Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/03/2018 - COMPLETE AGENDA
City 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 Ken Summers, 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 Delynn Coldiron City Attorney City Manager City Clerk Regular Meeting July 3, 2018 (amended 7/2/2018) Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Citizen Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2) hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented. NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details. 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. Proclamations and Presentations 5:30 p.m. A. Proclamation Declaring the City of Fort Collins as a City of Services Supporting Efforts to Increase Service Opportunities in our City. City of Fort Collins Page 2 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER City Manager Review of Agenda. Consent Calendar Review This Review provides an opportunity for Council and citizens to pull items from the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be “pulled” off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. 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 City of Fort Collins Page 3 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. 1. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates $318,099 in additional fundraising dollars secured for the Whitewater Park Project. The Whitewater Park Project is scheduled to begin construction in summer 2018 and be completed in summer 2019. 2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates $1,477,370 of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project. In addition, this item authorizes the transfer of $14,774, one percent of the appropriated funds, from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Art in Public Places. This project will construct Suniga Road to the City’s four-lane arterial roadway standards between North College Avenue and Blondel Street, as identified on the City’s Master Street Plan. Improvements include raised, protected bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, utility infrastructure, roadway improvements, and landscaped medians and parkways. The project will complement the existing section of Suniga Road, providing connectivity for surrounding developments from North College Avenue to Redwood Street. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Parking Fund for the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Parking Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities for the Art in Public Places Program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates $359,917 of additional funds from Parking Reserves into the capital project fund to complete the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and appropriates 1% of the project funds to Art in Public Places. The Project includes installing sensors and new payment technology in the three downtown parking structures and in approximately 3000 on-street parking spaces and 3 parking lots. This Project will allow Parking Services to collect occupancy and turnover rate data to improve management of downtown parking. City of Fort Collins Page 4 4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2018, Reappropriating Funds Previously Appropriated in 2017 but not Expended and not Encumbered in 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Combined Regional Information Systems Project. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates funds to purchase a public safety software solution for the Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP). CRISP is a regional partnership with other Larimer County public safety agencies and provides a reliable public safety software solution that allows regional agencies to share police and fire data, manage incidents and provide for redundancy and continuity of operations. The current system is scheduled for replacement. The City of Loveland is joining CRISP and with the addition of Loveland and other project changes, staff is also requesting an additional appropriation of $1.98 million with the understanding that all but $288K will be reimbursed from both CRISP partner and member agencies. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue From Bloomberg Philanthropies in the Light and Power Fund for the Home Efficiency Loan Program/On-Bill Financing Program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates $100,000 in grant revenues from Bloomberg Philanthropies, as part of the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge, into the Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Enterprise fund to develop and capitalize the Utilities On-Bill Financing program (OBF). The OBF provides utility bill serviced loans for energy efficiency capital improvements, and the Bloomberg project within this program will focus on funding improvements to advance efficiency in rental properties. 6. Items Relating to Amending City Code, Chapter 17 - Miscellaneous Offenses. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2018, Amending Articles III, IV, VI, and VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Trespass, Theft, Littering, Criminal Mischief, Resisting Arrest, Throwing of Missiles, and Disorderly Conduct. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Staying on Medians. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Panhandling. Ordinance No. 083, 2018, amends certain Sections of Chapter 17 regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct to be consistent with state statutes. Ordinance No. 084, 2018, amends Section 17-122 to make that section more specific to prohibit staying on medians in locations where safety issues arise given median width, traffic volumes, and/or traffic speed. Ordinance No. 085, 2018, eliminates Section 17-127 in its entirety pertaining to panhandling. These Ordinance were unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018. 7. Items Relating to the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2018, Amending Section 7.5-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Adjustment of the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves from the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee Account Within the Capital Expansion Fee Fund to Reimburse Building Permit Applicants for Overpayment of the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee. The purpose of this item is to adjust the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee (Fire CEF) consistent with correct calculations and to appropriate funds from the Fire CEF Account in the Capital Expansion Fee Fund to reimburse fee payers for overpayments back to October 1, 2017. Consulting firm Duncan City of Fort Collins Page 5 Associates discovered there was a cell reference error in their formula used for the City’s 2017 Capital Expansion Fee Study. This error caused the Fire CEF to be overstated by 19%. The City Council approved 75% of the proposed fee increases in the City’s Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs), which went into effect October 1, 2017. Due to the error in the Fire CEF calculation, the Fire CEF was set at 90% instead of 75% of the 2017 proposed fee level. The estimated total refund due to fee payers is approximately $130,000. 8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2018, Amending Section 2-31 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Concerning Executive Sessions Pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities and Services. The purpose of this item is to update City Code consistent with the November 7, 2017 voter-approved Charter amendment providing for telecommunication facilities and services (broadband) as part of the City’s Electric Utility. The Charter amendment also authorized the Council and any board or commission established under the Charter amendment to go into executive session to consider issues of competition in providing telecommunication facilities and services. The proposed Ordinance amends City Code Section 2-31 to permit executive sessions for such purposes. 9. Resolution 2018-068 Approving the 2018 Certification to the Larimer County Assessor Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B) for the Downtown Development Authority Property Tax Increment. The purpose of this item is to certify to the Larimer County Assessor the percentages of property tax distributions that are to be allocated for the Downtown Development Authority by the Assessor as tax increment from the 2018 property taxes payable in 2019 to the City and to all other affected taxing entities. 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. FC Lean Update (staff: Kirsten Silveira) B. North College Railroad Project (staff: Brad Buckman) COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS City of Fort Collins Page 6 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. 10. Items Relating to Consideration of the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use Request. (staff: Clay Frickey; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2018, Approving the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan #170017. OR B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2018, Denying the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan #170017. The purpose of this item is to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Century Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use request (APU) being made in conjunction with PDP170017. The APU would allow the addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on a parcel of land located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district. Wireless telecommunication facilities are not a permitted use in the RL. PDP170017 proposes a 55-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower at 620 West Horsetooth Road. 11. Items Relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations. (staff: Cameron Gloss; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2018, Amending Articles 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Land Use Code Regarding Planned Unit Development Overlay Regulations. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2018, Making Policy Revisions to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. The purpose of this item is to create an optional Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and regulations within the Land Use Code applicable to parcels 50 acres or greater in size being developed in multiple phases. Under the Ordinance, a PUD overlay designation would be applied to the City’s zoning map at the time a PUD Master Plan is approved. The PUD Master Plan provides an overall vision for the long-term development, including the project phasing, and the elements for which the applicant has requested entitlement to long-term vested rights of the uses, densities, modifications to land use design standards, and variances to engineering standards. Each development phase is subject to the Project Development Plan (PDP) process. City of Fort Collins Page 7 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 A. Consideration of a motion to adjourn to 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 10, 2018. 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, America has a proud tradition of service and volunteerism that dates to the colonial era and today can be found in communities across the fifty states; and WHEREAS, the bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 21, 2009, builds on this tradition, encouraging all Americans to serve their communities in new ways; and WHEREAS, cities, home to many of the nation’s most persistent challenges, are positioned to bring new leadership, facilitation, and innovation to the service movement; WHEREAS, the current need for public-spirited residents to help address increased hardship resulting from the global financial and housing crises is clear; WHEREAS, service enriches the lives of Americans of all ages, and each new generation of young Americans must be engaged to tackle emerging challenges; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, resolve to develop a coalition of mayors from cities large and small to work together to harness and focus the energies of our citizens. Cities of Service coalition members will support efforts to increase service opportunities in our cities by: • Developing a comprehensive service plan and a coordinated strategy focused on matching • volunteers and established community partners to the areas of greatest local need; • Working with other mayors and elected officials to advance strategies and best practices that accelerate the service movement and produce measurable results; • Encouraging other mayors to join this national effort to engage our citizens; and • Ensuring that the voice of cities is heard in federal legislative, policy, and program • discussions related to service, which will help the country achieve the ambitious goals of the Serve America Act. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 8 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates $318,099 in additional fundraising dollars secured for the Whitewater Park Project. The Whitewater Park Project is scheduled to begin construction in summer 2018 and be completed in summer 2019. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 078, 2018 (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 9 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Kurt Friesen, Director of Park Planning & Development Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Poudre River Whitewater Park Fundraising. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Resolution 2018-061 Recognizing Revenues Received from Private Fundraising and Finding Substantial Satisfaction of Conditions on Prior Appropriations for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Project Fund for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program for the Poudre River Whitewater Park Project. The purpose of this item is to acknowledge receipt of the full amount of fundraising dollars required to release expenditure of the Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) funds appropriated for the project under Ordinance No. 058, 2018, and to appropriate additional fundraising dollars secured for the Whitewater Park Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Per Ordinance No. 013, 2015, a City Council resolution is required to confirm receipt of at least $1.5M of fundraising obligation required to release the $4.2M of CCIP funds previously appropriated for this project. City staff has confirmed receipt of a total of $1,921,951 of fundraising dollars for the project. Of that amount, $1,603,852 has been appropriated. The remaining $318,099 requires appropriation. Funding Sources Current funding for the project is provided from several sources: Funding Sources Amount Community Capital Improvement Program (CCIP) $4,200,000 Natural Areas $1,000,000 Stormwater $1,734,000 General Fund (property acquisition) $1,492,000 Urban Renewal Authority $303,000 Park Impact Fees (property acquisition) $862,971 Fundraising $1,603,852 ATTACHMENT 1 1.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6932 : SR 078 Whitewater Park Fundraising) Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 Sub-Total Available Funding $11,195,823 Additional Fundraising to be appropriated $318,099 Total Available Funding $11,513,922 Total Fundraising $1,921,951 The Whitewater Park Project is scheduled to begin construction in summer 2018 and be completed in summer 2019. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The release of appropriated funds for construction expenses of the Project is necessary to meet current project schedules. The appropriation is for additional fundraising dollars from a private donor. No additional City funding is necessary. City staff recommends an appropriation of $318,099 from the Capital Project Fund, plus the required APP contributions. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION City staff has met with multiple boards, commissions, and citizen groups regarding the project, who are all supportive of the project and the fundraising dollars secured. These boards include: Parks & Recreation Board North College Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) Commission on Disabilities Water Board Natural Resources Advisory Board Land Conservation & Stewardship Board PUBLIC OUTREACH City staff conducted considerable public outreach for the 2014 Poudre River Downtown Master Plan, which includes the Whitewater Park Project. As part of the development review process for the Whitewater Park, an open house was conducted, offering citizens an opportunity to comment on the project. Staff has coordinated and communicated consistently with multiple stakeholders throughout the duration of the project, including the whitewater enthusiasts who helped raise private philanthropic funds for the project. There is strong support and significant enthusiasm for the project from these groups. ATTACHMENTS 1. Whitewater Park Fundraising Report (PDF) 1.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6932 : SR 078 Whitewater Park Fundraising) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 078, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND FOR THE POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK PROJECT AND TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM FOR THE POUDRE RIVER WHITEWATER PARK PROJECT WHEREAS, at a regular City election held on April 7, 2015, the voters of the City of Fort Collins approved the extension of the expiring twenty-five hundredths percent (0.25%) capital projects sales and use tax (the “Tax”) for a period of ten years; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Tax, as outlined in the ballot measure, is the planning, design, real property acquisition, and construction of seventeen capital projects and related operation and maintenance, referred to as the Community Capital Improvement Program (“CCIP”), which includes construction of Downtown Poudre River Enhancements and a Kayak Park (the “Whitewater Park Project” or “Project”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 013, 2015 (“Building on Basics Ordinance”), in which the City Council recognized and adopted the passage of the April 7, 2015, CCIP ballot measure, prior to use of any revenues from the Tax for construction of the Whitewater Park Project (but not before beginning planning, design, and property acquisition) the City Council must have determined, after receiving a report and recommendation from the City Manager, that the City has received at least $1,500,000 in contributions and pledges of cash and other property from private sources in support of the Whitewater Park Project, and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018, the City and the Urban Renewal Authority (the “URA”) entered into an intergovernmental agreement by which the URA agreed to provide the City additional funds toward the Whitewater Park Project costs, recognizing the value of the Project in furthering the URA’s North College Plan; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 058, 2018, appropriating additional funds for the Whitewater Park Project, including $300,000 provided by the URA, subject to the conditions that: such additional funds may not be expended for construction of the Project until the City Manager provides a further report and recommendation indicating the City has received the full $1,500,000 in private contributions and pledges; and the City Council adopts a resolution making a determination that such condition of Ordinance No. 013, 2015, has been fully satisfied; and WHEREAS, the City Manager reported and recommended to City Council, pursuant to the conditions in Ordinance No. 058, 2018, that the City has received a total of $1,921,950 in private fundraising donations toward the Project, $1,603,852 of which has been appropriated, and $318,099 still requires appropriation; and 1.2 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Ordinance No. 078, 2018 (6932 : SR 078 Whitewater Park Fundraising) -2- WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended appropriation of the remaining $318,099 in private fund donations, as described herein, and determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the General Fund and the Capital Project Fund, as applicable, and will not cause the total amount appropriated in such funds, as applicable, to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in these funds during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of providing recreational resources for 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, 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 to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance; and WHEREAS, this project involves construction estimated to cost more than $250,000, as such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations to be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public Places (APP) program. 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 unanticipated revenue in the Capital Projects Fund the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND NINETY-NINE DOLLARS ($318,099) for the Poudre River Whitewater Project and appropriated therein. Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE DOLLARS ($2,481) in the Capital Projects Fund - Poudre River Whitewater Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for Art in Public Places projects. 1.2 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Ordinance No. 078, 2018 (6932 : SR 078 Whitewater Park Fundraising) -3- Section 4. That the unexpended appropriated amount SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($700) in the Capital Projects Fund - Poudre River Whitewater Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 1.2 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Ordinance No. 078, 2018 (6932 : SR 078 Whitewater Park Fundraising) Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Kyle Lambrecht, Civil Engineer Timothy Kemp, Civil Engineer III Chris Van Hall, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates $1,477,370 of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project. In addition, this item authorizes the transfer of $14,774, one percent of the appropriated funds, from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Art in Public Places. This project will construct Suniga Road to the City’s four-lane arterial roadway standards between North College Avenue and Blondel Street, as identified on the City’s Master Street Plan. Improvements include raised, protected bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, utility infrastructure, roadway improvements, and landscaped medians and parkways. The project will complement the existing section of Suniga Road, providing connectivity for surrounding developments from North College Avenue to Redwood Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 079, 2018 (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 15 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Kyle Lambrecht, Civil Engineer Timothy Kemp, Civil Engineer III Chris Van Hall, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and Transferring Appropriations from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for the Art in Public Places Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $1,477,370 of Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Funds into the Capital Project Fund for the Suniga Road Improvements Project. In addition, this item will authorize the transfer of $14,774, one percent of the appropriated funds, from the Capital Project Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Art in Public Places. This project will construct Suniga Road to the City’s four-lane arterial roadway standards between North College Avenue and Blondel Street as identified on the City’s Master Street Plan. Improvements include raised, protected bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, utility infrastructure, roadway improvements, and landscaped medians and parkways. The project will complement the existing section of Suniga Road, providing connectivity for surrounding developments from North College Avenue to Redwood Street. This project was approved during the 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION As north Fort Collins continues to develop, the roadway network must be designed and constructed to support the additional vehicular and multimodal traffic associated with development. Much of the roadway network will be constructed through a partnership with development. Frequently, the City will construct key sections of the roadway network in advance of development to provide additional vehicular and multimodal connectivity. To support anticipated multimodal and vehicular growth, the City’s Master Street Plan identified a new four-lane arterial roadway, Suniga Road, as a key component of North Fort Collins transportation network. The first segment of Suniga Road between Blondel Street and Redwood Drive was constructed in 2016 in conjunction with adjacent development. To fully utilize this new segment of roadway, staff proposed a project to design and construct the section of Suniga Road between North College Avenue and Blondel Street as part of the City’s 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process. The Suniga Road Improvements Project was initiated in 2017; a result of receiving community support and funds as part of the 2017/2018 BFO process. This project will extend the existing segment of Suniga Road from Blondel Street to North College Avenue, providing significant multimodal and vehicular connectivity to the City’s ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6934 : SR 079 Suniga Road Improvements Project) Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2 roadway network. Improvements will include: Raised, protected bike lanes Pedestrian facilities Landscaped parkways Two lanes of travel in both directions Raised, landscaped medians Utility infrastructure improvements The project’s approved funding scenario identified Transportation Reserves, Utilities, and Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) funds to design and construct the improvements. The total project budget is $3.7M, and $2.2M has been funded by the 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process and utility funding. Although approved during the 2017/2018 BFO cycle, staff waited to appropriate the needed TCEF funding until the final design and final construction estimate were complete. The use of TCEF funds to support this project is appropriate as the project will increase the vehicular and multimodal capacity within the North Fort Collins area. Construction is planned to be completed in 2018. Per City Code Section 23-304, all appropriations for construction projects estimated to cost over $250,000 shall include an amount equal to one percent of the estimated cost for works of art. The total Art in Public Places funds to be appropriated is $14,774. This item will transfer $11,524 of the TCEF appropriations to the Art in Public Places Program. Staff has identified the Transportation Reserves as a means to provide the additional $3,250 needed to provide long-term maintenance for the art. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS This action will appropriate $1,477,370 into the Capital Projects Fund-Suniga Road Improvements Project. In addition, $14,774 will be transferred from the Capital Projects Fund into the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for Art in Public Places. The following is a summary of funds to be appropriated with this action: Prior Appropriated Funds 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes Transportation Reserves $1,800,000 Utilities $400,000 Funds to be Appropriated with this Action Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Funds $1,474,120 Transportation Reserves $3,250 Total Funds to be Appropriated with this Action $1,477,370 Total Current Project Budget $3,677,370 Transfer to Art in Public Places $14,774 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Staff presented project updates to the Bicycle Advisory Committee in November 2017. (Attachment 2) Staff also presented a project update to the Transportation Board in January 2018 as part of an overall Transportation Capital Projects plan discussion. As there was no action or discussion specific to the project, meeting minutes have not been included. 2.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6934 : SR 079 Suniga Road Improvements Project) Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff has conducted numerous property owner meetings to gather feedback and concerns related to the planned improvements. Staff presented a project update to the Urban Renewal Authority in the fall or 2017. Staff has also been in contact with the North Fort Collins Business Association, providing a project update at its March 2018 meeting. Prior to construction, staff will develop and implement a unique communication and outreach plan to minimize impacts to surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map (PDF) 2. Bycicle Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, November 27, 2017 (PDF) 2.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6934 : SR 079 Suniga Road Improvements Project) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 079, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE FUND AND THE TRANSPORTATION FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE FUND AND THE TRANSPORTATION FUND INTO THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND FOR THE SUNIGA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Engineering Department initiated the Suniga Road Improvements Project in 2017 to create a new arterial roadway between College Avenue and Blondel Street, with such improvements to include construction of a complete arterial street that will include raised protected bike lines, pedestrian facilities, landscaped parkways, two lanes of travel in both directions, raised landscaped medians and utility infrastructure improvements (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project’s approved funding scenario identified Transportation Reserves, Utilities and Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) funds to design and construct the improvements; and WHEREAS, the Project’s total budget is $3.7 million, of which $2.2 million has been funded by the 2017/2018 Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process and utility funding; and WHEREAS, now that final design and construction estimates are complete, Council wishes to appropriate an additional $1,477,370 from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Funds and Transportation Reserves to the Project, which will make a total Project Budget of $3,677,370, with $14,774 of this appropriation going to the Arts in Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of enhancing roadways and other transportation related infrastructure; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund, as applicable, and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and the Transportation Fund, as applicable, to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in these funds during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to 2.2 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Ordinance No. 079, 2018 (6934 : SR 079 Suniga Road Improvements Project) -2- transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance; and WHEREAS, this project involves construction estimated to cost more than $250,000, as such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations to be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public Places program. 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 reserves in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund the sum of ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS ($1,474,120) for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and appropriated therein. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from reserves in the Transportation Fund for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund the sum of THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($3,250) for the Suniga Road Improvements Project and appropriated therein. Section 4. That the unexpended appropriated amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($11,524) in the Capital Projects Fund - Suniga Road Improvements Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for Art in Public Places projects. Section 5. That the unexpended appropriated amount of THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($3,250) in the Capital Projects Fund - Suniga Road Improvements Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations. 2.2 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Ordinance No. 079, 2018 (6934 : SR 079 Suniga Road Improvements Project) -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 2.2 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Ordinance No. 079, 2018 (6934 : SR 079 Suniga Road Improvements Project) Agenda Item 3 Item # 3 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Dean Klingner, Transfort and Parking Interim General Manager Chris Van Hall, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Parking Fund for the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Parking Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities for the Art in Public Places Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates $359,917 of additional funds from Parking Reserves into the capital project fund to complete the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and appropriates 1% of the project funds to Art in Public Places. The Project includes installing sensors and new payment technology in the three downtown parking structures and in approximately 3000 on-street parking spaces and 3 parking lots. This Project will allow Parking Services to collect occupancy and turnover rate data to improve management of downtown parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 080, 2018 (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 22 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Dean Klingner, Transfort and Parking Interim General Manager Chris Van Hall, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Parking Fund for the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations from the Parking Fund to the Cultural Services and Facilities for the Art in Public Places Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $359,917 of additional funds from Parking Reserves into the capital project fund to complete the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology project and to appropriate 1% of the project to Art in Public Places. The Project includes installing sensors and new payment technology in the three downtown parking structures and in approximately 3000 on-street parking spaces and 3 parking lots (the “Project”). This Project will allow Parking Services to collect occupancy and turnover rate data to improve management of downtown parking. The sensors will link to the FC Parking application (app) and show where available parking spaces are located. Phase I of the Project was completed in 2017 and installed the sensor and payment technology in the Firehouse Alley Parking Structure. Funds for the remainder of the Project include: $750k in General Fund (appropriated in 2017 for this purpose as a part of Ordinance No. 154, 2017); 2017-18 Budget Offer 73.3 ($84,692, and $90,083); and Parking Fund Reserves. The total estimated cost for the Project is $1.2M. Installation of parking sensors in the Old Town Parking Structure and the Civic Center Parking Structure has been initiated with the previously appropriated funds. The additional funds are necessary to complete the on-street and parking lot portion of the Project. The anticipated completion date for the Project is by the end of 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Downtown Plan, adopted in 2017, includes a comprehensive parking dialogue and several policies related to communication and improved parking management. The parking sensor technology effort stitches together some of these policies into one cohesive project and parking system in downtown. With the introduction of the FC Parking application and sensors, the parking public will be able to find available parking in ~3,000 on-street spaces, 3 parking structures, and 3 parking lots. Additionally, the app allows payment in the parking structures and will facilitate the Pay-to-Stay option on-street. The following Downtown Plan policies are being implemented with this project: Policy TP 2b: Parking Utilization Data -- Implement a system to collect parking utilization data on occupancy and turnover, and communicate parking availability to the public. ATTACHMENT 1 3.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6936 : SR 080 Downtown Parking Sensor Appropriation) Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 2 Policy TP 2c: Parking Enforcement Adjustments -- Explore adjusting enforcement of 2-hour limited parking spaces to weekends and evenings after 5 p.m., and permit an extension of the 2-hour limit. Policy TP 3a: Real-Time Travel Information -- Explore opportunities to continue, enhance and add real-time travel information (e.g., transit, parking availability). The opportunity to implement new technology in downtown came with the development of the Firehouse Alley Parking Structure. Utilizing existing license plate recognition (LPR) technology, which is used to enforce on- street time limits, staff can remove the gates on the parking garages and install a pre-pay system with the options of paying at a pay station or by the FC Parking App. The removal of the gates eliminates delays exiting the garages and gate repair and maintenance, and reduces staffing needs at the structures. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The project will incur ongoing costs to maintain the new technology and background technology necessary to operate. Maintenance of the phone app is also an on-going cost. Ongoing costs are estimated to be approximately $200,000/year. Revenue projections in the parking fund are adequate to cover these new costs. The project will also result in modest cost savings including maintenance and repair of the exit gates at the structures. Parking Sensor and Technology Project Funding Summary $750,000 Previously Appropriated, Ordinance 154, 2017 $90,083 Previously Appropriated, 2017-18 Budget Offer 73.3 $359,917 Proposed with this Ordinance to be Appropriated from Parking Reserves* $1,200,000 Project Total $12,000 To be Transferred to Art in Public Places * Includes $84,692 previously appropriated with 2017-18 Budget Offer 73.3, but returned to Parking Reserves BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The project has been presented to the Parking Advisory Board as a part of several discussions regarding the Downtown Parking Plan. The Board voted to approve the Downtown Parking Plan containing the policies in support of this project. PUBLIC OUTREACH Specific changes to technology in the parking structures were discussed at the public meetings listed below. Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Board meetings: September 7, 2017 and May 9, 2018 Parking Advisory Board meeting: March 12, 2018 Staff also shared the information regarding technology changes at the parking structures at the following non- public meetings: Downtown Business Association (DBA) Membership Meeting: September 9, 2017 Downtown Business Association (DBA) Board Meeting: September 20, 2017 ATTACHMENTS 1. Parking Advisory Board minutes, March 12, 2018 (PDF) 3.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6936 : SR 080 Downtown Parking Sensor Appropriation) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 080, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE PARKING FUND FOR THE DOWNTOWN PARKING SENSOR AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE PARKING FUND TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES FUND FOR THE ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City’s Downtown Plan, adopted in 2017, includes a comprehensive parking dialogue and several policies related to the communication and improved parking management; and WHEREAS, to improve parking management, Parking Services has been working to complete the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology project to install sensors and new payment technology in the three downtown parking structures and in approximately 3,000 on- street parking spaces and 3 parking lots (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, as part of the Project, Parking Services has previously installed new sensors and payment technology in the Firehouse Alley Parking Structure and installation of parking sensors in the Old Town Parking Structure and Civic Center Parking Structure has been initiated with previously appropriated funds and will soon initiate installation of technology for the 3,000 on-street parking spaces and 3 parking lots; and WHEREAS, additional funds are necessary to complete the Project and City staff has identified $359,917 in prior year reserves from the Parking Fund to appropriate for the Project, which, with previously appropriated amounts, would result in a total Project budget of $1,200,000, with $12,000 of that amount to be transferred to the Art in Public Places Program; and WHEREAS, with these appropriated funds, the anticipated Project completion date is the end of 2018; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of providing improved parking management options in the City’s downtown area to the public; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Parking Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Parking Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council to 3.2 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Ordinance No. 080, 2018 (6936 : SR 080 Downtown Parking Sensor Appropriation) -2- transfer by ordinance any unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount or portion thereof from one fund or capital project to another fund or capital project, provided that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which the funds were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project in which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance; and WHEREAS, this project involves construction estimated to cost more than $250,000, as such, Section 23-304 of the City Code requires one percent of these qualified appropriations to be transferred to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund for a contribution to the Art in Public Places program. 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 reserves in the Parking Fund the sum of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVENTEEN DOLLARS ($359,917) for the Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project and appropriated therein. Section 3. That the unexpended appropriated amount of NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS ($9,360) in the Parking Fund - Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for Art in Public Places projects. Section 4. That the unexpended appropriated amount of TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS ($2,640) in the Parking Fund - Downtown Parking Sensor and Technology Project is authorized for transfer to the Cultural Services and Facilities Fund and appropriated therein for the Art in Public Places Program Maintenance and Operations. 3.2 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Ordinance No. 080, 2018 (6936 : SR 080 Downtown Parking Sensor Appropriation) -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 3.2 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Ordinance No. 080, 2018 (6936 : SR 080 Downtown Parking Sensor Appropriation) Agenda Item 4 Item # 4 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Carol Workman, Acting Director of Police Information Services Erik Martin, Police Financial Analyst II Gerry Paul, Director of Purchasing & Risk Management Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2018, Reappropriating Funds Previously Appropriated in 2017 but not Expended and not Encumbered in 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Combined Regional Information Systems Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates funds to purchase a public safety software solution for the Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP). CRISP is a regional partnership with other Larimer County public safety agencies and provides a reliable public safety software solution that allows regional agencies to share police and fire data, manage incidents and provide for redundancy and continuity of operations. The current system is scheduled for replacement. The City of Loveland is joining CRISP and with the addition of Loveland and other project changes, staff is also requesting an additional appropriation of $1.98 million with the understanding that all but $288K will be reimbursed from both CRISP partner and member agencies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (PDF) 2. Ordinance 081, 2018 (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 28 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Carol Workman, Acting Director of Police Information Services Erik Martin, Police Financial Analyst II Gerry Paul, Director of Purchasing & Risk Management Ryan Malarky, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2018, Reappropriating Funds Previously Appropriated in 2017 but not Expended and not Encumbered in 2017, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Fort Collins Police Services Combined Regional Information Systems Project. B. Resolution 2018-062 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County and the City of Loveland for the Purpose of Sharing in the Purchase of a Public Safety Software Solution for the Combined Regional Information Systems Project. C. Resolution 2018-063 Approving an Exception to the Use of a Competitive Process for the Purchase of a Public Safety Software Solution from TriTech Software Systems. The purpose of this item is to purchase a public safety software solution for the Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP). CRISP is a regional partnership with other Larimer County public safety agencies and provides a reliable public safety software solution that allows regional agencies to share police and fire data, manage incidents and provide for redundancy and continuity of operations. The current system is scheduled for replacement. The City of Loveland is joining CRISP and with the addition of Loveland and other project changes, staff is also requesting an additional appropriation of $1.98 million with the understanding that all but $288K will be reimbursed from both CRISP partner and member agencies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolutions and Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The concept of CRISP began in 2003, when Fort Collins Police Services and Larimer County Sheriff’s Office were seeking a public safety software system that would provide for a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS) and Mobile Solution for their agencies. Both agencies agreed to share in the cost, use and management of the new software system and allow for other public safety agencies, known as “members” in the region to utilize the system. For many years, CRISP has provided a critical infrastructure for many agencies in Larimer County and is relied upon daily for the operations of its members. The current software system needs to be replaced and initial funding was approved in 2017 with BFO offers 29.39 and a portion of 29.2. Since receiving the original funding ATTACHMENT 1 4.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (6938 : SR 081 CRISP Project) Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 2 approval for the CRISP system, the City of Loveland decided to join CRISP as a partner agency. An updated intergovernmental agreement between the City, Larimer County, and the City of Loveland was negotiated and each partner will share equally in the costs, use and management of the system. The selected software vendor for the project is TriTech Software Solutions and staff is also requesting approval for an exception to the use of a competitive bid or proposal process to utilize this vendor and approval to award an agreed upon contract to TriTech. TriTech is currently the incumbent supplier for each of the CRISP members. Continuing uninterrupted with TriTech maintains technical continuity, increases probability of success, keeps costs low (would have to factor in vendor change costs if do not stay with TriTech), improves quality, and avoids schedule delays to upgrade to the new TriTech platform. TriTech has also offered a 49% software discount if we move to their software solution. TriTech Software Systems is a leader in the public safety software industry. TriTech offers a suite of software including CAD, RMS, Mobile applications and a jail records. TriTech has been selected to deploy software solutions for some of the most complex and demanding public safety operations throughout the U.S. and across the globe. As an experienced public safety solution provider across the country and within the state of Colorado, TriTech is uniquely positioned to provide the lowest risk, most cost-effective solution to the CRISP, having already successfully delivered systems meeting Colorado statute codes and state reporting requirements. The strength of TriTech’s Colorado user base will provide CRISP with ample opportunities for data sharing. Staff has extensively evaluated the TriTech system to include detailed demonstrations and functionality discussions. TriTech provides not only a comprehensive software solution that supports the needs of the agencies within CRISP, but they also meet the complex and diverse functional requirements of public safety. Staff had previously received BFO funding (in offer 29.39 and a portion of offer 29.2) for the CRISP replacement with the understanding TriTech would be the software vendor. In the event the City required a competitive bid or proposal process and identified another vendor, CRISP would likely lose both partners; The City of Loveland and Larimer County. Prior to committing to CRISP, Loveland had completed a competitive proposal process and selected TriTech. Loveland has been a CAD customer of TriTech for 20 years and have been pleased with the quality of the product and service from the vendor. Larimer County has communicated they do not want to complete a competitive proposal process and have concluded TriTech has the most effective and reliable solution for their needs. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS $3.43 million in funding was approved for expenditure in 2017 for the replacement of the CRISP system. This appropriation was not expended in 2017 as there was not sufficient time to negotiate an IGA and complete the project. The original cost and scope of the project was in anticipation of an equal sharing with Larimer County. With the addition of the City of Loveland, and other required scope changes including; additional implementation costs, data conversion costs, 3rd party applications and interfaces, hardware and system redundancy costs and network connectivity to Loveland PD, the new project cost is $5.41 million. The City of Fort Collins is the purchasing agent for the CRISP project and a request for an additional appropriation of $1.98 million is required for the project. Reimbursement and additional funding from partner and member agencies, leaves the Fort Collins specific funding needs at $288K. Reimbursement will be received as outlined in the IGA and as required per project milestone payments. Current Project $5.41 million Original Project $3.43 million Net change/ask $1.98 million Less reimbursements/funding ($1.69 million) Fort Collins General Fund Impact $288K The full appropriation request is for $5.41M which is made up of a reappropriation of $3.43M [from 2017], an 4.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (6938 : SR 081 CRISP Project) Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 3 additional $1.69M appropriation from funds generated through CRISP partner and member reimbursements, and an additional appropriation request of $288K from the general fund. 4.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (6938 : SR 081 CRISP Project) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 081, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS REAPPROPRIATING FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED IN 2017 BUT NOT EXPENDED AND NOT ENCUMBERED IN 2017, APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND AND APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE FORT COLLINS POLICE SERVICES COMBINED REGIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECT WHEREAS, since 2003, Fort Collins Police Services (“FCPS”) and the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) have cooperated in utilizing a public safety software system for computer aided dispatch, a records management system, and mobile applications, known as the Consolidated Regional Information Systems Project (“CRISP”) which has been relied upon by other public safety agencies in Larimer County; and WHEREAS, the current software system needs replacement, and the City of Loveland has joined FCPS and the Sheriff’s Office as a CRISP partner in procuring a new software solution (collectively, the “Partners”); and WHEREAS, the Partners intend to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the purchase of a software solution from Tritech Software Systems, whereby the Partners will share equally in the costs of the system, subject to limited exceptions for agency-specific components; and WHEREAS, as the purchasing agent for the system, the City of Fort Collins will be entitled to reimbursement from the Partners, and will receive monetary contributions to offset costs from Poudre Fire Authority, Wellington Fire Department, Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc. d/b/a Poudre Valley Hospital, and the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority in the estimated amount of $1,690,000; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 11 of the City Charter requires that all appropriations unexpended or unencumbered at the end of the fiscal year lapse to the applicable general or special fund, except that appropriations for capital projects and federal or state grants do not lapse until the completion of the capital project or until the expiration of the federal or state grant; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council to appropriate by ordinance at any time during the fiscal year such funds for expenditure as may be available from reserves accumulated in prior years, notwithstanding that such reserves were not previously appropriated; and WHEREAS, City staff have determined that the amounts to be appropriated as described herein are available and currently unappropriated; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to re-appropriate funds for the expenditures below, in furtherance of these expenditures authorized in 2017 for which such appropriated funds were not expended and not encumbered during 2017. 4.2 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Ordinance 081, 2018 (6938 : SR 081 CRISP Project) -2- 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, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the General Fund and 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 any fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this appropriation benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the public purpose of procuring a software solution that will aid in the efficient provision of public safety services throughout 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 there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($3,430,000) for the Fort Collins CRISP Project. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated revenue in the General Fund the sum of ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,690,000) for the Fort Collins CRISP Project. Section 4. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from prior year reserves in the General Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($288,000) for the Fort Collins CRISP Project. 