HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 10/06/2020 - REGULAR MEETING
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers
Kristin Stephens, District 4, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Susan Gutowsky, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Julie Pignataro, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Ken Summers, District 3
Ross Cunniff, District 5 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14
Emily Gorgol, District 6 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron
City Attorney City Manager City Clerk
Regular Meeting
October 6, 2020
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPTIONS
There will be four options for people who would like to participate in the meeting:
• Live via the Zoom online meeting,
• Live via the telephone,
• Live in Council Chambers,
• By submitting emails to Council at CityLeaders@fcgov.com.
All options will be available for those wishing to provide general public comment, as well as public
comment during individual discussion items.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ONLINE VIA ZOOM):
Individuals who wish to address Council via remo te public participation can do so through Zoom
at https://zoom.us/j/98241416497. (The link and instructions are also posted at
www.fcgov.com/councilcomments.) Individuals participating in the Zoom session should watch the
meeting through that site, and not via FCTV, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
The Zoom meeting will be available beginning at 5:15 p.m. on the day of t he meeting. Participants
wanting to ensure their equipment setup is working should join prior to 6:00 p.m. For public comments,
the Mayor will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that
time. Staff will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address
Council.
In order to participate, you must:
• Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer. Using earphones with a microphone will
greatly improve your audio experience.
• Join the Zoom meeting using the link on the front page of the agenda or on the City’s home webpage
at www.fcgov.com.
• If you use the City’s home page, simply click on the “Participate remotely in Council Meeting” link
shown near the top of the page.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (VIA PHONE)
• Dial the public participation phone number, 1-346-248-7799, and then enter the Meeting ID 982 4141
6497 followed by the pound sign (#).
• The meeting will be available beginning at 5:15 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if
possible. For public comments, the Mayor will ask participants to indicate if you would like to speak
at that time – phone participants will need to press *9 to do this . Staff will be moderating the
Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address Council.
When participating online or by phone, DO NOT Watch/stream FCTV at the same time due to streaming
delay and possible audio interference.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (IN PERSON)
To participate in person, individuals should come to City Hall and be prepared to follow strict social
distancing, sanitizer and facial covering guidelines.
• A limited number of individuals will be allowed in Council Chambers. Therefore, staging for
individuals who wish to speak will occur in the City Hall lobby and outside (weather permitting).
• Individuals will be required to wear masks while inside City Hall and any other City buildings being
utilized.
• Individuals who wish to speak will line up at one of the two podiums available in Council Chambers,
maintaining physical distancing by standing on the lines marked on the floor. Facial coverings need
to stay in place while speaking.
• Once a speaker has provided comments, he or she will be asked to leave Counc il Chambers to make
room for the next speaker.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (VIA EMAIL)
Individuals not comfortable or able to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged
to participate by emailing general public comments to CityLeaders@fcgov.com. If you have specific
comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the
email and send prior to the meeting Tuesday evening.
WATCH THE MEETING
Anyone can view the Council meeting live on Channels 14 and 881 or online at www.fcgov.com/fctv.
Note: Only individuals who wish to address Council should use the Zoom link or call in by phone.
Anyone who wants to watch the meeting, but not address Council, should view the FCTV
livestream.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to speak to a document or presentation, the City Clerk needs to
be emailed those materials by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
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.
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have
limited English proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City
services, programs and activities. Contact 221-6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.
Please provide 48 hours advance notice when possible.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no
dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que
puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 221 -
6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando
sea posible.
City of Fort Collins Page 3
Proclamations and Presentations
5:45 p.m.
Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 4-10 as Public Power Week.
Proclamation Declaring October 7 as Energy Efficiency Day.
Proclamation Declaring the Month of October as National Cybersecurity Month.
Proclamation Declaring October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
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.
• PUBLIC COMMENT
City of Fort Collins Page 4
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.]
• PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP
Consent Calendar
The Consent Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the
important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyon e
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.
If the presiding officer determines that the number of items pulled from the Consent Calendar by
citizens is substantial and may impair the Council’s ability to complete the planned agenda, the
presiding officer may declare that the following process will be used to simplify consideration of the
Citizen-Pulled Consent Items:
(1) All citizen-pulled items (to be listed by number) will be considered as a group under the heading
“Consideration of Citizen-Pulled Consent Items.”
(2) At that time, each citizen wishing to speak will be given a single chance to speak about any and all
of the items that have been moved to that part of the agenda.
(3) After the citizen comments, any Councilmember may specify items from the list of Citizen-Pulled
Consent Items for Council to discuss and vote on individually. Excluding those specified items, Council
will then adopt all “Citizen-Pulled Consent Items” as a block, by a single motion, second and vote.
(4) Any Citizen-Pulled Consent Items that a Councilmember has asked t o be considered individually
will then be considered using the regular process for considering discussion items.
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 1, 2020 Regular Council Meeting.
The purpose of this item is to approve the m inutes from the September 1, 2020 Regular Council
Meeting.
City of Fort Collins Page 5
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2020, Making Supplemental Appropriations and Authorizing
Transfers of Appropriations for the Northside Aztlan Resilience HUB Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 2020, appropriates
$200,000 in Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge grant funds from the Department of Local
Affairs (DOLA) for a project to establish the Northside Aztlan Community Center (Aztlan Center) a s a
resilience hub. The City has been notified of an award of $200,000 in support of energy and storage
measures at the Aztlan Center to improve its function as a resilience hub during community
emergencies.
