tenuifolium Slender wild parlsey G4 S2 Y Documented Osmorhiza longistylis Smooth sweet- cicely G5 SNR N Documented Pediomelum esculentum Large Indian breadroot G5 SNR N Documented 8.3 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) G5 S2 Y Documented Zone 1 Opuntia phaeacantha Tulip prickly pear G5 SNR N Documented Vines Humulus lupulus var. neomexicanus Common hop G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1, 3, 4, 5 Smilax lasioneura Blue ridge carrionflower G5 S3S4 W Documented Zone 1 Grass and Grass-like Acorus calamus Sweetflag G4? S1 Y Documented Zone 1, 2 Aristida basiramea Forked three- awn grass G5 S1 Y Documented Carex atherodes Wheat sedge G5 SNR N Documented Zone 1 Carex bebbii Bebb’s sedge G5 SNR N Documented Carex crawei Crawe's sedge G5 S1 Y Documented Carex lasiocarpa Slender sedge G5 S1 Y Documented ATTACHMENT 3 8.3 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: City of Fort Collins Species of Interest (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Relocation Options *must meet certain relocation criteria *must meet certain relocation criteria *mitigation requirements may be reduced if more humane forms of fumigation are used 8.2 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Prairie Dog Management Flow Charts (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) Relocation Options *must meet certain relocation criteria *must meet certain relocation criteria *mitigation requirements may be reduced if more humane forms of fumigation are used ATTACHMENT 2 8.2 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Prairie Dog Management Flow Charts (5200 : Natural Resource Protection and Prairie Dog Management) 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0 *1 0*1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) 1 0 *1 0 * 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0* 1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0 * 1 0* 1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& ' #& ' # % & & % & & % 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0 *1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0 *1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 & 0 *1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0*1 ' 0 * 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& ( % ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 % 0* 1 0 *1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0 *1 0 *1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 % " 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0*1 % 0 * 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 % " % 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0* 1 0 *1 & 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 * 1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& ( % ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 % 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 % 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 0 * 1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& ( % ' #& ' # % & & % & & % % % 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 *1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& ( % ' #& ' # % & & % & & % & $ % % " 0 *1 0 *1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 % $ !% % !% % + & 0 * 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0 *1 0* 1 % 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& ( % ' #& ' # % & & % & & & $ # & ! " ! 0*1 0 *1 0 * 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 & + % ! ! " & % ! $ % ! 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& ( % ' #& ' # % & & % & & 01 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0 * 1 0 *1 0* 1 0 *1 01 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 *1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 % 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 % % % " % % 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0 * 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 % % " " " % 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 & " " & ! 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& !' ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& !' ' #& ' # % & & % & & 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& !' ' #& ' # % & & % & & % ' () ' % 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0* 1 0 *1 % ' ' ' 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 0 * 1 & % + 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 0 * 1 0* 1 % ' & % % % & 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 $ 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) &"& !' ' #& ' # % & & % & & 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 & 0*1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0 * 1 0* 1 % ' 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 ' % % ' " ' 0 *1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 0 *1 0* 1 ! ! 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0*1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) 1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 %& % 0* 1 0 *1 0 * 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 %& % 0*1 0 * 1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 & $ 0 *1 0 *1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 () $ % 0 *1 0 * 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0 *1 0* 1 & % 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 $ % 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0 * 1 % ! % 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) & # 0*1 0*1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0 *1 0*1 # $% 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0* 1 # & $% 0*1 0 *1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 # 0 * 1 0 *1 0 * 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 0 * 1 0 1 0*1 0*1 0 *1 0 *1 0 *1 0 * 1 0* 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 " 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 # 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) ' 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 $ &+ 0 * 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0 * 1 % 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0* 1 0*1 0 * 1 0*1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) ' !,-./ $ % $ & 0 * 1 0 * 1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) ! & $ # " () ' 0 *1 0 *1 0 *1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) & & $ # $ 0* 1 0 * 1 0 *1 0*1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 553.67/38& & -23 45 7.2 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) 1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0* 1 & & % "$ % $ 0*1 0* 1 0 *1 0* 1 0*1 0*1 0*1 0* 1 0* 1 553.67/38& & -2345 7.2 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) ! % % % % % % % % % % & % % % % % $ % % % % % % % % % % % % & + + 7.2 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) !% % !% $ $ % " " % !,-./ ' ' & & 7.2 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) ' ' &+ & $ ' & % # % % % ' + " " & % & % $ 7.2 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) & ' & $ & & ' & % * * # # % 7.2 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) % ! $ % ' & $ ' & %& % # ' ' 7.2 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) ! ! " ! %& % $ $ # % " % % % " $ ! & ! ! ' & " 7.2 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) % & ' $ & $ % % % ! % ! $ $ & & 7.2 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) $ % ' ' () & () " % " "$ 7.2 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) $ $ $ $ & % $ 7.2 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment) ! " " " # ! $% $% $ & EXHIBIT A 7.2 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Ordinance No. 019, 2017 (5225 : SR 019 Pay Plan Amendment)