4.2 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Ordinance 081, 2018 (6938 : SR 081 CRISP Project) -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 4.2 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Ordinance 081, 2018 (6938 : SR 081 CRISP Project) Agenda Item 5 Item # 5 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF John Phelan, Energy Services Manager Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue From Bloomberg Philanthropies in the Light and Power Fund for the Home Efficiency Loan Program/On-Bill Financing Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018, appropriates $100,000 in grant revenues from Bloomberg Philanthropies, as part of the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge, into the Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Enterprise fund to develop and capitalize the Utilities On-Bill Financing program (OBF). The OBF provides utility bill serviced loans for energy efficiency capital improvements, and the Bloomberg project within this program will focus on funding improvements to advance efficiency in rental properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 082, 2018 (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 35 Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF John Phelan, Energy Services Manager Cyril Vidergar, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 082, 2018, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue From Bloomberg Philanthropies in the Light and Power Fund for the Home Efficiency Loan Program/On-Bill Financing Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to appropriate $100,000 in grant revenues from Bloomberg Philanthropies, as part of the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge, into the Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power Enterprise fund for the purposes of developing and capitalizing the Utilities On-Bill Financing program (OBF). The OBF provides utility bill serviced loans for energy efficiency capital improvements, and the Bloomberg project within this program will focus on funding improvements to advance efficiency in rental properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Bloomberg Mayors Challenge In February 2018, Fort Collins was one of 35 Champion Cities selected from 320 applications as part of the 2018 U.S. Mayors Challenge, which provides grants and technical assistance to city leaders who are solving urgent problems in their communities. As part of being selected as one of the Champion Cities, Bloomberg Philanthropies (Bloomberg) awarded Fort Collins a $100,000 grant to develop a program that would improve the energy efficiency of low- to moderate-income rental households. Mayor Wade Troxell selected the theme of “Climate Economy” as the innovative idea for the Bloomberg competition application. The Climate Economy refers to the notion that economic prosperity can occur without high carbon emissions. In Fort Collins, nearly 50% of low- to moderate-income residents live in rental housing, much of which is inefficient and contributes to health and economic disparities in the community. The City’s proposed Bloomberg project is to develop public-private partnerships that help catalyze the renovation of thousands of single- and multi-family rental properties. The strategy includes helping property owners finance these improvements by granting low-cost, short-term loans repaid through their utility bills, known as “on-bill financing” (OBF) which is a program currently offered by the City. Bloomberg Philanthropies works in over 120 countries around the world to ensure better, longer lives for the greatest number of people. The organization focuses on five key areas for creating lasting change: Arts, Education, Environment, Government Innovation, and Public Health. In 2016, Bloomberg distributed $600 million. For more information, go to www.bloomberg.org <http://www.bloomberg.org>. ATTACHMENT 1 5.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (6939 : SR 082 On-Bill Financing Grant Appropriation) Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 2 On-Bill Financing 2.0 The City of Fort Collins’ 2013 - 2016 On-Bill Financing Program successfully demonstrated the feasibility of a Utility department-managed, private sector-driven strategy to reduce carbon emissions through loans for residential energy efficiency building upgrades, in collaboration with external partners, including contractors, equipment suppliers and area homeowners. In late 2016, the City transitioned from the successful on-bill financing methodology to a 3rd party commercial model. Although the new structure aligns with City and Utilities current financial requirements, the 3rd party financing program has failed to achieve acceptable results for broad system and community impacts. In order to achieve community energy and climate goals, as adopted by City Council, a “reboot” and upgrade of the original approach is required - On-Bill Finance 2.0. The OBF2.0 reboot will: Materially contribute to the City’s energy and climate objectives, particularly the 2030 climate and energy goals (CAP). Research and analysis contained herein indicates that OBF2.0 will be a critical factor in Fort Collins likelihood of achieving these CAP goals; Expand equitable participation of low and moderate income (LMI) households in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs; Establish a scalable public private partnership (PPP) social impact model that incents the private sector and residents to upgrade aging building stock in an affordable, cost effective manner; Spur the start, strengthening and/or expansion of new and existing energy efficiency related businesses and jobs in Fort Collins; and Obtain non-recourse, private-sector debt capital to fund new energy efficiency loans for homes and businesses. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The funds have been received and entered into the appropriate Utilities account. The appropriation of these funds will enable Utilities to move forward with the initial phases of the OBF 2.0 project. Up to 10% of the funds may be used for development of the Bloomberg related aspects of the program. The remaining funds will be used as revolving capital for customer loans. While no matching funds are required, OBF 2.0 will require additional capital funds to scale over time. The State of Colorado Energy Office (CEO) has agreed to fund up to $1M to Fort Collins to relaunch of OBF. This funding from the CEO is expected to be a combination of grants and loans. Additional third-party, private-sector capital sources will be added to develop a sustainable financial model. 5.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (6939 : SR 082 On-Bill Financing Grant Appropriation) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 082, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE FROM BLOOMBERG PHILANTHROPIES IN THE LIGHT AND POWER FUND FOR THE HOME EFFICIENCY LOAN PROGRAM/ON-BILL FINANCING (OBF) PROGRAM WHEREAS, under Ordinance No. 033, 2012, the City established a Home Efficiency Loan Program, also known as On-Bill Utility Financing (OBF), which enabled Fort Collins Utilities to offer financing and on-bill servicing of customer loans for energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy upgrade projects; and WHEREAS, between 2013 through 2016, OBF provided low-cost financing for energy efficiency, solar photovoltaic, and water conservation improvements, in support of Utilities’ efficiency and conservation efforts, and policy goals from Plan Fort Collins, the Climate Action Plan, Energy Policy and Water Conservation Plan; and WHEREAS, in 2016, the City transitioned the funding methodology for OBF to a third- party commercial model relying on an outside financing partner; and WHEREAS, the rate of OBF residential customer energy efficiency building upgrades under the third-party commercial loan model has lagged below levels required to achieve City energy and climate policy goals; and WHEREAS, in February 2018, the City was selected as a Champion City as part of the 2018 U.S. Mayors' Challenge competition; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with selection as a Champion City, Bloomberg Philanthropies awarded the City a $100,000 grant to develop a program to improve energy efficiency of low- to moderate-income rental households; and WHEREAS, Utility Services staff and the City Manager recommend appropriating the Bloomberg Philanthropies grant to "reboot" the OBF program to increase participation by low- and moderate-income households in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and thereby increase the City’s progress toward its 2030 energy and climate objectives; 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, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Electric Utility Light and Power Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Light and Power Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that fund during any fiscal year; and 5.2 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Ordinance No. 082, 2018 (6939 : SR 082 On-Bill Financing Grant Appropriation) -2- WHEREAS, Article XII, Section 6 of the City Charter permits the City Council to approve expenditure of utility funds for renewals, replacements, extraordinary repairs, extension, improvements, enlargements and betterments of each Utility enterprise or other specific utility purpose determined by Council to be beneficial to the ratepayers of such Utilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is desirable to enhance the program incentives and financing options for new Home Efficiency Loan Program/OBF loans and provide flexibility in the administration of those loans, in furtherance of the conservation benefits available to ratepayers through the OBF program, as required by Article XII, Section 6 of the City Charter. 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, for the reasons stated above, the City Council hereby finds and determines that applying the Bloomberg Philanthropies grant to enhance the program incentives and financing options for the Home Efficiency Loan Program/OBF program, as described herein, will be for the betterment of the affected Utilities and serve utility purposes beneficial to the ratepayers of those Utilities by promoting and increasing energy and water conservation and efficiency and reducing the need for additional resources to provide such utility services. Section 3. That there is hereby appropriated for expenditure from unanticipated grant revenue in the Light and Power Fund the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000) for the purposes of developing and capitalizing the OBF program. 5.2 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Ordinance No. 082, 2018 (6939 : SR 082 On-Bill Financing Grant Appropriation) -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 5.2 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Ordinance No. 082, 2018 (6939 : SR 082 On-Bill Financing Grant Appropriation) Agenda Item 6 Item # 6 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Sara Lynd, Police Sergeant Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer Jeremy Yonce, Police Lieutenant Bronwyn Scurlock, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Amending City Code, Chapter 17 - Miscellaneous Offenses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2018, Amending Articles III, IV, VI, and VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Trespass, Theft, Littering, Criminal Mischief, Resisting Arrest, Throwing of Missiles, and Disorderly Conduct. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Staying on Medians. C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Panhandling. Ordinance No. 083, 2018, amends certain Sections of Chapter 17 regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct to be consistent with state statutes. Ordinance No. 084, 2018, amends Section 17-122 to make that section more specific to prohibit staying on medians in locations where safety issues arise given median width, traffic volumes, and/or traffic speed. Ordinance No. 085, 2018, eliminates Section 17-127 in its entirety pertaining to panhandling. These Ordinance were unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 19, 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 083, 2018 (PDF) 3. Ordinance No. 084, 2018 (PDF) 4. Ordinance No. 085, 2018 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 41 Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY June 19, 2018 City Council STAFF Sara Lynd, Police Sergeant Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer Jeremy Yonce, Police Lieutenant Bronwyn Scurlock, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Amending City Code, Chapter 17 - Miscellaneous Offenses. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2018, Amending Articles III, IV, VI, and VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Trespass, Theft, Littering, Criminal Mischief, Resisting Arrest, Throwing of Missiles, and Disorderly Conduct. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Staying on Medians. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 085, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Panhandling. The purpose of this item is to amend certain Sections of Chapter 17 regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct to be consistent with state statutes; to amend Section 17-122 to make that section more specific to prohibit staying on medians in locations where safety issues arise given median width, traffic volumes, and/or traffic speed; and to eliminate Section 17-127 in its entirety pertaining to panhandling. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Ordinance No. 083, 2018, Amending Articles III, IV, VI, and VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Trespass, Theft, Littering, Criminal Mischief, Resisting Arrest, Throwing of Missiles and Disorderly Conduct. The Colorado General Assembly has amended the state statues regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct. This Ordinance will bring our Code sections pertaining to these offenses in line with the state statutes. Ordinance No. 084, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Staying on Medians. The “Staying on medians prohibited” in City Code Section 17-122 was added in 2011 to address safety concerns around pedestrians loitering in close proximity to vehicle travel lanes and in locations (medians) where ATTACHMENT 1 6.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) Agenda Item 13 Item # 13 Page 2 pedestrians may not be expected (as opposed to along roadside edges). The current ordinance prohibits staying on medians less than thirty (30) feet wide for longer than is reasonably necessary to cross the street. In the past year, staff has been reviewing this section of the Code and is recommending that the language be tailored to address median locations where staff has identified that serious safety concerns exist for pedestrians based on median width, vehicular speed and/or volume of traffic. The proposed changes prohibit staying on medians that are: less than 8 feet wide, or; less than 18 feet wide and adjacent street vehicular volumes exceed 15,000 vehicles/day, or; less than 18 feet wide and adjacent street speed limit is 35 mph or more. A map with all prohibited median locations will be available on-line to put the public on notice of the prohibited locations, and to ensure Fort Collins Police Services can properly enforce such locations. Ordinance No. 085, 2018, Amending Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Pertaining to Panhandling. On February 10, 2015, five individual plaintiffs and Greenpeace, Inc. filed in Colorado Federal District Court a class-action lawsuit against the City. On February 27, 2015, City Council repealed seven specific time, place, and manner panhandling restrictions in City Code Section 17-127. Four panhandling restrictions remain in the City Code, and cover unlawful behaviors including disorderly conduct, harassment, disturbing the peace, obstruction of a passageway and assault. These criminal behaviors are already specifically addressed in Chapter 17 as follows: Section 17-124 (Disorderly Conduct), Section 17-126 (Harassment), Section 17-121 (Disturbing the Peace), Section 17-128 (Obstructing a Highway or Passageway), and Section 17-21 (Assault). This duplication causes unnecessary confusion among officers, and therefore, Fort Collins Police Services recommends eliminating the misdemeanor crime of panhandling in its entirety. ATTACHMENTS 1. Justification for Medians Selected (PDF) 6.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, June 19, 2018 (w/o attachments) (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 083, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLES III, IV, VI, AND VII OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO TRESPASS, THEFT, LITTERING, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF, RESISTING ARREST, THROWING OF MISSILES AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly has amended the state statutes regarding trespass, theft, littering, criminal mischief, resisting arrest, throwing of missiles, and disorderly conduct; and WHEREAS, Fort Collins Police Services recommends amending City Code provisions regarding these offenses to conform with state law; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the best interests of the City to approve the changes to the City Code that have been recommended by Fort Collins Police Services. 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 17-1 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-1. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section: Enter or remain unlawfully shall mean: (1) To enter or remain in or upon privately owned property when not licensed, invited, privileged or otherwise authorized to do so; (2) To enter or remain in or upon publicly owned property that is not open to the public; (3) To fail to leave property, whether privately or publicly owned, after being directed to do so by a person lawfully in control of the property; or (4) To conduct oneself in a public place in violation of any rule or regulation issued by any officer or agency having the power of control, management, or supervision thereof, which limits or prohibits the use, activities or conduct in such public place, provided that the rule or regulation is: (i) prominently posted at all 6.2 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Ordinance No. 083, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -2- public entrances to the property; (ii) posted in such a way as to be clearly visible from the site of the infraction; or (iii) actually known to the offender. . . . Litter shall mean all rubbish, waste material, refuse, garbage, trash, debris, or other foreign substances, solid or liquid, of every form, size, kind, and description. . . . Section 3. That Section 17-36 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-36. Theft. No person shall knowingly obtain, retain, or exercise control over anything of value of less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.) of another without authorization or by threat or deception when such person: (1) Intends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value; or (2) Knowingly uses, conceals or abandons the thing of value in such manner as to deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or (3) Uses, conceals or abandons the thing of value intending that such use, concealment or abandonment will deprive the other person permanently of its use or benefit; or (4) Demands any consideration to which he or she is not legally entitled as a condition of restoring the thing of value to the other person; or (5) Knowingly retains the thing of value more than seventy-two hours after the agreed-upon time of return in any lease or hire agreement. Section 4. That Section 17-37 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety and this Section number shall become reserved. Section 5. That Section 17-39 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-39. Criminal mischief. No person shall knowingly injure, damage or destroy the real or personal property of one (1) or more other persons, including property owned by the person jointly with another person or property owned by the person in which another person has a possessory or 6.2 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Ordinance No. 083, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -3- proprietary interest, in the course of a single criminal episode where the aggregate damage to the real or personal property is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.). Section 6. That Section 17-41 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-41. Littering. (a) No person shall throw, deposit, scatter or leave any litter upon any sidewalk, alley, street or other public place, in any waters, or on any private property, nor shall any person owning or occupying any lot or ground allow or permit any litter to be blown or scattered by the wind or otherwise to remain upon such lot or grounds. (b) For the purposes of this Section, the distribution of advertising circulars or handbills in such manner so that they are securely placed or deposited upon real property so as to prevent the same from being blown or scattered by the wind does not constitute littering. (c) Whenever litter is thrown, deposited, dropped, or dumped from any motor vehicle in violation of this section, the operator of said motor vehicle is presumed to have caused or permitted the litter to be so thrown, deposited, dropped, or dumped therefrom. Section 7. That Section 17-64 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-64. - Resisting arrest. (a) No person shall prevent or attempt to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of official authority, from effecting an arrest of any person by: (1) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or (2) Using any other means which creates substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another. (b) A peace officer is acting under color of official authority when, in the course of his or her duties, the peace officer is called upon to make or does in fact make a good faith judgment based on surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made. It is no defense to a prosecution under this Section that the arrest was unlawful if the peace officer was acting under color of official authority and did not use unreasonable or excessive force in effecting the arrest. A peace officer acts “under color of official authority” when, in the regular course of assigned duties, such officer is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made. 6.2 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Ordinance No. 083, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -4- (c) The term “peace officer” as used in this Section means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself or herself by exhibiting credentials as such peace officer to the person who arrest is attempted. Section 8. That Section 17-102 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-102. - Throwing of missiles. (a) No person shall throw any stones, snowballs or missiles upon or at any vehicle, building or other public or private property or upon or at any person in any public place. (b) As used in this section, missile means any object or substance. Section 9. That Section 17-124 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-124. - Disorderly conduct. It is unlawful for any person to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly: (1) Make a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture or display in a public place when such utterance, gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; or (2) Fight with another in a public place except in an amateur or professional contest of athletic skill; or (3) Not being a peace officer, display a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.; or (4) Make unreasonable noise in a public place or near a private residence that such person has no right to occupy; or (5) Not being a peace officer, discharges a firearm in a public place except when engaged in lawful target practice or hunting or the ritual discharge of blank ammunition cartridges as an attendee at a funeral for a deceased person who was a veteran of the armed forces of the United states; or (6) An offense under subsection (1) or (4) of this section is a petty offense; except that, if the offense is committed with intent to disrupt, impair, or interfere with a funeral, or with intent to cause severe emotional distress to a person attending a funeral, it is a misdemeanor. 6.2 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Ordinance No. 083, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -5- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.2 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Ordinance No. 083, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 084, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO STAYING ON MEDIANS WHEREAS, in 2011, Fort Collins Police Services encountered persons occupying the medians within the City for extended periods of time and were concerned with the safety risks to pedestrians and motorists; and WHEREAS, to address those safety concerns, Fort Collins Police Services brought forward, and City Council adopted Ordinance No. 117, 2011, that added a new Section to Article VII of Chapter 17 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins prohibiting persons from standing on medians less than 30 feet wide for longer than reasonably necessary to cross the street; and WHEREAS, staff has now reviewed the 30-foot width provision in order to craft more narrowly tailored language using specific criteria not only including median width, but also vehicular speed and/or volume of traffic; and WHEREAS, staff has proposed amending the Code to prohibit persons from standing on medians at locations where such medians are less than eight feet wide, or less than 18 feet wide with adjacent street vehicular volume exceeding 15,000 vehicles a day, or less than 18 feet wide with adjacent street speed limit that is 35 miles per hour or more; and WHEREAS, such criteria have enabled staff to identify the medians within the City that pose the greatest safety concern to both pedestrians and motorists when persons are standing on such medians longer than reasonably necessary to cross the street; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to approve such changes to the City 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 17-122 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 17-122. - Staying on medians prohibited. (a) No person shall stand or be upon a median of any street for longer than is reasonably necessary to cross the street. (b) For the purposes of this Section, median shall mean: 6.3 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Ordinance No. 084, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -2- (1) The area of a street, generally in the middle, that separates traffic traveling in one direction from traffic traveling in another direction, or that, at intersections, separates traffic turning left from traffic proceeding straight. Such an area is physically defined by curbing, landscaping or other physical obstacles to the area's use by motor vehicles, or by traffic control markings that prohibit use of a portion of the pavement of a street by motor vehicles other than to drive generally perpendicularly across the markings, or to wait there awaiting the opportunity to cross or merge with the opposing lanes of traffic (also known as painted medians, that are wider than a double yellow line); or (2) The area of a street at an intersection between the streets and a right turn only lane, roughly triangular in shape, and separated from the motor vehicular traffic lanes by curbing, landscaping or other physical obstacles to the area's use by motor vehicles (also known as a right turn island). (c) This Section shall only apply to: (1) medians eight (8) feet wide or less, regardless of the volume of traffic around such median; (2) medians eighteen (18) feet wide or less where the average volume of traffic around such median in either direction is greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) vehicles per day as measured by the Traffic Engineer; or (3) medians eighteen (18) feet wide or less where the speed limit around such median in either direction is thirty-five (35) miles per hour or greater, regardless of the volume of traffic around such median. (d) This Section does not apply to persons maintaining or working on the median for either a public entity that owns the underlying right-of-way or for a public utility. (e) A map of identified medians posted by the Traffic Engineer on the City’s website shall constitute prima facie evidence that Subsection (c) applies to that median. 6.3 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Ordinance No. 084, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.3 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Ordinance No. 084, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 085, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS PERTAINING TO PANHANDLING WHEREAS, in 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 070, 1995, adding Section 17-127 to the City Code to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on certain aggressive panhandling conduct that was then occurring and has continued to occur within the City; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2015, five individual plaintiffs and Greenpeace, Inc. (the “Plaintiffs”) filed in Colorado Federal District Court a class-action lawsuit against the City (the “Lawsuit”); and WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs challenged in the Lawsuit the constitutionality of seven specific time, place and manner panhandling restrictions in City Code Section 17-127, and asked the Court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the City’s enforcement of these challenged provisions (the “Challenged Provisions”); and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2015, City Council repealed the Challenged Provisions; and WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs did not, however, challenge the constitutionality of the four other time, place and manner panhandling restrictions in City Code Section 17-127, as currently found in subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4); and WHEREAS, the four remaining panhandling restrictions in City Code Section 17-127 cover unlawful behaviors that are already identified as specific crimes in Chapter 17, including disorderly conduct (17-124), harassment (17-126), disturbing the peace (17-121), obstruction of a passageway (17-128) and assault (17-21); and WHEREAS, these overlapping provisions addressing the same criminal behaviors cause confusion among Fort Collins Police Services officers when determining which provision to cite on a criminal citation; and WHEREAS, because of this overlap and confusion, Fort Collins Police Services recommends eliminating the four remaining panhandling restrictions in (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4), and the City Council believes that it would be in the best interests of the City to approve such changes to the City 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. 6.4 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Ordinance No. 085, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) -2- Section 2. That Section 17-127 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby deleted in its entirety. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 19th day of June, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk 6.4 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Ordinance No. 085, 2018 (6940 : SR 083 084 085 Chapter 17 Code Amendments) Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Jennifer Poznanovic, Project and Revenue Manager John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2018, Amending Section 7.5-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Relating to the Adjustment of the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 087, 2018, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves from the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee Account Within the Capital Expansion Fee Fund to Reimburse Building Permit Applicants for Overpayment of the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee. The purpose of this item is to adjust the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee (Fire CEF) consistent with correct calculations and to appropriate funds from the Fire CEF Account in the Capital Expansion Fee Fund to reimburse fee payers for overpayments back to October 1, 2017. Consulting firm Duncan Associates discovered there was a cell reference error in their formula used for the City’s 2017 Capital Expansion Fee Study. This error caused the Fire CEF to be overstated by 19%. The City Council approved 75% of the proposed fee increases in the City’s Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs), which went into effect October 1, 2017. Due to the error in the Fire CEF calculation, the Fire CEF was set at 90% instead of 75% of the 2017 proposed fee level. The estimated total refund due to fee payers is approximately $130,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2016, the City of Fort Collins contracted with consulting firm Duncan Associates to analyze the City’s methodology for calculating CEFs and to update the CEFs for Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, Fire, Police and General Government. CEFs require City Council approval and Council approved the increases in the CEFs at 75% of the amounts determined by Duncan Associates. These fee increases went into effect October 1, 2017. 7 Packet Pg. 54 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 2 Earlier this year, the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) contracted with Duncan Associates to update the Fire CEF. Duncan Associates used data collected from the City’s 2017 Capital Expansion Fee Study as a basis for starting the PFA study. During its analysis, Duncan Associates discovered there was a cell reference error in their formula used for the City. In the tables below, “Net Cost per Functional Population” of $422 was calculated using “Net Replacement Cost” instead of “Net Replacement Cost Attributable to City.” Correcting this error would result in a “Net Cost per Functional Population” of $354. This calculation error caused the Fire CEF to be overstated by 19% in the 2017 CEF Study. In the table below, the “2017 proposed” fees are overstated by 19% compared to the “proposed corrected” or accurately calculated 2017 proposed fees. Staff asked Duncan Associates to confirm that all other CEFs were calculated correctly. Duncan Associates confirmed that all other CEFs were calculated correctly. In the table below, the “current” amounts imposed for the Fire CEF (effective October 1, 2017) are at 90% instead of 75% of the “proposed corrected” 2017 fee level. The “current corrected” column shows Fire CEFs at 75% of the accurately calculated full fee level. The next fee increase is anticipated for 2019 and would be to update all CEFs (Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, Fire, Police and General Government) from 75% (step I) to 90% (step II) of the 2017 proposed fees. Staff presented two options to Council Finance Committee on June 18, 2018: 1. Adjust the Fire CEF to the 75% level and provide refunds to overpaying feepayers. - Adjust fees consistent with corrected calculations – required Ordinance - Appropriate funds from the Fire CEF Account for reimbursement of building permits paid back to October 1, 2017 2. Continue with current fees - Step I and step II of Fire CEF increases = 90% of the 2017 proposed fee level Guidance from Council Finance Committee was Option 1. 7 Packet Pg. 55 Agenda Item 7 Item # 7 Page 3 CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The current impact as of June 19, 2018, is approximately $78,000 in refunds for approximately 395 building permits that have been issued. Fees are paid upon issuance of the permit and there are currently approximately 135 building permit applications. Refunds will also be provided to applicants issued new permits before the corrected fee goes into effect, which is anticipated for July 28, 2018. The total refund estimate of approximately $130,000 is on the high end due to high monthly permit variance. The City will only refund what is owed and the balance will go back into the Fire CEF Account. Staff time estimated to issue 500 refunds is approximately 40 minutes per refund across two departments - 30 minutes per refund in Community Development and Neighborhood Services and 10 minutes per refund in Accounting. This is approximately 330 hours or 40 days. Staff plans to process and issue refunds expeditiously. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On June 18, 2018, Council Finance Committee recommended Option 1 - Adjust the Fire CEF to the 75% level and provide refunds to overpaying feepayers. (Attachment 1) PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff plans to communicate the Fire CEF calculation error with impacted permit holders and applicants prior to issuing refunds and adjusting fees. Until corrected Fire CEFs are effective, staff plans to communicate with new permit applicants that fees will be adjusted once the corrected fees are effective (estimate July 28, 2018). ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Finance Committee Minutes, June 18, 2018 (PDF) 7 Packet Pg. 56 Finance Administration 215 N. Mason 2nd Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6788 970.221.6782 - fax fcgov.com Finance Committee Meeting Minutes 06/18/18 10 am - noon CIC Room - City Hall Council Attendees: Mayor Wade Troxell, Ross Cunniff, Ken Summers Staff: Darin Atteberry, Mike Beckstead, Kelly DiMartino, John Duval, Josh Birks, Patrick Rowe, Travis Storin, Jennifer Poznanovic, Carrie Daggett, Jo Cech, Zach Mozer, Katie Ricketts, Laurie Kadrich, Dean Klingner, Lawrence Pollack, John Voss, Noelle Currell, Gerry Paul Others: Kevin Jones (Chamber of Commerce) Dale Adamy (R1ST.org) Gene Meyers (Thrive Home Builders) Robert Rogers (White, Bear & Ankele) Meeting called to order at 10:07 am by Mayor Troxell Minutes approval for the May 21st 2018 Council Finance Committee Meeting. Ken Summers made a motion to approve the minutes and Ross Cunniff seconded the motion. The minutes from the May 21st Council Finance Committee meeting were approved unanimously. C. CEF Update (Fire Capital Expansion Fee) Jennifer Poznanovic, Revenue and Project Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Consulting firm Duncan Associates discovered there was a cell reference error in their formula used for the City’s 2017 Capital Expansion Fee (CEF) Study. This error caused the Fire CEFs to be overstated by 19%. CEFs require City Council approval and City Council approved 75% of the proposed fee increases. CEF fee increases went into effect on October 1, 2017. Given the error in the Fire CEF calculation, current Fire CEFs are 90% instead of 75% of the corrected 2017 proposed fee level. If the City is to issue refunds and lower the Fire CEFs to 75% of the corrected proposed fee increases, the current impact is approximately $76,000 in refunds across approximately 370 permits that have been issued in full. ATTACHMENT 1 7.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, June 18, 2018 (6922 : Fire Capital Expansion Fees) 2 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • Which option does Council Finance Committee support? 1. Refund & Adjust Fees - Adjust fees consistent with corrected calculations – required Ordinance - Appropriate funds from Fire CEFs for reimbursement permits paid back to October 1, 2017. 2. Continue with current fees - Step I and step II of Fire CEF increases = 90% of the 2017 proposed fee level • If Option 1, does Council Finance Committee support resolving both issues at the next available Council meeting? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In 2016, the City of Fort Collins contracted with consulting firm Duncan Associates to analyze methodology and update CEFs. CEFs require City Council approval and City Council approved 75% of the proposed fee increases. These fee increases went into effect October 1, 2017. Earlier this year, the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) contracted with Duncan Associates to update their Fire Capital Expansion Fees (those that are not directly related to the City). Duncan Associates used data collected from the City’s 2017 Capital Expansion Fee Study as a basis for starting the PFA study. During their analysis, Duncan Associates discovered there was a cell reference error in their formula used for the City. This error caused the Fire CEFs to be overstated by 19% in the CEF Study. In the tables below, “Net Cost per Functional Population” of $422 was calculated using “Net Replacement Cost” instead of “Net Replacement Cost Attributable to City”. Correcting this error would result in a “Net Cost per Functional Population” of $354. Duncan Associates confirmed that all other fees were calculated correctly. 7.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, June 18, 2018 (6922 : Fire Capital Expansion Fees) 3 Given the error in the Fire CEF calculation, current Fire CEFs are 90% instead of 75% of the corrected 2017 proposed fee level. The next fee increase is anticipated for 2019 and would be updating all CEFs (Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, Fire, Police and General Government) from 75% (step I) to 90% (step II) of the 2017 proposed fees. If the City is to issue refunds and lower the Fire CEFs to 75% of the corrected proposed fee increases, the current impact as of June 12, 2018 is approximately $76,000 in refunds across approximately 370 permits that have been issued in full. Fees are paid upon issuance of building permit and there are currently approximately 120 applications. Numbers continue to grow as fees have not yet been changed. Staff time estimated to issue 500 refunds is approximately 40 minutes per refund across two departments. 30 minutes per refund in Community Development and Neighborhood Services and 10 minutes per refund in Accounting. This is approximately 330 hours or 40 days. Current Fire CEFs are at 90% instead of 75% of the corrected 2017 proposed fee level. Staff recommends to continue Fire CEFs at the 90% fee level instead of the 75% fee level. Discussion / Next Steps: Darin: Mike, the last time we spoke, were we thinking of giving refunds? Mike: We spoke with the CAO, they said we could use the 90% level. 7.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, June 18, 2018 (6922 : Fire Capital Expansion Fees) 4 Darin: Council adopted the 75% level, is that correct? It sounds like Council has prerogative to authorize refunds. My thinking is to understand what Council wanted and maintain trust with the residents. Ross: I would say Option 1, the refunds, as soon as possible. I think it would be good to be aware of the staff time cost to show our commitment to making this right and maintain our integrity. John D: The only legal issue was, is this still a legal fee? The answer was yes, no matter what percentage we decided to be at, as long as it stayed below 100%. Ken S: How did the miscalculation occur? Mike B: The Ordinance that Council passed included a fee amount, not a percentage. So, when Staff calculated the percentage they were using incorrect base amounts. This will require an Ordinance to appropriate out of this fund to issue refunds. We will then come back to Council this fall to talk about increasing the fees to the 90% level as long as other Development Review fees. Ross: Follow up question, I assume that we will verify the calculations ahead of time. Mike B: Yes we will do that. Ross: Who is going to receive the refund since the developer has already been reimbursed by the buyer of the house. Darin: Our thought is that we will reimburse the one who wrote the check. John D: The market sets the price of the house, it doesn’t necessarily include the development fees. 7.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Council Finance Committee Minutes, June 18, 2018 (6922 : Fire Capital Expansion Fees) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 086, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 7.5-30 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATING TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipality having the full right of self-government in local and municipal matters under the provisions of Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and the City’s Charter; and WHEREAS, among the home rule powers of the City is the power to regulate, as a matter of purely local concern, the development of real property within the City and to impose impact fees for such development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development should contribute its proportionate share of providing the capital improvements typically funded with impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has broad legislative discretion in determining the appropriate funding mechanisms for financing the construction of public facilities and improvements in the City; and WHEREAS, in early 2016, City staff initiated a comprehensive review of the City’s various impact fees now charged to new development; and WHEREAS, as part of that review, the City commissioned consultant Duncan Associates (“Duncan”) to prepare an impact fee study for the community parkland, neighborhood parkland, police, fire protection and general government capital expansion fees (collectively, “Capital Expansion Fees”) which resulted in the “Capital Expansion Fee Study” dated August 2016, in which Duncan identified the need to increase each of the Capital Expansion Fees by various amounts (the “CEF Study”); and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 049, 2017 (“Ordinance No. 049”) in which it amended various sections of City Code Chapter 7.5 to implement the fee increases recommended for the Capital Expansion Fees in the CEF Study to be effective October 1, 2017, but in doing so, the Council decided to only increase the Capital Expansion Fees to 75% of the amounts recommended in the CEF Study; and WHEREAS, Duncan recently discovered that the increased amount for the City’s fire protection capital expansion fee (the “Fire CEF”) was incorrectly calculated in the CEF Study resulting in the Fire CEF being increased in Ordinance No. 049 to a level that is 90% of the Fire CEF recommended in the CEF Study; and WHEREAS, this has resulted in those persons and entities applying to the City for building permits since October 1, 2017, to pay the Fire CEF at the 90% level instead of the 75% level intended in Ordinance No. 049; and Packet Pg. 61 -2- WHEREAS, this Ordinance amends Code Section 7.5-30 to fix this error Duncan discovered by reducing the Fire CEF to the 75% level recommended in the CEF Study as intended in Ordinance No. 049; and WHEREAS, contemporaneously with this Ordinance, the City Council will also consider the adoption of Ordinance No. 087, 2018, to appropriate $130,000 from the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee Account within the Capital Expansion Fee Fund to reimburse applicants for building permits who have overpaid, and will continue to overpay until this Ordinance goes into effect, the Fire CEF at the 90% level instead of the intended 75% level; and WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its citizens and necessary for the protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare, that the Fire CEF be decreased in Code Section 7.5-30 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 Section 7.5-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5-30. - Fire protection capital expansion fee. (a) There is hereby established a fire protection capital expansion fee which shall be imposed pursuant to the provisions of this Article for the purpose of funding capital improvements related to the provision of fire services, as such improvements may be identified in the capital improvements plan for fire protection services. Such fee shall be payable prior to the issuance of any building permit for a residential, commercial or industrial structure. The amount of such fee shall be determined as follows: Current As of October 1, 2017 Resid., up to 700 sq. ft. $281.00 $377.00316.00 Resid., 701 to 1,200 sq. ft. 357.00 509.00428.00 Resid., 1,201 to 1,700 sq. ft. 395.00 554.00465.00 Resid., 1,701 to 2,200 sq. ft. 410.00 563.00473.00 Resid., over 2,200 sq. ft. 440.00 627.00526.00 Commercial buildings (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 339.00 475.00395.00 Industrial buildings (per 1,000 sq. ft.) 80.00 111.0093.00 . . . Packet Pg. 62 -3- Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 63 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 087, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROPRIATING PRIOR YEAR RESERVES FROM THE FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE ACCOUNT WITHIN THE CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE FUND TO REIMBURSE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICANTS FOR OVERPAYMENT OF THE FIRE PROTECTION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE WHEREAS, in early 2016, City staff initiated a comprehensive review of the City’s various impact fees now charged to new development; and WHEREAS, as part of that review, the City commissioned consultant Duncan Associates (“Duncan”) to prepare an impact fee study for the community parkland, neighborhood parkland, police, fire protection and general government capital expansion fees (collectively, “Capital Expansion Fees”) which resulted in the “Capital Expansion Fee Study” dated August 2016, in which Duncan identified the need to increase each of the Capital Expansion Fees by various amounts (the “CEF Study”); and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 049, 2017 (“Ordinance No. 049”) in which it amended various sections of City Code Chapter 7.5 to implement the fee increases recommended for the Capital Expansion Fees in the CEF Study to be effective October 1, 2017, but in doing so, the Council decided to only increase the Capital Expansion Fees to 75% of the amounts recommended in the CEF Study; and WHEREAS, Duncan recently discovered that the increased amount for the City’s fire protection capital expansion fee (the “Fire CEF”) was incorrectly calculated in the CEF Study resulting in the Fire CEF being increased in Ordinance No. 049 to a level that is 90% of the Fire CEF recommended in the CEF Study; and WHEREAS, this has resulted in those persons and entities applying to the City for building permits since October 1, 2017, to pay the Fire CEF at the 90% level instead of the 75% level intended in Ordinance No. 049; and WHEREAS, contemporaneously with its consideration of this appropriation Ordinance, the City Council will also consider the adoption of Ordinance No. 086, 2018, to amend Code Section 7.5-30 to fix this error Duncan discovered by reducing the Fire CEF to the 75% level as intended in Ordinance No. 049; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance appropriates $130,000 from the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee Account within the Capital Expansion Fee Fund to reimburse those building permit applicants who have or will overpay the Fire CEF at the 90% level instead of the 75% level intended in Ordinance 049; and WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, 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 Packet Pg. 64 -2- WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the appropriation described herein and determined that this appropriation is available and previously unappropriated from the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee Account within the Capital Expansion Fee Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee Account within the Capital Expansion Fee Fund to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated revenues to be received in that Account during any fiscal year; and WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its citizens and necessary for the protection of the public’s health, safety and welfare, that these funds be appropriated to reimburse those building permit applicants who have or will overpay the Fire CEF because of the error in the CEF Study. 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 prior year reserves in the Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee Account within the Capital Expansion Fee Account the sum of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($130,000) for the reimbursement of those building permit applicants who have or will overpay the Fire CEF at the 90% level set in the CEF Study instead of at the 75% level as intended in Ordinance No. 049. Section 3. This appropriation shall not be effective unless and until Ordinance No. 086, 2018, becomes law to amend Code Section 7.5-30 to reduce the Fire CEF to the 75% level intended by Ordinance No. 049. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 65 -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 66 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Judy Schmidt, Legal SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 088, 2018, Amending Section 2-31 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins Concerning Executive Sessions Pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities and Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to update City Code consistent with the November 7, 2017 voter-approved Charter amendment providing for telecommunication facilities and services (broadband) as part of the City’s Electric Utility. The Charter amendment also authorized the Council and any board or commission established under the Charter amendment to go into executive session to consider issues of competition in providing telecommunication facilities and services. The proposed Ordinance amends City Code Section 2-31 to permit executive sessions for such purposes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Within the feasibility assessment associated with establishing a municipal broadband service within Fort Collins, various critical success factors were discussed in detail with council and the community. Chart A outlines the 4 major critical success factors related to a successful launch of broadband in a Commercial/Competitive environment vs. the City’s current four single source Utilities. Commercial / Competitive Single Source Utility Commercial Objectives Social / Political Objectives Market-Based Decision Timeliness Slower Decision Timeliness Strategic Confidentiality Material Public Discussion all Material Business/Competitive Expertise Business Expertise Chart A To avoid a competitive disadvantage for the City’s broadband effort, the ballot language approved by voters on November 7, 2017, specifically modified the City Charter to allow executive sessions to consider matters pertaining to competition in the City’s provision of telecommunications facilities and services. Matters pertaining to competition include, but are not limited to, matters subject to negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and marketing, development phasing and any other matter allowed under Colorado law under 8 Packet Pg. 67 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 2 the ballot language. The approved Charter language pertaining to executive sessions is listed below. The complete ballot language is included in Attachment 2. (d) In addition to the authority to go into executive session as provided in Section 11 of Article II of this Charter, the Council, and any board or commission established under subsection (e) below, may go into executive session to consider matters pertaining to issues of competition in providing the telecommunication facilities and services authorized in this Section, which shall include, without limitation, matters subject to negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and marketing, development phasing and any other matter allowed under Colorado law. Updates to City Code Section 2-31 are required to implement the new Charter language. The information below outlines the governance and operational authority of both Council and the City Manager. Council will make decisions and set policy at City Council meetings on topics such as those highlighted under Governance. Executive sessions will be used to discuss matters where sharing the types of information specified in the Charter would cause a competitive disadvantage to the broadband effort. 8 Packet Pg. 68 Agenda Item 8 Item # 8 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Agenda Item Summaries re: Proposed Charter Amendment to Add a New Section to Charter Article XII Pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities and Services, August 8 and August 15, 2017 (PDF) 2. Ordinance No. 101, 2017 (PDF) 8 Packet Pg. 69 Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 8, 2017 City Council STAFF SeonAh Kendall, Economic Health Manager Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT Items Relating to a Proposed Charter Amendment to Add a New Section to Charter Article XII Pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities and Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Possible Public Hearing and Motions Regarding Protest(s) of Ballot Language. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article XII of the City Charter to Add a New Section 7 Pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities and Services. The purpose of this item is to propose an amendment to Charter Article XII, Municipal Public Utilities. The amendment would authorize the City Council to provide, by future ordinance, telecommunications/broadband facilities and services as a public utility, to issue of up to $150 million in bonds, the ability to go into executive session to discuss matters related to competition in the telecommunications industry, and the option to establish governance of this public utility through a board and/or to delegate rate-making authority to the City Manager. This measure does not mandate that the City provide municipal retail broadband services, or that a third-party be the provider. Any protest of the proposed ballot language must be received no later than Monday, August 7, 2017, at noon. The protest(s) shall be heard, considered, and resolved by Council prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 101, 2017. If protest(s) are received, copies will be included in Council’s “Read-before” packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Broadband Strategic Objectives The FCC noted that the real culprit of slow, expensive internet in the U.S. is the lack of competition among providers. New broadband entrants into the market have a substantial impact on price and service. The City’s 2016 Strategic Plan includes Strategic Objective 3.9 - “Encourage the development of reliable high speed internet services throughout the community”. The Broadband Plan overall objective is to bring reliable, Gig speed internet to the City of Fort Collins, while making an informed decision through evaluation of risk and opportunities. Broadband is defined by the FCC as internet download speed of 25 megabits per second (“Mbps”) and upload of 3 Mbps or faster. Additional benefits sought include: ATTACHMENT 1 8.