The total project cost is $425,000, which inc ludes an additional $200,000 as a required local match,
and $25,000 for non-reimbursable project fees. The structure of the funding for the total project
would use the $200,000 in grant proceeds from DOLA, $200,000 for the required local match from
the 2020 Energy Services budget (already appropriated in the Light & Power Fund), and $25,000 for
the non-reimbursable project fees from the 2020 Municipal Innovation Fund (already appropriated in
the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund). The $200,000 for the local ma tch from the 2020 Energy Services
budget is available as a result of anticipated underspend due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2020, Adopting the 2020 National Electric Code Standards.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopt ed on First Reading on September 15, 2020, adopts the most up-
to-date electrical code that will align the City and the minimum State allowed Electrical Code. The
National Electrical Code (NEC) as Adopted by the State of Colorado Department of Regulatory
Agencies (DORA) is the standard for all electrical installations in the State. By aligning our local
adoptions with DORA, we will be in line with the minimum life safety requirement for electrical
installations and repairs.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2020, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins
and Amending Ordinance No. 177, 2017, by Changing the Zoning Classification for Property Known
as the Spring Creek Rezoning REZ170001 – Correction of Map Errors.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 2020, makes minor
corrections to the legal description for a previously approved rezoning. On January 2, 2018, Council
approved a rezoning ordinance for the Spring Creek Rezone with six conditions, following a
recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. In 2019, staff discovered errors
in the legal description related to this rezoning action. The revised Ordinance and attachments
correct the errors that have been identified. The City of Fort Collins is the applicant for this item.
5. 9501 : SR 116 LUC Childcare
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 2020, will exempt certain
child care uses from development review and Land Use Code requirements through May 28, 2021.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created a need for distributed learning and daycare sites, but the
number of buildings already approved for child care in the community is too limited to meet current
demands. This Ordinance would allow for child care uses to operate within buildings that have not
previously been approved for such use, provided all applicable health and life safety requirements
have been met. It would exempt child care centers, as defined in the Land Use Code, from the
development review process for a limited timeframe, aligned to the 2020-21 academic school year,
to allow for remote learning and daytime care of children. Compliance with building code, fire code,
health department requirements, and state licensing would still be required, as applicable.
6. Items Pertaining to Annual Adjustment Ordinance.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2020, Appropriating Additional Revenue and Authorizing
Transfers of Appropriations in Various City Funds.
City of Fort Collins Page 6
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2020, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Authorizing
Transfers of Appropriations in Various City Funds.
The purpose of these Annual Adjustment Ordinances is to combine dedicated and additional
revenues or prior-year reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the
related expenses that were not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2020 annual budget
appropriation. The additional revenue is primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions, donations
and grants that have been paid to City departments to offset specific expenses.
7. Items Relating to Control of Animals.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2020, Amending Section 4-94 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Regarding Animal Disturbance of Peace and Quiet.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2020, Amending Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the Code of
the City of Fort Collins Regarding Dangerous and Vicious Animals.
The purpose of this item is to clarify existing City Code language to guide enforcement, prosecution
and the Municipal Court regarding violations and penalties for animal disturbance and dangerous
animals in the City.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2020, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Correct
an Error in Section 7-134 Relating to the Registration of Committees During Election Campaigns.
The purpose of this item is to correct a long-standing error in Section 7-134 relating to the
registration of committees prior to accepting any contributions or making any expenditures.
9. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2020 Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification of that Certain Property Known as the Fischer
Rezoning.
This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be
considered in accordance with Section 1(f) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in
Resolution 2019-064.
The purpose of this item is to amend the City’s Zoning Map to cha nge the zoning designation on two
existing single family residential properties, 1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, from RL, Low Density
Residential, to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. 1185 Westward abuts the single family
property at the southwest corner of Shields Street and Westward Drive, and 1201 abuts 1185. The
rezoning would merge the two properties into a larger NCB-zoned area along South Shields Street
that abuts the properties on two sides.
The rezoning request is subject to the criteria in Sec tion 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code. The rezoning
may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by Council after receiving a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning Board, which voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the request with
one condition as recommended in the staff report with agreement from the petitioner.
City of Fort Collins Page 7
10. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2020, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Waterline
Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on Meadow Springs Ranch to the Northern
Colorado Water Association.
The purpose of this item is to authorize the conveyance of a permanent waterline easement and a
temporary construction easement to the Northern Colorado Water Association (NCWA) on Utilities’
Meadow Springs Ranch. The proposed easement area will traverse Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR)
over an alignment that City staff previously worked on, and agreed to, with NCWA in 2009. The
primary purpose of the pipeline is to provide a redundant transmission main to assist in providing a
reliable water supply to NCWA’s existing and future customers.
11. Emergency Ordinance No. 124, 2020, Approving Updated Emergency Rule and Regulation No.
2020-17A Regarding Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits.
The purpose of this item is to update Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-17 enacted by the
City Manager on May 28, 2020, in response to the COVID -19 emergency. Section 2-671(a)(6)a. of
the City Code provides that emergency rules and regulations must be confirmed at the earliest
practical time by Council. This Emergency Ordinance seeks Council’s approval and ratification of
Updated Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020 -17A, replacing Regulation No. 2020-17 and
extending Outdoor Expansion Permits to terminate when the declared local emergency ends (rather
than September 27, 2020 as currently provided).
The City Charter provides for the adoption of emergency ordinances as immediately necessary, to
preserve the public property, health, peace, or safety, and requires that for adoption an emergency
ordinance must be approved by an affirmative vote of five Councilmembers.
12. Resolution 2020-088 Authorizing a Conservation Agriculture Lease on Flores del Sol Natural Area to
Poudre Valley Community Farms.
The purpose of this item is to consider a 10-year lease to Poudre Valley Community Farms (PVCF)
for a conservation agriculture project on Flores del Sol Natural Area. Conservation agriculture on
natural areas represents a slight shift in land management for the Natural Areas Department
(Department). The approach aligns agricultural management practices with the Department’s
conservation mission, while supporting the City’s local, sustainable agriculture goals.
13. Resolution 2020-089 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Revised Intergovernmental Agreement w ith
Colorado State University Related to Canvas Stadium.
The purpose of this item is to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the CSU -
City of Fort Collins Stadium Operations Intergovernmental Agreement.
In 2015, the City and CSU entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to address the
construction and opening of the new stadium. The 5-year term of this agreement concluded this
year and both parties agreed to a new 5-year IGA. The fundamental structure and intention of the
new IGA is the same as the previous version, with the purpose of the original agreement to ensure
the stadium experience continues to be of benefit to the community.
14. Resolution 2020-090 Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute, and Amend from
Time to Time, an Intergovernmental Agreement with Colorado State University for Purchase of
Transportation Services.
City of Fort Collins Page 8
The purpose of this item is to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) between Colorado
State University, the Associated Students of Colorado State University (collectively “CSU”), and City
of Fort Collins Transfort in which CSU will fund the use of Transfort services by CSU students. CSU
supports those efforts and will fund the use of Transfort services by University faculty and staff, as
well as the provision by Transfort of additional services for the benefit of the students, CSU and its
campuses. The parties will further the goals of public transportation in and for CSU and the City of
Fort Collins.
15. Resolution 2020-091 Authorizing a Livestock Grazing Lease, Sublease and Residential Lease on
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area with Folsom Grazing Association, LLC.
The purpose of this item is to consider a 10-year grazing lease with Folsom Grazing Association
(FGA) at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area (SPNA). The outcome associated with the lease is the
cultivation and maintenance of a healthy grassland ecosystem. Grazing is an essential conservation
management tool. The current lease agreement between the City and FGA expires in December
2020.
16. Resolution 2020-092 Deferring Payment of the Stormwater Plant Investment Fee for the Poudre R -1
School District’s School Site Located on East Prospect Road.
The purpose of this item is to seek Council’s approval on the deferral of Stormwater Plant Investment
Fees for the current development of the Poudre School District Prospect Site pending de -annexation
from the City of Fort Collins and annexation into the Town of Timnath.
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
Community Dashboard Metric: Cumulative Lane Miles of Roadway Pavement Improved. (Larry
Schneider)
• COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
• CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL-PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
City of Fort Collins Page 9
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. If attending in person, 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.
17. Public Hearing #2 on the 2021 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort Collins. (staff: Darin
Atteberry, Travis Storin, Lawrence Pollack; no presentation; 45 minute discussion)
This is the second public hearing on the City Manager’s 2021 Recommended Budget for the City of
Fort Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on the 2021 budget. The
first public hearing was conducted at Council’s Tuesday, September 15, 2020, regula r meeting. Both
hearings were set by Council adoption of Resolution 2020-081 at its September 1, 2020, meeting.
The City Manager’s 2021 Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the City Clerk’s Office by
appointment only and online at fcgov.com/budget.
On May 19, 2020, Council adopted Ordinance No. 067, 2020, suspending the biennial budget term
requirement in Code Section 8-1 for fiscal years 2021 and 2022 in order to allow for a one -year
budget term for both years, and to return to the biennial budget term required by Code Section 8-1
beginning with fiscal years 2023 and 2024. Both hearings provided the public the option for in -
person comment or remote participation through the online Zoom platform.
18. Consideration of an Appeal of Hearing Officer Decision on 613 S. Meldrum Carriage House
Modifications of Standards (MOD 200001). (staff: Clark Mapes, Paul Sizemore; ___ minute
presentation; ___ minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to consider an Appeal of the Hearing Officer Decision, dated July 15,
2020, denying the request for five Modifications of Standards (MOD 200001) for a "carriage house"
(i.e., a single-family detached dwelling) located behind a street-facing dwelling in the Neighborhood
Conservation (NCB) zoning district. On July 28, 2020, a Notice of Appeal was filed alleging that the
administrative hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City of
Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) in rendering a final decision.
• 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.)
City of Fort Collins Page 10
Consider a motion to move the regular Council meeting scheduled for 6:00 pm on Tuesday, November 3,
2020, to 6:00 pm on Wednesday, November 4, 2020, due to the General Election:
"I move that the regular Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020, be moved to
Wednesday, November 4, 2020, pursuant to City Code Section 2 -28(a), because November 3 is the day
of the General Election."
• ADJOURNMENT
Every Council meeting will end no later than 10:30 p.m., except that: (1) any item of business
commenced before 10:30 p.m. may be concluded before the meeting is adjourned and (2) the City
Council may, by majority vote, extend a meeting until no later than 12:00 a.m. for the purpose of
considering additional items of business. Any matter which has been commenced and is still pending
at the conclusion of the Council meeting, and all matters scheduled for consideration at the meeting
which have not yet been considered by 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, we the citizens of Fort Collins, Colorado, value local control of our community
services and have chosen to operate a community-owned, locally controlled, not-for-profit
electric utility; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities Light and Power is the second largest municipal electric
utility in Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities with Platte River Power Authority provide our homes,
businesses and schools with safe, reliable, environmentally responsible and cost-effective
electricity; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins was one of the first cities to underground the electric system over 50
years ago and the benefits continue to this day. Service is provided to over 70,500 homes and
businesses, over 55+ square miles and is 99% underground.