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Agenda Item Summaries re: Proposed Charter Amendment to Add a New Section to Charter Article XII Pertaining to Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 2 Competitive pricing (residential market pricing at $70/month or less for 1 Gbps and an affordable internet tier); Universal coverage across the Growth Management Area; Underground service for improved reliability; and Timely implementation to providing services within a reasonable time frame (less than five years). At the July 2017 work session, City Council directed staff to continue work on developing the ballot language and refining the message. The City Attorney’s office, in collaboration with City staff, has prepared the proposed Charter amendment and ballot question. Timeline of activity to refer the ballot: Timeframe Key Activities August 8, 2017 First Reading of ballot language August 15, 2017 Second Reading of ballot language; Final date for City Council to adopt the ballot language August 29, 2017 Intergovernmental agreement with the County calling the special election September 8, 2017 City Clerk certification of ballot language November 7, 2017 Election November 8, 2017 (If Voter Disapproval) Status Quo-No further action November 8, 2017 (If Voter Approved) See projected timeline (Attachment 3) The ballot measure would allow: Council the ability to add Telecommunication/Broadband services to the City’s electric utility or create a new utility to provide these services; Issue securities or debt not to exceed $150M to fund the project; Establish a governance structure including the ability to: (1) go into executive session for matters relating to competition;( 2) establish and delegate Council’s authority and power to a board and/or commission, except the power to issue debt; and (3) delegate the ability to set and/or change rates or fees to the City Manager. The ballot measure does not mandate the City to provide municipal retail broadband services, or that a third- party internet service provider would offer the service. The ballot measure would allow City Council to pursue broadband services through either option. Informational materials such as the projected timeline, FAQ, business plan and website were created to inform the community about the broadband project. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS The broadband financial feasibility model estimates that the project will cost between $130,000,000 to $150,000,000. The price range is attributed to the technology selected to implement a municipal broadband (ActiveE vs. GPON), potential increases to subscribership/take rate, and the product mix (video, voice, internet). The issuance of securities or other debt would be in an amount not to exceed $150M. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION None 8.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Agenda Item Summaries re: Proposed Charter Amendment to Add a New Section to Charter Article XII Pertaining to Agenda Item 2 Item # 2 Page 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH - Broadband Town Hall - November 14, 2016 - Broadband Technical Group - Oct 20, 2016; Nov 1, 8, and 14, 2016; Dec 14, 2016; Mar 30, 2017; July 17, 2017 - Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs - Dec 16, 2016; March 31, 2017 - Broadband Open House - Oct 12, 2016; Nov 29, 2016 - Leadership Northern Colorado - March 28, 2017 - North Fort Collins Business Association - May 24, 2017 - Broadband Citizen Group - Nov 16, 2016; March 29, 2017; June 21, 2017 - Community Issues Forum - November 17, 2016 - Super Issues Meeting - November 30, 2016 - Economic Advisory Commission (Informational only) - May 17, 2017 ATTACHMENTS 1. Broadband Flyer (PDF) 2. Broadband Business Plan, Version II, July 31, 2017 (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 8.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Agenda Item Summaries re: Proposed Charter Amendment to Add a New Section to Charter Article XII Pertaining to Agenda Item 23 Item # 23 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 15, 2017 City Council STAFF SeonAh Kendall, Economic Health Manager Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 101, 2017, Submitting to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins a Proposed Amendment to Article XII of the City Charter to Add a New Section 7 Pertaining to Telecommunication Facilities and Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on August 8, 2017 by a vote of 5-2 (Nays: Martinez, Summers), submits to Fort Collins electors a proposed amendment to Charter Article XII, Municipal Public Utilities. The amendment would authorize the City Council to provide, by future ordinance, telecommunications/broadband facilities and services as a public utility, to issue of up to $150 million in bonds, the ability to go into executive session to discuss matters related to competition in the telecommunications industry, and the option to establish governance of this public utility through a board and/or to delegate rate-making authority to the City Manager. This measure does not mandate that the City provide municipal retail broadband services, or that a third-party be the provider. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, August 8, 2017 (w/o attachments) (PDF) 2. Staff memo in response to Council questions (PDF) 3. Ordinance No. 101, 2017 (PDF) 8.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Agenda Item Summaries re: Proposed Charter Amendment to Add a New Section to Charter Article XII Pertaining to ATTACHMENT 2 8.2 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Ordinance No. 101, 2017 (6904 : Executive Sessions re Broadband) 8.2 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Ordinance No. 101, 2017 (6904 : Executive Sessions re Broadband) 8.2 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Ordinance No. 101, 2017 (6904 : Executive Sessions re Broadband) 8.2 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Ordinance No. 101, 2017 (6904 : Executive Sessions re Broadband) 8.2 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Ordinance No. 101, 2017 (6904 : Executive Sessions re Broadband) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 088, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING SECTION 2-31 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS CONCERNING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS PERTAINING TO TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES WHEREAS, on July 20, 1993, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 060, 1993 establishing the City’s Electric Utility as an enterprise of the City under Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution (the “Electric Utility Enterprise”) WHEREAS, at a special election on November 3, 2015, City voters authorized the City to provide high-speed internet services, including, without limitation, high-bandwidth broadband services, telecommunications services, and/or cable television services within the City’s growth management area; and WHEREAS, at a special election on November 7, 2017, City voters approved an amendment to the City Charter, which has added a new Section 7 to Charter Article XII (“Section 7”); and WHEREAS, paragraph (a) of Section 7 grants to the City Council the power, by ordinance and without a vote of the electors, to authorize the Electric Utility Enterprise to acquire, construct, provide, fund and contract for “telecommunications facilities and services,” including, without limitation, “broadband Internet facilities and services,” as both these terms are defined in paragraph (f) of Section 7 (“Telecommunication Facilities and Services”); and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 011, 2018 amending the City Code by adding a new Section 26-398 to Code Chapter 26 to implement this authority granted in Section 7 by authorizing the Electric Utility Enterprise to acquire, construct, provide, fund and contract for Telecommunication Facilities and Services and by authorizing the Electric Utility Enterprise to exercise the power to issue revenue bonds to fund the provision of Telecommunication Facilities and Services as provided in paragraph (b) of Section 7; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 011, 2018 also amended Code Sections 2-504 and 26-21 to delegate to the City Manager the direct responsibility to administer and supervise the Electric Utility Enterprise’s provision of Telecommunication Facilities and Services and to make other changes to the administration of Utility Services in light of this new assignment of direct responsibility to the City Manager; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 010, 2018, to appropriate $1.8 million from the City’s General Fund as a loan to the City’s Light and Power Fund to be used by the Electricity Utility for its start-up costs related to providing Telecommunication Facilities and Services; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 011, 2018 also amended Code Section 8-77 to provide that the City’s revenues, debt issuance proceeds and expenditures related to Telecommunication Packet Pg. 79 -2- Facilities and Services shall be deposited, expended and administered through the City’s Light and Power Fund; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to amend City Code Section 2-31 regarding executive sessions to implement the authority of the Council, and any board or commission established under Section 7(e), to go into executive session to consider matters pertaining to issues of competition in providing Telecommunications Facilities and Services; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is necessary for the public’s health, safety and welfare and is in the best interests of the City and its residents, businesses, and public and private organizations and of the Electric Utility’s ratepayers. 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 City Code Section 2-31(a) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (5) which reads in its entirety as follows: (5) Consideration, by the Council or any board or commission established under Article XII, Section 7(e) of the City Charter, of matters pertaining to issues of competition in providing the telecommunication facilities and services authorized in Article XII, Section 7 of the City Charter and City Code Section 26-398 including, without limitation, matters subject to negotiation, strategic planning, pricing, sales and marketing, development phasing and any other matter allowed under Colorado law. . . . Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 80 -3- Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 81 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Matt Robenalt, Executive Director Kristy Klenk, Financial Coordinator John Duval, Legal SUBJECT Resolution 2018-068 Approving the 2018 Certification to the Larimer County Assessor Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B) for the Downtown Development Authority Property Tax Increment. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to certify to the Larimer County Assessor the percentages of property tax distributions that are to be allocated for the Downtown Development Authority by the Assessor as tax increment from the 2018 property taxes payable in 2019 to the City and to all other affected taxing entities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION In 2008, the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority (DDA) was in the final ten years of its original 30-year period (Original TIF Term) during which property tax increment funds (TIF) could be allocated to and, when collected, paid to the City of Fort Collins (City) for deposit into a special fund to be used for DDA projects as provided in Colorado Revised Statues (C.R.S.) Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(II) (TIF Fund). Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV), in the final ten years of the Original TIF Term, the Fort Collins City Council had the authority to extend by ordinance such term by one additional 20-year period (the TIF Extension Period), provided that: (i) on the first day of the TIF Extension Period the established base year for the allocation of property taxes Is advanced by ten years, and (ii) upon the completion of the first ten years of the TIF Extension period, the base is advanced by one year for every additional year through the final ten years. Also, under C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B), the City Council also had the authority to allocate more than 50% of property taxes levied by the City to be allocated and paid into the TIF Fund. On July 10, 2008, the DDA approved its Resolution 2008-06 (the DDA Resolution), recommending to the City Council: (i) approval of the TIF Extension Period, and (ii) the allocation of 100% of the City’s property tax increment into the TIF Fund (the 100% City TIF Allocation). On September 2, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 101, 2008, (the 2008 Ordinance) approving the TIF Extension Period and, consistent with the August 19, 2008 Agenda Item Summary accompanying such ordinance and the DDA Resolution, approved the 100% City TIF Allocation. Also, on February 15, 2011, the City Council, as the ex-officio Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (GID Board), adopted Ordinance No. 060 (2011 GID Ordinance) allocating 100% of the tax increment revenue from the Fort Collins 9 Packet Pg. 82 Agenda Item 9 Item # 9 Page 2 General Improvement District No. 1 to the DDA Tax Increment Fund for the TIF Extension Period, with the seventh recital of the 2011 GID Ordinance confirming that the 2008 Ordinance had approved the 100% City TIF Allocation. Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B), an annual certification to the Larimer County Assessor is required, which certification needs to include the allocations of tax increment for that year of all affected taxing entities, including the City. The proposed Resolution reaffirms the Council’s previous actions in the 2008 Ordinance to acknowledge the actions it took as the GID Board in the 2011 GID Ordinance, and to provide the Assessor with the City Council’s 2018 certification pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B). CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no changes in the financial or economic impacts as they currently exist. 9 Packet Pg. 83 -1- RESOLUTION 2018-068 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE 2018 CERTIFICATION TO THE LARIMER COUNTY ASSESSOR PURSUANT TO C.R.S. SECTION 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B) FOR THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT WHEREAS, in 2008, the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority (“DDA”) was in the final ten years of its original 30-year period (“Original TIF Term”) during which property tax increment funds (“TIF”) could be allocated to and, when collected, paid to the City of Fort Collins (“City”) for deposit into a special fund to be used for DDA projects, as provided in Colorado Revised Statutes (“C.R.S.”) Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(II) (“TIF Fund”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV), in the final ten years of the Original TIF Term, the Fort Collins City Council had the authority to extend by ordinance such term by one additional 20-year period (the “TIF Extension Period”), provided that (i) on the first day of the TIF Extension Period the established base year for the allocation of property taxes is advanced by ten years, and (ii) upon the completion of the first ten years of the TIF Extension period, the base is advanced by one year for every additional year through the final ten years; and WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B), the City Council also had the authority to allocate more than 50% of property taxes levied by the City to be allocated and paid into the TIF Fund; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2008, the DDA approved its Resolution 2008-06 (the “DDA Resolution”) recommending to the City Council (i) approval of the TIF Extension Period, and (ii) the allocation of 100% of the City’s property tax increment into the TIF Fund (the “100% City TIF Allocation”); and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 101, 2008 (the “2008 Ordinance”) approving the TIF Extension Period and, consistent with the August 19, 2008 Agenda Item Summary accompanying such ordinance and the DDA Resolution, approved the 100% City TIF Allocation; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2011, the City Council, as the ex-officio Board of Directors of General Improvement District No. 1 (“GID Board”), adopted Ordinance No. 060 (“2011 GID Ordinance”) allocating 100% of the tax increment revenue from the Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 to the DDA Tax Increment Fund for the TIF Extension Period, with the seventh recital of the 2011 GID Ordinance confirming that the 2008 Ordinance had approved the 100% City TIF Allocation; and WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B), an annual certification to the Larimer County Assessor (“Assessor”) is required, which certification needs to include the allocations of tax increment for that year of all affected taxing entities, including the City; and WHEREAS, the purposes of this Resolution are to reaffirm the Council’s previous actions in the 2008 Ordinance to acknowledge the actions it took as the GID Board in the 2011 Packet Pg. 84 -2- GID Ordinance, and to provide the Assessor with the City Council’s 2018 certification pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS that the City Council hereby reaffirms its previous actions in the 2008 Ordinance, acknowledges the actions it took as the GID Board in the 2011 GID Ordinance, and certifies to the Assessor, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-807(3)(a)(IV)(B), that for 2018 property taxes payable in 2019, the City and the Fort Collins General Improvement District No. 1 continue to allocate 100% of their available property tax increment from their mill levies to the DDA tax increment fund, but that all other affected taxing entities are only allocating 50% of their property tax increment. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018. _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 85 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Clay Frickey, City Planner Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Consideration of the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use Request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 089, 2018, Approving the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan #170017. OR B. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 090, 2018, Denying the Addition of Permitted Use Associated with the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan #170017. The purpose of this item is to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Century Wireless Telecommunications Addition of Permitted Use request (APU) being made in conjunction with PDP170017. The APU would allow the addition of wireless telecommunication facilities as a permitted use on a parcel of land located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district. Wireless telecommunication facilities are not a permitted use in the RL. PDP170017 proposes a 55-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower at 620 West Horsetooth Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION PDP170017 proposes the installation of a 55-foot tall wireless telecommunications facility at 620 West Horsetooth Road. The applicant proposes to disguise the facility as a bell tower. 620 West Horsetooth Road is a 5.12-acre property containing the Southside Baptist Church. Single-family detached homes border the property to the north, west, and east. Horsetooth Road runs along the south side of the parcel. Wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the zone in which this project is located. Ordinance No. 080, 2015, amended the Land Use Code to require City Council approval for Addition of Permitted Use applications in eight residential zone districts. One of the zone districts in this list is the Low Density Residential zone district. 10 Packet Pg. 86 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 2 Regulations from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also apply to wireless telecommunication facility applications. The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains regulations that limit how municipalities can regulate wireless telecommunication facilities. Cities may not ban wireless telecommunication facilities or zone their city in such a way to de facto ban wireless telecommunication facilities. Cities also may not deny applications for wireless telecommunication facilities based on health impacts. The area between College Avenue and Shields Street along Horsetooth Road contains few parcels that have zoning that allow wireless telecommunications facilities. The applicant has been unable to obtain a lease with property owners for land zoned to allow a telecommunications facility. Historically, staff has not invoked section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code dealing with architectural compatibility for wireless telecommunication facilities. Building is a defined term in the Land Use Code. The definition of a building is as follows: Building shall mean any permanent structure built for the shelter or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind, which is governed by the following characteristics: (1) is permanently affixed to the land; (2) has one (1) or more floors and a roof; and (3) is bounded by either open space or the lot lines of a lot. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility does not have a roof and does not provide shelter. Section 3.5.1, therefore, does not apply since the wireless telecommunications facility does not meet the definition of a building. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) requires stealth technology for all wireless facilities and equipment. This addresses compatibility issues by requiring wireless projects to blend into their surroundings. Compliance with APU Criteria In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows: A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment that facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the RL zone. B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added Per Section 4.4(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the RL zone is, “…for predominately single-family residential areas located throughout the City which were existing at the time of adoption of this Code.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the RL zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose statement of the zone district indicates that it encompasses predominately single-family residential areas developed prior to City Plan and the Land Use Code. Since wireless telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a needed service for residents of a neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the RL zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. 10 Packet Pg. 87 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 3 C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the City. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in this area of Fort Collins. Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up this claim (attachment 4). The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires municipalities to permit cell towers. Municipalities may determine where in the community these towers are located but may not de facto ban cell towers through zoning (attachment 5). Atlas Towers submitted a narrative describing their attempts to locate on parcels with more appropriate zoning to fill the coverage gap in this area. Atlas identified 19 areas in which to secure a lease within their search ring. Most of the properties in the applicant’s search ring have RL, Urban Estate (UE), Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), or Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zoning. None of these zone districts allows wireless telecommunications facilities. Seven parcels within the search ring have Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning, which does allow wireless telecommunications facilities. Atlas Tower described their attempts in securing a lease on these NC-zoned properties in their project narrative. There is also only one co- location possibility in this area. Crown Castle owns a tower located at the southeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Shields Street. This tower does not have capacity for an additional carrier. Given the remaining parcels in the search ring, only two are located on large lots that could accommodate a wireless telecommunications facility: Southside Baptist Church and the LMN parcel owned by Jack Worthington. The Worthingtons were not interested in a lease. This leaves the Southside Baptist Church as the only appropriately-sized property willing to accommodate a cell tower lease in this area. Staff finds Atlas made a bona fide attempt to secure a lease with properties located in the NC zone and could not secure a lease. Land Use Code Section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.8.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably feasible. Southside Baptist Church is a single-story building with a steeple on the east end of the building. The building is 20-feet tall at its highest point excluding the steeple. The steeple is approximately 20-feet tall, rising to 40 feet. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) indicates bell towers are an appropriate method of meeting the stealth technology requirement. Per the APU criteria, the method of stealth technology must also harmonize with the surrounding context. The context around the church is one of an established residential area. Subdivisions predominated by single- family detached homes surround the church on all sides. Most structures in the vicinity are one-story with some two-story apartment, condominium, and commercial buildings east and west of the site. These structures are all modestly scaled and fit the predominantly residential character of the area. Atlas Tower proposes to locate the bell tower immediately adjacent to the church on the east side. This location is near the center of the site along the east-west axis and towards the south end of the site. Horsetooth Road runs along the south property line of the site. By locating the tower in the southern half of the site, the proposed tower has less of an impact on homes abutting the site on the north. A central location on the east-west axis minimizes impacts on properties abutting the site on the east and west. Staff finds the location of the proposed tower on the site is appropriate and minimally impacts neighboring properties. Church buildings are commonly amongst the tallest and largest structures within neighborhoods. Bell towers and steeples often accompany church structures and add to their height. The table below contains the height of various churches located in residential zones throughout the City along with the heights of their associated steeples or bell towers. Name of Church Address Zone District Building Height Faith Church 3920 S Shields St. MMN 48’ (85’ including cross) 10 Packet Pg. 88 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 4 Calvary Baptist 2420 Laporte Ave. LMN 32’ (78’-6” to top of steeple, 50’ bell tower) Westminster Presbyterian 1709 W Elizabeth St. RL 13’-8” (approx. 40’ to top of steeple) First United Methodist 1005 Stover St. Neighborhood Conservation - Low Density (NCL) 47’ (62’ to top of bell tower roof, 81’ to top of cross) The Bridge Church 833 S Taft Hill Rd. MMN Approximately 30’ (approx. 60’ to top of steeple) Southside Baptist 620 W Horsetooth Rd. RL 20’ (55’ bell tower) The size and scale of the churches noted in the table vary but generally have bell towers or steeples of a similar height to the bell tower proposed at Southside Baptist Church. Southside Baptist, however, is a shorter building compared to these other churches. The proposed tower is also bulkier than the aforementioned bell towers and steeples. This combination of factors creates the perception of a larger structure. When considering all of the above issues, staff finds the proposed tower is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods in a way that is similar to other churches with tall bell towers and steeples. While the proposed tower is bulkier than many other bell towers and steeples in the community, the proposed tower is also shorter than other bell towers and steeples. As stated earlier, Section 3.8.13(C)(15) states bell towers are an appropriate way to meet the stealth technology requirement. Bell towers are common on church properties so the design is appropriate. The applicant has also proposed a location on the site to minimize the impact of this tower on abutting properties. This proposed tower will also not impact the use of adjacent properties. For these reasons, staff finds the proposal meets Criterion C. D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of an established, residential neighborhood. Just as the bell towers and steeples on churches in other parts of the community do not define the character of their neighborhoods, nor shall the proposed bell tower define the character of this neighborhood. F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed bell tower achieves compatibility with the zone district through its location on the site and design. 10 Packet Pg. 89 Agenda Item 10 Item # 10 Page 5 G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March 23, 2017, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018, after the first round of staff review. The following section of this staff report contains an overview of these neighborhood meetings. H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion. In addition to these criteria, Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) also requires Addition of Permitted Use applications to not be detrimental to the public good, comply with the standards in Section 3.5.1, and not be specifically listed as a prohibited use in the zone district. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not detrimental to the public good. As mentioned earlier, Section 3.5.1 applies to buildings. Wireless telecommunications facilities do meet the definition of a building and so this standard is not applicable. The RL zone district does not have any uses that are expressly forbidden, so this application also meets this standard. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its May 17, 2018, Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application with a condition limiting the overall height of the structure to 45 feet. The Board found the application would meet the APU criteria in Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1) if the proposed tower were reduced in height to 45 feet. PUBLIC OUTREACH Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 23, 2017, at Southside Baptist Church. Thirty-seven neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 9, 2017. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018. Twelve neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings: • Concern about negative health effects due to radio frequency emissions • The proposed design is too bulky and out of scale with the neighborhood o Preference for a more tapered, artistic design • Preference for a different location in a non-residential area ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (PDF) 2. Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (PDF) 3. Letters received prior to June 20, 2018 (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 90 MEETING DATE May 17, 2018 STAFF Clay Frickey PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Planning Services 281 N College Ave – PO Box 580 – Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017 APPLICANT: Caleb Crossland 4450 Arapahoe Ave. Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 OWNERS: Southside Baptist Church 620 W Horsetooth Rd. Fort Collins, CO 80526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 1,600 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. The proposed tower would be 55 feet tall and disguised as a bell tower. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone district and, as such, is subject to review and approval by City Council. Wireless telecommunications facility is not an allowed use in the RL zone. The applicant is seeking an Addition of Permitted Use (APU) to allow a wireless telecommunications facility on this parcel. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that City Council approve the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: x The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General Provisions. ATTACHMENT 1 10.1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 2 x The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. COMMENTS: 1. Background The property annexed into the City as part of the Horsetooth South Mesa Annex on March 18, 1977. Shortly after annexation in 1978, a church built the current building. In 1992, Southside Baptist Church platted the lot as part of the Southside Baptist Church Minor Subdivision. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential South Low Density Residential (RL) Duplexes, single-family detached residential East Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential West Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential 2. Compliance with Article 1 of the Land Use Code – General Provisions The proposed use, wireless telecommunications facility, is not allowed in the RL zone. For proposals where a use is not allowed in the zone district but is allowed elsewhere in the City, an applicant may apply for an Addition of Permitted Use (APU). An APU will allow the proposed use on this parcel only. In order to grant an APU, the proposal must meet a set of criteria outlined in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Land Use Code. The project complies with these criteria as follows: A. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(a) - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added Wireless telecommunications equipment is a use allowed in all zones. Wireless telecommunications equipment is defined as, “… equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose,” per the definitions found in Article 5 of the Land Use Code. What this implies is that equipment that facilitates improved wireless connectivity is allowed citywide. The difference between wireless telecommunications equipment and a facility is that the facility is a 10.1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 3 freestanding structure for the sole purpose of providing wireless connectivity. The difference between the two uses is design, not function. As such, the proposed use is appropriate in the RL zone. B. Section 1.3.4 (C)(1)(b) - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added Per section 4.4(A) of the Land Use Code, the purpose of the RL zone is, “…for predominately single-family residential areas located throughout the City which were existing at the time of adoption of this Code.” As established in the previous section, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in the RL zone. This means uses allowing for improved wireless connectivity are not inherently in conflict with the other uses allowed in the zone. The purpose statement of the zone district indicates that it encompasses predominately single-family residential areas developed prior to City Plan and the Land Use Code. Since wireless telecommunications uses are accessory to principle uses and provide a needed service for residents of a neighborhood, a wireless telecommunications facility conforms to the basic characteristics of the RL zone so long as the facility is designed in harmony with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the site. C. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(c) - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties The applicant proposes this facility in this location due to the need for cell phone coverage in this portion of the city. Per the propagation maps supplied by the applicant, cell phone coverage is poor in this area of Fort Collins. Two websites dedicated to providing crowd sourced cell coverage maps, Open Signal and Sensorly, back up this claim (attachment 4). The Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires municipalities to permit cell towers. Municipalities may determine where in the community these towers are located but may not de facto ban cell towers through zoning (attachment 5). Atlas Towers submitted a narrative describing their attempts to locate on parcels with more appropriate zoning to fill the coverage gap in this area. Atlas identified 19 areas in which to secure a lease within their search ring. Most of the properties in the applicant’s search ring have RL, Urban Estate (UE), Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN), or Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) zoning. None of these zone districts allows wireless telecommunications facilities. Seven parcels within the search ring have Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning, which does allow wireless 10.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 4 telecommunications facilities. Atlas Tower described their attempts in securing a lease on these NC-zoned properties in their project narrative. There is also only one co-location possibility in this area. Crown Castle owns a tower located at the southeast corner of Horsetooth Road and Shields Street. This tower does not have capacity for an additional carrier. Given the remaining parcels in the search ring, only two are located on large lots that could accommodate a wireless telecommunications facility: Southside Baptist Church and the LMN parcel owned by Jack Worthington. The Worthingtons were not interested in a lease. This leaves the Southside Baptist Church as the only appropriately-sized property willing to accommodate a cell tower lease in this area. Staff finds Atlas made a bona fide attempt to secure a lease with properties located in the NC zone and could not secure a lease. Land Use Code Section 3.8.13(C)(2) and 3.8.13(C)(15) require wireless telecommunications facilities to fit into the context surrounding the site and to also use stealth technology to hide the facility to the extent reasonably feasible. Southside Baptist Church is a single-story building with a steeple on the east end of the building. The building is 20-feet tall at its highest point excluding the steeple. The steeple is approximately 20-feet tall, rising to 40 feet. Section 3.8.13(C)(15) indicates bell towers are an appropriate method of meeting the stealth technology requirement. Per the APU criteria, the method of stealth technology must also harmonize with the surrounding context. The context around the church is one of an established residential area. Subdivisions predominated by single-family detached homes surround the church on all sides. Most structures in the vicinity are one-story with some two-story apartment, condominium, and commercial buildings east and west of the site. These structures are all modestly scaled and fit the predominantly residential character of the area. Atlas Tower proposes to locate the bell tower immediately adjacent to the church on the east side. This location is near the center of the site along the east-west axis and towards the south end of the site. Horsetooth Road runs along the south property line of the site. By locating the tower in the southern half of the site, the proposed tower has less of an impact on homes abutting the site on the north. A central location on the east-west axis minimizes impacts on properties abutting the site on the east and west. Staff finds the location of the proposed tower on the site is appropriate and minimally impacts neighboring properties. Church buildings are commonly amongst the tallest and largest structures within neighborhoods. Bell towers and steeples often accompany church 10.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 5 structures and add to their height. The table below contains the height of various churches located in residential zones throughout the City along with the heights of their associated steeples or bell towers. Name of Church Address Zone District Building Height Faith Church 3920 S Shields St. MMN 48’ (85’ including cross) Calvary Baptist 2420 Laporte Ave. LMN 32’ (78’-6” to top of steeple, 50’ bell tower) Westminster Presbyterian 1709 W Elizabeth St. RL 13’-8” (approx. 40’ to top of steeple) First United Methodist 1005 Stover St. Neighborhood Conservation – Low Density (NCL) 47’ (62’ to top of bell tower roof, 81’ to top of cross) The Bridge Church 833 S Taft Hill Rd. MMN Approx.. 30’ (approx. 60’ to top of steeple) Southside Baptist 620 W Horsetooth Rd. RL 20’ (55’ bell tower) The size and scale of the churches noted in the table vary but generally have bell towers or steeples of a similar height to the bell tower proposed at Southside Baptist Church. Southside Baptist, however, is a shorter building compared to these other churches. The proposed tower is also bulkier than the aforementioned bell towers and steeples. This combination of factors creates the perception of a larger structure. When considering all of the above issues, staff finds the proposed tower is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods in a way that is similar to other churches with tall bell towers and steeples. While the proposed tower is bulkier than many other bell towers and steeples in the community, the proposed tower is also shorter than other bell towers and Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 6 D. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(d) - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added Cell towers do not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. E. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(e) - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area The predominant character of the surrounding area is that of an established, residential neighborhood. Just as the bell towers and steeples on churches in other parts of the community do not define the character of their neighborhoods, nor shall the proposed bell tower define the character of this neighborhood. F. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(f) - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added As established for Criterion A, wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use. This means the design of a wireless telecommunications facility is the principal consideration for establishing compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. As discussed for Criterion C, staff finds the proposed bell tower achieves compatibility with the zone district through its location on the site and design. G. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g) - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an 10.1 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 7 application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review Staff conducted two neighborhood meetings for this proposal. The first neighborhood meeting occurred on March 23, 2017, prior to submittal of a development application. Staff convened a second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018, after the first round of staff review. The following section of this staff report contains an overview of these neighborhood meetings. H. Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h) - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code The proposed use is a Wireless Telecommunications Facility, which satisfies this criterion. 3. Public Outreach Per Land Use Code Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), all projects subject to an APU in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood shall be subject to two neighborhood meetings. One of the meetings must be held before submittal of a formal development application with the City and one must be held after the first round of staff review. In compliance with this code section, the applicant held the first neighborhood meeting on March 23, 2017 at Southside Baptist Church. 37 neighbors attended the meeting. After this meeting, the applicant submitted their development application with the City on May 9, 2017. The applicant held the second neighborhood meeting on January 31, 2018. 12 neighbors attended this meeting. Neighbors raised the following issues at these meetings: x Concern about negative health effects due to radio frequency emissions x The proposed design is too bulky and out of scale with the neighborhood o Preference for a more tapered, artistic design x Preference for a different location in a non-residential area 4. Findings of Fact/Conclusion: In evaluating the request for proposed Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: 10.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Staff Report – Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use – PDP170017 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing 05-17-2018 Page 8 A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process and standards located in Division 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses of Article 1 – General. B. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration. C. The Project Development Plan complies with the relevant standards located in Article 3 – General Development Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning & Vicinity Map 2. Applicant’s Project Narrative 3. Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility Planning Document Set (including site plan and elevations) 4. Coverage maps from Open Signal and Sensorly 5. Excerpt of the Wireless Telecommunications Act of 1996 10.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) The Learning House Lopez Elementary RL CG LMN MMN LMN MMN MMN NC Tradition Dr A r b o r A ve Eagle Dr Benthaven St Dennison Ave Century Dr Gunnison Dr Albion Way Riva Ridge Dr Blue Mesa Ave R o c k a w a y S t Justice Dr Killdeer Dr Bonita Ave Zuni Cir W a l d e n Way C o r o n a d o A v e Silverthorne Dr Haven Dr Supplementary Narrative – Century Nov 13, 2017 Planning Department Fort Collins Planning Services 281 North College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attn: Clay Frickey RE: Supplementary Narrative – Proposed 55’ Stealth Bell Tower Communications Tower To Whom It May Concern: Atlas Tower 1, LLC is submitting a Commercial Radio Service Facility Application for a proposed telecommunications facility build at 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. This facility will be 1,600 square feet and house a 55’ bell-tower communications tower that can accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is working to bring quality voice and data services to an area lacking reliable coverage. SITE DETAILS Land Owner: Southside Baptist Church of Fort Collins, Colorado, a Colorado non-profit corporation Address: 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526 Applicant: Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Coordinates: 40° 32' 19.44" N 105° 05' 13.69” W Zoning: Low Density Residential District RL Lease Area: 1,600 Sq. ft. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The purpose of this request is to build a telecommunications tower disguised as a bell tower and housed within a 1,600 sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will provide critical wireless coverage to the surrounding area. The proposed site is a residential area where the capacity of the existing infrastructure is reaching its limit. As existing users demand more data for their existing devices, existing infrastructure will reach capacity limits and be unable to meet coverage needs. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base-station equipment. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS Visual Effect The proposed location is currently being used as a church and a Christian school. A three-sided bell tower communications facility will complement this existing use and will be unrecognizable as a telecommunications tower. The walls of the upper portion of the telecommunications facility will be made of RF transparent material that will completely mask telecommunications antennas that will be housed inside of the bell tower. A six-foot fence will surround the supporting ground equipment in the lease area. The portion of the fence facing Horsetooth will be made of brick that matches the existing building. A wooden fence will surround the other three sides of the lease area. 10.1 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 2 Frequency Of Maintenance Work On The Proposed WTF On average, after initial installation, a carrier or its contactors would likely visit the WTF about one time a month for maintenance, though this number could vary greatly depending on the specific circumstances of the WTF. The Average Number Of Vehicles Visiting The WTF The average maintenance visit by a carrier or its contractors would likely involve one pickup truck, but this number could very greatly. With an average of one visit a month and one truck a visit, there would likely be about one pickup truck visiting the site a month per carrier. The Average Duration Work Visits On The WTF For typical maintenance visits, a carrier or its contactors would only be at the site a few hours, but this number could increase substantially depending on the work that needed to be completed at the site. Expected Noise Levels WTF are essentially silent. This would be true whether there were one or three carriers. It is certainly true if you are a few hundred feet from the WTF. A generator could be operated on site in the rare instance that power went out. The generator would create noise, but it would not be noticeable a few hundred feet away, off of the parcel. ZONING & COMMUNITY COMPLIANCE Comprehensive Plan This site is consistent with the intent of the long-range master plans for the local community. The site, once developed, will provide critical local and regional network coverage and was designed to minimize visual effects. a. Increased coverage and network speeds. Residential customers will experience faster connectivity, less dropped calls, and overall better voice and data service. b. Increased capabilities of emergency service responders. Many emergency service responders use devices that operate over cellular networks to communicate valuable information during an emergency. Additionally, the FCC estimates that over 70% of all 9-1-1 calls are made over cellular devices. A tower in this location guarantees more reliable emergency services and response times. c. Greater carrier competition that will result in lower wireless costs for consumers. This tower would allow multiple carriers to provide coverage to this area, and thus to compete for local customers. d. Greater economic growth. Cities that encourage wireless technological advancement and coverage growth will foster economic activity as increased wireless and data connectivity promote ease and growth of commerce. e. Advanced technology for smart phone and tablet users. Many companies are developing smartphone, tablets, and other devices that incorporate LTE technology. This tower will house LTE equipment and further the capabilities of smartphone and tablet users by optimizing increased functionality in LTE capable wireless devices. Land Use Our proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower is in harmony with the current use of the parent parcel. Facility & Traffic This site is unmanned and only occasionally visited by maintenance personnel. Therefore, it does not require public facilities or services greater than presently available. Given the limited visits to the facility, approximately 1-6 annually, there is no distinguishable impact on existing infrastructure or pedestrian or vehicular traffic flow. Federal Aviation Administration and Federal Communications Commission We will apply for FAA approval and this site will maintain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. 10.1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 3 Noise, Safety, and Public Health Our proposed uses will not cause any measurable increase in noise levels in the surrounding area, any detriment to the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity, and will not create any reasonable public health concerns. Fort Collins Land Use Code 3.8.13 (A) Location. Subject to the requirements of paragraph (B) of this Section, wireless telecommunication equipment may be attached to or mounted on any existing building or structure (or substantially similar replacement structure) located in any zone district of the city. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall not, however, be permitted to be attached to or mounted on any residential building containing four (4) or fewer dwelling units. Towers need to be near the users to which they will provide coverage. As more of the population uses smart phones and use their smart phones in a way that requires more data, the demand placed on existing towers has grown exponentially. The result is that even though an existing tower may be able to cover an area, the tower may not have the capacity to meet the demands for data and usage that are placed upon it. This is a difference between coverage and capacity. In order to provide sufficient capacity to a network in a populated area, carriers have to increase the number of towers placed in these areas, so that each tower provides coverage to a smaller geographic area and therefore fewer users. For this reason, towers need to be placed near the population they will be serving, and ideally in the center of that population. For this reason, the proposed telecommunications facility is required to be near the residential areas it will be serving. In order to address the above-described requirements for tower placement, Atlas performed an exhaustive search of potential candidates that had adequate location, favorable zoning and use, and a willing Landlord. Exhibit 1 to this application is a satellite image with one-mile ring around the center of the search area. This shows the limited possible locations for telecommunications equipment with regard to land use. Exhibit 2 is a zoning map with a one-mile ring around the center of the search area. This shows the limited possible locations for telecommunications equipment with regard to preferential zoning. Though the commercial properties near the intersection of Horsetooth and Shields are zone preferentially, most lack adequate space for a telecommunications facility. The properties that do have adequate space were unwilling to engage in a telecommunications lease with Atlas. Exhibit 3 details Atlas’s efforts to secure a lease in the area surrounding the original search ring. Because the search is fairly densely populated, going beyond a mile with the search could put the tower too close to another site—or another planned site—in Verizon’s network. In addition to this, it could place the tower too far from intended users. The commercial properties located near College Avenue and Horsetooth are too far from the coverage objective and too close to another existing Verizon antenna. The proposed site is excellent when taking into account its location in relation to the residential and commercial properties that the tower will serve and the size and use of the proposed property. The proposed location is surrounded by residential properties, but the tower itself would not be close to any residential structures. The use of the proposed location would allow for a convincing stealth use that would minimize the visual effect of the proposed tower. (B) Co-location. No wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessee or employee thereof shall act to exclude or attempt to exclude any other wireless telecommunication provider from using the same building, structure or location. Wireless telecommunication facility or equipment owner or lessees or employees thereof, and applicant for the approval of plans for the installation of such facilities or equipment, shall cooperate in good faith to achieve co-location of wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment. Any application for the approval of a plan for the installation of wireless 10.1 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 4 telecommunication facilities or equipment shall include documentation of the applicant’s good faith efforts toward such cooperation. Atlas Tower acknowledges and accepts this requirement. The proposed telecommunications facility is designed to accommodate up to three wireless carriers. Atlas is an independent tower owner/operator and its business model depends on colocation. Atlas will use best efforts to market the site to additional carriers and encourage colocation. See the attached, signed statement of colocation. (C) Standards. (1) Setbacks. With respect to a wireless telecommunication facility that is a tower or a monopole, the setback of the facility from the property lines shall be one (1) foot for every foot of height. However, to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the structure will collapse rather than topple, this requirement can be waived by the Director. In addition, the setbacks for the ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be governed by the setback criteria established in Articles 3 and/or 4. The proposed tower facility would be located 137ft from the nearest parcel line, and the nearest ground mounted equipment would be located at least 117ft from the nearest property line. (2) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. Whether manned or unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. Such facilities shall also be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography and other natural features. If such facility is an accessory use to an existing use, the facility shall be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a bell tower, would be unidentifiable as a communications tower to the untrained eye, and would fit the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment, which is a church building. The proposed facility would be surrounded with a brick fence on the south side and a wooden fence on the remaining sides. The proposed telecommunications facility could be considered an accessory use and will be constructed out of materials that are equal to or better than the materials of the principal use, the existing church building. (3) Wireless Telecommunication Equipment. Wireless telecommunication equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such equipment is mounted. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas Tower plans to paint the stealth bell tower a beige color that matches the existing church building. All of the antennas on the stealth bell tower will be behind the fiberglass panels of the stealth bell tower and therefore will not be visible from outside of the tower. Whenever a wireless telecommunication antenna is attached to a building roof, the height of the antenna shall not be more than fifteen (15) feet over the height of the building. All wireless telecommunication equipment shall be located as far from the edge of the roof as possible. Even if the building is constructed at or above the building height limitations contained in Section 3.8.17, the additional fifteen (15) feet is permissible. This tower will be a new self-supporting bell tower, and will not be attached to an existing building or roof. Whenever wireless telecommunication equipment is mounted to the wall of a building structure, the equipment shall be mounted in a configuration as flush to 10.1 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 5 the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is mounted. Such equipment shall, to the maximum extent feasible, also feature the smallest and most discreet components that the technology will allow so as to have the least possible impact on the architectural character and overall aesthetics of the building or structure. All antenna mounted to the stealth bell tower will be mounted behind the paneling of the tower, and therefore will not be visible from the outside. Roof and ground mounted wireless telecommunication equipment shall be screened by parapet walls or screen walls in a manner compatible with the building’s design, color and material. Please see fencing detail on pg. Z-2 of the zoning drawings. A 6’ brick and wooden fence will screen all ground equipment. (4) Landscaping. Wireless telecommunication facilities and ground-mounted wireless telecommunications equipment may need to be landscaped with landscaping materials that exceed the levels established in Section 3.2.1, due to unique nature of such facilities. Landscaping may therefore be required to achieve a total screening effect at the base of such facilities or equipment to screen the mechanical characteristics. A heavy emphasis on coniferous plants for year- round screening may be required. A 6ft wooden fence will surround the telecommunications facility for screening. Atlas is not aware of any landscaping required for the proposed site, but accepts and will comply with this provision. If a wireless telecommunication facility or ground-mounted wireless telecommunication equipment has frontage on a public street, street trees shall be planted along the roadway in accordance with the policies of the City Forester. The telecommunications facility does not have frontage on a public street. (5) Fencing. Chain link fencing shall be unacceptable to screen facilities. Fencing materials shall consist of wood masonry, stucco or other acceptable materials and be opaque. Fencing shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. Fencing detail can be seen on pg. Z-2 of the enclosed Zoning Drawings. A 6’ brick and wooden fence would surround the proposed telecommunications facility. (6) Berming. Berms shall be considered as an acceptable screening device. Berms shall feature slopes that allow mowing, irrigation and maintenance. Not applicable. (7) Irrigation. Landscaping and berming shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems meeting the water conservation standards of the city. Atlas acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Atlas will install an automatic irrigation system for any required landscaping. (8) Color. All wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall be painted to match as closely as possible the color and texture of the wall, building or surrounding built environment. Muted colors, earth tones and subdued colors shall be used. The proposed telecommunications facility, disguised as a stealth bell tower, will be painted to match the buildings on existing parcel, which are muted, subdued earth tones. 10.1 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 6 (9) Lighting. The light source for security lighting shall be high-pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height. Atlas is not proposing any lighting in the facility, but acknowledges and accepts this requirement. Any lighting will follow the requirements of this section. (10) Interference. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall operate in such a manner so as not to cause interference with other electronics such as radios, televisions or computers. Atlas Tower will not be installing any radio frequency emitting equipment on the tower, but will ensure that any carrier installing on the tower will follow all applicable local, State, and Federal interference regulations. (11) Access roadways. Access roads must be capable of supporting all of the emergency response equipment of the Poudre Fire Authority. Current access roads are via paved and gravel surfaces capable of supporting emergency response equipment. (12) Foothills and Hogbacks. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized, three-dimensional, visual simulation of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate the visual impact on the view of the city’s foothills and hogbacks. Atlas does not believe this provision applies to its application, but photo simulations are shown in Exhibit 6. (13) Airports and Flight Paths. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located near airports and flight paths shall obtain the necessary approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration. Prior to building permit submittal, Atlas will obtain all applicable FAA 7460-1 Obstruction Approvals and FCC required Antenna Structure Registration. (14) Historic Sites and Structures. Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment shall not be located on any historic site or structure unless permission is first obtained from the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission as required by Chapter 14 of the City Code. Atlas does not believe that the proposed site is located on any designated historic site or structure. NEPA and Phase I environmental studies are currently being performed at the site and will confirm the lack of any historical significance at the site location. (15) Stealth Technology. To the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ “stealth technology” so as to convert the wireless telecommunication facility into wireless telecommunication equipment, as the best method by which to mitigate and/or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of, but is not limited to, the use grain bins, silos or elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar “mimic” structures shall have a contextual relationship with the adjacent area. Atlas is proposing a stealth bell tower in order to blend with the existing use of the parcel and the surrounding agricultural area and will be indistinguishable as a communications tower. 10.1 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 7 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses (C) Procedures and Required Findings. The following procedures and required findings shall apply to addition of permitted use determinations made by the Director, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council respectively: (1) Director Approval. In conjunction with an application for approval of an overall development plan, a project development plan, or any amendment of the foregoing (the "primary application" for purposes of this Section only), for property not located in any zone district listed in subsection (G), the applicant may apply for the approval of an Addition of Permitted Use for uses described in subsection (B)(1) to be determined by the Director. If the applicant does not apply for such an addition of permitted use in conjunction with the primary application, the Director in his or her sole discretion may initiate the addition of permitted use process. The Director may add to the uses specified in a particular zone district any other use which conforms to all of the following criteria: (a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be appropriate in and conform to the purpose and characteristic of the Low Density Residential District (R-L). Places of worship or assembly are allowed in the R-L district and the proposed telecommunications facility masked as a bell tower would conform to the current use in the R-L district while providing vital infrastructure. (b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. Please see the response to 1.3.4 – Addition of Permitted Uses, (C), (1), (a) above. (c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The location of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. As detailed in Exhibit 5, the location of the proposed tower is over 117 ft. from the nearest property line. The location of the proposed tower was not the original location, but was later chosen in order to mitigate any visual effect the proposed telecommunication facility would have on neighboring properties. The size of the proposed telecommunication facility is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. The proposed telecommunications will be disguised as a stealth bell tower. The parcel upon which the proposed telecommunications facility would be located and those near it are, or have been, agricultural. Because it would not be unusual to have a 55 ft. bell tower on church property, the 55 ft. telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on nearby properties. (d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility will not create any offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influence or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development. 10.1 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 8 (e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. Because the existing church building has been located at this location for around fifty years, the proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. The proposed telecommunications facility would be compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the Low Density Residential District (R-L). The R-L District has “Places of worship or assembly” as an “Institutional/Civic/Public Uses” in Division 4.4, (B) Permitted Uses. (2), (b), (3.). The proposed telecommunications facility disguised as a bell tower would conform to the places of worship or assembly allowed use of the R-L District. The proposed telecommunications facility is compatible with the Accessory/Miscellaneous Uses for the R-L district, which includes wireless telecommunication equipment. (g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. Atlas will fully comply with this requirement. (h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. The proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. CONCLUSION This narrative represents required and supplementary information to document the technological, economic, and social necessity and benefits of a new 55’ stealth bell tower at 620 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526. The information provided highlights the advantages associated with a telecommunications facility at our proposed site. Atlas Tower Holdings respectfully requests the approval of our Wireless Telecommunication Facility Application. Best Regards, Caleb Crossland Atlas Tower Holdings, LLC 4450 Arapahoe Ave., Suite 100 Boulder, CO 80303 Office (303) 448-8896 Exhibit 1 10.1 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 9 10.1 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 10 Exhibit 2 10.1 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 11 10.1 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 12 Exhibit 3 1) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 2) J/Jack C Sherman Worthington – Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease at this location in the fall of 2016 and the property owner was vehemently opposed to a lease on his property under any circumstances. 3) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 4) Southside Baptist Church - This is the location of the proposed telecommunications facility. Though the property is not zoned preferentially for a telecommunications facility, the land use works well for a telecommunications facility, there is sufficient space, and it is well situated among residential parcels in order to provide effective coverage to the surrounding area. 5) Various Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 6) The Southland Corporation – Though this property is preferentially zoned, it is not of sufficient size to house the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. The proposed facility needs around 2,500 sq. ft. of ground space to house equipment. In addition, this property is used as a gas station which creates environmental complexities related to digging the foundation of a telecommunications facility. 10.1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 13 7) PVP Property Owners Association – Though this property is preferentially zoned, there is not sufficient space for the proposed telecommunications facility. Mike Powers, of Atlas Tower, spoke to the property owner in 2016 regarding leasing space for the proposed telecommunications facility. The property owner was not interested in leasing space for the proposed telecommunications facility. Exhibit 3 Continued The property owner cited parking space requirements as the primary issue with leasing space to Atlas Tower for the proposed telecommunications facility. There is already an existing telecommunications tower on the property, which cannot house additional carriers. 8) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 9) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 10) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. Atlas Tower pursued a telecommunications facility on one of these properties but was strongly discouraged by Fort Collins Planning and Zoning from pursuing the location. Atlas then pursued other locations. 11) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 12) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 13) Associates Investments LLC – In 2016, Mike Powers, of Atlas Tower, visited this location and spoke to representatives of the owners on multiple occasions in 2016. Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, also spoke with a representative of the owner on several occasions in 2016. In the end, the owner decided not to pursue a lease because of concerns with a possible future sale of the property. 14) JDS Properties LLC – There is not sufficient space for a telecommunication facility at this location. In addition, this property is used as a gas station which creates environmental complexities related to digging the foundation of a telecommunications facility. 15) SLR LLC – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland of Atlas Towers pursued a lease on this location in 2016. The property owner was uninterested in a lease. There is no practical location on the property with sufficient space for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility. 16) Bright Horizons Family Solutions – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease on this property in 2016. The property is currently being used as a daycare facility. The property owner was strongly opposed to a telecommunications facility anywhere near the property. 17) Eyesite LLC – Both Mike Powers and Caleb Crossland, of Atlas Tower, pursued a lease at this location in 2016. Mike Powers met with the property owner in person. After significant correspondence, the property owner determined that it was not interested in a telecommunications lease do to possible future expansion of their building. In addition, the property owner did not want to deal with the possible hassle of the telecommunications facility. 18) Harold J Santner – Mike Powers pursued a lease at this location in 2016. Because of parking requirements, there is not sufficient space to house a wireless telecommunications facility. The property owner was not interested in a lease. 19) Various Residential Properties – These properties are not zone preferentially, are too small for a telecommunications facility, and the land use is incompatible with a wireless telecommunications facility. 10.1 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 14 Exhibit 4 10.1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 15 10.1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 16 Exhibit 4 Continued The Existing Verizon Network: Verizon’s existing network on Horsetooth between Shields and College is currently not meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent performance, or user expectations. In this area there are issues of both coverage and capacity. Verizon has been working with vendors for over a year to develop a telecommunications facility near the proposed facility. Future Need: The existing infrastructure surrounding the proposed facility is not currently meeting Verizon’s goals for excellent coverage, or user expectations, and its performance will only decrease as time goes on unless the network is expanded. If the network in not improved, the network could reach a point of non-functionality in the next few years. As was mentioned above, an increasing percentage of the population is using cell phones and cell-phone users are demanding increasing amounts of data. Safety: Do to the ubiquity of cell phone use, an unreliable network can be a safety risk. Because an increasing number of people are getting rid of their landlines, it is becoming increasingly common for emergency calls to be made on cell phones. If cell-phone calls are severely degraded, it can be difficult or impossible for a user to make a call in the case of an emergency, which poses severe safety risks. Chart Showing Capacity Issues With the Existing Network: Forward Data Volume in Blue can be seen exceeding capacity. Trend line shows it further increasing as we get towards the end of the year. 10.1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 17 Exhibit 4 Continued 10.1 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 18 10.1 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 19 Exhibit 4 Continued 10.1 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 20 Exhibit 5 10.1 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: INDEMNIFICATION STATEMENT: BENCHMARKS: TITLE SHEET T-1 SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH MINOR SUB SITE NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOWER TYPE: SITE ADDRESS: 55' STEALTH TOWER CENTURY ZONING: R-L, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 620 W HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 (LARIMER COUNTY) POWER COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: METER# NEAR SITE: TELEPHONE COMPANY: CONTACT: PHONE: PEDESTAL # NEAR SITE: TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 THORNTON, CO 80229 NICHOLAS M. CONSTANTINE (303) 566-9914 WiBLUE, INC. KEN BRADTKE (303) 448-8896 SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: SITE APPLICANT: SURVEYOR: CIVIL ENGINEER: PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: CONTACT: PHONE: NAME: CONTACT: PHONE: N GENERAL NOTES: STRUCTURAL STEEL NOTES: FORT COLLINS SITE PLAN NOTES F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING GENERAL NOTES I N-1 GENERAL NOTES 10.1 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : LCUASS GENERAL NOTES: “ ” “ ” F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING GENERAL NOTES II N-2 GENERAL NOTES 10.1 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : W. HORSETOOTH RD. (100' PUBLIC R.O.W.) LEGEND 1-A COORDINATES NOTES: SCHEDULE B., SECTION II. EXCEPTIONS: SITE PLAN & COMPOUND DETAIL Z-1 SITE PLAN F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING COMPOUND DETAIL 10.1 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : FENCE NOTE: DRAWING NOTES: 6' HIGH FENCE FOOTINGS WOODEN FENCE ATTACHMENT BRACKET NOTE: 620 TOWER NOTES: TOWER ELEVATION & FENCE DETAILS Z-2 TOWER ELEVATION F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING TYPICAL FENCE ELEVATION GATE DETENT DETAIL BRICK WALL DETAILS WALL SIDE ELEVATION BOARD MOUNTING DETAIL FENCE SIDE VIEW 10.1 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : SECTION A-A A A NOTES: TYPE IV ATTACHED WALK DRIVEWAY WIDTHS CLASSIFICATION APPROACH TYPE MINIMUM WIDTH MAXIMUM WIDTH ● ● ● GEOTEXTILE FABRIC NOTES: SITE GRADING NOTES: EROSION CONTROL & DRIVEWAY DETAILS Z-3 LCUASS DRAWING 707.2 (STANDARD DRIVEWAY APPROACH) F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING NOT USED EROSION CONTROL PLAN SILT FENCE DETAIL 10.1 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : Packet Packet 10.1 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : 10.1 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : entity (including the owner of such pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way).'. SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY- `(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. `(B) LIMITATIONS- `(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof-- `(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and `(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. `(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. `(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. `(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. `(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such 10.1 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. `(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph-- `(i) the term `personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; `(ii) the term `personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and `(iii) the term `unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).'. (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. (c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such purposes. SEC. 705. MOBILE SERVICES DIRECT ACCESS TO LONG DISTANCE CARRIERS. Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end 10.1 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 1 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview NEIGHBORHOODINFORMATIONMEETINGNOTES MeetingDateMarch23,2017 Thesenotescapturestaff’sinterpretationofquestions,commentsandideasfromthemeeting. PROJECT: SouthsideBaptistChurchWirelessTelecommunicationFacility DATE: March29,2017 PLANNER: ClayFrickey,CityPlanner PROSPECTIVE CalebCrossland,AtlasTower APPLICANT CityPlannerClayFrickeyintroducedthepurposeofthemeeting,theagenda,andtheCity’sLandUseCode whichaddressestheplacementanddesignofcelltowerfacilitiesandequipment.FCCregulationslimitlocal governmentauthorityandspecificallyrestrictStateorlocalgovernmentsfromregulatingwirelessfacilitieson thebasisoftheenvironmentaleffectsofradiofrequencyemissionstotheextentthatafacilitycomplieswith FCCregulationsonsuchemissions. TheproposedfacilitywouldneedtoproceedthroughtheCity’sDevelopmentReviewprocesswithsubmittal ofplans,staffreviewofplans,andapublichearing.Planswouldbeavailableonlineforpublicinspection,and amailingnoticewouldbesentforthehearinginaccordancewiththecode. CalebCrosslandexplainedtheproposalandrationale. x Serviceprovidersareseeinganeedformore,smallertowersclosertousersbasedontheincreasing demandsofcommunicationdevices. x Whyatowerhere?Demand.Itisneededtoservicethisarea.Thereiscoveragebutservicelevelis decliningcorrespondingtoincreasingdemand.Thenearesttowerisaboutamileaway. x TheFCCviewsthiscommunicationinfrastructureasbasicutilityinfrastructure.Itisviewedasasafety issue.Emergencyservicesuseitonoverhalfof911calls. x Worksbestwhensurroundedbyusers,andnearbusystreets.Thislocationisideal. x Thedesignconceptisabelltower.Thechurchwoulddecideontheactualdesign.Shownisaconceptual illustrationat65feetinheight. 10.1 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 CalebexplainedtheFRorradiofrequencywavesusedinwirelesscommunications.RFwavesareaformof nonͲionizingradiation.Theyareonthespectrumthatincludeslight,radio,xrays,andotherformsof radiation. Therearezerostudiesofacellantennacausingcancer.Aphonenexttotheearworksatahigherpowerlevel thanatatypicaldistancefromanantennatower.Writtenmaterialhandoutsareavailableshowingfactsand informationaboutRFwaves. Anyquestionsorrequestsforinformationarewelcomeat: Caleb.crossland@gmail.com,phone303.448.8896 QuestionsandDiscussion: Q=Question R=Response C=Comment Q:Whereisthetowerproposedonthesite? R(City):closetothebuilding,ontheeastsideofthebuilding. Q:Isthechurchthebestroutetostopordenythis? R:Yes,thatwouldbeagoodway.Otherwise,itwouldbeapproved,changed,ordeniedaftertheCityreview process. C:ThisisthelargestmetroareaI’veeverbeeninwiththeworstcoverage. R:FortCollinsisahotspotforproviderslookingtoimprovecoverage. Q:Howfarwoulditbefromtheeastpropertyline? R:Muchclosertothechurchthanthepropertyline.Outsidetheeastwallofthechurchbuilding. Q:AchurchonProspectbackedoutofadeallikethis.Doyouknowwhy? R:Notspecificallybuttypicalreasonswouldbethattheownerwasneverreallyserious,ortheyreceived oppositionthatpersuadedthem. C:SouthridgeGreensisadenialexample.Itwascloseto2schools.Children’shealthisimportant.Doyou haveanystudiesonchildrenspecifically? R:Yes,aUKstudysortoflookedatthat.Itfoundnoassociationofcancerwithantennas.Ingeneral,schools areacommonspotfortheseantennas.Theygeneraterevenuefortheschools.NopeerͲreviewedstudies showriskforcancer. Q:Whyaretherenostudiesthatshowdefiniteproof?Canyounameanystudies? R:Studieshavefoundnostatisticalincreaseincancerrelatedtothesefacilities.Butit’sadifferentchallenge toprovethatthere’snoeffect.Thestudieshavebeendone.Resultsarethere.Youshouldlookathow expertstestit,andlookatthestudies.Youcanlookattheexampleofwaterinothercities–peoplehavedied fromthat.Thatshowsthattherewasaproblem,theproblemwasfound,andknown,anddealtwith.No problemhasbeenfoundwiththis. 10.1 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 3 Q:WherearetheantennasinFortCollins? R:Theremaybeabout100.Theyareubiquitous.Manyshoppingcentershavethem,andtheyarerightnext tohouses.ScotchPines,KingSoopersatTaftandElizabeth.There’sachurchonLaporteStreetrightacross fromPoudreHighSchoolthathasabelltowerfacility. C:Ifeelthey’resafe.Thesignalsareeverywhere.They’reonyourhouse,inthemeter. Q:What’sthetimeframetoconstruct? R:About8weeks. C:IwasagainstthiswhenIheardaboutit.AneighborhasadefibrillatorandIwenttoseeifhewascomingto thismeetingtoopposethis.HisdefibrillatorrunsonVerizonandheneedsthecoverage.Itissometimes weak.Thisisthesafetyaspect. Q:DESIGNisthekeything.Canitbebuiltintothesteeple? R:It’shardtogettheheightneeded,andthegroundequipment,andtherearestructuralchallenges.Itneeds togetabovetrees,andhavecapacityformultiplecarriers. C:Wesoldahouseinanotherstatethathadpowerlinesinback.It’sbeenfoundthatthere’snorisk.But therewasaPERCEPTION.So,it’simportanttomakeitstealth.There’smoredangerfromhavingyourphone atyourear.ButDESIGNforstealthtoavoidtheperceptions. R:Thatistheplan,wewouldworkwiththeCityonthedesign.Andthechurch. C:Ididreadthatchildrenaremoresusceptible.Theyhavethinnerskulls,littlereproductiveorgans.Some countriesarebanningWiFi.NonͲionizingwavesCANdisturbcells.SotthereISinformationoutthere.Maybe theinternetjustgivestoomuch,maybethat’swhat’shappeninghere. R:Thereisanestablisheddistrustofmedicalorganizations.Acknowledgethat.Butberealcarefulwiththe source.Lookforpeerreview. C:Therearelotsofoverseasstudies.I’vehadamedicalconditionforyears,andneededelectromagnetic frequencytreatment.SoitdoesaffectDNAandcells.AndpropertyvaluesAREaffected. Q:WhatISthepower? R:I’mnotanexpertorengineerbutthiswouldfollowFCCrules.Beingclosetousers,it’llbelimited.Itwon’t beastrongsignal. C:Ibeteverybodyherehasacellphone.Ifyoulookaround,you’llfindthesetowersinallofourbackyards. C:I’marealtor–Icansaythatsomeclientsseeatower,andsayno.Southridgewasanexample,withabig electricaltower. C:Design,design,design. ClayFrickeydismissedthemeetingandthankedeveryoneforcoming. 10.1 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 1 Development Review Center 281 North College Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970-221-6750 fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview NEIGHBORHOODINFORMATIONMEETINGNOTES MeetingDateJanuary31,2018 Thesenotescapturestaff’sinterpretationofquestions,commentsandideasfromthemeeting. PROJECT: SouthsideBaptistChurchWirelessTelecommunicationFacility DATE: January31,2018 CITYSTAFF: SylviaTatmanͲBurruss,DevelopmentReviewLiaison ClayFrickey,CityPlanner PROSPECTIVE CalebCrossland,AtlasTower APPLICANT MichaelPowers,AtlasTower ProjectDescription Thisisarequesttoconstructawirelesstelecommunicationfacilityat620WHorsetoothRd.Theproject proposestheinstallationof65footstealthbelltowerwitha40footby40footleaseareaatthebaseofthe tower.TheprojectproposalislocatedinaLowDensityResidential(RL)district.Wirelesstelecommunication facilitiesarenotapermittedusedintheRLzonedistrict.ThisproposalissubjecttoanAdditionofPermitted Use(APU)withreviewbythePlanning&ZoningBoardandCityCouncil. Meeting SylviaTatmanͲBurrussintroducedthepurposeofthemeetingandwentthroughtheagendafortheevening. ClayFrickeyfollowedupwithapresentationontheCity’sdevelopmentreviewprocessandLandUseCode. TheproposedfacilitywouldneedtoproceedthroughtheCity’sDevelopmentReviewprocesswithsubmittal ofplans,staffreviewofplans,andmultiplepublichearings.Theproposedused,WirelessTelecommunications Facility,isnotallowedinthezoneinwhichitisbeingproposed.ThisnecessitatesanAPU.Sincethisproposal issubjecttoanAPU,CityCouncilwillbetheultimatedecisionmakerforthisprojectwiththePlanning& ZoningBoardprovidingarecommendationforapprovalordenialtoCityCouncil.Planswillbeavailableonline forpublicinspection,and,whenscheduled,amailingnoticewillbesentforthehearing(s)inaccordancewith thecode. TheLandUseCodeaddressestheplacementanddesignofcelltowerfacilitiesandequipment.FCC regulationslimitlocalgovernmentauthorityandspecificallyrestrictStateorlocalgovernmentsfrom regulatingwirelessfacilitiesonthebasisoftheenvironmentaleffectsofradiofrequencyemissionstothe extentthatafacilitycomplieswithFCCregulationsonsuchemissions. 10.1 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 2 CalebCrosslandexplainedtheproposalandrationale. x Serviceprovidersareseeinganeedformoretowersclosertotheirusers. x Whyatowerhere?Demandandfewotherviablelocations.Thisareahaspoorcapacityduetodatausage andfewparcelshavepermissivezoningandavailablelandforacelltower. x Antennaswillbecompletelyshieldedfromview. x Theproposedtowercouldaccommodatemultiplecarriers. x BrickfencetoscreengroundequipmentalongHorsetoothRd.Woodfenceproposedforallothersidesof fencedarea. x Thedesignconceptisabelltower55feetinheight. Anyquestionsorrequestsforinformationarewelcomeat: Caleb.crossland@gmail.com,phone303.448.8896 QuestionsandDiscussion: Q=Question R=Response C=Comment Question:WilltheproposedtowerbeforaGSMorCDMAnetwork?Howdoesthisplayintotheproposal? Response(Applicant):GSMandCDMAarejusttwodifferentwaysofprocessingasignal.Theydon’treally makeadifferenceintermsofradiofrequencyemissions.GSMnetworksaremorecommon.IbelieveCDMA hasbeenadoptedbyVerizon. Question:Iknowthatyoucan’tconsiderthehealtheffectsaspartofthedevelopmentprocess,butfromwhat IhavereadGSMnetworksemitmoreradiation,soIwouldpreferthistobeaCDMAnetwork. Response(Applicant):ThismightbeaCDMAnetwork,Iamnotsure.Eitherway,GSMandCDMAnetworks aresubjecttothesameFCCregulations.Radiofrequencyemissionsdonotchangebasedonthe encoding/decodingmethod.Asyoustated,thefederalgovernmenthaspreͲemptedtheCityofFortCollins withrespecttoradiofrequencyemissionissues.AwaytothinkaboutthisishowtheFederalDrug Administrationworkswithrespecttothesaleofdrugs.TheFDAdetermineswhatissafeandwhatisn’tand lowerlevelsofgovernmentoperatewithintheseregulations.Forexample,theCityofFortCollinsdoesnot havedifferentstandardsforsellingprescriptiondrugscomparedtoothercommunities.TheFCChastakenthe sameapproachwithwirelessfacilities.TheFCCconductsstudiesandusesexpertstocreaterules. Question:Doestheproposedbelltowerhaverealbells? Response(City):No. Comment:Ithinkthisisappropriatetosayhere,thankGod.Withthatbeingsaid,Ithinktheproposedtower isoutofcontext.Iwouldliketoseeyouworkontheshapeofthetowersoitismoretaperedandsimilartoa 10.1 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 3 steeple.Theproposedtowerisjarring.Iwouldalsolikeyoutoworkonthecolor.Thewhitecoloristoostark andjarring.Abeigecolormightbemoreappropriate.Also,considerbrickforthefenceontheeastsideas well.ThiswillbeveryvisiblefromHorsetoothsoitwouldmakesensetohavebrickontheeastsideaswell. Response(Applicant):Theseareallgreatsuggestionsandwewouldliketoaccommodateyoursuggestions. Wechosethewhitecolortomatchthechurchbutthatcancertainlybechanged. Response(City):TheCityisopentosuggestionsondesignsopleasefeelfreetoofferyoursuggestions. Question:Willthissitesupport5G?Willitrequiremodificationstohouse5Gequipment? Response(Applicant):Rightnow,thissitewillsupport4Gequipment.Thereisnoofficialdesignstandardfor 5Gequipmentsowe’renotsurehowthissitecouldhandle5Gequipment.Thissitewillcertainlybe upgradable,though. Comment:Justtomakethisclear,IamnotagainstthetowerbutIamagainstthedesign.NewYorkerswould notlikeit. Response(Applicant):Wewillworkonthedesign. Question:HaveyouconsideredapinetreedesignsimilartotheoneatShieldsandVine? Response(City):WejokinglyrefertothefakepineonShieldsandVineastheFrankenpine.Monopinedesigns tendtoworkbetterwhensurroundedbyothertrees.Forexample,anewmonopinerecentlywentupat ProspectandShields.It’snearmyhouseandhadn’tnoticedituntilacoͲworkertoldmeithadbeenbuilt. Now,Ican’tunͲseethemonopine. Question(City):Whatothersortsofdesignswouldyouprefer? Response(Community):Iwouldpreferasteeple,acanister,orsomethingintegratedintootherinfrastructure likeapowerlineorlightpole. Question:Whatwilltheenvironmentalimpactsofthisfacilitybe?I’veheardwecanexpectadepreciationof ourpropertyvalueofatleast5%.IwouldliketheretobeanEnvironmentalImpactStatementperformedfor thisproposal. Response(City):TheFCCdisallowsconsiderationofenvironmentalimpacts. Response(Applicant):Wecantalkaboutthesethingsinaneighborhoodmeeting;theCityjustcan’tmake decisionsbasedonhealthimpacts. Comment:TheCanadiangovernmentseemsmoreunbiasedwhenitcomestocellphoneregulations.TheUS governmenthasbeenbought.TheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)recentlyupgradedradiofrequency emissionstoaTypeIIcarcinogen.Europeangovernmentsarealsoalotmorestrictonradiofrequency emissions.Ittookus30yearsbeforewerealizedradonisn’tgoodforyou,Iworrywe’redoingthesamething withcellphones.IwouldliketoseeanEnvironmentalImpactStatement. Response(Applicant):TheWHOhasnotplacedradiofrequencyemissionsontheCategory1listof carcinogens.Category1carcinogensareknowncarcinogens.Category2Aagentsareprobablycarcinogenic, meaningstudiesshowtheylikelycausecancerbutarenotconclusive. Comment:I’mtalkingaboutradiofrequencyemission’simpactonbirdsandbeesaswell,notjusthumans. Response(Applicant):Ok,letmefinish.Category2Bagentsarepossiblycarcinogenic,meaningthereissome evidencetheycausecancerinhumansbutitisnotconclusive.Category2Bisnotasconclusiveanditmeans thereneedstobemoreresearchtoprovethereisacausalrelationshipbetweentheagentanditcausing cancer.Undercurrentruleswithcurrentresearch,thereisnotcausalrelationshipbetweenradiofrequency emissionsandcancer,likemicrowaves.Mostofthesestudieslookattheradiationfromhandsets,notfrom 10.1 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 4 celltowers.ThereisRFeverywhere.Handsetsalsooperateatahigherwattagewhentheyarefurtheraway fromcelltowers,sohavingatowerclosertoyoureducesyourexposuretoRF. Comment:I’mmainlyconcernedaboutthehomesaroundthefencelineandtheirexposuretoRFsincethey willbeclosesttothetower. Response(Applicant):Whenyouare50feetawayfromthetower,theRFis1/100thofthesafelevelapproved bytheFCC.RFfollowsanexponentialcurveintermsofitsreductionofpowercomparedtodistancefromthe antenna.WealsohadtoperformaNEPAstudyaspartofthisprojectandwewouldbehappytoshareitwith you.TheNEPAstudyraisednoconcerns. Question:Canyoucommentonthe5%reductioninpropertyvalues? Response(City):Wecannotconsiderpropertyvalueseitheraspartofourdecisionmaking.Therearetoo manyfactorswhendeterminingthevalueofahometosingleoutacelltowerascausingachangeinthevalue ofahome. Question:Whatfrequencieswillyoubeusing?I’malsoconcernedaboutinterferencewithotherdevices. Response(Applicant):We’renot100%sure.Verizontypicallyoperatesaround700MHz.Wecangetthat informationtoyou,interferencewithotherequipmentistightlyregulated. Question:WillthisfacilitybeoperatinginatawavelengthsimilartoFMradio? Response(Applicant):No,wewillnotbeoperatinginasimilarfrequencyrangeasFMradio.Ifwecause interference,wehavetoresolvethisissueanditisaverybigprocess. Comment:Idisagree,thereissomeleakage. Response(Applicant):Ifweinterferewithotherequipment,wehavetoaddressitandwewillmakesure thereisnointerference. Question:Whatisthedurationofthelease? Response(Applicant):Thisisa20Ͳyearleasewithrenewals,similartoatelephonepole. Question:Willthisbelocatedonthechurch’sproperty? Response(Applicant):Yes. Comment:Thisdoesn’tlooklikeabelltower,itlookslikeaboxkitegettingreadytotakeoff.Iwouldlike somethingmoreartisticwithmorecolors.Didthechurchapprovethisdesign? Response(Applicant):Wehaveworkedtogetherwiththechurchonthedesign. Comment:Maybethechurchwantstoputtheirmottoonthetower. Response(Applicant):Ifyouseesomeotherdesignyoulike,pleaseletusknowsowecanconsiderit. Question:Didadesignermaketheproposedtower? Response(Applicant):Yes,notme,butwehaveusedthisdesigninthepast.We’vealsoreducedtheheightto 55feet.The65ͲfootreferenceintheCity’spresentationwasfromapreviousiterationoftheplan. Question:Whatisthemaximumheightinthiszonedistrict? 10.1 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 5 Response(City):Thisisagreyareaofthecode.Inthiszonedistrict,themaximumheightforanonͲresidential buildingis3Ͳstories.SincestoriesaremeasuredfromfloorͲtoͲfloor,however,aoneͲstorystructurecould technicallyhaveanunlimitedheight.There’salsotheissuethatpertheLandUseCode,thismaynotbe consideredabuildingsinceitmaynothavearoofanddoesn’tencloseanything.Duetothis,werelyonthe compatibilityrequirementsoftheLandUseCodetodealwithheightissuesforcelltowers. Comment:IliveonCoronadoCourtandImisscriticalcallsallthetimeduetothelackofcoverage.Iworkfrom homeandhavelostbusinessbecauseofthis,soitisarealproblem. Response(Applicant):Thanksforthefeedback.Also,most911callsarefromcellphones.Mostemergency servicesalsorelyoncellphonessothisisasafetyissue.Alotpeoplelookforgoodcellphonecoveragewhen purchasingahomesothepriceofhomesmightdropwithnocellphonecoverage. Question:Howmuchareawillthisfacilitycover? Response(Applicant):Backinthe2Gand3Gdays,youusedtobeabletoputupatoweronahillandcovera wholecity.Now,cellphonesarelikeminiͲcomputerssothenetworkneedsmorefacilitiestoservicecell phones.Carriershavestartedbuildingahighernumberoflowpoweredfacilitiesclosertoenduserstofillin gaps.Thisalldependsonnetworkusageandavailablelocations.Eitherway,weneedmorefacilitiesto antennascanhandlethedemand. Question:Sothisfacilitywon’tprovidecoveragetothenorthpartofthecity,correct? Response(Applicant):That’sright.Insomecities,acelltowerwillcoveronlyoneblock.Westillhavedead spotsinFortCollinsandVerizoncustomersdemandthatwefixthesegaps. Question:Couldyouputthetowerinalessobtrusivelocation?Whatisthepotentialcoveragearea? Response(Applicant):Thisfacilitycouldtheoreticallyserveuptoamileradius,butthatisimpossiblewiththe demandwesee. Question:Soyou’resayingyouneedatleastoneofthesetowerseverytwomiles? Response(Applicant):No,weneedmorethanthat.Ratherthanthinkingaboutcoverageintermsofanarea, thinkofitintermsofnumberofusersserved. Question:Doyouhaveastudyshowingcoveragebyheightofthetowerandthebandwidthofthetower?I thinkthenewstadiumwouldbeamuchbetterlocation. Response(Applicant):Wedon’thavethatleveloftechnicalexpertise,butVerizonwouldhavethatsortof information. Question:Whataretheclosesttowerstothislocation? Response(Applicant):There’satoweronShieldsandHorsetoothaswellassomefacilitiesonDrake.These otherlocationsaresmall,hidden,andoftentimesonlysupportonecarrier.Theissueiswehavehitormiss coverageanditistoughtomeettheexpectationsofVerizon’scustomersaswellastheCity’sexpectations withrespecttotheLandUseCode. Comment:InNewYork,I’veseentheyrelymoreonmicrotowers. Response(Applicant):Smallcellsitesliketheonesyouarereferencingaugmentmacrotowers.Weneedboth kindsoffacilities.CitieslikeNewYorkandLosAngelesusedifferenttechnologybecauseofhowdensely 10.1 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 6 populatedthosecitiesare.ThattechnologyisnotcomingtoFortCollins.There’snotenoughdensityofusers tosupportthatsortoftechnology. Response(City):SmallcellsarecomingtoFortCollins.Therewasarecentstatutepassedatthestatelevel thatrequirescitiestoallowsmallcellsintherightͲofͲway.TheCityiscurrentlynegotiatingaMasterLicense AgreementwithVerizononwhatthesefacilitiesintherightͲofͲwaywilllooklike. Question:Canwejustwaitforsmallcells? Response(Applicant):Icantellyouthatiftherewasn’taneedforthissortoffacility,wewouldn’tbetryingto buildit. Question:Iftheyspend$2millionhereonalargetower,whywouldtheyspendmoneyonsmallcellinthis area? Response(Applicant):Therearen’tanyplansforsmallcellhere.AsClaystated,Verizonisworkingonamaster planwiththeCity.Smallcelltechnologyisforlowpowerequipmentindenselypopulatedareas.Thisareaisn’t denseenoughforsmallcell. Comment:I’mproͲwirelessbutIamantithisdesign,itneedssomework. Response(Applicant):PleasesubmityourideastoClay,wewillworkwithyou. Comment:Ihaveterribleserviceandcan’tevengetdatainmyfrontyard.Thedensityinthisareaisonly increasingandIcan’twait5yearsforbettercoverage.Signmeupforthetower.Ievengotaboosterfrom VerizonandIstillhavecoverageissues. Comment:Iagreeonthedesign,itlookslikethreebillboards.Brickwouldbeamoreappropriatematerialfor thetower.Iwouldalsolikeaneutralcolorbetter.Also,trytoworkontheshape. Comment:Perhapsitcouldbetriangularormoretapered?Makeitthecolorofbricksoitismorenatural? Comment:I’minfavoroftheprojectbutIdon’tlikethedesign.Iknowthiscouldtakesomemoretimebut couldyousubmitthistodesignclassesatCSUoralocalhighschool?Maybeyoucoulddoadesign competitionwhereyoupickthewinningdesignanduseit.Maybeyoucouldseeiftheycouldusenatural materialsandmakeitmoreartistic.Youcouldusethedesignonothersitesandgivecredittothedesigner. Response(Applicant):Ilikethatidea,thanks. Question:Whywasthissitechosen?Isthereabetterfitelsewhere?I’mconcernedaboutthehealthofthe studentshere. Question:Couldweseethefrontviewofthetoweragain?Whatshapeisit,asquare? Response(Applicant):It’striangular. Comment:Theylooklikebillboards,theCitycouldleasethemout. Response(City):Thiswouldviolatethesigncode.Ihearthatyouallareconcernedaboutthedesignsowewill workonimprovingthedesign. Comment:Iagreethistowerisanecessaryevilandthatthereisconsensustoworkonthedesign,butIhave neverseensomethingsooutofplace.WhathappenedwiththeproposalatSouthridge? 10.1 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Neighborhood Meeting Notes - Page | 7 Response(Applicant):TheCitybackedawayfromthatproposal.Duetoallofthepushbackagainstthattower, theCitydecidedtonotallowanynewleasesonCityͲownedproperty. Question:WhatreplacedthefacilityatSouthridge? Response(Applicant):Asilo,Idareyoutofindit. Question:Didyoutrytogetaleaseatthenearbyfarm? Response(Applicant):Yes,andwegotchasedofftheproperty. Question:Doyoulivehere?Ijustaskthatyoupleaserespectourconcerns. Response(Applicant):No,IliveinDenvernowbutgrewupinFortCollinsandappreciateyourconcerns.You’ll startseeingthesesortsoffacilitiesinotherplaces. Question:Canyousendmeexamplesofotherfacilities? Response(Applicant):Yes. Question:Thisseemslikeanexerciseinfutility.Istheleasealreadyfinalized? Response(Applicant):No,weneedtogetapprovalforthefacilityfirst.ThePlanning&ZoningBoardcares aboutthecommunityandconsiderseveryone’stestimony.TherearenoslamdunkprojectinFortCollins.We wantwhat’sbestforthecommunity.ThePlanning&ZoningBoardwillhearyourconcernsandsaynoif everyonecomesoutagainsttheproject. Question:Itsoundslikethechurchisatriskhere,too.Sothere’snoguaranteeonthelease? Response(Applicant):Wehaveanagreementthatifwegetapprovedandgetabuildingpermit,thenwewill havealease.Therearenoguarantees. 10.1 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 10.1 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : 10.1 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : 10.1 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : 10.1 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : 10.1 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : HEARING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF FORT COLLINS Held May 17, 2018 City Council Chambers 200 West Laporte Fort Collins, Colorado In the Matter of: Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017 Meeting Time: 6:00 PM, May 17, 2018 Board Members Present: Staff Members Present: Jeffrey Schneider, Chair Cameron Gloss Michael Hobbs Clay Frickey Jennifer Carpenter Brad Yatabe Ruth Rollins Shar Gerber William Whitley ATTACHMENT 2 10.2 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 2 1 CHAIR JEFFREY SCHNEIDER: So, moving on to the last item, which is the Century Wireless 2 Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. So Shar, before we start, have 3 we received any new additional information on this item? 4 MS. SHAR GERBER: We have; Patrick Wilson objects to the project and expressed concerns 5 about the aesthetics and impact on property values. We also have attachments 6, 7, and 8 added to staff 6 report and packet on 5/11 of ’18. 7 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Does anyone on the Board have anything that they 8 need to disclose or any ex parte communications on this item? Alright, seeing none, we’ll turn it over to 9 staff for their presentation. 10 MR. CLAY FRICKEY: Alright, thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning 11 Board, Clay Frickey, City Planner, project planner for the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility 12 and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP 170017. The proposal calls for a 55-foot tall wireless 13 telecommunications facility located at 620 West Horsetooth Road, which is between Shields and College, 14 which is the site that is in the hatching in the vicinity map on the left. The proposal calls for the tower to 15 be disguised as a bell tower. The property houses a church, the Southside Baptist Church. The site is 16 located in the low-density residential zone district in which a wireless telecommunications facility is not a 17 permitted use, so the applicant must seek an addition of permitted use in order to proceed with this 18 project. So, that concludes staff’s overview of the project. 19 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Is the applicant team ready to present? Alright. Do 20 you guys think you can do this in 30 minutes or less? Or do you feel like you need some more time? 21 MR. KEN BRADTKE: I think that should be good. 22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thirty minutes? Okay. Please state your name so we can write it down 23 and for the record. 24 MR. BRADTKE: My name is Ken Bradtke, B-R-A-D-T-K-E…do you need my address? No? 25 Okay. 26 So, good evening board members; I’d like to thank you for being here tonight and hearing our 27 proposal. I’m the Director of Operations for Atlas Tower; we’re the co-applicant for the communications 28 tower project before you tonight, along with Verizon Wireless. Can I click? Cool. 29 So, I just wanted to start my presentation with a brief overview of what I’ll be covering tonight. 30 First, I’ll provide a little bit of background on Atlas Tower and who we are; I know I spoke before this 31 Board on another recent project, so forgive me if I’m covering anything you may already know, but I do 32 think it’s important to talk briefly about Atlas’ role in the project and what part we play. Second, I’ll 33 touch on the federal guidelines that pertain to our project as they provide, sort of, the framework for the 34 standard of review for our proposal. Next, I’ll get into some detail about the need for the site and 35 highlight some of the differences between coverage and capacity. And then from there I’ll go into some 36 detail about how and why we chose this particular location, why it was the least intrusive possible 37 location to provide the quality coverage that’s needed and lacking in the area. And then to wrap it up, 38 we’ll go over some of the photo sims and finish up with some additional information on why height is an 39 essential element to telecommunications infrastructure and our need for a 55-foot structure. 10.2 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 3 1 So, Atlas Tower, we’re a small independently-owned, Boulder-based communications 2 infrastructure company. We’re not a carrier; we don’t put the antennas on the tower, you can’t sign up for 3 Atlas Tower wireless service, but instead we own, operate, build and maintain wireless infrastructures, 4 towers mainly, and then we lease space on the towers to all the different carriers: AT&T, Sprint, T- 5 Mobile, and of course, Verizon. We’ve been developing towers since the early 2000’s, started in the 6 Pacific Northwest and Alaska, and the Rocky Mountain region, and have recently expanded into the 7 Midwest. 8 And so, as I mentioned, first particular project, our anchor tenant, our co-applicant, is Verizon 9 Wireless, but we’re always looking to co-locate. So, we don’t discriminate against any carrier. We build 10 all our towers with a future-looking approach. And so, you know, that’ll kind of tie into the height 11 argument when I talk about that a little bit later. 12 So, section 332 of the Telecommunications Act basically states that regulation of the placement 13 and construction of communications tower facilities by any local government shall not have the effect of 14 prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service. And, what does that mean? Basically, there are 15 two factors to determine if a denial or a decision effectively prohibits the provision of personal wireless 16 service. The first is, is that location the least intrusive available alternative. As our application sort of 17 describes in detail, and Clay’s staff report mentions, and discussed later in the presentation, Atlas and 18 Verizon both conducted comprehensive examination of the search area and found no other suitable 19 parcels capable of fulfilling the coverage gap in this area. And the second factor, is there a significant gap 20 in coverage and capacity for the intended service area. Again, as our application covered in detail and 21 discussed a bit more in the presentation, Verizon provided coverage maps showing the significant gap in 22 coverage and capacity existing in the area. And those are also…you can also see that same gap in 23 coverage in Clay’s staff report with the OpenSignal and Sensorly exhibits. So, while local municipalities 24 certainly aren’t compelled to approve all applications for communications towers, by meeting the 25 aforementioned requirements, the onus is there to approve the proposal absent some sufficiently 26 compelling counter-argument. 27 Okay, so let’s get into some of the coverage and capacity issues and the remedies that we’re 28 proposing. In the maps that follow, I just want to highlight that sections in green have good coverage, 29 yellow has moderate, grey has limited to poor, and sections in white have no coverage. And, additionally, 30 something to keep in mind, the existing sites…and this ties into our capacity discussion we’ll get into a 31 little bit later…are covering too large of an area right now. The ideal service area for a macro site is 32 about one square mile…yeah, so let’s look at the maps. So, this is the site, the coverage plots as it exists 33 right now without our site. You can see our site is basically that area in grey off of Horsetooth Road, so 34 you can see…you know, as you move west from 287, there’s really poor coverage throughout the whole 35 area. And this is the coverage that you’d see with our site; you can see there’s a dramatic improvement in 36 excellent coverage shown by the green, with moderate coverage extending…and we’re also connecting 37 the coverage area between the other existing Verizon sites shown by the black bullets there…along…near 38 the commercial area by 287. 39 In addition to the coverage gaps shown in our previous images, a major issue some of the 40 networks face is capacity. Every cell site has a limit to the amount of cellular traffic it can handle, and the 41 reality is capacity issues have dramatically increased over the last several years as the average smart 42 phone takes up almost 50 times the amount of network capacity as a standard phone. The only way to 43 address this issue is to reduce the geographical area which each site is required to cover. And so, in the 44 first map I showed where there was limited to no coverage, those areas where you might be able to get the 10.2 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 4 1 occasional fleeting bar, are getting service from one of the existing nodes that were also highlighted in 2 those maps. But, as population and data use grows, those towers not only become continually unable to 3 provide service to our intended area, but they also become taxed just by serving the customers in their 4 more immediate vicinity. Every user that attempts to access the networks here, near our proposed site, 5 adds additional stress on the existing nodes, and as that number of users increases, you get more dropped 6 calls, denials of service, and frustrated citizens. So, not only will our site provide coverage where it is 7 currently insufficient or non-existent, but it will also remedy some of the stress on the existing nodes 8 caused by distant users trying to access that infrastructure while it’s just trying to keep up with the 9 demand in its own immediate service area. 10 So this table was again in the application…just sort of shows capacity trends up, it actually peaks, 11 more towards the end of the year…the red line being the capacity line where you start getting denial of 12 service, dropped calls, and that kind of thing. So, this slide shows some of the statistics that highlight the 13 capacity issue and growing data…wireless service trends…so I’ll just read them off real quick: the 14 demand for wireless data service has increased 238% from 2016 to 2018 according to a CTI report from 15 April of this year, in many areas, over 80% of 911 calls originate from a cell phone, with over 70% being 16 the national average, over 50% of households are wireless only, again, that’s according to the CTI here in 17 an April report, and more than 75% of prospective home buyers prefer strong wireless communications 18 according to…metrics. 19 So, not only is wireless service for residents in a specific area, but also serves other users as well. 20 You know, we often get the concern…I can make a phone call at my house, and so, the answer to that is 21 Verizon uses high-level detailed network statistics from every server and device in an area to determine 22 where to invest. One single device in one home may perform well, but we have data showing that 23 thousands of others do not. Wireless services are mobile and serve any device in an area, not just the 24 devices owned by residents. Verizon and roaming partners, customers who live in, work in, shop in, play 25 in, and even drive through Fort Collins all benefit from new communications infrastructure, and certainly 26 this one. And different applications have different quality needs. For example, very slow data might be 27 fine for a phone call, but it makes it very difficult or impossible for police officers to receive dispatch info 28 on their laptops while on patrol. That’s a problem that’s magnified during a personal emergency, or 29 especially during large-scale emergencies like tornadoes, floods, and similar phenomena. 30 Okay, so let’s get into our site selection process. Essentially, the first step is a search area is 31 identified, usually by a carrier where they, you know, according to that info I just shared with you, their 32 network statistics are showing poor coverage, bad coverage, they’re getting complaints, that sort of thing. 33 So, they’ll identify a search area. Then, once we have that search area, we review the City Code to 34 identify any locations in the area that meet City requirements, mainly zoning, setbacks. Next, we 35 determine if the facilities that meet City Code have adequate utilities and access, is there enough space. 36 And then the last step is we contact property owners to determine if they’re willing to lease space. 37 So, this was the original search area; it’s about a square mile there. This is that same search area 38 but it just kind of has that zoning break down; these were in the application packet. It just kind of gives 39 you a sense of where we were looking. And then this image kind of shows, you know, I think part of the 40 issue with the existing nodes not being able to cover areas…there is an elevation drop of about 45 feet as 41 you move from the church down to that more commercial area. And, if you’ve driven down Horsetooth 42 Road heading west, you’ll definitely notice there’s a huge drop off in coverage once you basically get to 43 about our property. 10.2 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 5 1 So, this is also in the application…it shows, you know, each sort of area and our leasing attempts. 2 It’s pretty well detailed in the application. Most of the area is pretty dense residential and doesn’t have 3 favorable zoning. Number 4 on the map is our actual parcel. The parcels in purple have more favorable 4 zoning; they’re more commercial. And, again, that’s detailed in our application why we were unable to 5 get a lease; most of them either didn’t have enough space on the property, or after many, many attempts, 6 they just basically told us they weren’t interested in leasing whether it was because they didn’t feel like 7 they had the property space, or they just didn’t want to do a lease or have the project on their property. If 8 you have any further questions on our leasing due diligence, Mike Powers, our Director of Legal Affairs, 9 is here and he did some of that actual meeting with a lot of these landlords. This is just another…as I 10 mentioned, the ideal service area is one square mile. So, from our property, that’s one square mile…just 11 to kind of give you a sense of, you know, what’s the ideal service area for a macro site to provide ideal 12 coverage and, you know, meet capacity issues, and that sort of thing. 13 So here are some of the photo sims. We actually had an alternative design and then we did 14 another neighborhood meeting and got some feedback, so we changed up the design a bit. This is the 15 proposed structure; the original design looked really similar except we added some brick cladding and, 16 you know, just basically designed it so that it would meet the exterior of the church with the brick and the 17 white paint. And this is another image…this is looking southwest I believe…or no, sorry, this is looking 18 northeast. There’s the structure. 19 So, need for height…towers work via line of sight, so if they are able to communicate with each 20 other, the nodes, they work much better, so that’s why height is essential. Basically, we start getting 21 degradation below 50-feet of our optimal coverage area. Also related to that is the ability to allow future 22 tenants. So, you know, every foot you lose, you lose coverage for not only the anchor tenant but also for 23 future co-los in the future, which you know, the more carriers we can fit on a single structure, we limit the 24 need for additional future structures down the road. 25 So, Clay, I think on Friday or Monday we got a request that the Board wanted to see some 26 additional plots…some additional plots showing propagation at 45 and then our additional lower rads of 27 38 and 28 I think. So, this is the 50-foot plot we had done to sort of meet that request just to show you 28 what we’re looking at. And then the next slide, that’s at 45-feet. That is 36, 38 sorry, and that’s 28…26. 29 And this is…shows the cell splits. It basically shows which node is serving which area. And so, again, 30 this is at 50-feet…basically our structure is…you can see where it’s, you know, taking the capacity off of 31 the existing nodes. That’s at 45. I’m having some mouse difficulties…I think we skipped one…so this 32 would be 38…or no…can I right-click back Clay? Yeah, so that’s 38, and that’s 26. 33 Yeah, so basically to conclude, federal requirements mandate the provision of wireless service 34 and explicitly forbid the prohibition of personal wireless service if conditions are met. Atlas has met 35 these requirements, in addition to the City’s requirements, as detailed in staff’s recommendation for 36 approval and our application. There is a significant coverage gap and capacity issues at this location. The 37 location chosen was the only available in the extended search ring that we looked at and the stealth bell 38 tower minimizes any aesthetic impact of the site and fits the character of other existing church 39 infrastructure in Fort Collins. Clay did a good job of sort of detailing that in his staff report showing that 40 our structure is actually quite a bit shorter than a lot of the ornamental church structures in Fort Collins. 41 And, the overall benefit provided the community, including the improved reliability and availability of 42 both personal and emergency communication services far outweigh any visual impact of the project. And 43 we also have and RF engineer here from Verizon if you guys have any specific RF questions as well. 10.2 Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 6 1 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Do you have anyone else on your team that would like 2 to address the Board with the time allotted? No? Seeing none…not at this time? 3 MR. BRADTKE: Not at this time. 4 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, then we’ll turn it back to staff for their analysis. 5 MR. FRICKEY: Thank you Mr. Chair. So, I’d like to begin the presentation to briefly discuss the 6 addition of permitted use process for those in the audience that may not be familiar with the process. 7 What this process allows is for an applicant to apply for a use that’s allowed elsewhere in the city of Fort 8 Collins, but is not allowed in the zone district in which they are seeking the use. In this case, this is a 9 wireless telecommunications facility, meaning a freestanding tower for the purpose of providing wireless 10 coverage. There’s eight specific criteria outlined in the Land Use Code in Section 1.3.4(C)(1) of the Code 11 for residential zone districts…in which case the low-density residential zone district is a residential 12 zone…City Council is the ultimate decision maker on addition of permitted use applications. So, what 13 will happen here tonight is Planning and Zoning Board will make a recommendation to City Council. 14 I’m going to briefly go through all eight of the APU criteria and then drill down into each specific 15 criterion one by one throughout the presentation. So, just for a brief overview, the first criterion says that 16 the use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added, the second criterion is that it conforms to 17 the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is 18 added, the third criterion deals with the compatibility of the design, size, and location of the use, and that 19 it has minimal impact on the use of the nearby properties, the fourth criterion essentially states that the 20 use will not create any sort of nuisance issue, and there’s a lot of different elements that are listed there 21 that I won’t go into painstaking detail on. Criterion number five is that the use will not change the 22 predominant character of the surrounding area, criterion six, that such use is compatible with the other 23 listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it’s added, criterion seven requires two neighborhood 24 meetings, one after conceptual review and one after the first round of staff review, and then the eighth 25 criterion says that a medical marijuana business or retail marijuana establishment is not eligible for an 26 addition of permitted use. 27 So, for criterion number one, something that’s important to note is that wireless 28 telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in every zone district within the city. The difference 29 between wireless telecommunications equipment and a wireless telecommunications facility is that 30 equipment is an antenna attached to an existing structure or building; a facility is a purpose-built facility 31 for the express purpose of housing wireless equipment. So, in this case, since wireless equipment is 32 allowed in the low-density residential zone district, the question really comes down to design. Is the 33 design appropriate for the area? And so, since we allow wireless telecommunications equipment, staff 34 finds that the proposal meets criterion number one. 35 Criterion number two is that the use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and 36 the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. So, the purpose statement in the Land 37 Use Code for the low-density residential zone district is that it was a zone district for existing single- 38 family…or predominantly single-family neighborhoods at the time of adoption of the Land Use Code in 39 1997. So, most of the subdivisions that have low-density residential zoning were built between the 40 1960’s and 1980’s, and they were predominantly single-family homes. So, the question is, is the facility 41 designed to really fit into the neighborhood. And so, again, sort of boils down to the design because 10.2 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 7 1 wireless telecommunications equipment is an allowed use in every zone in the city. So, staff finds the 2 proposal satisfies criterion two. 3 I’m going to spend the majority of the time discussing criterion three which deals with the 4 location, size, and design of the use. And so, just wanted to also bring up the Telecommunications Act of 5 1996…the applicant already did this, so I’m not going to dwell on this, but essentially, that Act requires 6 cities and municipalities to not de facto ban cell towers through zoning. Cities may determine the 7 location of cell towers in the community through zoning and how they’re designed, but they may not 8 result in a de facto ban on cell towers. So, this was in the project narrative supplied by the applicant. 9 This was the propagation map that was provided by the applicant…so this shows the existing coverage of 10 the area…it shows up a lot of grey and white which means spotty coverage in the immediate area around 11 the proposed site. So, to corroborate that data, staff took a look at two open source platforms that provide 12 maps of cell phone coverage for Verizon. This first one came from OpenSignal…and so these are 13 applications that run in the background of users’ cell phones. So, it’s not a cell phone user uploading 14 their coverage data on their own volition…it runs in the background. So, it’s not a self-selecting sort of 15 thing, if that makes sense. And so, as this map shows, red is poor coverage, green is good coverage. So, 16 as you can see around the applicant’s search ring that the coverage is generally poor. And Sensorly is 17 another open source application that does a similar thing to OpenSignal. The lighter shades of purple 18 indicate poor coverage, the darker shades of purple indicate good coverage. As you can see around the 19 site, which is identified with that red marker, there is, generally speaking, poor coverage around the site. 20 So, the other thing to consider is the availability of other parcels with appropriate zoning in the 21 immediate vicinity within the applicant’s search ring. So, there are a few parcels in this area that have 22 zoning that would allow a wireless telecommunications facility. Those parcels in this area happen to have 23 neighborhood commercial zoning. So, the applicant provided a narrative discussing their attempts to 24 obtain a lease on these properties. Staff also followed up. There’s an existing cell tower at the 25 intersection of Shields and Horsetooth in a commercial center, so staff called the property management 26 company of that strip mall and inquired as to whether or not there is an additional spot on that tower, and 27 it was indicated to staff that there is not. And in fact, staff has also gotten two minor amendment 28 proposals to try and co-locate on that tower, and neither proceeded because they could not make it work 29 with that tower. And so, that says to staff that there isn’t really an opportunity to co-locate, which would 30 have…which staff would have guided the applicant to do had there been that opportunity. 31 So, to discuss the context a little bit more, again, it’s predominantly neighborhoods around the 32 site that consist of one- and two-story buildings. It’s mainly single-family detached homes with some 33 duplexes, and as mentioned, there are some commercial uses as well…pretty small scale, mainly one- and 34 two-story buildings as well. So here is an aerial showing the surrounding area around the church; the 35 church property is identified by that yellow dashed line. As you can see, it’s mainly single-family homes 36 with trees. And so, this view is looking to the north and to the west, so looking from the southeast. And 37 then just to flip it around, this is looking south and west from the northeast showing the context. Again, 38 pretty modestly-scaled structures in the area; there’s not a lot of tall structures around. This is a view of 39 the church site as it exists. This is looking from Horsetooth Road, and this is another view that more or 40 less matches one of the photo simulations that was provided by the applicant…just to give the Board and 41 those in attendance a sense of what the site looks like now. So, this is looking northwest as well from 42 Horsetooth Road. 43 This is a brief view of the site plan. The applicant proposes placing the facility immediately east 44 of the church building. There would be a 40 by 40 square foot ground area for equipment that would be 10.2 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 8 1 screened by a fence; it would be fully screened. And then that triangular shape inside that little 2 compound is the proposed tower. This is an elevation view of the proposed tower; it has three sites for 3 potential carriers to locate on the tower. The legs could be clad in brick that would match the brick on the 4 existing church structure, and then the cross would be painted to also match the church structure, in 5 addition to the rest of the tower being painted to match the cream white color that is found on the church 6 as well, so it blends in as well as possible. 7 I also wanted to just note to the Board some of the other structures in the city that are somewhat 8 similar, that had similar zoning. So, this is actually a Baptist church on LaPorte Avenue; this is between 9 Taft Hill and Overland Trail on the north side of LaPorte Avenue. The steeple in the front contains 10 wireless telecommunications equipment. The top of that steeple reaches 78 feet, 6 inches in height. And 11 then that large white structure in the background is a bell tower as well. As you can see, it looks like in 12 this photograph, the wireless carrier was actually doing service on the tower. Normally there is a white 13 screen in front of that equipment up towards the top of that tower. That bell tower is 50 feet in height. 14 The top of the roof line of the church building, excluding the steeple and all that, is 32 feet. And I 15 mention this to give the Board and those in attendance a sense of the scale, so that way we can try and 16 compare the proposal to other similar structures in the city and try to do an apples to apples comparison. 17 So, this is just a reiteration of what was shown on that slide just so that way people can get a sense of the 18 scale of these existing structures. There are some other…and also I should note that’s in the low-density, 19 mixed-use neighborhood zone district, that previous image. 20 So, I also took some…went out and…well, I got some photos from Google Maps of some other 21 church facilities and structures around the city that have steeples and bell towers just to compare the scale. 22 This is the Westminster Presbyterian Church at 1709 West Elizabeth, so this is near Taft Hill Road. 23 This…the building in the picture is 13 feet, 8 inches tall. The top of the cross in that image reaches 48 24 feet in height, and this is also in the low-density residential zone district. This is the Bridge Church at 25 833 South Taft Hill Road, so just north of Elizabeth on the west side of the road. Staff was unable to 26 reach the church…made a phone call, did not get a phone call back about the height of the building and 27 the height of the steeple, and the building permit records were incomplete for this building, so these are 28 estimates in terms of height. The church building itself is approximately 30 feet in height with a steeple 29 of approximately 60 feet in height. This is in the medium-density, mixed-use neighborhood zone district. 30 This is the First United Methodist Church at 1005 Stover Street, so this at Stover and Elizabeth in Old 31 Town. The top of the sanctuary space is 47 feet in height, so that is the principal building that’s a little bit 32 in the background behind the trees in this image. The top of the roof of the bell tower in the foreground is 33 62 feet in height and the top of the cross is 81 feet in height. This site is located in the neighborhood 34 conservation, low-density zone district. This is the fifth church, which is the church…well one of the 35 closest churches to the Southside Baptist Church…there’s another one on the southwest corner of Shields 36 and Horsetooth as well, but that one does not have a bell tower or steeple. This church…the top of the 37 building is 48 feet, and then the top of the cross in the image is 85 feet. And this is also located in the 38 medium-density, mixed-use neighborhood zone district. 39 So, this table shows all the information that I just conveyed to the Board and to those in 40 attendance, and then I highlighted the proposal at the bottom here. The existing church building at 41 Southside Baptist Church is 20 feet tall, and then this proposed bell tower would be 55 feet in height, and 42 so that sort of gives you a sense of the ranges of heights that other churches have in the community 43 compared to this proposal. 10.2 Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 9 1 So, when staff was analyzing the proposal, the first thing that staff considered was the location of 2 the facility. So, the location of the facility is towards the interior of the site, towards the middle of the 3 site, from an east-west axis, and so that minimizes the impact to neighbors to the east and to the west. It’s 4 also located very close to the church building so it appears more integral to the site as well, which is very 5 important as opposed to it being off by itself which would appear a bit more awkward and not as integral 6 to the church site. It’s also, too, from a north-south perspective, it’s located next to the church, and you 7 have Horsetooth Road acting as a buffer from the single-family homes to the south. So, from a location 8 perspective, staff finds that the location is the best that you could do on this site considering the 9 circumstances and minimizes the impact on the uses of the other properties nearby. 10 The size question…staff considered both the height, but also too, the bulk of the proposed bell 11 tower. The height itself is in range of the other bell towers and steeples; it’s shorter than many of the 12 other bell towers and steeples on churches around the city. The real issue is the bulk. The bulk…it is a 13 larger facility in terms of bulk than these other facilities. And so that’s where staff had a little bit of pause 14 when analyzing the application, but ultimately came to the conclusion that because of the shortened 15 height and then the materials chosen, the design was appropriate. 16 And then in terms of design, bell tower is an explicitly listed stealth technology option in 17 3.8.13(C)(15) of the Land Use Code…that is a supplementary regulation that deals with wireless 18 telecommunications facilities. The City of Fort Collins has a stealth requirement for all wireless 19 telecommunications facilities, meaning that you can’t just put up a pole with antennas hanging off of it; 20 you have to conceal the antennas and make it look integral to the site in some way. And so, bell towers 21 are explicitly listed as an option in that Land Use Code standard. For those reasons, staff finds the 22 proposal meets criterion three. 23 Criterion four essentially states that there’s no nuisance from the site that is above and beyond 24 any of the other permitted uses in the zone district. So that includes things like smoke, odor, glare, 25 environmental impacts, adverse effects to public facilities, those sorts of things. The proposed use does 26 not propose any greater impact than the other permitted uses, so staff finds that the proposal meets 27 criterion four. 28 Criterion five states that this use won’t change the predominant character of the area. As shown 29 in these other images, there are lots of bell towers and steeples on church sites throughout the community 30 and those don’t necessarily define the character of those neighborhoods, and so staff finds that this 31 proposal meets criterion five since this bell tower will not come to define this neighborhood as well from 32 a character perspective. 33 Criterion six states that the use is compatible with the other permitted uses. As stated through a 34 couple of these other criteria, wireless telecommunications is an allowed use in every zone district in the 35 city, so the compatibility is really dependent on the design, and since staff is recommending approval 36 based on criterion number three, staff also finds the proposal meets criterion number six. 37 Criterion seven required two neighborhood meetings, one before…or sorry, one post-conceptual 38 review but before submittal of the development application, and one after one round of review with the 39 City of Fort Collins. Staff held two neighborhood meetings, one on March 23rd, 2017, that occurred 40 before submittal of the project by the applicant. The second neighborhood meeting we convened on 41 January 31st, 2018, after one round of review. So staff finds the proposal meets criterion seven. 10.2 Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 10 1 And then criterion eight requires that the use not be marijuana-related, which this is not, so staff 2 finds the proposal meets criterion eight. Staff finds that the application complies with the APU criteria in 3 Section 1.3.4, and that the application also complied with relevant standards in Article II of the Land Use 4 Code, so staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend that the City Council approve 5 the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use PDP 170017, and that 6 concludes staff’s presentation. 7 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Looking at the time, I guess let’s take a ten-minute 8 break because we try to take a break around eight o’clock for the media folks to do what they need to do. 9 So, let’s take a ten-minute break and then we’ll come back, and we’ll open it up for citizen participation 10 at that point. 11 (**Secretary’s Note: The Board took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) 12 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Welcome back to the May 17th, 2018, City of Fort Collins Planning and 13 Zoning hearing. We’re on our sixth item tonight, which is the Century Wireless Telecommunications 14 Facility and Addition of Permitted Use PDP 170017. We just got done with staff’s analysis following the 15 applicant’s presentation. So, before we move it into pubic comment, is there any clarifying questions that 16 we’d like to ask staff at this point? 17 I just have one. Clay, is there a reason why on your map, or on the applicant’s map, there was the 18 tower that’s at Shields and Horsetooth, why that was never indicated or put on those maps for coverage? 19 MR. FRICKEY: It might be because it’s owned by a different carrier. I believe AT&T is the 20 carrier on that site, in which case, Verizon wouldn’t have data showing what area that covers since they 21 use different technology. 22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, the coverage maps were Verizon-only coverage? 23 MR. FRICKEY: Correct. 24 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Do we know who co-locates at the Shields and Horsetooth, or is there just 25 one company on that tower. 26 MR. FRICKEY: AT&T is on that tower. 27 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: And that’s the only provider on that tower? Okay. Now I’d like to open 28 it up for citizen participation. Again, this is your chance to address the Board, ask questions about this 29 item on tonight’s agenda. Please come down to the podium; you’ll have three minutes to speak. Please 30 sign in, state your name for the record. Can I see a show of hands of how many people would like to 31 address the Board on this item? Okay, seeing a couple, there are two podiums, so if you would come 32 down, line up…that way we can make it expeditious. And make sure that you ask the questions to the 33 Board so that we can take notes and then make sure that those questions get addressed and answered after 34 you speak. So, see who’s going to sign in first. So, alright, sir, if you’re ready, go ahead. 35 MR. WILL MOORE: Yes, my name is Will Moore; I’m a resident of Fort Collins and I live 36 approximately 500 feet southwest of the proposed project in Village in Four Seasons townhomes. My 10.2 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 11 1 question is, are there any potential health concerns, if any, due to exposure from radio frequency waves 2 for those who live in close proximity to the proposed project? That’s my question. 3 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: That’s it? 4 MR. MOORE: That’s it. 5 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Sir, if you’re ready, go ahead. 6 MR. MIKE MOSES: My name is Mike Moses; my family and I live at 3706 Coronado Avenue, 7 which is just a couple blocks south of the location. And, first of all, I’ve attended both of the 8 neighborhood meetings, and I want to give my compliments to the staff and also the professional people 9 from Atlas who provided a lot of information and answering questions late into the evening on both of 10 those occasions. I’m a Verizon customer; I have zero cell service at my house. I can’t make a phone call, 11 in fact I cannot even receive a text. This impacts me in two ways. One, I’m a small business owner, so I 12 have daily disruptions anytime I work from my home office and work with my employees or work with 13 my clients. But, more importantly, it’s a safety issue. I cannot access emergency services through 911 14 from my house. And more disheartening is on several occasions, I’ve missed emergency calls from both 15 my elderly parents and my children. So, I can tell you there’s nothing more saddening than not being able 16 to provide help when a family member wants to reach out. So, I’m a big proponent of this tower and I 17 want to encourage you to vote in support of its approval. Thank you. 18 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you, sir, go ahead. 19 MR. JAMES ANDERSON: I’m James Anderson; I’m the current pastor of Southside Baptist 20 Church, and we just wanted to say that we appreciate your looking favorably with this project as we can 21 help serve our community a little bit better as a church. Thank you. 22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Thank you. Mam, when you’re ready, go ahead. 23 MS. NATALIE STERLING: My name is Natalie Sterling. While I do agree that there is a need 24 for this cell tower, I find the design very disappointing…even feels a little lazy…and I really believe it’s 25 going to stick out like a sore thumb in that neighborhood. 26 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to 27 address the Board and ask questions? Again, this will be your only chance to ask questions of the Board, 28 so…alright, seeing none, I’m going to go ahead and close citizen participation and bring it back to staff or 29 the applicant to address a couple of the questions that were brought up. 30 MR. FRICKEY: So, to begin, I’ll address Will Moore’s question about radio frequency 31 emissions. The Federal Telecommunications Act prohibits cities from considering health impacts as part 32 of the decision-making process for wireless telecommunications facilities, so staff did not perform any 33 sort of analysis on the potential health impacts on this facility. And that’s the only question I’ll address, 34 thank you. 35 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, thank you. Any other follow-up from citizen participation from 36 the applicant team? 10.2 Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 12 1 MR. RAM NANDIRAJU: Good evening; Ram Nandiraju, Verizon Wireless…RF engineer. I 2 just wanted to add…just, the question about RF emissions. Since the emissions that are produced out of 3 wireless facility are generally pretty low, there are so significant impact to…or any health concerns. So, 4 the power density level…ground level power density levels…are well below acceptable thresholds set by 5 FCC…thousands of loads below. So, there are no health concerns. Thank you. 6 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. Any other follow-up comments? No? Okay, I’ll bring 7 it back to the Board for questions of staff or the applicant team. Who would like to start? Ruth? 8 BOARDMEMBER RUTH ROLLINS: Yes, I have a question for Clay. Clay, when you 9 contacted…and I believe it was on the southeast corner of Shields and Horsetooth…the property manager 10 of that location…you asked if there was co-location. Did you ask if there could be an additional tower? 11 MR. FRICKEY: Yeah…so, I did not personally ask for an additional tower. The applicant 12 indicated in their narrative they had asked for an additional tower at that location and were not able to 13 secure a location there. Staff would not feel comfortable asking for leases on these properties, so I was 14 more confirming the existing capacity on the tower at that site. 15 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Other questions? Michael? 16 BOARDMEMBER MICHAEL HOBBS: I would like to ask a question of the pastor if that’s 17 possible? Sir, could you come down to the podium please? Is your church the owner of the property or 18 are you leasing the property? 19 MR. ANDERSON: We own the property…been there 45 years. 20 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: You certainly have a nice large piece of property that is 21 undoubtedly very valuable at this point. Do you have plans on the board for…I don’t mean with the City, 22 but do you have plans that you are willing to talk about or can talk about for…I’m curious as to whether 23 or not you have development plans for adding on to your church or whatever for that remaining north part 24 of your property. 25 MR. ANDERSON: Not at the moment, no. We have talked about doing some, like a baseball, 26 football, you know, activity area, but that’s about all. 27 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: And what is the nature of, or length of, the lease that you’ve 28 negotiated or would enter into with Atlas Tower? Is it an in-perpetuity lease, is it a 20-year lease, what’s 29 the term of the lease? 30 MR. ANDERSON: I believe it’s 40 years…it’s 5 years renewable…is that correct? Yeah, it’s 20 31 years plus renewable after that. 32 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay. 33 MR. ANDERSON: Yes sir. 34 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Thank you. 35 MR. ANDERSON: You’re welcome. 10.2 Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 13 1 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Other questions? Okay, I guess I have…okay…do you mind? Okay. So, 2 Clay, when you were going through the analysis of the other facilities, the churches with the steeples and 3 bell towers and what have you, it looked to me like the maximum height difference between a bell tower 4 versus the top of the existing structure is approximately maybe twice the size? Is that an accurate 5 statement, or am I…? 6 MR. FRICKEY: In and around there; that’s fairly accurate. The biggest…the two biggest 7 disparities would be between the Cavalry Baptist Church…so the steeple is more than double the height 8 of the existing building there, and then same thing with Westminster Presbyterian Church, where it’s 9 more than twice the size as well. Again, the big difference being that those steeples taper of towards the 10 top, and so the bulk is a lot less, so, the perception of the mass is also less from the street. So, that’s 11 really the key distinction in terms of design between the different facilities. 12 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. My next question is for the applicant. Do you have other carriers 13 that you’re contracting with other than Verizon, or is Verizon the only one…the only willing participant? 14 Can you disclose that at this time? 15 MR. MICHAEL POWERS: Good evening, my name is Michael Powers and I also work for Atlas 16 Tower; I represent the applicant. We are currently working with T-Mobile and Sprint in this market, as 17 well as AT&T. We currently are primarily working with Verizon as the anchor tenant, in other words, the 18 initial carrier. And based on the nuances of our industry, it is extremely difficult for us to actually 19 negotiate a specific contract with a site for co-location when the initial tenant hasn’t been approved by 20 Planning and Zoning and gone through a building permit process. But, we are currently in talks with 21 others to promote at least one additional carrier onto this location. 22 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: And would T-Mobile and Sprint be…use the same facility since they are 23 now joining forces and combining as one organization? 24 MR. POWERS: An excellent question…no one really knows the answer to that. Obviously, the 25 Department of Justice will review that proposed merger, and my guess is that could take at least a year 26 before a decision is made there. That doesn’t change our position as potential developer of this site. We 27 market all of our sites in all of our locations to all the carriers simultaneously. Generally speaking, our 28 average time to move from one tenant to two, on average, on a national average, is about two and a half 29 years. But in high demand markets like Fort Collins, that time is often considerably shorter. 30 The difficulty with giving you some specifics is, number one, this site hasn’t been 31 approved…recommended for approval, or actually approved, so it’s difficult for us to market it to a 32 second tenant. And, additionally, we don’t necessarily know exactly what the needs of the other carriers 33 are. We present them potential locations, and generally speaking, in the areas that are hard to zone for 34 this use, we generally get quick lease up. I’m sorry if that’s a vague answer, but that’s the best answer I 35 can give you based on the information I have at this time. 36 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. Since we’ve had other applications come through in the past year, 37 12 months…in the past it has been indicated that there is future technology, new technology, that would 38 make the sizes of those antennas smaller so you would not need the height in order to get the same 39 coverage. Has that technology come to fruition or is it still that you need the taller antennas in order to 40 get the coverage that you’re…? 10.2 Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 14 1 MR. POWERS: What I can tell you for certain is the trend over the last five years has been for 2 the antennas to actually get bigger and taller and heavier. That’s been a consistent trend easily for the last 3 five years. There is some talk about a 5G standard, but that is probably years away from full adoption by 4 the international standards and actually being implemented into communities. We really don’t have any 5 good insight in terms of what that will look like, or whether or not that technology will be utilized at this 6 location or at any specific location. We do have an RF engineer here with Verizon staff who might be 7 able to answer your question with more specificity as to what the specific sizes are that they’re using in 8 this market now. 9 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Because I know in the past, you’ve indicated with the reduction that 10 technology is trying to make them smaller instead of larger, so that’s a different answer than what we’ve 11 heard in the recent past, as far as size of the antennas, so… 12 MR. POWERS: Well, I guess I’m saying two things; I’m saying in the last five years, we’ve seen 13 nothing but the antennas getting larger and more voluminous, particularly in hard-to-zone areas because 14 of the desire of the carriers to bring on as robust of an array as possible know that there aren’t other 15 locations available to offload the size and number of antennas that they need. 16 On the other hand, sure, there’s lots of talk about the next technology. And there is indication 17 that in the future, at some time unknown in the future, the 5G standard may be adopted, and it may be 18 implemented in the communities. And that equipment could conceivably be considerably smaller. It’s 19 propagation patterns may be totally different from 4G; there’s quite a few unknowns. I’m sorry that I’m 20 no better than anyone else in this room at predicting the future, but hopefully, yes, hopefully the 21 technology will get smaller and more easy to install and less intrusive in the future, but we can only deal 22 with what we have in the present in terms of trying to improve the network. 23 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, thank you. 24 MR. POWERS: Thank you. 25 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Michael, do you have other questions? 26 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yeah, I have a question I think probably for Ken. The…one of the 27 issues with kind of the mass and scaling of this involves the legs and how big they are. And, so I want to 28 ask you a question about…that this is described as clad in brick. I assume that means around H-beams or 29 I-beams, whatever the leg, the internal part, the structural part of the legs are? 30 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, that’s right. So, the legs themselves won’t be brick, but there will be 31 brick cladding around them, so it’ll look like brick. 32 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: It would seem to me that a tower like this has to be built with some 33 flexibility in…for wind loading. And, flexibility and brick doesn’t seem to go together with me. So, my 34 question for you is, have you used that sort of brick-clad tower legs in other installations and have 35 experience with that? 36 MR. BRADTKE: So, Atlas Tower hasn’t, but Stealth, the manufacturer that did the photo sims 37 and provided us the cladding, they use it quite a bit. It’s sort of almost…if it’s like the sample we have in 38 our office, it’s almost like a foam. But, I know that it’s all engineered towards IBC standards and all that 10.2 Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 15 1 kind of stuff, and it doesn’t impact wind loading and we will still provide, as part of our building permit 2 process, all the engineer drawings and, you know, we go above and beyond to meet all of the wind 3 loading and that kind of stuff. 4 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: So, you’re saying it’s not real brick, it’s like a faux brick of some 5 sort? 6 MR. BRADTKE: That’s right, yeah. 7 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay. 8 MR. BRADTKE: And they actually go out to the site; they take pictures, they go and they 9 actually touch the brick at the site, and they go to their, sort of, manufacturing plant, and they make the 10 specifically to match the brick on site. So, it’s not just one user all brick; they actually engineer it to 11 match specifically with the property. 12 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, so my next question is, when you were in front of this Board 13 just several months ago and we were going over the Turnberry cell tower…again…we…that tower ended 14 up being approved for 45 feet, not 55 feet, and we were under the assumption at that point, as Chairman 15 Schneider alluded to, that having that reduction was probably going to mean that you couldn’t co-locate 16 on that tower anymore, that it was going to be a single-use tower. And that was a concern to us because 17 we didn’t want to necessarily just create need for more towers. So, we understand both from a business 18 perspective for you and for the community, it may in fact be the best solution to co-locate. But at that 19 hearing, you or one of your team, stated that even though it was 45 feet, with some of the new antenna 20 capabilities and smaller antennas, that you would be still able to co-locate on that. And so, we’re hearing 21 something a little bit different thus far. Can you clear that up for us? 22 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, I know every location is a little different, but certainly there’s, you know, 23 there’s the ability to provide optimal coverage and so we always just try and meet the target we’re given 24 by the carrier, which in this case was a 50-foot rad center, so a 55-foot tower. As you go down, there’s 25 definitely degradation in service that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s, you know, no service provided. 26 And, you know, if we, you know, if you’re reduced to a lower height, does that completely eliminate co- 27 location? Not necessarily, but it could. It just sort of depends on, you know, future carriers and their 28 network needs. So, I know we’ve had sites in the past where a carrier approaches us and they want to co- 29 locate on something we’ve built. We tell them the height and they say no thanks, it doesn’t work for us. 30 And other times, we’ve had structures that aren’t super tall, that are, you know, 55, 60 feet, and we’re 31 able to get a second tenant on there without issue. So, I think it’s sort of a case-by-case basis, but, you 32 know, taller is definitely better, I think. That existing tower that’s across the street is a good example of, 33 you know, I’m not sure what the height of that is…I think it’s a pretty small, slim pole from my 34 understanding, so…that’s kind of a good example of, you know, if you build it too small, you can’t get a 35 second tenant on there. So, yeah, I guess that’s how I’d answer that question. 36 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, one more question or two. Clay, could you put up the picture 37 of the tower…showing the artist rendering of the tower on the site please? I think it’s page 118 in our 38 packet…it may be coming from a different presentation. Maybe the one from the other side? Yeah, that 39 one. So, it was explained to us in work session…there’s three sets of panels on there, and those are not 40 just designed…is it correct that those three sets of panels indicate the…where the cross is, the top one, 41 that would be the primary and initial antenna site, and then the next one down which is at this 36-foot 10.2 Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 16 1 level, or 38-foot level, is co-location number two, and then the bottom one at 26-feet is co-location 2 number three? 3 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah, that’s correct. The panels are somewhat decorative, but yeah, they 4 basically screen the antenna locations. So they’re there to cover the antennas basically. 5 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, thank you. 6 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Bill? 7 BOARDMEMBER WILLIAM WHITLEY: I have a design question. Looking at the artist 8 rendering of the simulation and comparing it to the drawing, they don’t look like the same tower. The 9 proportions are entirely different. Which one is correct? 10 MR. BRADTKE: So, we did…at our second neighborhood meeting, the design was one of the 11 bigger things, and I think staff had recommended us to kind of see what we could do to come up with 12 something alternative. So, it actually took a long time. We had several meetings with Stealth, our tower 13 manufacturer. So, this is what we came up with to sort of address those concerns. And so this would be 14 the design…I think in the original submittal, it was more just kind of all white and it looked slightly 15 different, but this would be the design provided to us by our manufacturer. So, they would basically 16 engineer this to how they designed it. 17 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: On page 115, the tower looks rather squat and wide, and rather 18 unattractive, whereas the simulations look more elegant and perhaps more…it says bell tower to me a lot 19 more than cell tower. 20 MR. BRADTKE: Yeah…I don’t think we updated the construction drawings, or the zoning 21 drawings, once we had this new design done. So that’s, I think, my…but, again, this design was done to 22 basically address the comments which were kind of similar to what you’re echoing, was, people didn’t 23 really love the aesthetic, so we tried to make something that looked a little bit more elegant while still 24 being able to, you know, house our equipment and all that kind of stuff. 25 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Okay, thank you. 26 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Ruth? 27 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: So, I have a question. When I’m looking at the plans, it looks 28 like the enclosed area is 40 feet by 40 feet? 29 MR. BRADTKE: Correct. 30 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: And so, that’s an area of 1,600 square feet? 31 MR. BRADTKE: Correct. 32 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay. So, when I come to the applicant’s…what do they call 33 it…exhibit three, where they are talking to other property owners in the area, and I look at location 34 number six, which is the gas station, it says that the proposed facility needs around 2,500 square feet. So, 35 I…you know…why is there that difference there? Is it really 1,600 and would this possibly work on this 10.2 Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 17 1 facility? And the reason I’m asking this, Clay, is because when I look at your pictorial display of service 2 versus no service, it seems to make sense to get this as close…closer to the intersection of Harmony [sic] 3 and Shields, because then you have a bigger area and less overlap over to College. You know, you’re 4 providing better coverage as you get closer and closer to this intersection. With the current site, it’s closer 5 to where you already, kind of, have coverage, if you look at it that way. 6 My second thing is, when they looked at various…number 19…various residential properties, it 7 says these properties are not zoned preferentially and are too small, and the land use is incompatible with 8 the wireless telecommunications facility. So, it seems odd to use that as a reason not to go and explore 9 those properties when that’s exactly what they’re proposing to do with the church site. So, I don’t know 10 if you can answer that, or the applicant needs to address that…? 11 MR. FRICKEY: It’s in the applicant’s narrative, so I’ll let the applicant answer those questions. 12 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Thank you. 13 MR. POWERS: So, again, Michael Powers for the applicant. I’ll do my best to answer your 14 questions in the order you stated them, but if I miss something, please catch me. 15 So, the 2,500 square foot ground space listed in item number six is simply the result of our staff 16 using our standard footprint for a generic site when we’re trying to lease. In other words, when we go to 17 a landlord, the industry standard is a 50 by 50 square, and the reason for that is that typically is the size 18 that will accommodate four carriers and allow for the structure in a square confined space. But, you’re 19 correct to note that that number doesn’t have much accuracy when you look at property number six, the 20 Southling Company. Quite frankly, that particular property doesn’t have 25 by 25 feet…it doesn’t have 21 any space available. That parcel is almost entirely utilized by the existing owner. So, generally speaking 22 on this list, I could go through all of them, but where size was noted as a restricting criteria, in other 23 words, space available, land that wasn’t being utilized by the primary purpose of the land owner not being 24 available, we weren’t necessarily saying we need 2,500 square feet, we were saying, do you have any 25 space available? Properties…I did most of this work on the second round, in other words, we had one 26 member of our staff do an initial scrub and talk to every single land owner. And then later in the 27 process…we’ve been working on this site for over two years…I went back and talked to as many land 28 owners as I could possibly meet with. And so, I’m pretty well aware of the nuances of each of these 29 properties. 30 Properties number 6 plus 13 through 17, there’s literally no space available for us to build 31 anything that would be co-locatable. 32 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Right, and what about 19? 33 MR. POWERS: So, 19, okay…so, 19 has a similarity to this parcel that we’re proposing in the 34 sense that it doesn’t meet the zoning code’s exact criteria to allow for a structure. But, the big difference 35 is, in the 19 area, basically our structure would be closer to residential, and there is no parcel that has the 36 amount of available unused space for this proposed facility, you know, in comparison to the parcel that 37 we’re proposing on. I mean, just as a practical matter, it’s almost impossible to get a residential owner, a 38 home owner, to lease space for this use. And all of these parcels are extremely small, so it’s still the same 39 problem; it’s a space problem. There isn’t enough space on any of these parcels to logically make this 40 facility make sense or get approved by this Board. 10.2 Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 18 1 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, thank you. 2 MR. POWERS: Thank you. 3 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Any other questions? Alright, I guess my last question is…I’m having a 4 little bit of heartburn or concern about the height and compatibility. I mean, it’s a similar conversation 5 that we had on prior projects and what have you. Just, when you’re putting these into residential zones 6 and what have you, when you look at the size versus the building, I’m just having a little bit of hardship. 7 So, if we were to make it contingent based on 45 feet, does that drop one of the potential carriers so then 8 it could be just two carriers? Is that ultimately what would happen, or…depends on technology, again, in 9 the future. Can you address that at all? 10 MR. POWERS: Thank you; Michael Powers, again, at the podium. Thank you, sir, for the 11 opportunity to answer your question. Again, I regret that my answer is going to be vague, but generally 12 speaking, the carriers seek 10 feet of separation from each installation. The typical panel size that’s 13 commonly used with today’s technology is an 8-foot panel, sometimes as short as a 7-foot panel, but a 6- 14 foot panel is very unusual. When you assume an 8-foot panel plus 10 feet of separation, and then you’re 15 starting with a maximum height of 45 feet, that means the center of what’s called the rad, the center of the 16 first antenna, is going to be 4 feet below 45 feet, so now we’re at 41 feet. The bottom of that antenna is 17 going to be at 37 feet, and if we create even a very minimal amount of separation, the second carrier’s rad 18 center is going to be in the low 30’s at best. And then, obviously, I’m not doing the math because I’m not 19 that quick on my feet, but basically, the third tenant is now going to be at a height that’s below the 20 neighboring building and well below what you might call the clutter. So, the height of the neighboring 21 houses and trees and foliage and so on. So, sure, would it be useful for a second tenant? Yes. Would it 22 be useful for a third tenant? I think the likelihood declines, but it’s impossible for me to say yes or no 23 necessarily. 24 This is the tough part about this type of a hearing…height matters; it matters a lot. And the RF 25 engineer from Verizon can speak to that with specificity, but in the end, the taller the structure, the more 26 useful the structure is, the better the co-locatability is, and the more likely the community is going to get 27 multiple users to get use out of it. And it’s not…there’s not like a specific no-go height, so it’s hard for 28 me to give you a specific height at which a third tenant would be impossible. 29 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: I appreciate that, but I also know that there’s other towers that you guys 30 have done in the last 12 months that you proposed a certain height, and settled on, you know, even 40 to 31 45 feet within Larimer County, not even within the City. With me sitting on the Larimer County Board of 32 Appeals, you know, we’ve had other projects come through where you started at X height then came 33 down just to accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood and everything else as well, so it’s not 34 undoable, it’s just not preferred I guess too…so… 35 MR. POWERS: Yeah, and I can say this with specificity, of the few towers, structures, that we’ve 36 built in Fort Collins and in Larimer County generally that were 45 feet or less, to date, we don’t have a 37 single second tenant. Is that because of the height? I think probably to some degree, but it could be a 38 whole bunch of other factors as well, it’s impossible for me to say. 39 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay. 40 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: I have one question. 10.2 Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 19 1 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Go ahead Ruth. 2 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: The…we had an example, Clay, where there was a cell service 3 out of the steeple, and then there was also a bell tower. Did you speak to the church at all about somehow 4 locating within their steeple…? 5 MR. POWERS: Based on the specific criteria we were given from Verizon in terms of what they 6 needed for their network, we did not, because the height was not sufficient for them to meet their specific 7 goals. 8 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: And how about reconstructing the steeple such that it is high…I 9 mean like rebuilding the steeple such that it’s a little bit higher, but it’s contained within the steeple. You 10 know, not using the existing steeple, reconstructing the steeple. 11 MR. POWERS: Anything is possible, but the practical elements of such a proposal make a site 12 like this extremely difficult and expensive. And we did not…we did not explore that for that reason. 13 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, thank you. 14 MR. FRICKEY: And, Ruth, I can provide…Boardmember Rollins, rather, sorry, I can provide a 15 response to that as well. So, the church at Cavalry Baptist…that steeple, that entire structure, did not 16 exist. They added it to the front of the structure. The current site at 620 West Horsetooth…the issue is 17 the steeple is already built into the roof of the building, and so it would likely require some pretty 18 significant changes to the existing building, not just to the steeple. So, there’s some practical limitations 19 there too that are different between the two sites. 20 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Jennifer? 21 BOARDMEMBER JENNIFER CARPENTER: This may be a strange question, Clay, but if the 22 church came and wanted to build an actual bell tower on their property like this, what would the 23 procedure be, and would they be able to do that? 24 MR. FRICKEY: The procedure would be a minor amendment; it would be an accessory structure 25 and accessory use to the existing church building. Since these structures don’t have ceilings and they’re 26 not enclosing anything, they’re not technically buildings, so the building height restrictions would not 27 apply. So, they could build a bell tower 100 feet tall with no wireless equipment in it and they would be 28 fine, and it would be approved at the staff level. 29 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you. 30 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Alright, any other questions or can we move to deliberation? Seeing 31 none, let’s go ahead and move into deliberation. Anyone would like to start? Michael? 32 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I’d be glad to. My issue is the, kind of, mass and scaling of it. 33 And, I think that putting a condition of reducing it to 45 feet, I think that would be a compromise that 34 would not only reduce the size in terms of the height, but I would strongly believe and hope that that 35 would also enable them to decrease, kind of, the weight and heft of the structure to some extent as well; 10.2 Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 20 1 the diameter of the legs perhaps, the size of the panels a little bit. I think that that would do more than 2 just knock 10 feet off the top, that it would reduce the look of it. It just looks overly heavy to me. 3 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Any other comments? 