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power Authority are valuable community
partners that contribute substantially to the well-being of local citizens through energy
efficiency, customer service, environmental protection, economic development and safety
awareness; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby proclaim
the week of October 4-10, 2020, as
PUBLIC POWER WEEK
in Fort Collins to honor Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power Authority’s consumer-
owners, policy makers, and employees who work together to provide the best possible electric
service to our community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort Collins
this 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 11
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, energy efficiency continues to be economical and the most beneficial way to
meet our 2030 Climate Action Plan goals to reduce utility bills for residential, business and industrial
customers; and
WHEREAS, energy efficiency helps make homes and workspaces in Fort Collins more
healthy, safe and comfortable during everyday situations and disruptive climate events like wildfires
and floods; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins Utilities efficiency programs and strategies annually save over 2%
of the community’s annual usage, which is equivalent to the annual electric use of 4,200 Fort Collins
homes; and
WHEREAS, without efficiency programs electricity use in the community would be 14%
higher; and
WHEREAS, local efficiency and renewable programs generate over $40 million annually in
local economic benefits through reduced utility bills, direct rebates and leveraged investment; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins municipal buildings have led by example and reduced their energy
use which has resulted in a 22% greenhouse gas reduction since 2005 through energy efficient
projects and building upgrades; and
WHEREAS, Fort Collins is committed to the energy performance in new buildings by rapid
adoption of current International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC), ensuring compliance to code,
and by promoting above-code standards using education and incentive-based approaches.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim October 7, 2020, as
ENERGY EFFICIENCY DAY
in Fort Collins and encourage citizens to join us in supporting our Climate Action Plan goals and
moving toward more energy efficient buildings now and in the future.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 12
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, National Cyber Security Awareness Month, celebrated every October,
remains a collaborative effort between government and industry to ensure that individually and
collectively we have the resources needed to stay safe and remain secure online; and
WHEREAS, National Cyber Security Awareness Month is a time to raise awareness
about the importance of cyber security; and to focus on how cyber security is a shared
responsibility; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins recognizes the importance in identifying,
responding to and protecting against cyber threats that may have significant impact to our
individual and collective security and privacy; and
WHEREAS, critical infrastructure sectors are increasingly reliant on information
systems to support financial services, energy, telecommunications, transportation, utilities, health
care, and emergency response systems; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 Cyber Security Awareness Month’s focus is: Stay Safe Online
and breaks it down into three areas of responsibility: Own It, Secure It and Protect It; and
WHEREAS, maintaining the security of cyberspace is a shared responsibility in which
each of us-elected officials, City staff and community members, has a critical role to play.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim October 2020 as
NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY AWARENESS MONTH
and encourage everyone to learn about cyber security and put that knowledge into practice in
their homes, schools, workplaces, and businesses.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 13
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Colorado law defines domestic violence as: “an act or threatened act of
violence upon a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship.”
And
WHEREAS, across our state and our nation, one in four women and one in 14 men
suffer at the hands of someone who is supposed to love them and more than 15 million children
are exposed to domestic violence each year; and
WHEREAS, during National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we renew our
commitment to prevent domestic violence, hold perpetrators accountable for their actions,
support survivors and bring hope and healing to those affected by it; and
WHEREAS, in Fort Collins, Crossroads Safehouse shelters over 500 individuals for
16,000 nights of safety and shelter annually. Additionally, over 2,000 men, women and children
receive individual and group advocacy and over 3,000 individuals are reached through
educational presentations.
WHEREAS, many of our local nonprofit agencies, like Crossroads Safehouse, and their
volunteers offer critical assistance and support to victims in need. Victims and their children
receive potentially lifesaving crisis intervention and shelter, food, clothing, advocacy and
counseling, longer-term housing options, and legal resources, as well as referral and other
supportive services to rebuild their lives free from violence and abuse.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Wade Troxell, Mayor of the City of Fort Collins, do hereby
proclaim the month of October as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
in the city of Fort Collins and ask the citizens of this community to help raise awareness about
how to prevent, recognize, and stop domestic violence.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Fort
Collins this 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
ATTEST: Mayor
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 14
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 1, 2020 Regular Council Meeting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the September 1, 2020 Regular Council Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. September 1, 2020 (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 15
City of Fort Collins Page 144
September 1, 2020
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting – 6:00 PM
(Secretary's Note: Due to the COVID-19 crisis and state and local orders to remain safer at home
and not gather, this meeting has been conducted using a hybrid approach allowing in -person
participation with strict protocols and a variety of remote participation options.)
• ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Stephens (6:33 PM), Troxell, Cunniff
STAFF PRESENT: Atteberry, Daggett, Coldiron
• AGENDA REVIEW: CITY MANAGER
City Manager Atteberry stated an item has been added under Other Business: Discussion and
possible action to direct staff work regarding a Councilmember-proposed resolution related to
support for law enforcement and the right to peacefully assemble.
City Clerk Coldiron outlined the remote participation options.
• PUBLIC COMMENT
Jaya Strasberg opposed the use of single-use plastic bags specifically noting what happens in Fort
Collins influences all downstream communities. She proposed a ban on single-use plastic bags
and a fee for paper bags.
Rich Stave commented on finding people sleeping partially on trails in the early morning hours.
He also stated the Zoom invitation to the public for the last Energy Board meeting was not sent
out until just after the meeting started.
Nancy York agreed with Ms. Strasberg's comments and stated the City should be taking climate
change more seriously and should not be widening roads for vehicles but only for bus service. She
also commented on counting evictions.
Ray Martinez commented on the recent death of a ranger at Horsetooth Reservoir and stated it was
tremendous to see the outpouring of emotion during the memorial event. He stated he sees
tremendous support for law enforcement in the community.
• PUBLIC COMMENT FOLLOW-UP
Mayor Troxell summarized the citizen comments. He noted there will be an official service area
response to Ms. Strasberg.
Councilmember Cunniff noted one of Council's priorities is reduction of plastic pollution which is
important to communicate in the service area response. He stated he may consider bringing forth
the topic for the April 2021 ballot.
Councilmember Cunniff requested staff follow up with Mr. Stave regarding his topics. City
Manager Atteberry replied he would do so.
Councilmember Summers noted the Centers for Disease Control has announced a four-month
moratorium on evictions.
1.1
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 145
Councilmember Pignataro asked if the Council priority regarding plastics is set to come before
Council in the next six months. Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer, replied the topic
is scheduled for a work session on October 27th.