4 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Well, I agree with Michael; I look at these photos and I…it seems 5 absolutely overwhelming to me. And so that’s…what I had in my mind was can you knock that first…the 6 top panel off and start from underneath there. I don’t know what that height is, Clay, because our 7 drawings don’t match what’s in the pictures. 8 MR. FRICKEY: So, to be clear, they do match. So, the updated drawings are the same, they 9 should match the photo simulations. The photo simulations don’t have a scale bar next to them, but staff 10 did receive an updated packet that indicated the changes in the tower based on the neighborhood meeting. 11 So, to be clear, we do have the most updated set of drawings as part of your packet for your consideration 12 this evening. 13 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, so when I look at that, then, would you say that taking the 14 top piece of that off, is that 10 feet, or is that more than 10 feet? 15 MR. FRICKEY: So, based on the images provides, the middle of the second panel is 16 approximately 38 feet, so about to the top of that would be in the realm of 40 feet, somewhere in that next 17 of the woods. So, taking off the top panel, you’re looking around 40 to 45 feet. 18 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay. 19 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Clay, just for clarification, we’re looking at page 115 in our packet? 20 Because that seems to me like the side…those panels are a lot larger than what’s indicated in the photo 21 simulation? 22 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I don’t see any similarity between the two; basically, they are 23 two different designs as far as I can see, proportion wise. Page 115…so if they are the same drawing… 24 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: It’s not a good picture…simulation… 25 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Something is wrong. It seems to me there’s clearly not a match 26 in the drawings either…to the drawings and the photo sims. I mean, is that really what you’re saying? 27 That page 115 is the same proportions as the simulation? 28 MR. FRICKEY: I’m saying staff has the most updated set of drawings, not necessarily that 29 they’re the same proportions; that would be up for the photo simulation folks to prove. Since we don’t 30 have a scale bar, I can’t compare the two and say, yes, they’re the same, or no, they’re different. 31 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Okay, staff has that, do we have it? 32 MR. FRICKEY: I’m saying staff does not…yes, so your packet is the same thing that staff 33 reviewed, so you’re getting the same set of information that staff reviewed in writing the staff report. All 34 I’m saying is that, since there’s no scale bar on the photo simulations, it’s impossible to compare the two 35 images apples to apples. Do they look different? Yes. Is it…can I say that they are different or are they 36 exactly the same? No, because there’s no basis for comparison. 10.2 Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 21 1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Who did the photo simulations? Was it done by the City? 2 MR. FRICKEY: No; the applicant provided those images. 3 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Thank you. 4 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, I think we can agree that the photo simulation is not maybe a clear 5 depiction of what the plans indicate, looking at the scale of the height of the building compared to what’s 6 on here from an elevation standpoint. 7 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I guess my confusion is that the applicant said that the 8 simulations were the more accurate representation than the drawing. And you’re saying that they’re the 9 same, so I’m confused. 10 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: No, he’s not saying it’s the same; he’s just saying he has the most current 11 information, but because there’s no scale on that photo simulation, there’s no way to compare the two 12 other than us looking at this bottom panel being at 26 feet and looking at, if we would have put the 13 simulation up on the screen, and looking at it compared to the height of the overall church with what 14 we’ve been told is the height of the church, that’s the only way that we could compare the two. Because, 15 the overall height of the church is approximately 20…? 16 MR. FRICKEY: To the top of the roof, correct. 17 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: And so, what we’re saying is, the bottom of that is 26 feet according to 18 the drawing, and on this it’s definitely not 26…that bottom panel is definitely a lot lower than what the 19 simulation shows, is all I’m trying to say. 20 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: We need to look at the drawings, the plans, not the photo 21 simulation. It just doesn’t…we don’t have any way to know if it’s accurate, because, as Clay said, there’s 22 no scale on it, so you can’t tell if it’s accurate even. 23 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Well, but we can tell pretty easily if it’s 20 feet to the top of the roof and 24 it’s 26 feet to the bottom of this panel, that that simulation… 25 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Right, so I think we should be looking at the drawings. 26 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Correct. 27 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: Okay, thank you. 28 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: So, last time we did this, did we…I think we recommended a 29 reduced height and got concurrence from the applicant that that would be acceptable? Or are we just 30 looking at taking this as is? That’s a question. 31 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Council had already looked at it an indicated that they had 32 conditioned it to 45. 33 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: No, that’s not correct. 10.2 Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 22 1 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: No? 2 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: No; when we were at the APU process, staff had recommended a 3 reduction to 45 feet from 50 or 55 feet. And so, the staff report was recommending a condition of 4 approval of reducing the height to 45 feet, correct? 5 MR. FRICKEY: Correct, and this Board denied that application the first go around of P and Z, 6 and then Council applied those conditions, and then it came back to the Board for the second meeting and 7 that’s where the Board confirmed those conditions. 8 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Well, it wasn’t a second reading for us, it was actually a review of 9 the PDP, because the APU had already been accepted. 10 MR. FRICKEY: By second time, I meant second time back to the Board, not second reading, but 11 the second hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Board, so we’re saying the same thing. 12 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Okay, thank you Clay. 13 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, the Board denied the addition of permitted use, not the tower itself 14 originally. So, again, that’s what we’re looking at is the additional permitted use on this property, and 15 they’re requesting the 55-foot tower. And so, if the Board wishes to make a modification to that to 45 16 feet, that would be part of the recommendation to Council in the motion. 17 Any other discussion or can I entertain a motion? 18 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: I would make a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning 19 Board recommend for approval the APU for the Century Wireless Transmission [sic] Facility with the 20 condition that the maximum height of the structure is reduced to 45 feet, and that that would be based 21 upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this 22 hearing, and our discussion on this item. 23 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: We have a motion, is there a second? 24 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Second. 25 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Okay, comments, final comments? Any comments? Michael? 26 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: I still think that the simulation is a bit misleading, visually. So, 27 I’m not happy with that. It doesn’t give me a true sense of the massing and scale and proportions of the 28 final product. 29 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: So, would that mean that you’re going to vote against this, or…? 30 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: That’s correct. 31 CHAIR SCHNEDIER: Okay, Jennifer? 32 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: I’ll support the motion; I just have…I guess it kind of gives 33 me pause that an actual bell tower could go in here at this size. And, yet we’re reducing it because it’s a 10.2 Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 23 1 cell tower. I think we need to maybe look at these again in work session or whatever. I’ll support the 2 motion because I think that’s what, you know, is going to pass and I don’t want to vote against it just 3 because I think it would be okay being a little bit higher. But, it’s something I’d like to look at again in 4 work session. 5 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Can I ask a question of either Cameron or Clay, or Brad? 6 Because of this simulation, when this goes forward to City Council, is there any way that the plans, or 7 some plan, to scale, could show the church and the steeple in relationship to the tower? Because we don’t 8 see that on the plans, you know, we don’t actually see a scaled drawing. So, I’m just asking if, when this 9 is forwarded, that can be done, or is that…? 10 MR. FRICKEY: Yes. 11 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Okay, I think that would be helpful for Council because we’re 12 somewhat questioning that, and if it’s actually a scaled drawing, that might help them. 13 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Any other final comments? So, Jennifer, I agree with you that I’ll support 14 this. I would have huge concerns if it was a bell tower and it came in at 100 feet and staff just said, yeah, 15 go for it. And, again, it goes back to compatibility and size and the surrounding area. So, I would hope 16 that that wouldn’t move forward without some sort of conversation. So, I think my decision based on this 17 is purely a compatibility standpoint with surrounding and looking at the massing of this proposed bell 18 tower versus other churches and bell towers in our city, and I think it’s more of a true comparison of 19 compatibility and a mass issue. So, with that, roll call please. 20 MS. GERBER: Hobbs? 21 BOARDMEMBER HOBBS: Yes. 22 MS. GERBER: Carpenter? 23 BOARDMEMBER CARPENTER: Yes. 24 MS. GERBER: Rollins? 25 BOARDMEMBER ROLLINS: Yes. 26 MS. GERBER: Whitley? 27 BOARDMEMBER WHITLEY: No. 28 MS. GERBER: Schneider? 29 CHAIR SCHNEIDER: Yes. So, with that, the recommendation is forwarded to Council with the 30 condition. 10.2 Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Verbatim transcript of Planning & Zoning Board hearing for Century (6919 : APU Century Wireless) From: Nikki Higgins To: Clay Frickey Subject: Fwd: Cell tower Date: Thursday, May 31, 2018 3:58:36 PM Hello Mr. Frickey, I hope I am not too late, but I was unable to attend the meeting a couple of weeks ago regarding the proposed Cell Tower on Horsetooth Road at First Baptist Church. I am deeply disturbed by this proposal and strongly oppose it. I am attaching the email I had sent to you and Rick Cagle back in March. Please add this to the opposition. Regards, Nikki Higgins ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nikki Higgins <nikkiaija@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:31 PM Subject: Cell tower To: rick.cagle@aol.com Cc: cfrickey@fcgov.com Hello Mr. Cagel, It was a pleasure meeting you last night, thank you for inviting the community into your church to discuss this proposal. I must admit, when I found out that a church was proposing a health risk to my family, I was outraged. This location is in a densely populated area, and it is sandwiched between Lopez Elementary and Beattie Elementary. Learning House is also very close, and as someone mentioned at the meeting, there is also a school in your church. I have two children myself, ages 9 and 11, and I do my best to protect their health as fiercely as I can. Their dad has early onset dementia, so keeping us all strong and healthy is a huge priority. Naturally, proponents of the cell tower will dig up the "research" that supports that there is "no risk" to human health. I believe the tobacco industry played a similar role, didn't they? There is mounting evidence that EMRs are harmful, and even if we are uncertain, do we really want to take the chance with something as important as our health? What will happen when the dangers become widely accepted; how will we ever remove these towers once they are in place? In 2011, Fort Collins rejected a similar proposal from AT&T because neighborhood opposition was too formidable. In 2015, the Southridge Golf Course community did the same, out of concern for property values and the impact on health. In 2016, it was University Acres. ATTACHMENT 3 10.3 Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Letters received prior to June 20, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Let me be clear, we do not need a cell phone tower in OUR neighborhood either. I’d like to talk about what happened at University Acres. At issue were the potential health impacts from the cell tower’s close proximity to a residential neighborhood and Lesher Middle School, similar to the current proposed location. Residents uncovered more than 6000 studies showing harm from electromagnetic radiation (EMR). All of this, coupled with the emergence of new science, emboldened the community to speak out. In the University Acres situation, something set this community apart. Unlike so many churches across the US, which have never informed their congregation of the microwave radiation raining down from above, only yards away in their church tower, LifePointe Church invited the community to openly express its view, much as you have. I am grateful that Southside Baptist Church has done the same. The compassion from the LifePointe elders was stunning; someone said it felt like being suddenly catapulted back to a previous era, a time when character and caring took precedence over economic imperatives and big corporate interests. The meeting at LifePointe featured two presenters, an expert in non-ionizing radiation and a researcher who presented an emerging scientific theory, which connects the current pandemic of chronic disease in America with a single molecule in the body. The presenter calls the dangerous ion, peroxynitrite, P- Factor. P-Factor is apparently triggered in the body from excessive sugar and various environmental toxins — most notably microwave radiation from wireless signals. I’d like to note that the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified radiofrequency radiation as a possible carcinogen – are these chances we want to take in our community? With our children? I'd like to note that I was very disappointed in our neighborhood's turnout for this meeting. After speaking with some neighbors, many received the letter just a few days prior to the meeting and could not rearrange schedules, or did not receive it at all. University Acres had time to rally, research, organize - and even fly in presenters to support their concerns. Please don't take the small showing as indication that all is well with our neighbors. Many are outraged. It is my hope that the church will see the light and the impact this can have on so many lives. Please do the right thing and protect our health, especially the health of our children. According to the New Testament, this week would be the week that Jesus threw the merchants and the money changers out of the temple. Let’s follow his lead! Respectfully, Nikki Higgins 10.3 Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Letters received prior to June 20, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 7/3/18 Century WTF & APU Clay Frickey ATTACHMENT 4 10.4 Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Overview • 55’ tall wireless telecommunications facility • Disguised as bell tower • Located in Low Density Residential (RL) zone • Not an allowed use 2 10.4 Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Addition of Permitted Use (APU) • Process for uses not allowed in a zone district • Must be an allowed use in another zone • 8 criteria – 1.3.4(C)(1) • City Council decision maker • Only in residential zones 3 10.4 Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criteria a) Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added. b) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. c) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. d) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added. 4 10.4 Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criteria e) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. f) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. g) Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review. h) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code. 5 10.4 Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 1 Criterion 1 - Such use is appropriate in the zone district to which it is added • Wireless equipment allowed in RL • Facility vs. equipment • Design, not function Staff finds proposal meets criterion 1 6 10.4 Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 2 Criterion 2 - Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added • RL purpose statement • Existing single-family neighborhoods • Must be designed to fit into neighborhood Staff finds proposal satisfies criterion 2 7 10.4 Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 3 Criterion 3 - The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties 8 10.4 Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Telecommunications Act of 1996 • Cities must permit cell towers • May use zoning to control location • Zoning may not result in de facto ban on cell towers 9 10.4 Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 10 10.4 Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 11 10.4 Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 12 10.4 Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 3 • Few parcels with appropriate zoning • Unable to obtain lease on properly zoned properties • Commercial properties at Horsetooth and Shields 13 10.4 Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 3 - Context • Neighborhoods • 1- and 2-story buildings • Mainly single-family homes • Mix of apartments and small multi-family • Commercial centers • 1- and 2-story buildings 14 10.4 Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 15 10.4 Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 16 10.4 Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 17 10.4 Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 18 10.4 Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 19 10.4 Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 20 10.4 Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 21 10.4 Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 22 10.4 Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 23 10.4 Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 24 10.4 Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) 25 10.4 Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Criterion 3 Name of Church Address Zone District Building Height Calvary Baptist 2420 Laporte Ave. LMN 32’ (78’-6” to top of steeple, 50’ bell tower) Westminster Presbyterian 1709 W Elizabeth St. RL 13’-8” (approx. 40’ to top of steeple) The Bridge Church 833 S Taft Hill Rd. MMN Approx. 30’ (approx. 60’ to top of steeple) First United Methodist 1005 Stover St. NCL 47’ (62’ to top of bell tower roof, 81’ to top of cross) Faith Church 3920 S Shields St. MMN 48’ (85’ including cross) Southside Baptist 620 W Horsetooth Rd. RL 20’ (55’ bell tower) 26 10.4 Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 3 – Staff Findings Location • Middle of site • Minimizes impact Size • 55’ tall • In range of other bell towers and steeples Design • Bell tower • Explicitly listed in 3.8.13(C)(15) Staff finds proposal meets criterion 3 27 10.4 Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 4 Criterion 4 - Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the zone district to which it is added 28 10.4 Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 4 • No greater impact than other permitted uses Staff finds proposal meets criterion 4. 29 10.4 Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 5 Criterion 5 - Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area • Will not change character of neighborhood Staff finds proposal meets criterion 5. 30 10.4 Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 6 Criterion 6 - Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added • Wireless Telecommunications Equipment allowed • Compatibility dependent on design • Staff found proposal meets criterion 3 Staff finds proposal meets criterion 6 31 10.4 Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 7 Criterion 7 - Such use, if located within or adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, shall be subject to two (2) neighborhood meetings, unless the Director determines, from information derived from the conceptual review process, that the development proposal would not have any significant neighborhood impacts. The first neighborhood meeting must take place prior to the submittal of an application. The second neighborhood meeting must take place after the submittal of an application and after the application has completed the first round of staff review 32 10.4 Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 7 • Held two neighborhood meetings • March 23, 2017 (pre-submittal) • January 31, 2018 (after one round of review) Staff finds proposal meets criterion 7. 33 10.4 Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) APU Criterion 8 Criterion 8 - Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in Section 15-452 of the City Code or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in Section 15-603 of the City Code • Use is not marijuana related Staff finds proposal meets criterion 8 34 10.4 Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Staff Findings • Complies with APU criteria in Section 1.3.4 • Complies with relevant standards in Article 2 35 10.4 Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Planning & Zoning Board Recommendation • May 17 meeting • Recommended approval with a condition • Reduce tower height to 45’ •4-1 vote 36 10.4 Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility and Addition of Permitted Use, PDP170017. 37 10.4 Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6919 : APU Century Wireless) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 089, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPROVING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CENTURY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #170017 WHEREAS, Project Development Plan #170017 (“PDP#170017”) proposes the placement of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Low Density Residential zone district (“R-L zone”) on the parcel located at 620 W. Horsetooth Road, parcel number 9726379901 (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the R-L zone; and WHEREAS, a request pursuant to Land Use Code (“LUC”) Section 1.3.4(C)(3), Addition of Permitted Use, has been made in conjunction with PDP#170017 for the addition of wireless telecommunications facilities as an allowed use on the Parcel (the “APU”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3), the Planning and Zoning Board (“P&Z”) shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the APU, Council shall be the decision maker on the APU by ordinance, and P&Z shall be the decision maker on the primary application, PDP#170017; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), and in satisfaction of such requirement, two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the APU with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the development application on March 23, 2017, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on January 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h), and in satisfaction of such requirement, the proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in City Code Section 15-452 or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in City Code Section 15-603; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) regarding the requirement that the proposed use of telecommunications facilities is specifically prohibited in the R-L zone, and in satisfaction of such requirement, wireless cell facilities are not specifically listed as a prohibited use in the R-L zone; and WHEREAS, at its May 17, 2018, regular meeting, P&Z held a hearing on the APU and recommended to Council by a vote of 4 to 1 that Council approve the APU with a condition limiting the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to a maximum 45-foot height; and WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3) sets forth the criteria, as further described below, that must be satisfied for Council to approve the APU. Packet Pg. 209 -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 any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Council, after holding a public hearing on July 3, 2018, at which members of the public, the APU applicant, and City staff provided evidence and argument, and after considering the P&Z recommendation on the APU and the record of the P&Z hearing, hereby approves the requested APU to add wireless telecommunication facilities as a use specifically limited to the Parcel located in the R-L zone. Section 3. That the Council imposes the following condition or conditions of approval: [ADD CONDITIONS IF ANY ARE IMPOSED: If Council wishes to add the Planning and Zoning Board recommended condition that height be limited to 45 feet, such condition must be added here.] Section 4. That the Council, based on the evidence and information which was provided and presented to the Council at the hearing in this matter, [and in consideration of the conditions of approval imposed in above Section 3,] makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) The APU satisfies the criteria set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows: (1) Such use is appropriate in the R-L zone. (2) Such use conforms to the basic characteristics of the R-L zone and the other permitted uses in the R-L zone. (3) The location, size and design of such use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (4) Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the R-L zone. (5) Such use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (6) Such use is compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the R-L zone. Packet Pg. 210 -3- (7) The LUC requirement for two neighborhood meetings regarding the APU was fulfilled with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the development application on March 23, 2017, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on January 31, 2018. (8) Such use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in City Code Section 15- 452 or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in City Code Section 15-603. (b) The APU is not detrimental to the public good; (c) The APU complies with the applicable requirements and criteria contained in LUC Section 3.5.1; and (d) The APU is not specifically listed as a "prohibited use" in the R-L zone. Section 5. That the Council’s approval of the APU in this Ordinance is based upon the development proposal described in PDP#170017 and the associated APU request, [the conditions of approval set forth in above Section 3,] the testimony and evidence presented at the July 3, 2018, APU hearing, and the P&Z recommendation and hearing record. Unless otherwise specified as a condition of approval of the APU, any changes to the use or to its location, size, and design, in a manner that changes the predominant character of or increases the negative impact upon the surrounding area, will require the approval of a new addition of permitted use under the LUC. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 211 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 090, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS DENYING THE ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CENTURY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN #170017 WHEREAS, Project Development Plan #170017 (“PDP#170017”) proposes the placement of a wireless telecommunications facility in the Low Density Residential zone district (“R-L zone”) on the parcel located at 620 W. Horsetooth Road, parcel number 9726379901 (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, wireless telecommunications facilities are not an allowed use in the R-L zone; and WHEREAS, a request pursuant to Land Use Code (“LUC”) Section 1.3.4(C)(3), Addition of Permitted Use, has been made in conjunction with PDP#170017 for the addition of wireless telecommunications facilities as an allowed use on the Parcel (the “APU”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3), the Planning and Zoning Board (“P&Z”) shall make a recommendation to Council regarding the APU, Council shall be the decision maker on the APU by ordinance, and P&Z shall be the decision maker on the primary application, PDP#170017; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(g), and in satisfaction of such requirement, two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the APU with the first meeting held prior to the submittal of the development application on March 23, 2017, and the second meeting held after submittal of the development application and completion of the first round of staff review on January 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1)(h), and in satisfaction of such requirement, the proposed use is not a medical marijuana business as defined in City Code Section 15-452 or a retail marijuana establishment as defined in City Code Section 15-603; and WHEREAS, pursuant to LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3)(c) regarding the requirement that the proposed use of telecommunications facilities is specifically prohibited in the R-L zone, and in satisfaction of such requirement, wireless cell facilities are not specifically listed as a prohibited use in the R-L zone; and WHEREAS, at its May 17, 2018, regular meeting, P&Z held a hearing on the APU and recommended to Council by a vote of 4 to 1 that Council approve the APU with a condition limiting the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to a maximum 45-foot height; and WHEREAS, LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(3) sets forth the criteria, as further described below, that must be satisfied for Council to approve the APU. Packet Pg. 212 -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 any and all determinations and findings contained in the recitals set forth above. Section 2. That the Council, after holding a public hearing on July 3, 2018, at which members of the public, the APU applicant, and City staff provided evidence and argument, and after considering the P&Z recommendation on the APU and the record of the P&Z hearing, hereby denies the requested APU to add wireless telecommunication facilities as a use specifically limited to the Parcel located in the R-L zone. Section 3. That the Council, based on the evidence and information which was provided and presented to the Council at the hearing in this matter, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: [SELECT THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA] (1) The APU fails to satisfy the criteria set forth in LUC Section 1.3.4(C)(1) as follows: (1) Such use is not appropriate in the R-L zone. (2) Such use does not conform to the basic characteristics of the R-L zone and the other permitted uses in the R-L zone. (3) The location, size and design of such use is not compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties. (4) Such use creates more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasi-public facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the R-L zone. (5) Such use will change the predominant character of the surrounding area. (6) Such use is not compatible with the other listed permitted uses in the R-L zone. (b) The APU is detrimental to the public good. Section 4. That the Council’s denial of the APU in this Ordinance is based upon the development proposal described in PDP#170017 and the associated APU request, the testimony and evidence presented at the July 3, 2018, APU hearing, the P&Z hearing record, and consideration of the P&Z recommendation. Packet Pg. 213 -3- Section 5. That Council hereby finds, based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the July 3, 2018, APU hearing and the May 17, 2018, P&Z hearing record that: [SELECT THE BELOW APPLICABLE CRITERIA] 1. The applicant has failed to establish that a significant gap in coverage exists necessitating the requested wireless telecommunications facility because [ADD ANY FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION]. 2. The applicant has failed to establish that the requested wireless telecommunications facility is the least intrusive means of addressing the existing significant gap in coverage because [ADD ANY FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION]. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 214 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 3, 2018 City Council STAFF Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Items Relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 091, 2018, Amending Articles 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Land Use Code Regarding Planned Unit Development Overlay Regulations. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 092, 2018, Making Policy Revisions to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. The purpose of this item is to create an optional Planned Unit Development (PUD) process and regulations within the Land Use Code applicable to parcels 50 acres or greater in size being developed in multiple phases. Under the Ordinance, a PUD overlay designation would be applied to the City’s zoning map at the time a PUD Master Plan is approved. The PUD Master Plan provides an overall vision for the long-term development, including the project phasing, and the elements for which the applicant has requested entitlement to long-term vested rights of the uses, densities, modifications to land use design standards, and variances to engineering standards. Each development phase is subject to the Project Development Plan (PDP) process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Goals of the PUD Land Use Code Changes Staff initiated the creation of a PUD Overlay with the following goals: 1. Add flexibility in site design not available in traditional procedures in return for the provision of significant public benefits 2. Allow for land use flexibility beyond the underlying zone district use restrictions 3. Ability for extending vested property rights to land use and density, and modifications to development standards 4. Promote innovative, high-quality community design 5. Forward adopted City plans, policies and standards 6. Address the unique challenges with large developments constructed in phases 11 Packet Pg. 215 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 2 Summary of Proposed Changes The following Land Use Code changes are proposed. LUC Section Current Code Proposed Change 1.3.1 - Establishment of Zone Districts Establishes zone districts Adds Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. 1.3.4 - Addition of Permitted Uses Describes the purpose of the Addition of Permitted use process Provides that an APU process may be used to add uses to the zone district underlying the PUD Overlay. 1.4.9 - Rules of Construction for Text Describes Rules of Construction in the Land Use Code Strikes reference to the Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD). 2.1.1-Decisionmaker and Administrative Review Bodies Identifies the decisionmaker for development applications Cites the Planning and Zoning Board as the review body for PUD’s 640 acres or less, and the City Council for all PUD’s greater than 640 acres. 2.1.2 - Overview of Development Procedures Establishes the development review procedures for different types of development applications Adds PUD Overlay as a development application type. 2.1.3 - Types of Development Applications Describes the range of development application types. Provides that a PUD Master Plan and PUD Overlay may be substituted for the Overall Development Plan (ODP) process. 2.1.6- Pre- Application Review Provides an Optional City Council Pre-Application review for complex projects. Specifies that potential PUD applicants are afforded the right to an optional Pre-Application PUD Overlay Proposal Review with the Planning and Zoning Board (50-640 acres) or City Council (>640 acres). Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 3 LUC Section Current Code Proposed Change 5.1.2 - Definitions Adds definitions for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan and clarifies that a PUD overlay may be granted approval for a use not permitted in the underlying zone district and that a PUD Master Plan is considered a site-specific development plan. *LCUASS Chapter 1, Section 1.9.4.A.a will be amended in a separate action that allows LCUASS variances to be processed in connection with a PUD Master Plan. Background Planned Unit Development (PUD) As proposed, the term Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay is used to describe a type of development and the regulatory process that permits a developer to meet overall land use policies without being bound by all the underlying use requirements within the Land Use Code and makes a provision for modifying design and engineering standards. A PUD Overlay designation would be applied to the City’s zoning map at the time a PUD Master Plan is approved. Potential benefits of the PUD overlay may include more efficient site design, preservation of amenities such as open space, innovative community planning and site design solutions, higher level of design, engineering and construction and other community goals, while protecting long-term property rights for larger properties being constructed over multiple phases and long-time periods. PUD Zone District vs. Overlay When evaluating the potential zoning structure within the PUD ordinance, two options were considered: a PUD overlay that supplements the existing underlying zoning and, alternatively, the adoption of a PUD zone district that contains its own set of regulations and displaces the underlying zone. Given the pros and cons of each approach, staff is proposing the former option. Under the proposed PUD Overlay, the effect of such designation is that the regulations for land use, density and design in the underlying zone district still apply to the PUD unless expressly modified during the Master Plan process. PUD Master Plan as the Regulating Document The PUD ordinance requires that developers first create a PUD Master Plan that provides greater detail than the “bubble diagrammatic” scale found in the City’s existing Overall Development Plan (ODP) process. The Master Plan must have sufficient detail to serve as the overall guiding vision for the long-term development. At this Master Plan level, applicants must provide specific requests for elements that will receive entitlement to long-term vested rights of the uses, densities, modifications to land use design standards, and variances to engineering standards. The PUD Master Plan does not expire, but can be terminated or amended through processes specified in the Land Use Code. Major components of a PUD Master Plan application include the following: • list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added, modified, and/or vested • overall site plan indicating the intensity and general configuration of the proposed uses • transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation • location of open space, natural habitat and features, floodways and other areas designated for preservation • architectural concept plan including renderings, photographs, illustrations and supporting text describing architectural design intent • phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each phase • list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD Master Plan 11 Packet Pg. 217 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 4 The decisionmaker for the PUD Master Plan action is dictated by the size of the development. For parcels larger than 640 acres, the City Council makes the decision whether to approve the Master Plan, while parcels of a lesser size are subject to Planning and Zoning Board review. The 640-acre threshold for City Council review is consistent with the existing ‘legislative’ zoning or rezoning process per Section 2.9.4(H)(1). Master Plan Followed by Project Development Plans (PDPs) After the PUD Master Plan has been approved, each subsequent phase would be reviewed under the existing Project Development Plan (PDP) and Final Plan processes. PDP applications would be evaluated for consistency and substantial conformance with the PUD Master Plan. In cases where land uses, densities, and modifications to Article 3 design standards and engineering standards, such as the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS), have been approved as part of the PUD Master Plan, such granted modifications/variances would apply to the PDP approval and no additional modifications or variances may be necessary. Minimum Size Threshold for PUDs Under the proposed ordinance, parcels must be a minimum of 50 acres in size to qualify for a PUD Overlay, with the intention that this shift in regulations only apply to larger, multi-phased development. Based on staff’s parcel analysis, a total of 24 properties would be eligible although additional contiguous properties could be conceivably consolidated under one application to reach the minimum size threshold. Parcels of 50 acres or more are concentrated in the Mountain Vista Subarea, in the east and southeast areas of the community, and south of East Prospect Road, with one lone parcel north of Highway 287, west of Shields Street. Neighborhood Meeting Requirements Development procedures for the PUD process match the 12 common development review steps identified in Article 2, ranging from the initial pre-application meeting (conceptual or preliminary design review) through the appeal process except for the neighborhood meeting step. This noteworthy procedural difference includes a mandatory 2nd neighborhood meeting that matches requirements for the Addition of Permitted Use (APU) process. Under the proposed ordinance, applicants would be required to conduct two neighborhood meetings: the first meeting held prior to the application submittal, and then a follow-up neighborhood meeting after the initial round of development review has been completed. This second meeting affords potentially affected property owners the ability to comment on revised development concepts early enough in the process to positively contribute to the project’s design. 11 Packet Pg. 218 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 5 Review of Public Benefits Since its virtually impossible to anticipate and quantify the range of all impacts associated with a PUD development application, staff has been hesitant to propose specific PUD performance metrics, e.g., a “points system”. Alternatively, the proposed draft PUD ordinance includes specific objectives that test the project’s public benefits against more conventional development. The decisionmaker would use the following objectives as the basis of its action on a PUD Master Plan: 1. The project must provide public benefits greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable: a) Diversification in the use of land; b) Innovation in development; c) More efficient use of land and energy; d) Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the development; e) Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and f) Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. 2. Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. 3. Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area. 4. Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts. CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS None BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Board considered the draft PUD ordinance at its May 31, 2018, hearing which included a 20-acre minimum lot size, and elected to continue the item to the June 21 hearing, where it recommended unanimous (6-0, Rollins recused) approval of the draft ordinance subject to a revision to the Ordinance that provides no minimum acreage threshold for PUD applications. PUBLIC OUTREACH Feedback was gathered on the proposed Code changes through direct correspondence with members of the Fort Collins development community. Multiple comments were received, some by email and telephone, and two were through written summaries (Attachment 3). Concerns raised during the public process principally centered on three categories: 1. The minimum parcel size threshold 2. Lack of definition of “significant public benefit” 3. Term of vested property rights With respect to the parcel size, all but one of the commenters voiced opposition to the 50-acre minimum parcel threshold and requested that a lesser minimum be considered. Suggested alternative size thresholds varied from no minimum size to 25 acres and to several points in between. The common concern was that the community’s supply of parcels meeting the threshold is so small that few can take advantage of the flexibility afforded through the PUD process. 11 Packet Pg. 219 Agenda Item 11 Item # 11 Page 6 An underlying principle of the PUD ordinance is a balance between granted regulatory flexibility and amenities with improvements that benefit the public. Some commenters have stated that the “significant public benefit” criterion is too broad and should either be more narrowly defined or eliminated in its entirety. The proposed term of vested property rights for PUD Master Plans has been drafted to be consistent with rights granted under other entitlement processes. The draft standards provide for a three-year initial vesting period, with two additional one-year extensions granted by the Director, and with additional one-year extensions available through action of the original decisionmaker (City Council or Planning and Zoning Board depending upon the project scale). An initial vesting period longer than three years may be obtained if certain requirements are met including Council legislatively adopting a development agreement regarding the extended vesting. Concern has been raised by some that the vesting period should be lengthened given the scale and complexity often found in PUD’s. City Council provided direction to staff at its June 19, 2018, Work Session. Council expressed general support for the overall PUD concept, but not the previously proposed 20-acre minimum parcel size threshold since the community outreach effort has not extended to potentially affected existing neighborhoods which are more likely to be located near smaller development sites. Council further requested that additional community be provided if a smaller parcel size minimum is considered in the future. The minimum parcel size has been changed from 20 to 50 acres based upon the Work Session feedback. ATTACHMENTS 1. Buildable Land for PUDs (PDF) 2. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 31, 2018 (PDF) 3. Public Comments (PDF) 4. Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 21, 2018 (draft) (PDF) 5. Work Session Summary, June 19, 2018 (PDF) 6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 11 Packet Pg. 220 50 Acres 45 Acres 40 Acres 35 Acres 30 Acres 25 Acres 20 Acres Growth Management Area Boundary City Limits - Area PUD Buildable Land Analysis Qualifying Properties ATTACHMENT 1 11.1 Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Buildable Land for PUDs (6930 : PUD Regulations) EXCERPT Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Christine Pardee Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing May 31, 2018 MINUTES EXCERPT for the PUD Land Use Code Amendment Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Hansen, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: Carpenter Staff Present: Gloss, Schmidt, Simpkins, Wray, McWilliams, Martina, Bethurem Harras, Sullivan, Beane, Tuttle and Gerber ***BEGIN EXCERPT*** 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment Project Description: Revisions to Land Use Code Article 1 (General Provisions), Article 2 (Administration), Article 4 (Districts) and Article 5 (Definitions) as they relate to the creation of a new process and regulations for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District. The proposed PUD Overlay District provides for additional flexibility in site design not available through traditional development procedures, and the ability for extended vested property rights, in return for the provision of significant public benefits. Under the PUD process, parcels 50 acres or greater in size are eligible to create a governing, multi-phased PUD Master Plan that directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans (PDP’s) and Final Plans for each development phase. Recommendation: Approval Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 11.2 Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 31, 2018 (6930 : PUD Regulations) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Secretary Gerber reported that Paul Patterson urges the Board to consider requiring two neighborhood meetings for a PUD. Article 5, Definitions, in Attachment 1 was updated in the packet with a new version on 5/29/18. Section 2.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.3, and 2.1.6 were added to supplemental documents on 5/29/18. Member Rollins recused herself Member Hansen stated he had viewed a previous PUD presentation as a member of the Development Review Advisory Committee. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief overview of this project. This overview included a history of PUD’s in Fort Collins, public benefits, standards to be set, community engagement and attributes of the proposed ordinance. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Mickey Willis, 150 Fairway Lane, would like to see smaller parcel sizes rather than the large 50-acre greenfield parcels. Would like to recommend that the acreage be as little as 5-acre parcels. Paul Patterson, would like a requirement for neighborhood meetings for PUDs to be set at two and timing be when modifications and provisions of significant public benefit can be explicitly stated. Staff Response Planning Manager Gloss responded to Mr. Patterson’s concern about neighborhood meetings that the proposed requirement that a second neighborhood meeting would be required after the first round of development review and include requests for modification and the vesting of property rights. In response to Mr. Willis’ comments, Planning Manager Gloss spoke to the parcel sizes and rationale for the staff’s position relative to the size threshold. Board Questions / Deliberation Chair Schneider sought clarification as to whether or not this is in draft or final format. Planning Manager Gloss explained that the element that is not complete is the specific techniques to amend the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and Engineering Standards; otherwise, all other aspects are complete. Chair Schneider is uncomfortable with making a decision due to potential changes from now until the final adoption version. Assistant City Attorney Schmidt responded that she agrees with Planning Manager Gloss and added that they were seeking input from the Board early in the process. Member Hobbs feels that PUDs have a large ramification for the community and it seems that outside of the P&Z Board and the one other Board conversation was limited to talking to some in the development community. Member Hansen expressed interest in other forms of community engagement. Planning Manager Gloss stated that the outreach process with legislative changes of this type was appropriate, since staff anticipates outcomes being better than plans that would go through a conventional process and that there would be a more rigorous public review process. It is felt that these projects will be held to a higher standard. Member Hobbs asked if it was reasonable to perceive that the PUD was like starting with a blank slate; zoning defined uses, setbacks, densities, etc. Planning Manager Gloss commented that in theory one could make that assumption however; the principals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and detailed area plans still stand, leaving the burden on the applicant to prove those values are embodied in the development plan. Member Hansen spoke to significant public benefits as a requirement. As Member Hansen understands, there has been a focus on removing subjectivity from the Land Use Code and this seems to be adding it in. How will we be measuring significant public benefit? Planning Manager Gloss responded that we do not have a definition that specifically states what this significant public benefit would be other than the PUD objectives. This is something that would be weighed by the decision maker, being either this Board or City Council. Member Hansen stated is it 11.2 Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 31, 2018 (6930 : PUD Regulations) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 3 of 4 easy for him to agree in a small group with relatively common interests in mind but that he foresees that without a way to quantify it could turn contentious. Member Hansen is in favor of the PUD, but feels if there is too much uncertainty and onerous on developers, it will become another PDOD. Member Hobbs asked why the PUD was stopped or left behind. Planning Manager Gloss understands that when the system was previously in place there were a range of issues, for some it was a sense of less predictability, concern from the public and development community about the length of time it took to get through the review process, while others enjoyed the flexibility provided since our present code is highly prescriptive. Member Hobbs asked what the rational was for differentiating below and above 640 acres? Planning Manager Gloss responded that due to anything 640 acres or above is considered a legislative action and would need to go before Council. Chair Schneider asked why 640 acres matters. Attorney Schmidt spoke to the history of the 640- acre threshold, and that the concept is that, at some point, rezoning gets so large that is becomes more of a legislative act than an application of a narrow set of standards to a piece of property. This community has set the dividing line at one section. Chair Schneider asked that the goal then was to not change the zoning over the whole 640 acres. Would this automatically go to Council or come to the Planning and Zoning Board? Planning Manager Gloss responded that the PUD overlay zone does not create a rezoning with the underlying zoning remaining the same. Chair Schneider state that there was some confusion as it appears there is an opportunity to take property and rezone/reuse and change what is there, why if we are not changing the use or overlying zoning, why do we need a PUD? Planning Manager Gloss responded that the PUD Master Plan allows the applicant/property owner to essentially have uses that are different than what is allowed under the underlying zoning without the act of rezoning. Chair Schneider commented that the PUD Master Plan can change zoning and density and everything else that is allowed on that property. Planning Manager Gloss agreed and stated that the burden of proof is on the applicant and that this is an optional process. Attorney Schmidt commented that it is about creativity and allowing that creativity in the context of an overall master development plan that is intended to consider compatibility with existing areas around it and is intended to deliver something in terms of a high or better level of public benefit. Chair Schneider does not feel there is anything that we can compare it to and wants to make sure that people understand when they are buying property or have bought property in certain areas that they understand what they are up against. Member Hobbs feels that the Board must be careful with the effect on utilities, transportation, level of service issues, and other areas. Even if it is a greenfield site, the Board must look at what is located further away. Member Hobbs agrees and shares Chair Schneider’s hesitation. Chair Schneider stated that it looks like we are getting rid of the PDOD process, Planning Manager Gloss answered yes. Chair Schneider questioned what happens with the current project that is currently in the process. Planning Manager Gloss stated that the project did not submit a formal application and that there is not a project currently in the process. Chair Schneider asked if we were getting rid of the APU process, Planning Manager Gloss answered no. Chair Schneider questioned a statement in the APU, 1.34 C1B, and wondered if this was going to affect the PUD. Planning Manager Gloss responded that this was a section that was not to be changed other than a few minor text amendments. Member Hobbs asked for issues that transcend a zoning district like the setbacks from oil wells - would these things still be on the table as a negotiable item in a PUD overlay? Planning Manager Gloss stated that all article 3 and 4 standards remain except where a modification is being requested, evaluated and granted under the PUD Master Plan process. Chair Schneider asked about trash and recycling design and that the Director can waive the design standards. Why are we not making this mandatory? Planning Manager Gloss responded that this is the way the code reads today and that no changes are being proposed. Chair Schneider made mentioned of a letter received from Post Modern Development and Mr. Patterson about requiring two (2) neighborhood meetings and wondered if this was going to be mandated. Planning Manager Gloss stated that was correct. Prior to submittal and the second will coincide with the first round of review. To answer questions posed by Post Modern Development, the staff reviewed in its presentation the range of sizes and can understand about the 50-acre minimum. Considerations would be made for other size thresholds. Chair Schneider referred to section 2.10 1 A-G and 2 A-E. Planning Manager Gloss responded that these sections relate to how an amendment would happen when you have a PUD Master Plan. For the most part, the PUD Master Plan amendment process mirrors what has been done for other types of applications. 11.2 Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 31, 2018 (6930 : PUD Regulations) EXCERPT Planning & Zoning Board May 31, 2018 Page 4 of 4 Deliberation Member Hobbs feels it is good for the community and offers flexibility to staff and will not become another PDOD, however; he is not at a point where he is comfortable voting on a recommendation and would like a continuation. Member Hansen agrees with Member Hobbs’ approach and offered suggestions. Developers will be able to think out of the box a bit. Some suggestions may be to devise a point system; he is also concerned about the parcel size of the threshold of 50 acres. Member Hansen also spoke to Chair Schneider’s concerns. Chair Schneider is not against the proposal, he feels is has been pushed too hard, too fast. There needs to be an opportunity for discussion and that if it is larger than 640 acres it becomes a political conversation, and that is not what the Land Use Code is about, it is about what is available and what is being used on that property. The size should go less than 50 acres. He would like this item to be continued Member Hobbs stated that the same two issues are also of concern to him. He is concerned about the surrounding effects of the larger PUDs that will come down. He would also like to discuss the possibility of appeal for Land Use. Member Hansen asked why there was a sense of urgency. Planning Manager Gloss responded that they had a target of August 1, 2018, roughly and even if there continued to the June 21, 2018 hearing, they would remain on that schedule. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Planned Unit Development Overlay Land Use Code changes included in the Board’s May 31, 2018 agenda to a future hearing date. Member Whitley seconded. Member Whitley would like more time to understand all of it. Chair Schneider agreed and is looking forward to a full work session. Vote: 4:0. ***END EXCERPT*** 11.2 Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, May 31, 2018 (6930 : PUD Regulations) May 29, 2018 Dear P&Z Board Members, This letter concerns the agenda item “Planned Unit Development (PUD) Land Use Code Amendment” for your May 31 st Regular Hearing. I strongly urge you to include two neighborhood meeting in the Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Overlay Review Procedure; with at least one occurring after “uses, modifications to densities and development standards” have been explicitly stated. The development community is being given “…flexibility in site design in return for significant benefits…”; the neighborhood residents should have ample opportunity to understand exactly what flexibility is being given in return for what significant benefits. For most concerned neighborhood residents this will be their first encounter with the land use code and development process, understanding of them is a daunting undertaking that takes time. Sincerely Paul Patterson 2936 Eindborough Fort Collins, CO 80525 ATTACHMENT 3 11.3 Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) Post Modern Development, Inc. April 30, 2018 Cameron Gloss, AICP Planning Manager City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 cgloss@fcgove.com Re: Comments to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Overlay Draft Dear Cameron, This letter summarizes Post Modern Development (“PMD”) and Terra Development Group’s (“Terra”) initial comments to the draft text of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District that you circulated on April 19, 2018. We appreciate you sharing the proposed PUD draft with us, and we believe that having a PUD District available in Fort Collins will help encourage high quality and creative projects not currently allowed in standard zone districts. However, as an active developer of residential and mixed-use projects, we do have several concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed draft language, which are detailed below. 1. Division 2.15(B) – Minimum Size Requirement. The applicability of the PUD only to properties of 50 acres or larger greatly limits its use and function. We only know of a handful of parcels or possible assemblages within the City’s boundaries that are this large. As a result, the benefits of the PUD’s flexibility will only be available to certain pockets within the community – this result is contrary to the City’s goal of creating significant public benefits through PUD Districts. As an alternative, we would suggest the size limit be changed to 20 acres. A smaller size requirement would give more projects the option of taking advantage of the PUD planning mechanism. This is consistent with the standard practices of other Colorado communities. For example, PUD Districts in the Cities of Loveland and Centennial can apply to property of any size. In Denver, the minimum PUD size is 10 acres. The 20-acre threshold, will make this tool more useful for phased projects, developers and the City to apply within Fort Collins. 2. Division 4.29(B)(2) – Objectives. The requirement that development under a PUD District must provide significant public benefits greater than those typically achieved through a standard zone district is likely to have a chilling effect on their use. We are concerned that the additional flexibility in site design will not provide enough of an incentive to overcome the additional costs created by this requirement. Many developers will see this requirement as a carte blanche for the City to circumvent traditional rational nexus/rough proportionality analyses and request – or even demand – unlimited or disproportionate concessions and public improvements. We suggest the City consider eliminating this requirement. In the event that you choose to keep the enumerated list of 11.3 Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) public benefits, we request that some objective criteria and additional detail be added so that developers are given guidance as to whether their project meets this standard and qualifies for PUD District prior to going through the time and expense to apply and appear before the Planning and Zoning Board for a determination. This requirement also presumes that the increased creativity and improved design afforded by a PUD framework is not, in itself, public benefit to justify the use of this tool. 3. Division 4.29 (E) – Uses. In the case of certain zoning districts within the City, there exist allocations of certain primary or secondary uses as percentages of areas or parcels. In order to facilitate the flexibility of uses (which is a stated purpose of the PUD), we would suggest additional clarification within the PUD language that these allocations of percentage of uses within the underlying zone district do not apply to a PUD. 4. Division 4.29(G)(6) – Term of Vested Rights. The mandated expiration of vested rights related to the uses, densities and modified development standards under a PUD Master Plan should be removed. This concept conflicts with the City’s existing rules on the term of vested property rights, which currently say that an extension may be granted without expiration, provided that the City and developer enter into a development agreement. In addition, removing this limitation is consistent with the practices of many peer cities, including Boulder and Broomfield, and is allowed by the Colorado vested rights statute. If the expiration concept is not removed altogether, it would be more beneficial if the initial vested rights period could be extended by multiple additional ten-year extensions, rather than one-year extensions. As a master developer, PMD and Terra know firsthand that large developments can take years, or even decades, to complete, particularly when economic and market cycles fluctuate. Investors, lenders, and tenants rely on vested rights in making their decisions to participate in a project in early stages, relying on the vested right to guarantee that the project can be completed according to its approved development plans throughout its later stages. It is of critical importance that vested rights period realistically match the projected pace of development. Because there is no limit on the length of time for a vested right that can be negotiated in a development agreement for other developments not using a PUD, this provision places PUD projects at a disadvantage relative to other types of projects in the City. Developers might elect to avoid using the PUD process, even if it is the most suitable for a project, if they cannot obtain a vested right that will accommodate the entire anticipated phasing of a project’s development. 5. Division 4.29(I)(1) – Expiration. Incorporating an automatic 20-year expiration date into all PUD Master Plans creates uncertainty and adds complexity to the regulatory process. Again, by their very nature, projects seeking to use the PUD District process are likely more complex, and will likely have lengthier phasing of development, compared to other types of projects. As proposed, a developer could plan a large community around the flexible uses and site design offered by the PUD District, only to have that expire prior to the project being completed. The proposed mechanisms to extend the life of the PUD are either (i) upon the request of all of the property owners with the PUD District, or (ii) upon the request of those property owners whose real property interest are affected. Both of these options create uncertainty that a developer or the City would be able to extend the PUD if needed or desired. In the case of a large development, approval by all property owners would be a very difficult bar to reach. By the time expiration becomes an issue, dozens or even hundreds of parties could have ownership interests in the property within the PUD. This could include a mix of homeowners, commercial property owners, governmental entities such as metro districts, and others. Coordinating them all would be virtually impossible. Even in the event that coordination of affected property owners is solely required, that will still likely be infeasible. In all cases under these mechanisms it would be impossible for a developer to know with certainty that he can meet these thresholds. 11.3 Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) If a PUD expires for all or a portion of the PUD District, it would likely create additional problems for property owners and the City in the form of nonconforming structures, standards and/or uses. These issues would extend to not only affect the developers, but tenants, lenders or insurers on the property. We would request that the expiration be eliminated so that a PUD would solely expire upon the request of the property owners. 6. Division 4.29(I)(2) – Amendment. The requirement that all owners or all directly affected owners of property within a PUD approve of any amendment will greatly limit the ability and interest to utilize the PUD. Since a PUD applies to larger developments that will likely phase over time, we would envision numerous revisions requested as a PUD area is developed. As properties are sold and property owners are added within the PUD, a developer will be uncertain that these thresholds for amendment can be met. The result is that these mechanisms significantly decrease the interest of developers to utilize the PUD as future flexibility for amendment may be limited. We do not believe the current approaches are flexible enough. In the case where a master developer needs to change provisions of the PUD Master Plan to accommodate ongoing development of a project, we believe it should be specifically be allowed. We suggest adding that an amendment may be proposed by either a) the majority property owner within the PUD, or b) any property owner within the PUD with the consent of all adjacent property owners within the PUD District. We would also request that such amendment process be handled as a minor amendment process via the City planning department. We appreciate your ongoing work on this matter and the opportunity to comment on this draft regulation. Please contact me with any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, JD Padilla Post Modern Development Roni Amid Terra Development Group Tal Hackmey Terra Development Group Jacob Steele Terra Development Group 11.3 Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION Draft Proposed Repeal and Replacement of City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Divisions 2.15 and 4.29 Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Master Plan Review Procedure A. Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners to achieve flexibility in site design and the security of extended vesting of rights in return for significant public benefits not available through traditional development procedures. Define what the areas of community benefit could be with a grading system for economic development, energy and land conservation, social and artistic values, affordability and others. B. Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Master Plan is available to properties of 50 this is too large as there are no 50 acre sites left within the GMA, therefore it should be 5 -10 acre site minimal with a qualifier for even smaller infill sites where appropriate. The entitlement cost are the same for 5,10 acres or 50 acres or greater in size. The motivation for a community benefit and need for flexibility is greater for a smaller infill site than would be for a 50 acre greenfield site. C.Process. (1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable. It would great if the staff would actually conceptualize ideas that would result in a better community project instead of just quoting permit cost that are irrelevant at this early stage. (2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable. There could be a reward to development projects that do the design charrette process instead of just a small meeting giving notice to the 11.3 Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) community of a pending project. The design charrette engages the community to gather real input that can be useful and it cost more to put together. If the developer holds a design charrette it would be great to reward the project with less submittal requirements as it takes a lot of effort to flush out area issues and solutions which is really the purpose of a high submittal requirement standards. (3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents as described in the development application DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY PENDING FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION submittal master list shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, the Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. Need Flexibility with staff initiated changes if it will make a better project with a better community benefit. (4) Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows: (1) Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to PUD applications between 10 and 640 acres; (2) City Council is the decision maker for PUD applications greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation. This process should be available to used by the local small builders and developers as the 50 acre minimal standard only helps the Wall Street type builder developer. 11.3 Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of Decision): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to Section 4.29(G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with all General Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4) including Division 4.29. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Not applicable. A PUD Master Plan is not a site specific development plan and does not qualify for vested property rights pursuant to Section 2.2.11. PUD vested property rights for uses, densities, and modifications to development standards expressly identified as vested within a PUD Master Plan are permitted exclusively pursuant to Section 4.29(G), in substitution of the procedures of Section 2.2.11. (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision on a PUD between 50 and 640 acres is appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). (13) Optional Step A (Optional Preapplication Review): Applicants for review of a PUD Master Plan between 50 and 640 acres are allowed to participate in the following optional review procedure: This optional review is available to applicants that have completed their conceptual review and neighborhood meeting but have not submitted a development application. Such review is intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual information to the Planning and Zoning Board about the 11.3 Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) ways in which they intend to respond to site constraints, issues of controversy or opportunities related to the development project. Applicants participating in such review procedure should present specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and the affected property owners. All preapplication sessions under this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions contained in Steps (6), (7)(B) and (7)(C) of the Common Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the session. The Board may, but shall not be required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or recommendation made by any Board member with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the proposal. All information related to an optional review shall be considered part of the record of any subsequent PUD Master Plan review related to all or part of the property that was the subject of the optional review. Only (1) optional review session may be requested for any proposed PUD Master Plan. Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) District (A)Purpose. (1) Serves as a review procedure for subsequent Project Development Plans for a large development area governed by an approved PUD Master Plan. (2) Substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan as to property within an approved PUD Master Plan. (3) Positions large areas of property for phased development. (4) May provide vesting of uses, density and certain development 11.3 Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) standards to the extent expressly set forth in an approved PUD Master Plan. (5) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under strict application of the Land Use Code and engineering standards. (6) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, housing types, lot sizes, densities, and/or supporting nonresidential uses. (B)Objectives. (1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas. (2) In return for flexibility in site design with respect to the arrangement, heights, and setbacks of buildings, densities, open space and circulation elements, as well as vesting of certain uses, densities and development standards, development under a PUD District must provide significant public benefits greater than those typically achieved through application of a standard zone district, including, but not limited to: (a)Diversification in the use of land; (b)Innovation in development; (c)More efficient use of land and energy; (d) Extent of public amenities as appropriate in light of the scope of the development; and 11.3 Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) (e) Development patterns compatible in character and design with nearby areas and consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable subarea and neighborhood plans. (3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. (4) Promote coordination and cooperation among property owners within a large area. (5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD from negative impacts. (6) Provide a development review process that encourages heightened dialogue and collaboration among applicants, affected property owners, neighbors and City staff. (C)Applicability. (1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50 acres in size is eligible for PUD Master Plan approval. (2) An approved PUD Master Plan will be shown upon the Zoning Map and will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan (ODP). Development within the boundaries of an approved PUD Master Plan may proceed directly to application for Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s). (4) Unless otherwise specified, all references to vested rights within Division 4.29 shall mean PUD vested property rights. 11.3 Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) (D)Eligibility. (1) Minimum size 5 - 10 or no minimal acres limit as great community benefit could come is a small urban plot easier than larger properties. This process should be made available to the small local builder/ developers who have our communities best interest at heart more so than does the Wall Street type developer. The local talent is also more in tune with the community desires for more creative socially responsible solutions to local problems. The huge Wall Street developers are just selling the same old dream that is generic to the masses in every other market. The purpose of this process is to allow for better more creative solutions to troubled site and a 50 acre site is not an infill location it is a greenfield project and those projects are housing only otherwise to add commercial and business uses promotes sprawl, which is the opposite of community beneficial thinking. (2) Application for PUD approval must be authorized by all owners of property proposed to be included. (E)Permitted Uses. (1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted within an approved PUD. (2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan, and may be approved to the extent such uses satisfy the following criteria: (a)The use advances the purpose and objectives of the PUD District provisions set forth in Subsections 4.29(A)and (B) and the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and applicable subarea and neighborhood plans. These subarea plans are useful but lack flexibility in zoning and permitted uses. The infill sites are extremely difficult to develop because they 11.3 Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) have more severe problems than does a greenmail site and therefore needs to allow for more flexible creative solutions. (b)The use conforms to the basic characteristics of the underlying zone district and the other permitted uses in the zone district to which it is added. I disagree with the above statement as the underlying zone district is not always an appropriate planned use for the difficult site. It should be stated that the infill sites are allowed more flexibility for creative project solutions if a higher community benefit is to be reached. Sometime the highest and best use of a site is not for Urban Estates type lots but rather a community benefit project of a community farm agricultural project with some commercial operations like coffee brewing, bakery, farmers markets and other supporting business that are not permitted in most zoning designation but have huge community benefit. (c)The location and size of the use is compatible with and has minimal negative impact on the use of adjacent properties. The above sentence should be more positive in that these projects should be designed to enhance and collaborate with the surrounding properties to provide supporting uses that help create sense of place and purpose. (d)To the maximum extent feasible, use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences or any more traffic hazards, traffic generation or attraction, adverse environmental impacts, adverse impacts on public or quasipublic facilities, utilities or services, adverse effect on public health, safety, morals or aesthetics, or other adverse impacts of development, than the amount normally resulting from the other permitted uses listed in the underlying zone district. This is way too restrictive because it takes away the chance and motivation for creative land 11.3 Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) uses will never fall within the permitted uses of the underlying zoning district. Keeping in mind that this process is intended for infill sites that have problems and therefore should be allowed the most flexibility. (e)The use is warranted by changing conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property (f)Whether and the extent to which the proposed use is compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate use for that land (g)Whether and the extent to which the proposed use would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. (F)Prohibited Uses. None. (G)Vesting of Uses, Density, and Modification of Development Standards. (1) PUD vested property rights may be approved as part of a PUD Master Plan under the provisions of this Division 4.29. The procedures in this Section 4.29(G) are the exclusive means by which vested rights may be approved within a PUD Master Plan. Section 2.2.11 does not apply to vested rights under a PUD Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan is not a site specific development plan but is subject to Division 2.13, Vested Rights and Takings Determinations. (2) In order to vest rights under a PUD Master Plan, the applicant must submit an application for such vested rights as a part of its Development Application submittal. If approved as a part of a PUD Master Plan by the decision maker, the vested rights 11.3 Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) shall be described in the PUD Master Plan Development Agreement, which shall detail the elements of the PUD Master Plan which are vested, the term of vesting, and any conditions of that vesting. (3) The applicant must enumerate the elements for which it requests vesting, which may include: (a)Uses permitted in the underlying zone district and those approved to be added to the subject property as a part of an approved PUD Master Plan application. (b)Densities for permitted residential uses, the application may request vesting of such uses at established ratios of dwelling units per acre. (c)The applicant shall enumerate which specific Land Use Code Article 3 development standards and Article 4 land use and development standards are proposed to be modified and vested, as modified, and the nature of that modification, in terms sufficiently specific to enable application of the modified standards to Project Development Plans and Final Development Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with, and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. Land Use Code Section 3.7.3, Adequate Public Facilities, is not eligible for modification. (4) The applicant shall list, as part of its application, the specific standards list which it wishes to modify, and the specific modification, in detail sufficient to enable the application of such modified standards, if approved as part of the PUD Master Plan, to later Project Development Plans and Final Development Plans. The decision maker shall review requests for the modification of development standards and the vesting of such modified standards against the following criteria, as appropriate and applicable to the specific PUD Master Plan 11.3 Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) application: (a) The degree to which modification of the development standards is consistent with the purpose of the PUD District as described in Section 4.29.A (b) The degree to which the modification of the development standard advances the objectives of the PUD District as described in Section 4.29.B (c) Whether the requested modification will significantly advance the development objectives of the application. (d) Whether the requested modification is necessary to achieve the development objectives of the application. (5) If approved, vesting applies despite later text amendments to the underlying zone district which remove or revise permitted uses or otherwise alter or revise permitted densities and development standards. (6) Term of vested rights: Uses, densities, and modified development standards which are approved for vesting under this Section shall be vested for a period not to exceed ten (10) years from the date of approval of the PUD Master Plan. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that the plan complies with all general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension. Any additional extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the decision maker for the PUD Master Plan, upon a finding that the plan complies with all applicable general development standards as contained in Article 3 and Zone District Standards as contained in Article 4 at the time of the application for the extension, and that (a) the applicant has been diligent in pursuing development under the approved PUD Master Plan, or 11.3 Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) (b) due to other extraordinary and exceptional situations unique to the property, completing development would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties or undue hardship upon the applicant, and granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the decision maker for the PUD Master Plan. (7) Upon the expiration of the term of a vested right, the use, density, or development standard to which the vested right applied shall remain available for utilization. However, such use, density, or development standard is subject to amendment or elimination pursuant to Subsection (I)(8) of this Division. (H)Review Procedure. (1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to the common review procedures, Section 2.15. (2) Criteria for approval of a PUD Master Plan: aThat the application achieves the purpose and objectives of Sections 4.29 A and B; bThat the application will ensure superior urban design within the subject property in excess of development under the standards applicable to the underlying zone district; cThat the application will ensure enhanced public and private infrastructure design, including the design of private residential, commercial and industrial structures at a level 11.3 Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) of quality significantly above that merely required by compliance with uniform codes and development standards; dThat the application will ensure compatibility and/or the enhancements of the subject property with adjacent properties in design and use, as well as public infrastructure and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and utilities; and eThat the application will result in a community benefit contribution development projects that are in the spirit and intended purposes of the City's Comprehensive Plan and applicable subarea and neighborhood plans. These public benefit contribution and enhancement type projects will not be restricted by outdated plans but will become timely updated amendments incorporated into the comprehensive planning strategies. Old and Outdated plans should not be the driving force for project compliance during changing times. The average age of the Fort Collins demographic is 29 years old and getting younger so they don’t want big hoses and yards they want a cheaper better way of living together in community that allows for flexibility in life pathways. Community! Community! Community! (I)Extension, Amendment, Expiration, and Termination of a PUD Master Plan. (1) PUD Master Plans may be established for an initial period not to exceed twenty (20) years. (2) Vested rights to uses, densities, and/or modified development standards within an approved PUD Master Plan are subject to the term established for those rights under subsection 4.29(G) (6). (3) Applicant must sign an agreement acknowledging the limited term of the PUD Master Plan, and, if granted, the term of the vested rights, the absence of any right to rely on the PUD 11.3 Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) Master Plan or the vested rights beyond the approved terms for the same, and indemnifying the City for any claim related to their operation, enforcement, or expiration. (4) Upon the request of the property owners, the Council may terminate the PUD Master Plan. (5) When the PUD Master Plan expires or is terminated, the overlay designation on the zoning map is removed and the authority of the underlying zoning regulations is reestablished in total. (6) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination of a PUD Master Plan is subject to Article 1, Division 1.6. (7) An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended, or its established expiration date may be extended, under the following alternative procedures: (a)Upon the request of all property owners within the District an approved PUD Master Plan may be amended by processing of an application in the same manner as an original request. (b)Upon the request of those property owners whose real property interests are directly affected, the Director may approve a minor amendment to the PUD Master Plan. (8) The City may initiate and impose an amendment or termination of an approved PUD Master Plan under the procedure set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.9.4 for zoning map amendments. No City initiated amendment or termination of an approved PUD Master Plan shall amend, modify, or terminate any vested right approved in connection with such PUD Master Plan earlier than the expiration date of such vested right. 11.3 Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) Article 5 – Terms and Definitions Proposed Amendments Planned Unit Development (PUD) District shall mean an area of land approved for development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division 4.29 and Division 2.15. An approved PUD overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved plan for development of an area within an approved PUD, which identifies the general intent of the development and establishes vested uses, densities and certain modification of development standards. An approved PUD Master Plan substitutes for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. A PUD Master Plan is not a site-specific development plan. PUD vested property right shall mean the right to utilize a use, density, or development standard specified in an approved PUD master plan during the term specified in such PUD Master Plan. Proposed Application Requirements (1) written explanation of the proposed development at a conceptual level (2) preliminary plans at concept review level (3) submittal information from master list (4) list of uses, densities, and development standards to be added, modified, and/or vested pursuant to subsections 4.29(E) and 4.29(G) (5) map of the proposed application boundaries including all lots, tracts, out lots and rights-of-way 11.3 Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) (6) list of all property owners (7) written consent from all owners (8) list of all current and proposed special districts serving the property (9) Written statement explaining how the proposed PUD Master Plan complies with or enhances the Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable, adopted plans. (10) PUD Master Plan specifying the type and extent of development proposed including the following components: • overall site plan indicating the intensity and general configuration of the proposed uses • transportation system, including vehicular, transit, bicycle and pedestrian circulation • location of open space, natural habitat and features, floodways and other areas designated for preservation • architectural concept plan including renderings, photographs, illustrations and supporting text describing architectural design intent. • phasing plan including a projected timeframe for each phase • list of use and design standards applicable to the PUD Master Plan (11) listing of off-site infrastructure improvements and estimated costs 11.3 Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Public Comments (6930 : PUD Regulations) Planning and Zoning Board June 21, 2018 DRAFT Discussion Agenda: 4. Planned Unit Development Overlay - Land Use Code Changes Project Description: Revisions to Land Use Code Article 1 (General Provisions), Article 2 (Administration), Article 4 (Districts) and Article 5 (Definitions) as they relate to the creation of a new process and regulations for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that a letter from Max Moss was received explaining the need for this ordinance. This letter was added to Supplemental Documents. An update to the PUD overlay LUC 2.15 and 4.29 code section were added to the packet. A new code section (2.2.2.1_ Proposed Pre-Application Review) was added to Supplement Documents. An updated PUD Ordinance was received at 3:30 pm on 6/21 and added to Supplemental Documents. Disclosures and / or ex parte communications: Member Rollins recused herself from this item. Chair Schneider disclosed that he attended City Council’s work session on 6/19/2018 to gather information and to hear what they had to say about this item. Member Hansen disclosed that he watched a recording of that session. Member Whitley disclosed that he too watched a recording of that session. Member Hobbs disclosed that he watched a portion of that recording. Member Carpenter disclosed that she watched a portion of that recording. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planning Manager Gloss gave a brief overview of this project and stated that there were very few substantive changes and the received corresponding amendments would bring those sections of the code into compliance with the PUD changes. The only substantive change from the May 31st and this evenings hearing is the threshold for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application. The threshold is being increased from 20 acres to 50 acres. This could potentially affect 24 properties within the growth management area. Currently there are three (3) to four (4) property owners who have expressed interest to move forward with a PUD. It was heard clearly from City Council that there was a lack of support for going forward at this time with a smaller threshold, primarily because those smaller properties are surrounded by existing neighborhoods and districts. Council’s perspective on the public process is that the community engagement platform was not sufficient to reach all potentially affected property owners. Staff will bring back to the Board and City Council a specific scope of work for community engagement over the next year, which will include those community members that may be impacted by a smaller threshold. Part of this plan will happen in conjunction with the City Plan update currently underway. Planner Gloss asked if the Board would like to see the full presentation that was presented at the previous hearing. Chair Schneider asked the Board if they were interested in viewing the full presentation. Member Hobbs stated that he felt it would be a good opportunity for the community to view the presentation. Chair Schneider agreed. Member Pardee stated she would like to see the presentation. Planning Manager Gloss gave an in-depth visual/verbal presentation of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. The PUD process keeps the underlying zoning, creates an overlay by which a master plan is created, and Planning and Zoning Board Minutes ATTACHMENT 4 11.4 Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 21, 2018 (draft) (6930 : PUD Regulations) Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 2 of 3 this master plan then dictates the vision and character for the property. The PUD also commits the project to certain design features and requests specifically what rights are to be vested. Density and use can then be stipulated in that master plan. For each phase of the development there is a Project Development Plan similar to what the Board would typically see. The presentation also covered public engagement wherein the acreage threshold was the principal concern. The development community expressed that the 50-acre threshold is too large. Public benefit criteria also drew comments and, from staff’s perspective, the code draft satisfactorily addresses the issue by affording the Planning and Zoning Board and Council to act fairly and equitably when evaluating a PUD application. Clarifying questions Member Carpenter asked if staff’s intention was to work on reducing to 20-acres and public outreach to bring it back at a later date; Planner Gloss responded that was correct. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Max Moss, Developer, Montava - Mr. Moss spoke of investing his life in building this community. This is not just a development, this is a commitment to community. He feels the PUD process is needed because of the uniqueness of the Montava project. This is the first in the country. This project includes 100% zero energy ready home standards, it has a large organic farm at its core, it is new urbanist in its design which intentionally creates community and is designed as a multi-generational place, and integrated with the municipal utility to create a model of energy conservation. This project is completely designed for water conservation and will be a model for affordable housing. Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked, in relation to peer cities, if PUD’s were similar in the way that they are administrated and what the conditions and requirements are within all the different PUD’s; Planning Manager Gloss stated that generally they are very similar with only a few communities that have PUD’s that are not overlays and are districts. They rezone the property to PUD which then creates a different right. Most of these communities have code text that is very similar. The Code’s speak to community benefit, trade-off and that there is an expectation that a PUD is an innovative, higher quality development. Member Hansen feels that adding this tool will be valuable to the City of Fort Collins. His only concern is the threshold size. Member Hansen asked what negative impacts might come fourth having a low or no threshold size and if staff has discussed this; Planning Manager Gloss stated that staff has within the context or comments received from Council at work session. The concern is some misunderstood what the PUD represents, and the degree of flexibility that is afforded. Planning staff would like to take this cautiously, starting at the 50-acres and then commit to coming back and investigating a lower threshold and making certain that all details are fleshed out. Member Carpenter agrees with Member Hansen in that she hesitates to call this a new tool as Fort Collins had this previously and is not exactly new, but does understand that many individuals were not here and aware of this. She is tickled to see this coming back into place. She would like Planning staff to look at lowering the threshold as well. To do this it might be that there is more community involvement especially from those around infill sites. Member Whitley concurs with Member Carpenter in that a lower threshold would be interesting and useful. Member Pardee thanked Planning Manager Gloss for the thorough and thoughtful review. She feels the PUD is an excellent tool and is excited to see what can come out of this. She also concurs with fellow Board members in support of consideration of a lower threshold. 11.4 Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 21, 2018 (draft) (6930 : PUD Regulations) Planning & Zoning Board June 21, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Member Hobbs is not opposed to a lower threshold but is concerned about the buffering and transition around the perimeter of the area that is going to have an effect on whether it is welcomed into the surrounding community. By basic physics, the smaller the parcel, the more difficult it is physically and economically. Member Hansen commented on concerns of going to a smaller parcel size. He does, however, feel it will bring more community involvement at the master planning stage, and when a PDP or series of PDP’s come in, each of those will have a public engagement process for comment and input. Member Hansen feels the PUD process will only increase the public input that address the concerns. Chair Schneider does not understand why the size has gone from 50 to 20 to 50-acres. With examples of smaller sizes given at work session and how well they worked, he is glad to see the PUD coming back, but feels there are opportunities for the 10 to 20-acre sites that potentially could us the process and be a better development and community in the long run. Chair Schneider called for a recommendation to Council. Member Hansen wanted discussion around the recommendation to Council. He would like to propose no minimum, as the process in and on itself will filter out projects that cannot and will not apply. Member Carpenter is in support of no minimum. Chair Schneider asked Planning Manager Gloss for clarification on no minimum standard that there would be at least three community conversations: two at the PUD stage and one at the PDP stage; Planning Manager Gloss responded that was correct. Member Hobbs shared his philosophical concerns and knows this will be decided at the Council level. He feels it is important to have a consensus on the Board and is willing to follow the Board’s view point on this subject. The other concern Member Hobbs has with the PUD is the timing. He feels it is oriented toward a couple of developments and not the way we are supposed to legislate changes to the Land Use Code; by specific projects. Member Whitley agrees with Member Hobbs in regard for the need of Board consensus; he will be supporting this item, at no minimum threshold. Chair Schneider stated that is sounds as though everyone is ok with changing the minimum to zero. Chair Schneider called for a motion. Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Overlay and Land Use code changes based on the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session, this hearing and the Board discussion on this item with the following findings and that the Board recommends the application threshold be zero for the PUD process. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. 11.4 Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Planning and Zoning Board minutes, June 21, 2018 (draft) (6930 : PUD Regulations) 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.221.6376 970.224.6134 - fax 1 Planning, Development & Transportation MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 2018 TO: Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Laurie Kadrich, Director of Planning, Development & Transportation Tom Leeson, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director FROM: Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager RE: Work Session Summary – June 19, 2018 re: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Attendees: Cameron Gloss presented an update on the efforts to create Planned Unit Development (PUD) development standards and corresponding review process and responded to questions from Council. Six City Council members were present (Troxell, Horak, Cunniff, Stephens, Overbeck and Martinez (call- in)). Specific Questions to be Answered by City Council: Does Council have feedback about the proposed Land Use Code Amendment? Is any additional information needed prior to Council consideration at the upcoming adoption hearing? Discussion Summary • General consensus that an ordinance providing a 50-acre minimum threshold size is appropriate at this time. • Overall, there was a concern about proceeding with a PUD option for parcels less than 50 acres in size, given that: o Parcels less than 50 acres are more likely to be located in areas with a greater number of abutting or nearby residents. o Outreach has not been targeted to potentially affected neighborhoods surrounding the these smaller sites. o The process to develop the draft standards has proceeded rapidly. • Further community engagement is necessary to better understand potential concerns with lowering the parcel size threshold. ATTACHMENT 5 11.5 Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Work Session Summary, June 19, 2018 (6930 : PUD Regulations) June 19, 2018 Council Work Session Summary Page 2 PUD Code • The community has a long-standing history with Planned Unit Development regulations that is proven through numerous high quality PUD projects. Follow-up Item: Staff will provide a follow-up memo outlining the schedule and scope for additional opportunities to engage the public in a dialogue about a lower parcel size threshold and the implications to existing neighborhoods and districts. 11.5 Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Work Session Summary, June 19, 2018 (6930 : PUD Regulations) 1 Planned Unit Development Cameron Gloss July 3, 2018 ATTACHMENT 6 11.6 Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Purpose Create an optional review process that affords development that provides: significant public benefit otherwise not achievable under existing regulations in return for flexibility in site design, land use, densities, building heights, building setbacks, open space arrangement, and circulation. 2 11.6 Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Public Benefits • Mixed-use • Land use diversification • Innovative land development • Efficient land and energy use • Exemplary pedestrian connections and amenities • Neighborhood compatibility 11.6 Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Typical PUD Attributes • Ideally suited for projects: • Developing in multiple phases over several years • Land use and density flexibility without rezoning • With unique street design • Needing long-term property rights vesting given length of development 11.6 Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) PUD Process Overview 11.6 Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) PUD vs Rezoning • PUD Master Plan retains the underlying zoning • Boundaries defining areas of different uses can be more flexible with PUD Master Plan being developed over time • Rezoning cannot consider a proposed development plan, where a PUD is controlled by a PUD Master Plan that defines uses and densities 6 11.6 Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Size Threshold 7 11.6 Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Size Threshold 8 11.6 Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Parcels 640+ acres 9 Subject to City Council Review due to policy implications 11.6 Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) PUD’s in Peer Cities Peer Cities PUD Size Threshold Point System 10 Eugene, OR Yes none No Olathe, KS Yes (PD) none No Lincoln, NE Yes 3 acres No Ann Arbor, MI Yes none No Greeley, CO Yes 1 acre No Loveland, CO Yes none No Boulder, CO No N/A No Thornton, CO Yes none No Denver, CO Yes none No Longmont, CO Yes 10 acres ‐ non‐infill, 20 acres ‐ infill, none ‐ overlays No 11.6 Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Example: Oak-Cottonwood Farm (Miramont) 11 Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Harmony Rd Multi-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Retail/ Commercial Single-Family Residential Approx. Acres: 330 11.6 Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Neighborhood Compatibility • 2 Neighborhood Meetings • 1st prior to submittal • 2nd following 1st round of review • All PDP’s within a PUD Master Plan must go through the PDP process, including compliance with the Article 3 Compatibility Standards 12 11.6 Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) Community Engagement • Planning and Zoning Board Work Sessions/Hearing Feb 8, May 11, May 31, June 21 • City Council Work Session June 19 • Development Review Advisory Committee (DRAC) May 8 • Property Owners/Developers 13 11.6 Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (6930 : PUD Regulations) -1- ORDINANCE NO. 091, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING ARTICLES 1, 2, 4, AND 5 OF THE LAND USE CODE REGARDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REGULATIONS WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, by its adoption of Ordinance No. 190, 1997, the City Council enacted the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code"); and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the Land Use Code, it was the understanding of staff and the City Council that the Land Use Code would most likely be subject to future amendments, not only for the purpose of clarification and correction of errors, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the Land Use Code remains a dynamic document capable of responding to issues identified by staff, other land use professionals and citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, since its adoption, City staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have continued to review the Land Use Code and identify and explore various issues related to the Land Use Code and have now made new recommendations to the Council regarding certain issues that are ripe for updating and improvement; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Planned Unit Development Overlay regulations is to provide an avenue for property owners with large and complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design through customized uses, densities, and Land Use and non-Land Use Code development standards in return for significant public benefits not available through existing development procedures; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development Overlay regulations are adopted pursuant to the City’s home rule powers and Title 24, Article 67, Colorado Revised Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommended Land Use Code amendments are in the best interests of the City and its citizens. 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 1.4.9(M) of the Land Use Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. 1.4.9 - Rules of Construction for Text . . . (M) Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) References. In applying the provisions of Division 2.15 and Division 4.29 of this Code, the term "project development plan" Packet Pg. 264 -2- shall be deemed to mean a detailed development plan, and the term "final plan" shall be deemed to mean a complete development plan. This Code shall be administered accordingly unless, with respect to a specific provision, the subject matter or context requires a different interpretation. Section 3. That Section 2.1.1 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1.1 - Decision Maker and Administrative Bodies The City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and Community Planning and Environmental Services Director (the "Director") are frequently referenced in this Land Use Code. Reference should be made to Chapter 2 of the City Code for descriptions of these and other decision makers and administrative bodies, and their powers, duties, membership qualifications and related matters. The Director or the Planning and Zoning Board will consider, review and decide all development applications for permitted uses (overall development plans, PUD Overlays 640 acres or less, basic development review plans, project development plans and final plans) according to the provisions of this Land Use Code. For those development applications subject to basic development review, the Director (or the Director's subordinate) is the designated decision maker. For those development applications subject to administrative review (sometimes referred to as "Type 1 review"), the Director is the designated decision maker (see Section 2.2.7(A)(1)). For those development applications subject to P&Z review (sometimes referred to as "Type 2 review"), the Planning and Zoning Board is the designated decision maker (see Section 2.2.7(A)(2)). For PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres, the City Council is the designated decision maker after receiving a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation. The permitted use list for a particular zone district and the development review procedure "steps" for a particular development application identifies which review, Type 1 or Type 2, will apply. For building permit applications, the Building and Zoning Director is the decision maker (see Section 2.7.3). (See "Overview of Development Review Procedures," Section 2.1.2, below, for a further description of different levels of review.) Section 4. That Section 2.