• CONSENT CALENDAR
RESULT: ADOPTED [6 TO 0]
MOVER: Emily Gorgol, District 6
SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Troxell, Cunniff
AWAY: Stephens
1. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the July 21, 2020 and August 4, 2020 Regular
Council Meetings. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to approve the minutes from the July 21, 2020 and August 4, 2020 Regular
Council Meetings.
2. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 102, 2020, Appropriating Unanticipated Department of
Justice Coronavirus Emergency Grant Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services.
(Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2020, appropriates funds
awarded by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the formula grant FY 2020 Coronavirus Emergency
Supplemental Funding Grant. This grant award of $100,818 will defray certain expenses the City has
incurred responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic, which includes the purchase of personal protective
equipment, cleaning supplies, and communication expenses along with overtime associated with the
response.
3. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 103, 2020, Appropriating Unanticipated Phil anthropic
Revenue Received by City Give from The Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek for Transfer
to The Gardens on Spring Creek. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2020 , appropriates
$75,000 in philanthropic revenue in the General Fund for transfer to The Gardens on Spring Creek to
support general operating costs as designated by the donor, The Friends of the Gardens on Spring
Creek. The Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek is an independent not -for-profit 501(c)(3)
organization established in 1988 whose mission is to support The Gardens through advocacy,
community engagement, volunteerism and fundraising.
4. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 104, 2020, Appropriating Unanticipated Philanthropic
Revenue Received by City Give from the Urban Agriculture Resilience Program through The
Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek for The Gardens on Spring Creek. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2020, appropriates $15,000 in
philanthropic revenue in the General Fund for transfer to The Gardens on Spring Creek. Facilitated by
The Friends of the Gardens on Spring Creek, the funding award is made from the Urban Agriculture
Resilience Program for the designated purpose of urban agriculture and community gardening.
5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 105, 2020, Appropriating Unanticipated Philanthropic
Revenue Received by City Give for Transfer to the Recreation Fund for the Fort Collins Senior
Center. (Adopted)
1.1
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 146
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2020, appropriates $66,652 in
philanthropic revenue in the General Fund for transfer to the Fort Collins Senior Center in the
Recreation Fund for support of general operations. The charitable funds are the disbursement of
revenue from a Designated Endowment held by the Community Foundation of Northern Colorado to
benefit the Fort Collins Senior Center.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 106, 2020, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements for the Timberline
Capital Improvement Project - Stetson Creek Road to Trilby Road. (Adopted)
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 18, 2020, requests
Council authorization for the use of eminent domain, if deemed necessary, to acquire property interests
needed for construction improvements for the Project.
7. First Reading of Ordinance No. 107, 2020, Appropriating Unanticipated Philanthropic Revenue
Received by City Give for Transfer to Social Sustainability in the General Fund for the Equity
Indicators Project. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $20,000 in philanthropic revenue in the General Fund for
transfer to Social Sustainability for the support of the Equity Indicators project as designated by the
donor, Bohemian Foundation. In a commitment to advance equitable outcomes, the City has selected
CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance (ISLG) to lead an Equity Indicators project which will
establish a framework for measuring and understanding the inequities that exist in Fort Collins.
8. First Reading of Ordinance No. 108, 2020, Amending Chapter 26 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins to Clarify Utility Accounts, Billing and Collections. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to adopt changes to City Code to align with requirements in the 2020 -2025
LEAP Vendor Agreement. Under current billing practices, utility bills are treated as a single customer
account payment balance, and payments made to an account are applied equally across utility service
products on that account. The Code changes will allow for Low-Income Energy Assistance Program
(LEAP) payments to be applied only to electric service (as required in the 2020 -2025 LEAP Vendor
Agreement), even if a customer has other Fort Collins utility services (e.g., water, wastewater,
stormwater and/or broadband).
These Code changes will enable Fort Collins Utilities to remain a LEAP Vendor which benefits the
200+ income-qualified customers that receive LEAP in two ways: (1) they get a more accurate benefit
amount because Fort Collins Utilities is able to provide Estimated Home Heating Costs (EHHC) from
which LEAP bases benefit calculations, and (2) it is more convenient for the customer because LEAP
payments are automatically applied to a customer’s utility account.
9. First Reading of Ordinance No. 109, 2020, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins to
Modify and Update Requirements and Procedures for City Elections and Campaign Finance in
City Elections. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to consider proposed amendments to the City’s election campaign Cod e
provisions.
10. Resolution 2020-081 Setting the Dates of the Public Hearings on the 2021 Proposed City of Fort
Collins Budget. (Adopted)
1.1
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 147
The purpose of this item is to set two public hearing dates for the proposed 2021 budget that the City
Manager has filed with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 2 of City Charter Article V. Section 3 of City
Charter Article V now requires Council to set a date for a public hearing on the proposed budget and
to cause notice of the hearing to be published. This Resolution sets two public hearing dates. The
first for Council’s regular meeting on September 15, 2020, and the second for its regular meeting on
October 6, 2020. The Resolution also directs the City Clerk to publish the notice of these two hearings
that is attached as Exhibit “A” to the Resolution.
11. Resolution 2020-082 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is to appoint four individuals to fill vacancies on the Affordable Housing Board,
Landmark Preservation Commission, Human Relations Board and the Economic Advisory Board that
exist due to the resignation of previous members.
• END CONSENT
• CONSENT CALENDAR FOLLOW-UP
Councilmember Cunniff noted there was a package of election changes on the Consent Agenda
per Item No. 14, First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2020, Amending Section 7-135 of the Code
of the City of Fort Collins to Amend Requirements and Procedures Related to Campaigns and
Campaign Finance in City Elections.
• STAFF REPORTS
Staff Report: COVID-19 Update - Discuss women in the workforce related to COVID-19, school choice,
and childcare. (Josh Birks)
Josh Birks, Economic Sustainability Director, introduced Jennifer Henderson, TILT Founder and
CEO, and Tina Todd, Simply HR, to share their perspectives.
Ms. Henderson stated TILT works with organizations to streamline the employee leave lifecycle.
She discussed the fact that access to affordable childcare is a barrier for regional employers and
the pandemic has exacerbated that, particularly for working women. One out of four women have
reported becoming unemployed during the pandemic because of a lack of childcare, which is twice
the rate of men for the same reason.
Ms. Henderson discussed options for addressing childcare needs given remote learning through
Poudre School District.
Ms. Todd stated Simply HR is a human resources consulting firm providing support for businesses
in Fort Collins and northern Colorado. She discussed participation in the workforce over the past
several months noting there was a 9% decrease in labor force participation for women with
children. She cited specific examples of women in the workforce leaving their positions to
accommodate virtual learning.
Councilmember Summers asked for further clarification about this situation causing a generation-
long impact on women in the workforce. Ms. Henderson replied that is in regard to the
amplification of downshifting and opting out of the workforce today which has significant
repercussions on women in the workforce. Rejoining the workforce at the same level many women
are leaving to care for children is unlikely. She stated women who opted out of the workforce pre-
COVID for anything more than two years suffer a 30-40% earning reduction over their lifetimes.
1.1
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 148
Councilmember Pignataro asked if there is anything in the upcoming budget regarding childcare.
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer, replied the main item related to childcare
involves maintaining the level of human service funding knowing that is a direct support for
childcare providers in the community.
Councilmember Pignataro suggested possible partnerships in terms of work-study classes through
CSU or UNC to provide instructors to help facilitate learning pods.
Councilmember Gorgol noted there is a lack of applicants and space for childcare providers. She
asked if there has been work done with community partners to identify solutions. Ms. Henderson
replied the options she discussed were a result of crowd-solving ideas spanning the country.
Councilmember Gorgol asked if the City organization is considering providing on-site, off-site, or
shared childcare options. City Manager Atteberry noted the City is one of the largest community
employers and has worked to provide a great deal of flexibilit y to its employees in this space.
Teresa Roche, Chief Human Resources Officer, replied the City surveyed its 900 essential
employees to see if childcare was of interest in the spring, and it was not a large priority. However,
the Family Care Connections program has been used by some essential workers and has been
completely subsidized. She will continue to survey workers regarding new needs and discussed
the new Leader's Toolkit called "Navigating the Impact of Caregiving Challenges During COVID-
19."
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated affordable childcare has been lacking in the community for years
prior to the pandemic and it is time to provide resources. She noted it is not realistic for most
families to have one member leave the workforce for even a few months.
• COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS
Mayor Troxell reported he and Councilmember Cunniff participated in the Platte River Power
Authority Board meeting during which the Integrated Resource Plan was discussed. He also
reported on the recent Urban Renewal Authority Board meeting during which the North College
area and desired amenities were discussed.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens reported the Poudre Fire Authority Chief is retiring and the search
process will begin shortly.
Mayor Troxell reported the City has been closely monitoring the Cameron Peak Fire regarding the
water supply resources in the area.
• DISCUSSION ITEMS
12. Emergency Ordinance No. 110, 2020 Suspending Certain Provisions of the City’s Land Use
Code to Permit Temporary Use of the Property at 1301 Blue Spruce Drive as a Homeless
Shelter. (Adopted)
The purpose of this item is for Council to consider approving an emergency ordinance to allow a
temporary overnight shelter at 1301 Blue Spruce Drive. The number of shelter beds available in Fort
Collins has been reduced due to the need for social distancing because of COVID -19. While homeless
shelters are a permitted use in the Industrial Zone District where this property is located, this would
allow the use to occur immediately rather than undergoing th e development review process for the
proposed change in use. Emergency ordinances are authorized under the Charter in emergency
circumstances and require the affirmative vote of at least five (5) members of the Council for passage.
1.1
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 149
City Manager Atteberry stated this emergency ordinance would support temporary overnight
emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness given the capacity gap related to COVID.
He stated staff recommends adoption of the ordinance.
Beth Sowder, Social Sustainability Director, stated this emergency ordinance would suspend
specific requirements of the Land Use Code to allow a temporary overnight shelter at 1301 Blue
Spruce Drive immediately. She indicated the City would enter into a lease with the Food Bank for
Larimer County, the property owner, and would then sublease the space to the Fort Collins Rescue
Mission to operate the space as a temporary overnight shelter from the end of September through
April 2021. She stated the estimated cost to the City is approximately $30,000 per month. CARES
Act funding is anticipated to be used for the remainder of 2020 and already allocated CDBG funds
are to be used for the 2021 costs. Sowder stated next steps, should Council approve this emergency
ordinance, would include finalizing the lease, the sublease, and the funding agreement.
Cheryl Distaso expressed concern about the proposal stating the City recklessly closed the Atzlan
shelter and needlessly closed the Heritage Park encampment in April in defiance of CDC
recommendations. She stated the Rescue Mission has had to turn away people every night since
the Atzlan shelter closed and the 100 beds proposed for this shelter are not enough. She further
stated Fort Collins' shelter options are inadequate, unsafe, and dehumanizing and the City should
immediately repeal its camping ban.
Rich Stave asked how many people will be served in the facility on a nightly basis and asked what
restrictions will be placed on users. He also questioned whether the facility is properly equipped
for social distancing.
Nancy York stated Fort Collins inhumanely treats homeless individuals and stated proper
encampments should be allowed.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens asked how many people will be served at the proposed shelter and asked
how safety will be addressed. She noted there is no industrial processing that occurs at the facility;
it is primarily for food distribution. City Manager Atteberry replied there is no warehouse activity
in this portion of the facility. Sowder replied the Rescue Mission tries to provide even more space
than is required for social distancing and there is currently enough space for 120 cot spaces with
an ability to expand.