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1.2 - Overview of Development Review Procedures This article establishes the development review procedures for different types of development applications and building permits within the city. (A) Where is the project located? An applicant must first locate the proposed project on the Zoning Map. Once the proposed project has been located, the applicable zone district must be identified from the Zoning Map and legend. Then, by referring to Article 4, District Standards, of this Land Use Code, the applicant will Packet Pg. 265 -3- find the district standards which apply to the zone district in which the proposed project is located. The city's staff is available to assist applicants in this regard. (B) What uses are proposed? Next, an applicant must identify which uses will be included in the proposed project. If all of the applicant's proposed uses are listed as permitted uses in the applicable zone district for the project, then the applicant is ready to proceed with a development application for a permitted use. If any of the applicant's proposed uses are not listed as permitted uses in the applicable zone district for the project, then the applicant must either eliminate the nonpermitted uses from his or her proposal, seek the addition of a new permitted use pursuant to Section 1.3.4, or seek a text amendment to this Land Use Code or a rezoning amendment to the Zoning Map pursuant to Division 2.9, or seek approval of a PUD Overlay pursuant to Divisions 2.15 and 4.29. Any use not listed as a permitted use in the applicable zone district is deemed a prohibited use in that zone district, unless it has been permitted pursuant to Section 1.3.4 for a particular development application or permitted as part of an approved PUD Overlay. Again, the city's staff will be available to assist applicants with their understanding of the zone districts and permitted uses. (C) Which type of development application should be submitted? To proceed with a development proposal for permitted uses, the applicant must determine what type of development application should be selected and submitted. All development proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and approved through the following development applications: first through a project development plan (Division 2.4), and then through a final plan (Division 2.5). If the applicant desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. Overall development plans, PUD Overlays, project development plans and final plans are the four three (3) types of development applications for permitted uses. Each successive development application for a development proposal must build upon the previously approved development application by providing additional details (through the development application submittal requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in the General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article 4). Overall development plans and project development plans may be consolidated into one (1) application for concurrent processing and review when appropriate under the provisions of Section 2.2.3. The purpose, applicability and interrelationship of these types of development applications are discussed further in Section 2.1.3. (D) Who reviews the development application? Once an applicant has determined the type of development application to be submitted, he or she must determine the appropriate level of development review required for the development application. To make this determination, the applicant must refer to the provisions of the applicable zone district in Article 4 and the provisions pertaining to the appropriate development application. These provisions will determine whether the permitted uses and the development application are subject to basic development review, administrative review ("Type 1 review"), or Planning and Zoning Board Packet Pg. 266 -4- review ("Type 2 review"), or City Council review in the case of PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres. Identification of the required level of development review will, in turn, determine which decision maker, the Director in the case of administrative review ("Type 1 review"), or the Planning and Zoning Board in the case of Planning and Zoning Board review ("Type 2 review"), or the City Council for PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres, will review and make the final decision on the development application. When a development application contains both Type 1 and Type 2 uses, it will be processed as a Type 2 review. (E) How will the development application be processed? The review of overall development plans, PUD Overlays, project development plans and final plans will each generally follow the same procedural "steps" regardless of the level of review (administrative review or Planning and Zoning Board review). The common development review procedures contained in Division 2.2 establish a twelve-step process equally applicable to all overall development plans, project development plans and final plans. The twelve (12) steps of the common development review procedures are the same for each type of development application, whether subject to basic development review, administrative review, or Planning and Zoning Board review, or City Council review in the case of PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres unless an exception to the common development review procedures is expressly called for in the particular development application requirements of this Land Use Code. In other words, each overall development plan, each project development plan and each final plan will be subject to the twelve-step common procedure. The twelve (12) steps include: (1) conceptual review; (2) neighborhood meeting; (3) development application submittal; (4) determination of sufficiency; (5) staff report; (6) notice; (7) public hearing; (8) standards; (9) conditions of approval; (10) amendments; (11) lapse; and (12) appeals. However, Step 1, conceptual review, applies only to the initial development application submittal for a development project (i.e., overall development plan or PUD Overlay when required, or project development plan when neither an overall development plan nor a PUD Overlay is not required). Subsequent development applications for the same development project are not subject to Step 1, conceptual review. Moreover, Step 2, neighborhood meeting, applies only to certain development applications subject to Planning and Zoning Board and City Council review. Step 2, neighborhood meeting, does not apply to development applications subject to basic development review or administrative review. Step 3, application submittal requirements, applies to all development applications. Applicants shall submit items and documents in accordance with a master list of submittal requirements as established by the City Manager. Overall development plans must comply with only certain identified items on the master list, while PUD Overlays, project development plans must include different items from the master list, and final plans must include different items from the master listas well. This master list is intended to assure consistency among submittals by using a "building block" Packet Pg. 267 -5- approach, with each successive development application building upon the previous one for that project. City staff is available to discuss the common procedures with the applicant. (F) What if the development proposal doesn't fit into one of the types of development applications discussed above? In addition to the four three (3) development applications for permitted uses, the applicant may seek approval for other types of development applications, including development applications for a modification of standards (Division 2.8), an amendment to the text of the Land Use Code and/or the Zoning Map (Division 2.9), a hardship variance (Division 2.10), an appeal of an administrative decision (Division 2.11) or other requests. These other types of development applications will be reviewed according to applicable steps in the common development review procedures. (G) Is a building permit required? The next step after approval of a final plan is to apply for a Building Permit. Most construction requires a Building Permit. This is a distinct and separate process from a development application. The twelve (12) steps of the common development review procedures must be followed for the Building Permit process. Procedures and requirements for submitting a Building Permit application are described in Division 2.7. (H) Is it possible to receive preliminary feedback from the City Council regarding complex development proposals? If an application for approval of a development plan also entails City Council approval of an annexation petition, an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or some other kind of formal action by the City Council, other than a possible appeal under this Land Use Code, and if a land development or renewal project is determined by the City Manager to be of community-wide impact, the applicant for such approval may request that the City Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City Council regarding the applicant's overall proposal in order to assist the developer in determining whether to file a development application or annexation petition. All pre-application hearings scheduled by the City Manager under this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions contained in Steps 6, 7(B) and 7(C) of the Common Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step 6(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance the City's estimated costs of providing notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs will be refunded to the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, members of the City Council may, but shall not be required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion or recommendation made by any Councilmember with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the proposal. Only one (1) such hearing may be requested. (IH) Is it permissible to talk with decision makers "off the record" about a development plan prior to the decision makers' formal review of the application? No. Development plans must be reviewed and approved in accordance with the Packet Pg. 268 -6- provisions of this Land Use Code and the City's decision whether to approve or deny an application must be based on the criteria established herein and on the information provided at the hearings held on the application. In order to afford all persons who may be affected by the review and approval of a development plan an opportunity to respond to the information upon which decisions regarding the plan will be made, and in order to preserve the impartiality of the decision makers, decision makers who intend to participate in the decisions should avoid communications with the applicant or other members of the public about the plan prior to the hearings in which they intend to participate. Section 5. That Section 2.1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1.3 - Types of Development Applications (A) Applicability. All development proposals which include only permitted uses must be processed and approved through the following development applications: a basic development review; or through a project development plan (Division 2.4), then through a final plan (Division 2.5), then through a development construction permit (Division 2.6) and then through a building permit review (Division 2.7). If the applicant desires to develop in two (2) or more separate project development plan submittals, an overall development plan (Division 2.3) will also be required prior to or concurrently with the project development plan. A PUD Master Plan associated with a PUD Overlay may be substituted for an overall development plan (Divisions 2.15 and 4.29). Each successive development application for a development proposal must build upon the previously approved development application by providing additional details (through the development application submittal requirements) and by meeting additional restrictions and standards (contained in the General Development Standards of Article 3 and the District Standards of Article 4). Permitted uses subject to administrative review or permitted uses subject to Planning and Zoning Board review listed in the applicable zone district set forth in Article 4, District Standards, shall be processed through an overall development plan, a project development plan or a final plan. If any use not listed as a permitted use in the applicable zone district is included in a development application, it may also be processed as an overall development plan, project development plan or final plan, if such proposed use has been approved, or is concurrently submitted for approval, in accordance with the requirements for an amendment to the text of this Land Use Code and/or the Zoning Map, Division 2.9, or in accordance with the requirements for the addition of a permitted use under Section 1.3.4. Development applications for permitted uses which seek to modify any standards contained in the General Development Standards in Article 3, or the District Standards in Article 4, shall be submitted by the applicant and processed as a modification of standards under Division 2.8. Hardship variances to standards contained in Article 3, General Development Standards, or Article 4, District Standards, shall be processed as hardship variances by the Zoning Board Packet Pg. 269 -7- of Appeals pursuant to Division 2.10. Appeals of administrative/staff decisions shall be according to Division 2.11. PUD overlays shall be processed pursuant to Divisions 2.15, 4.29. . . . (F) PUD Overlay. (1) Purpose and Effect. The purpose of the PUD Overlay is to provide an avenue for property owners with larger and more complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design by means of customized uses, densities, and Land Use Code and non-Land Use Code development standards. In return for such flexibility, significant public benefits not available through traditional development procedures must be provided by the development. A PUD Master Plan is the written document associated with a PUD Overlay and the PUD Master Plan sets forth the general development plan and the customized uses, densities, and Land Use Code and non-Land Use Code development standards. An approved PUD Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements.\ (2) Applicability. A PUD Overlay is available to properties or collections of contiguous properties fifty (50) acres or greater in size. Refer to Divisions 2.15 and 4.29 for specific requirements and review of PUD Overlays and PUD Master Plans. Section 6. That a new Subsection 2.1.6 is hereby added to Division 2.1 of the Land Use Code and reads in its entirety as follows: 2.1.6 Optional Pre-Application Review (A) Optional City Council Pre-Application Review of Complex Development Proposals: A potential applicant for development other than a PUD Overlay may request that the City Council conduct a hearing for the purpose of receiving preliminary comments from the City Council regarding the overall proposal in order to assist the proposed applicant in determining whether to file a development application or annexation petition. Only one (1) pre-application hearing pursuant to this Subsection (A) may be requested. The following criteria must be satisfied for such a hearing to be held: (a) The proposed development cannot have begun any step of the Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications set forth in Article 2, Division 2.2. Packet Pg. 270 -8- (b) The proposed application for approval of a development plan must require City Council approval of an annexation petition, an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or some other kind of formal action by the City Council, other than a possible appeal under this Land Use Code (c) The City Manager must determine in writing that the proposed development will have a community-wide impact. (B) Optional Pre-Application PUD Overlay Proposal Review: This optional review is available to potential PUD applicants that have not begun any step of the Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications set forth in Article 2, Division 2.2. Such review is intended to provide an opportunity for applicants to present conceptual information to the Planning and Zoning Board for PUD Overlays between 50 and 640 acres in size, or to City Council for PUD Overlays greater than 640 acres in size, regarding the proposed development including how site constraints will be addressed and issues of controversy or opportunities related to the development. Applicants participating in such review procedure should present specific plans showing how, if at all, they intend to address any issues raised during the initial comments received from staff and affected property owners. In order for a pre-application hearing to be held, the Director must determine in writing that the proposed PUD will have a community-wide impact. Only one (1) pre-application hearing pursuant to this Subsection (B) may be requested. (C) Notice and Hearing Procedure. All preapplication hearings under above Subsections (A) or (B) this provision will be held in accordance with the provisions contained in Steps (6), (7)(B) and (7)(C) of the Common Development Review Procedures, except that the signs required to be posted under Step (6)(B) shall be posted subsequent to the scheduling of the session and not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the date of the hearing. At the time of requesting the hearing, the applicant must advance the City's estimated costs of providing notice of the hearing. Any amounts paid that exceed actual costs will be refunded to the applicant. (D) Input Non-Binding, Record. The Planning and Zoning Board or City Council as applicable pursuant to above Subsections (A) or (B) may, but shall not be required to, comment on the proposal. Any comment, suggestion, or recommendation made by any Planning and Zoning Board or City Council member with regard to the proposal does not bind or otherwise obligate any City decision maker to any course of conduct or decision pertaining to the proposal. All information related to an optional review shall be considered part of the record of any subsequent development review related to all or part of the property that was the subject of the optional review. Packet Pg. 271 -9- Section 7. That Section ___ of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2.10 - Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use (A) Minor Amendments and Changes of Use. (1) Minor amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, any site specific development plan, or the existing condition of a platted property; and (2) Changes of use, either of which meet the applicable criteria of below subsections 2.2.10(A)(1) or 2.2.10(A)(2), may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director and may be authorized without additional public hearings. With the exception of PUD Master Plans, sSuch minor amendments and changes of use may be authorized by the Director as long as the development plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code to the extent reasonably feasible. PUD Master Plan Minor amendments may be authorized by the Director as long as the PUD Master Plan, as so amended, continues to comply with the standards of this Code, as such standards may have been modified in the existing PUD Master Plan, and so long as the amendments are consistent with the existing PUD Master Plan. Minor amendments and changes of use shall only consist of any or all of the following: . . . (2) Any change to any approved development plan or any site specific development plan which was originally subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Board (either as a Type 2 project or as a project reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board under prior law) or City Council review of a PUD Overlay, or any change of use of any property that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board; provided that the change or change of use complies with all of the following criteria applicable to the particular request for change or change of use: . . . (4) Referral. In either subsection (1) or (2) above, the Director may refer the amendment or change of use to the decision maker who approved the development plan proposed to be amendedAdministrative Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board. The referral of minor amendments to development plans or changes of use allowed or approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment or change of use as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. The Packet Pg. 272 -10- referral of minor amendments or changes of use to project development plans or final plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which the amendment or change of use is sought, and, if so referred, the decision maker’s decisionof the Hearing Officer or Planning and Zoning Board shall constitute a final decision, subject only to appeal as provided for development plans under Division 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or 2.15 as applicable, for the minor amendment or change of use. City Council approval of a minor amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution. . . . (B) Major Amendments and Changes of Use Not Meeting the Criteria of 2.2.10(A). (1) Procedure/Criteria. Amendments to any approved development plan, including any Overall Development Plan, or Project Development Plan, or PUD Master Plan, or any site specific development plan, and changes of use that are not determined by the Director to be minor amendments or qualifying changes of use under the criteria set forth in subsection (A) above, shall be deemed major amendments. Major amendments to approved development plans or site specific development plans approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed for the amendment as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located, and, to the maximum extent feasible, shall comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. Major amendments to development plans or site specific development plans approved under this Code shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner as required for the original development plan for which amendment is sought. Any major amendments to an approved project development plan or site specific development plan shall be recorded as amendments in accordance with the procedures established for the filing and recording of such initially approved plan. City Council approval of a major amendment to a PUD Master Plan shall be by resolution. Any partial or total abandonment of a development plan or site specific development plan approved under this Code, or of any plan approved under the laws of the City for the development of land prior to the adoption of this Code, shall be deemed to be a major amendment, and shall be processed as a Type 2 review; provided, however, that if a new land use is proposed for the property subject to the abandonment, then the abandonment and new use shall be processed as required for the land use or uses proposed as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for the zone district in which the land is located. . . . Packet Pg. 273 -11- Section 8. That Section 2.2.11 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse . . . (C) PUD Master Plan. A PUD Master Plan shall be eligible for a vested property right solely with respect to uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Standards for which variances have been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), as all are set forth in an approved PUD Master Plan, and an approved PUD Master Plan shall be considered a site specific development plan solely for the purpose of acquiring such vested property right. (1) Specification of Uses, Densities, Development Standards, and Engineering Standards. The application for a PUD Master Plan shall specify the uses, densities, development standards, and Engineering Standards granted variances pursuant to Section 4.29(L), for which the applicant is requesting a vested property right. Such uses, densities, and development standards may include those granted modifications pursuant to Section 4.29 and uses, densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code which are applicable to the PUD Master Plan. (2) Term of Vested Right. The term of the vested property right shall not exceed three (3) years unless: (a) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (3) of this subsection, or (b) the City and the developer enter into a development agreement which vests the property right for a period exceeding three (3) years. Such agreement may be entered into by the City if the Director determines that it will likely take more than three (3) years to complete all phases of the development and the associated engineering improvements for the development, and only if warranted in light of all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the overall size of the development and economic cycles and market conditions. Council shall adopt any such development agreement as a legislative act subject to referendum. (3) Extensions. Extensions for two (2) successive periods of one (1) year each may be granted by the Director, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been diligently pursuing development pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. Any additional one-year extensions shall be approved, if at all, only by the original PUD Master Plan decision maker, upon a finding that (a) the applicant has been diligently pursuing development pursuant to the PUD Master Plan, and (b) granting the extension would not be detrimental to the public good. A request for an extension of the term of vested right under this Section must be submitted to the Director in writing at least Packet Pg. 274 -12- thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration. Time is of the essence. The granting of extensions by the Director under this Section may, at the discretion of the Director, be referred to the original PUD Master Plan decision maker. (4) Publication. A "notice of approval" describing the PUD Master Plan and stating that a vested property right has been created or extended, shall be published by the City once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, not later than fourteen (14) days after the approval of a PUD Master Plan, an extension of an existing vested right, or the legislative adoption of a development agreement as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The period of time permitted by law for the exercise of any applicable right of referendum or judicial review shall not begin to run until the date of such publication, whether timely made within said fourteen-day period, or thereafter. (5) Minor and Major Amendments. In the event that a minor or major amendment to a PUD Master Plan is approved under the provisions of Section 2.2.10, and such amendment alters or adds uses, densities, development standards, or Engineering Standards for which variances have been granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L), a new vested property right may be created upon the applicant’s request and pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection. If the applicant wants the term of the new vested property right to exceed three years, such extended term must be approved and legislatively adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 of this subsection. (DC) Project Development Plan and Plat. Following the approval of a project development plan and upon the expiration of any right of appeal, or upon the final decision of the City Council following appeal, if applicable, the applicant must submit a final plan for all or part of the project development plan within three (3) years unless the project development plan is for a large base industry to be constructed in phases, in which case the application for approval of a final plan must be submitted within twenty-five (25) years. If such approval is not timely obtained, the project development plan (or any portion thereof which has not received final approval) shall automatically lapse and become null and void. The Director may grant one (1) extension of the foregoing requirement, which extension may not exceed six (6) months in length. No vested rights shall ever attach to a project development plan. The approval of, or completion of work pursuant to, a final plan for portions of a project development plan shall not create vested rights for those portions of the project development plan which have not received such final plan approval and have not been completed. (ED) Final Plan and Plat and Other Site Specific Development Plans. (1) Approval. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved upon the recording by the City with the Larimer County Clerk and Packet Pg. 275 -13- Recorder of both the Final Plat and the Development Agreement and upon such recording, a vested property right shall be created pursuant to the provisions of Article 68 Title 24, C.R.S., and this Section 2.2.11. . . . Section 9. That Section 2.4.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.4.2 - Project Development Plan Review Procedures A project development plan shall be processed according to, in compliance with and subject to the provisions contained in Division 2.1 and Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures (Sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, inclusive) as follows: . . . (H) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. A project development plan shall comply with all General Development Standards applicable to the development proposal (Article 3) and the applicable District Standards (Article 4); and, when a project development plan is within the boundaries of an approved overall development plan or PUD Overlay, the project development plan shall be consistent with the overall development plan or PUD Master Plan associated with such PUD Overlay. Only one (1) application for a project development plan for any specific parcel or portion thereof may be pending for approval at any given time. Such application shall also be subject to the provisions for delay set out in Section 2.2.11. . . . Section 10. That Division 2.15 of the Land Use Code is hereby repealed and reenacted to read in its entirety as follows: Division 2.15 - Planned Unit Development Overlay Review Procedure (A) Purpose. To provide an avenue for property owners with larger and more complex development projects to achieve flexibility in site design in return for significant public benefits not available through traditional development procedures. (B) Applicability. Application for approval of a PUD Overlay is available to properties of 50 acres or greater in size. (C) Process. (1) Step 1 (Conceptual Review/Preliminary Design Review): Applicable. Packet Pg. 276 -14- (2) Step 2 (Neighborhood Meeting): Applicable to any proposed PUD Overlay subject to Planning and Zoning Board or City Council review. If a neighborhood meeting is required at the conceptual planning stage pursuant to Section 2.2.2, a second neighborhood meeting shall be required after the PUD Overlay application has been submitted and the first round of staff review completed. (3) Step 3 (Development Application Submittal): All items or documents as described in the development application submittal master list for a PUD Overlay shall be submitted. Notwithstanding, the Director may waive or modify the foregoing submittal requirements if, given the facts and circumstances of the specific application, a particular requirement would either be irrelevant, immaterial, redundant or otherwise unnecessary for the full and complete review of the application. (4) Step 4 (Review of Application): Applicable. (5) Step 5 (Staff Report): Applicable. (6) Step 6 (Notice): Applicable. (7) Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable as follows: a. Planning and Zoning Board review (Type 2 review) applies to PUD Overlay applications between 50 and 640 acres; b. City Council is the decision maker for PUD Overlay applications greater than 640 acres after receiving a Planning and Zoning Board recommendation. City Council approval of a PUD Overlay shall be by ordinance. Step 7(B) through (G) (Conduct of a Public Hearing, Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing, Decision and Findings, Notification to Applicant, Record of Proceeding, Recording of Decision): Applicable. (8) Step 8 (Standards): Applicable. Except as modified pursuant to Sections 4.29 (E) and (G), a PUD Master Plan shall be consistent with all applicable General Development Standards (Article 3) and District Standards (Article 4) including Division 4.29. (9) Step 9 (Conditions of Approval): Applicable. (10) Step 10 (Amendments): Applicable. (11) Step 11 (Lapse): Applicable. Packet Pg. 277 -15- (12) Step 12 (Appeals): Applicable. A Planning and Zoning Board decision on a PUD Overlay between 50 and 640 acres is appealable to City Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). Appeals of Project Development Plans within PUD Overlays are subject to the limitations of Section 4.29(J). Section 11. That Section 4.29 of the Land Use Code is hereby repealed and reenacted to read in its entirety as follows: Division 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay (A) Purpose. (1) Directs and guides subsequent Project Development Plans and Final Plans for large or complex developments governed by an approved PUD Master Plan. (2) Substitutes a PUD Master Plan for an Overall Development Plan for real property within an approved PUD Overlay. (3) Positions large areas of property for phased development. (4) Encourages innovative community planning and site design to integrate natural systems, energy efficiency, aesthetics, higher design, engineering and construction standards and other community goals by enabling greater flexibility than permitted under the strict application of the Land Use Code, all in furtherance of adopted and applicable City plans, policies, and standards. (5) Allows greater flexibility in the mix and distribution of land uses, densities, and applicable development and zone district standards. (B) Objectives. (1) Encourage conceptual level review of development for large areas. (2) In return for flexibility in site design, development under a PUD Overlay must provide public benefits greater than those typically achieved through the application of a standard zone district, including one or more of the following as may be applicable to a particular PUD Master Plan: (a) Diversification in the use of land; (b) Innovation in development; (c) More efficient use of land and energy; (d) Public amenities commensurate with the scope of the development; (e) Furtherance of the City’s adopted plans and policies; and Packet Pg. 278 -16- (f) Development patterns consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. (3) Ensure high-quality urban design and environmentally-sensitive development that takes advantage of site characteristics. (4) Promote cooperative planning and development among real property owners within a large area. (5) Protect land uses and neighborhoods adjacent to a PUD Overlay from negative impacts. (C) Applicability. (1) Any property or collection of contiguous properties of a minimum 50 acres in size is eligible for a PUD Overlay provided all owners authorize their respective property to be included. (2) An approved PUD Overlay will be shown upon the Zoning Map and will overlay existing zoning, which will continue to apply, except to the extent modified by or inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (3) An approved PUD Master Plan will substitute for the requirement for an Overall Development Plan. Development within the boundaries of an approved PUD Overlay may proceed directly to application for Project Development Plan(s) and Final Plan(s). (D) PUD Master Plan Review Procedure. (1) PUD Master Plans are approved as an overlay to the underlying zone district and are processed by the decision maker pursuant to Section 2.15 of the common review procedures. (2) In order to approve a proposed PUD Master Plan, the decision maker must find that the PUD Master Plan satisfies the following criteria: (a) The PUD Master Plan achieves the purpose and objectives of Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b) The PUD Master Plan provides high quality urban design within the subject property or properties; (c) The PUD Master Plan will result in development generally in compliance with the principles and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; Packet Pg. 279 -17- (d) The PUD Master Plan will, within the PUD Overlay, result in compatible design and use as well as public infrastructure and services, including public streets, sidewalks, drainage, trails, and utilities; and (e) The PUD Master Plan is consistent with all applicable Land Use Code General Development Standards (Article 3) except to the extent such development standards have been modified pursuant to below Subsection (G) or are inconsistent with the PUD Master Plan. (E) Permitted Uses. (1) Any uses permitted in the underlying zone district are permitted within an approved PUD Overlay. (2) Additional uses not permitted in the underlying zone district may be requested for inclusion in a PUD Master Plan along with the type of review for such use, whether Type I, Type II, or Basic Development Review. The application must enumerate the additional use being requested, the proposed type of review, and how the use satisfies below criteria (a) through (d). The decision maker shall approve an additional use if it satisfies criteria (a) through (d). For each approved additional use, the decision maker shall determine the applicable type of review and may grant a requested type of review if it would not be contrary to the public good. (a) The use advances the purpose and objectives of the applicable PUD Overlay provisions set forth in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B) and the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies; and (b) The use complies with applicable Land Use Code provisions regarding the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment. (c) The use is compatible with the other proposed uses within the requested PUD Overlay and with the uses permitted in the zone district or districts adjacent to the proposed PUD Overlay. (d) The use is appropriate for the property or properties within the PUD Overlay. (F) Prohibited Uses. All uses that are not expressly allowed in an approved PUD Master Plan, in the underlying zone district, or determined to be permitted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 1.3.4 shall be prohibited. (G) Modification of Densities and Development Standards. Packet Pg. 280 -18- (1) Certain densities and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code and described in below Subsection (G)(2) may be modified as part of a PUD Master Plan. The modification procedure described in this Section (G) substitutes for the modification procedure set forth in Division 2.8. (2) The application must enumerate the densities and development standards proposed to be modified. (a) The application shall describe the minimum and maximum densities for permitted residential uses. (b) The application shall enumerate the specific Land Use Code Article 3 development standards and Article 4 land use and development standards that are proposed to be modified and the nature of each modification in terms sufficiently specific to enable application of the modified standards to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. Modifications under this Section may not be granted for Engineering Design Standards referenced in Section 3.3.5 and variances to such standards are addressed in below Subsection (L). (3) In order to approve requested density or development standard modifications, the decision maker must find that the density or development standard as modified satisfies the following criteria: (a) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the applicable purposes, and advance the applicable objectives of, the PUD Overlay as described in Sections 4.29 (A) and (B); (b) The modified density or development standard significantly advances the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; (c) The modified density or development standard is necessary to achieve the development objectives of the PUD Master Plan; and (d) The modified density or development standard is consistent with the principles and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and adopted plans and policies. (H) PUD Master Plan Non-Expiration. PUD Master Plans do not expire but are subject to the amendment and termination provisions of Sections 4.29 (I) and (J). (I) PUD Master Plan Termination and Amendment. (1) Termination. An approved PUD Master Plan may be terminated in accordance with the following provisions: Packet Pg. 281 -19- (a) Termination may be initiated by any of the following: 1. The written request of all of the real property owners within a PUD Overlay; or 2. The City, provided no vested property right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan would be in effect upon termination. (b) Upon receiving a valid request to terminate, the original decision maker of the PUD Master Plan shall terminate unless termination is determined to be detrimental to the public good after holding a public hearing to address the issue. (c) If the PUD Master Plan is terminated, the City may remove the overlay designation on the zoning map and the underlying zone district regulations in effect at the time of such removal shall control. (d) Any nonconforming uses resulting from expiration or termination of a PUD Master Plan are subject to Article 1, Division 1.6. (2) PUD Master Plan Amendment. An approved PUD Master Plan may be amended pursuant to the procedures set forth in Land Use Code Section 2.2.10 in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Amendments may be initiated by any of the following: 1. The written request of all real property owners within the PUD Overlay; or 2. The written request of the original applicant for the approved PUD Master Plan provided the following conditions are met: a. The applicant continues to own or otherwise have legal control of real property within the PUD Overlay; and b. The right of the applicant to amend the PUD Master Plan without the consent of other owners of real property within the PUD Overlay has been recorded as a binding covenant or deed restriction recorded on the respective real property; or 3. The City, provided the amendment does not amend, modify, or terminate any existing vested right approved in connection with the PUD Master Plan without the permission of the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such vested right. Packet Pg. 282 -20- (b) Except as to real property within the PUD Overlay owned or otherwise under the control of the applicant, any approved amendment requested by the applicant shall not apply to any real property within the PUD Overlay which: 1. Is already developed pursuant to the applicable PUD Master Plan; 2. Has a valid and approved Project Development Plan or Final Plan; or 3. Is the subject of ongoing development review at the time the applicant’s request for amendment is submitted to the City. (J) Appeals. (1) A Planning and Zoning Board final decision on a PUD Master Plan is appealable to Council pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). (2) Any Project Development Plan wholly located within a PUD Overlay may be appealed pursuant to Section 2.2.12(A). However, the validity of the uses, densities, and development standards approved in a PUD Master Plan shall not be the subject of any such Project Development Plan appeal. (K) Vesting of PUD Master Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2.11(C), the only aspects of an approved PUD Master Plan eligible for vested property rights are the enumerated uses, densities, development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L). Such uses, densities, and development standards may be those for which modifications have been granted or uses, densities, and development standards set forth in the Land Use Code. The applicant shall specify in the PUD Master Plan if it is requesting vested property rights for uses, densities, development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards in excess of the three year period specified in Section 2.2.11(C)(2) and the justification therefor. (L) Variances. Variances from the Engineering Design Standards listed in Section 3.3.5, including variances from the Larimer County Area Urban Street Standards, may be requested in connection with a PUD Master Plan. A request for such variances shall be processed in accordance with and subject to the standards applicable to the variance. Variances so requested and approved prior to the approval of a PUD Master Plan may be incorporated into and approved as a part of the PUD Master Plan, and if so incorporated and approved, shall be applicable to Project Development Plans and Final Plans submitted subsequent to, in conformance with and intended to implement, the approved PUD Master Plan. The decision maker on the PUD Master Plan shall not have the authority to alter or condition any approved variance as part of the PUD Master Plan review. Variances may also be processed in connection with a Project Development Plan or Final Plan submitted subsequent to an approved PUD Master Plan. Packet Pg. 283 -21- Section 12. That the definition “Development application” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Development application shall mean any application or request submitted in the form required by the Land Use Code and shall include only applications for an overall development plan, a PUD Overlay, a project development plan, a final plan, a Building Permit, a modification of standards, amendments to the text of this Code or the Zoning Map, a hardship variance or an appeal from administrative decisions prescribed in Article 2. Section 13. That the definition “Development application for permitted use” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Development application for permitted use shall mean a development application submitted in the form required by this Code to the City for an overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan or a Building Permit, including only uses described as permitted uses in the applicable zone district. A PUD Overlay is also considered to be a development application for a permitted use even though the PUD Overlay may request uses that are not permitted in the applicable underlying zone district. Section 14. That the definition “Development plan” contained in Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Development plan shall mean an application submitted to the City for approval of a permitted use which depicts the details of a proposed development. Development plan includes an overall development plan, a project development plan, a final plan, and/or an amendment of any such plan. A PUD Overlay is also considered to be a development plan even though the PUD Overlay may request uses that are not permitted in the applicable underlying zone district. Section 15. That Section 5.1.2 of the Land Use Code is hereby amended by the addition of two new definitions, “Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay” and “Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan” which read in their entirety as follows: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay shall mean an area of land approved for development pursuant to a PUD Master Plan under Division 4.29 and Division 2.15. An approved PUD Overlay overlays the PUD Master Plan entitlements and restrictions upon the underlying zone district requirements. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan shall mean an approved plan for development of an area within an approved PUD Overlay, which identifies the general intent of the development and establishes vested uses, densities and certain modification of development standards. An approved PUD Master Plan substitutes for the requirement Packet Pg. 284 -22- for an Overall Development Plan. A PUD Master Plan is considered a site specific development plan solely with respect to vested property rights regarding specific uses, densities, Land Use Code development standards, and variances from Engineering Design Standards granted pursuant to Section 4.29(L). Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 285 -1- ORDINANCE NO. 092, 2018 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS MAKING POLICY REVISIONS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS WHEREAS, on January 2, 2001, the City Council adopted the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards ("LCUASS"), with the adoption of Ordinance No. 186, 2000; AND WHEREAS, Council adopted the current version of LCUASS in February 2007, and such version has been subsequently amended from time to time; and WHEREAS, LCUASS Section 1.6.2.A. states that policy revisions to LCUASS may be made by City Council by ordinance or resolution provided a public hearing regarding the policy revision is held and City staff makes a recommendation on the policy revision to City Council; and WHEREAS, the LCUASS policy revision is proposed in connection with the proposed adoption of planned unit development Land Use Code amendments; 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 the Council, after holding a public hearing on July 3, 2018, at which City staff provided a recommendation to Council on the LCUASS policy revision and members of the public were provided an opportunity to provide input, finds that the proposed LCUASS revision is a policy revision applicable to the City and it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City to adopt the revision. Section 3. That Section 1.9.4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.9.4 Variances and Appeals Processes A. Variances Any design that does not conform to these Standards must be approved by the Local Entity Engineer. Variances from these Standards will be considered administratively on a case-by-case basis following a written request for a variance prepared by a Professional Engineer and submitted to the Local Entity Engineer. If the special district, developer, contractor, or utility responsible to the Local Entity for public improvements desires to design and construct such improvements in variance to criteria in these standards, such variance(s) shall be identified in a written attachment to the initial submittal of construction plans to the Local Entity Engineer. The Packet Pg. 286 -2- design submitted for review shall show the variance. To assist with their plan preparation, designers may submit variance requests, along with sufficient documentation to support the variance, prior to formal submittal of construction plans for informal advisory consideration. Such advisory consideration shall not be binding on the Local Entity Engineer, but may help to guide the requestor in the preparation of plans. Variances may be considered by either of the following two administrative processes: a. Variances requested as part of an application for approval of a preliminary plat only shall be shown on the preliminary plat (or on the preliminary construction plans) and shall also be specifically substantiated and justified in a letter addressed to the Local Entity Engineer. In Loveland (city limits only), variances requested as part of a combined application for approval of a preliminary plat and preliminary development plan shall be described (complete with technical justification) in the regulatory procedures section on the preliminary development plan. In Fort Collins (city limits only), variances may be processed in conjunction with any development application for a permitted use as such term is defined in the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code. b. Variances requested as part of the submittal for approval of final public improvements construction plans shall be shown in the plans and shall also be specifically substantiated and justified in a letter addressed to the Local Entity Engineer. A summary of all approved variances shall be listed in the general notes on the approved plans. Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 3rd day of July, A.D. 2018, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2018. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Packet Pg. 287 2.15(C)(2) Describes Review Procedures Adds an additional neighborhood meeting for PUD master plans like the existing APU procedures. 2.2.10 - Step 10: Amendments and Changes of Use Describes the minor amendment and change of use process pertaining to OPD, PDP’s and any site- specific development plan Includes the PUD Master Plan in the list of amendable plan types. 2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse Defines the time limits for development plan applications Adds provisions for the vesting of property rights with respect to uses, densities, and development and engineering standards for which variances have been granted. Defines the duration and frequency of vested rights extension requests associated with a PUD Master Plan. 2.4.2 - Project Development Plan Review Procedures Defines steps in the Project Development Plan (PDP) review process Expands the application of development standards to the PUD Overlay and PUD Master Plan. 2.15 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Review Procedure Presently occupied by former Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Existing section is repealed and a new procedure for development occurring within a PUD Overlay is created that defines applicable steps in the development review process. 4.29 - Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Presently occupied by former Planned Development Overlay District (PDOD) Creates the PUD Overlay and PUD Master Plan standards for uses, modification to densities and development standards, vesting of PUD Master Plans, and Engineering variances. 11 Packet Pg. 216 CLARK LAND SURVEYING, INC. 1740 EAGLEBRIDGE BLVD, STE 140 PUEBLO, CO 81008 NATHANIEL J. MAESTAS, P.L.S. (719) 582-1270 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-A COORDINATES CODE COMPLIANCE UTILITY INFORMATION ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (2012 EDITION) 3. ANSI/TIA/EIA-222-G 4. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (2014 EDITION, COLORADO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE) 5. LOCAL BUILDING CODE 6. CITY/COUNTY ORDINANCES CONTACT INFORMATION PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET INDEX DRIVING DIRECTIONS LOCATION MAP FROM DENVER, CO TAKE I-25 NORTH FOR 62.7 MILES. TAKE EXIT 265 ONTO HARMONY ROAD, TURN WEST AND FOLLOW FOR 1.5 MILES. TURN RIGHT ONTO ZIEGLER ROAD AND FOLLOW FOR 1 MILE. AT THE TRAFFIC CIRLCE, TAKE THE 3RD EXIT ONTO EAST HORSETOOTH ROAD AND FOLLOW FOR 3.1 MILES TO SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. SITE LOCATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT. 620 HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 (LARIMER COUNTY) SITE NAME: CENTURY (DECEMBER 2017) LATITUDE: W 105° 05' 13.689" N 40° 32' 19.442" LONGITUDE: *INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CLARK LAND SURVEYING, INC. IN THE FORM OF A 1-A CERTIFICATION DATED MARCH 3, 2017. SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH 620 W HORSETOOTH ROAD FORT COLLINS, CO 80526 CENTURY LINK CUSTOMER SERVICE (877) 496-8581 TBD FORT COLLINS LIGHT & POWER CUSTOMER SERVICE (970) 221-6700 TBD SHEET: DESCRIPTION: REV F CENTURY KES NMC TOWER ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS OFFICE: (303) 566-9914 THORNTON, CO 80229 500 E 84TH AVE, SUITE C-10 76097.67480 ZONING ZONING REVIEW A 06-13-17 B 07-05-17 ZONING C 07-17-17 ZONING D 10-12-17 ZONING E 12-08-17 ZONING F 04-17-18 ZONING PARCEL NUMBER: 97263-79-901 GROUND ELEVATION: 5061.8' ATLAS ONE, LLC. 4450 ARAPAHOE AVE, SUITE 100 BOULDER, CO 80303 CALEB CROSSLAND (303)448-8896 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 1, SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH MINOR SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO (NAD '83) * (NAD '83) * (NAVD '88) * AREA OF CONSTRUCTION: 1600± SQ. FT. (LEASE AREA) 2. INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL JURISDICTION: CITY OF FORT COLLINS PRESENT OCCUPANCY: SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH 10.1 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : Warre n Farm Dr B a le D r Haven Ct W o r t h i n g t o n A v e Gr a n i t e C t R ep u blic D r Stre a m C t Placer St Mayflower Ct Plowman Way M o s s Creek Dr Longhorn Ct Elmhurst Dr Bluebird Ct Omaha Ct Sun Disk Ct Riva Ridge Ln Pl an t e r W a y Fairplay Ct Robin Ct Homestead Ct Bobolink Ct Dennison Ct Dahlia Ct Ensenada Ct Canosa Ct Tiller Ct Colony Ct Citation Ct Tradition Ct Colony Dr Meadowlark Ave Wabash St Manhattan Ave Mcclelland Dr Windmill Dr Rich m o n d D r W Horsetooth Rd Century Wireless Telecommunications Facility © and Addition of Permitted Use Zoning & Vicinity Map 1 inch = 500 feet Site 10.1 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless) steeples. As stated earlier, Section 3.8.13(C)(15) states bell towers are an appropriate way to meet the stealth technology requirement. Bell towers are common on church properties so the design is appropriate. The applicant has also proposed a location on the site to minimize the impact of this tower on abutting properties. This proposed tower will also not impact the use of adjacent properties. For these reasons, staff finds the proposal meets Criterion C. 10.1 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Staff report and attachments provided to the Planning & Zoning Board, May 17, 2018 (6919 : APU Century Wireless)