Amy Pezzani, Food Bank for Larimer County, stated the portion of the Food Bank that would be
leased to the City is just under 15,000 square feet and is completely separate from the Food Bank
use of the building.
Seth Forewood, Fort Collins Rescue Mission, stated beds and operations will be appropriately
distanced and health screenings will occur. He stated the Larimer County Health Department will
be consulting on the space as well.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens asked if both men and women will be served. Forewood replied he is
waiting for guidance from the Health Department on that. He clarified there are no shower
facilities, but handwashing and restroom facilities will be available.
Councilmember Pignataro asked if this facility will offer services from various providers. Sowder
replied this will be different from the Atzlan shelter in that this will only be an overnight shelter
with morning and evening meal service and to-go lunch service. During the day, the Food Bank
1.1
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 150
will still be using the location for food distribution. She noted the Murphy Center will be extending
its day shelter hours as well.
Councilmember Summers asked if construction will be needed at the facility. Forewood replied
there will be no major construction, just minor changes to make the space appropriate for food
service.
Councilmember Summers asked who would provide beds. Forewood replied the Rescue Mission
has some available and is in talks with Larimer County Public Health regarding other options.
Councilmember Summers asked about the plan for ensuring people are not milling around area
businesses, particularly given people will need to be going from the overnight shelter to and from
the Murphy Center. City Manager Atteberry replied that concern has been heard and expressed
by the Food Bank as well. Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer, replied the overnight
shelter and extended day shelter hours are intended to provide security. Additionally, there will
be private security on-site. Sowder replied the lease with the Food Bank requires security to be
provided during the day, particularly during food distribution hours. She stated security is not
necessarily needed at night as people will not be coming and going.
Councilmember Gutowsky asked why other facilities were not sufficient. City Manager Atteberry
replied 22 sites were considered, three of which were in the North College area. Some of the
difficulties with other sites included building condition.
Councilmember Gutowsky asked why the Fort Ram building was not considered. City Manager
Atteberry replied it did not meet the necessary specifications.
Councilmember Gutowsky asked how transportation will be provided for those who need it.
Sowder replied this location is very close to the Murphy Center and meetings have been held with
Transfort regarding providing other transportation. She noted there are bus stops in front of both
the Food Bank and the Murphy Center.
Councilmember Gutowsky stated she has received a request for a 'no parking' zone from businesses
near the Murphy Center and asked if this plan will exacerbate the issue. Sowder replied staff and
people utilizing the shelter can park there overnight; however, no cars can remain there during the
day. Ms. Pezzani replied the street is open parking and once the shelter is open and the pantry not
operating, the parking lot will be available for those using the shelter which may improve the
parking situation.
Councilmember Gorgol asked if there is a known gap between the number of beds provided in the
community and the number of individuals experiencing homelessness. Sowder replied the Rescue
Mission typically lacks the ability to serve about 15 to 20 men and there is currently enough
capacity for women and families at Catholic Charites.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gorgol, to adopt
Emergency Ordinance No. 110, 2020.
Councilmember Cunniff stated he would support the motion as this is clearly a community need
that must be addressed.
1.1
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 151
Councilmember Gorgol stated she would support the motion as well and encouraged better
planning for an exit strategy and long-term plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens commended the community partners for their work on this. She
acknowledged it is not an ideal situation; however, she stated it is a CDC best practice to have
indoor shelter available.
Councilmember Gutowsky stated she will support the motion as this is the right thing to do for the
community and homeless citizens. She noted the North College community has worked hard to
improve the desirability of the area and has done its share in providing locations for various
providers. She will be advocating for consideration of locations in other parts of the city for future
services.
Mayor Troxell asked about the participation of Homeward Alliance in this proposal. Kozak-Thiel
replied Homeward 2020 has been leading the plan around homelessness being rare, short-lived,
and non-recurring and Homeward Alliance manages the Murphy Center and other programs. She
indicated both organizations have been key partners in the work through the pandemic and in
ongoing work around homelessness.
Mayor Troxell stated he would support the motion and thanked the participating partners and staff.
RESULT: EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 110, 2020 ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Emily Gorgol, District 6
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Stephens, Troxell, Cunniff
(Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 111, 2020, Amending Chapter 25 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Regarding Economic Nexus and the Obligation of Remote Sellers to Collect and Remit
Sales Tax. (Adopted on First Reading)
The purpose of this item is to discuss the proposed adoption of an Ordinance to require remote sellers
to collect and remit City sales tax. The Ordinance is based on a model ordinance prepared by a
working group of municipal attorneys and municipal finance staff, coordinated by the Colorado
Municipal League (CML). With adoption of the Ordinance, the City Manager will enter into an
agreement with the Colorado Department of Revenue to allow such taxpayers to remit tax to the City
using the Department’s single point of remittance software.
City Manager Atteberry noted this is a good news item which has previously been heard by the
Council Finance Committee.
Travis Storin, Chief Financial Officer, stated this item would require remote or online sellers to
collect and remit City sales tax for shipments made to customers inside City limits. The change
will establish a greater level of competitive parity between physical and remote retailers and will
allow for the collection of currently unaccounted for sales tax revenues.
Jennifer Poznanovic, Sales Tax Department Revenue Manager, discussed a 2018 decision by the
Supreme Court that an out-of-state retailer does not need physical presence in a state in order for
that state to require the retailer to collect and remit sales tax as long as they meet a certain threshold
of sales. She detailed the economic nexus information and discussed the way other home -rule
municipalities are handling this issue.
1.1
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 152
Rich Stave stated he has had difficulty in online ordering wherein orders cannot be completed
because of a lack of a sales tax license with Fort Collins. He asked about the 200 individual sales
number and questioned how this change will provide more efficient delivery of goods and services
to Fort Collins citizens. Poznanovic replied the new system will allow all remote sellers to go to
one portal to pay sales taxes for any jurisdiction on the system. Ryan Malarkey, Assistant City
Attorney, replied the 200 individual sales is based on the past three months and the $100,000
threshold is based on the previous calendar year. Businesses that do not meet that threshold would
not be impacted by the collection requirements.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adopt
Ordinance No. 111, 2020, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff and Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated they would support the motion citing
this as a way to even the playing field for retail sales.
Mayor Troxell commended staff and Colorado Municipal League work on this issue.
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 111, 2020, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Ross Cunniff, District 5
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Stephens, Troxell, Cunniff
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 112, 2020, Amending Section 7-135 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins to Modify and Update Requirements and Procedures for Campaigns in City
Elections. (Adopted on First Reading)
The purpose of this item is to consider proposed amendments to the City’s election campaign Code
provisions.
City Clerk Coldiron stated the proposed Election Code items align with the City's Strategic Plan
through the high-performing government outcome area. She stated the item related to limited
liability contributions was brought to the attention of the Election Code Committee by members
of the public who requested the local provisions be aligned with state provisions. The state
provision requires any contribution by an LLC to be accompanied by a written statement including
the names of all of the members of the LLC and their respective allocations. If an individual
wishes to make an additional contribution, the LLC allocation must be taken into account.
City Clerk Coldiron stated this proposed change would align the local provisions with those of the
state and any candidate or political committee that receives a contribution from an LLC would be
required to list the LLC members as part of their financial disclosures. She outlined the committee
definitions and maximum contribution limits indicating there are currently no maximum
contribution limits for political or issue committees.
City Clerk Coldiron stated members of the public also brought the issue of contribution limits to
the Election Code Committee and were seeking alignment between local and state regulations.
State provisions currently limit the amount of contributions to $625 per two-year time period.
Additionally, the state allows political committees to make direct contributions to candidate and
other political committees. The proposed change would limit contributions and contributions -in-
kind to political committees to $100, which could be changed by Council.
1.1
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 153
Robbie Moreland, Represent Fort Collins, supported both proposed changes to the Election Code.
Kathleen Schmidt, League of Women Voters of Larimer County, supported restricting LLC
donations to stay within an individual donor's contribution limits.
Michelle Haefele expressed support for aligning the City's Election Code with that of the state.
Jody Deschanes thanked the Election Code Committee members and expressed support for
aligning the City's Election Code with that of the state regarding LLC contributions; however, she
did not support increasing campaign limits.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens requested a description of independent expenditures. City Clerk
Coldiron replied independent expenditures can be used to support or oppose candidates or ballot
issues and there is no requirement as far as a maximum contribution related to independent
expenditures. Rita Knoll, Chief Deputy City Clerk, replied independent expenditures are required
to be reported within three days of obligating funds and the reporting must clarify which candidate
or issue is being supported or opposed.
Ryan Malarkey, Assistant City Attorney, noted independent expenditures are not coordinated with
candidates and there is no limit on their amount.
Councilmember Summers commented on the differences between the state and local Election
Codes and questioned whether these changes would give special interest groups and independent
expenditures groups too much power. He stated there is no equality when it comes to political
campaigns and money does not always make the difference. He added a city should not be making
radical changes to its Election Code every two years.
Mayor Troxell expressed support for the change related to LLC contributions but expressed
concern regarding changes leading to a candidate not having control of his or her own message.
He suggested donation limits should be raised to $150 for Council candidates and $200 for
Mayoral candidates.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gutowsky, to adopt
Ordinance No. 112, 2020, on First Reading.
Councilmember Summers stated he could support LLC contribution limits but opposed limits on
political committee donations stating that change does not align with the state.
Councilmember Pignataro thanked staff for their work and stated she would support the motion.
Councilmember Gorgol stated she would support the motion and encouraged the Election Code
Committee to examine public financing options.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated she would support the motion stating the current process favors
those with more money.
Councilmember Gutowsky stated she would support the motion as the changes will create a more
even playing field.
Mayor Troxell stated he would not support the motion as he would like to see the contribution
limits increased.
1.1
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 154
RESULT: ORDINANCE NO. 112, 2020, ADOPTED ON FIRST READING [5 TO 2]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Susan Gutowsky, District 1
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Stephens, Cunniff
NAYS: Summers, Troxell
• OTHER BUSINESS
A. Consideration of a motion to adjourn the City Council meeting to conduct the General Improvement
District No. 1 meeting then return to the regular City Council meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Gorgol, that Council
temporarily adjourn this regular meeting to conduct the General Improvement District No. 1 Board
meeting, to be resumed later this evening upon the completion of that GID Board meeting.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kristin Stephens, District 4
SECONDER: Emily Gorgol, District 6
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Stephens, Troxell, Cunniff
B. Possible consideration of the initiation of new ordinances and/or resolutions by Counc ilmembers.
Councilmember Summers stated he has drafted a resolution showing support for law enforcement
and citizens' rights to safely, peacefully demonstrate.
Ray Martinez supported passing such a resolution and stated Council not showing support for law
enforcement is negligent.
J.D. (no last name given) stated it is important for Council to proactively show its support for law
enforcement.
Councilmember Summers read his drafted resolution.
Mayor Troxell agreed with all aspects of the drafted resolution and expressed support for Police
Services. He stated he would like the resolution to include language related to Fort Collins striving
to be the safest city in the country and fostering community trust. He also stated he understood
this type of resolution to be under the scope of the recently formed ad hoc subcommittee.
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated she also understood this type of resolution would go before the
subcommittee for input. She expressed support for the police force and the Chief. She stated
putting forth this type of resolution at this time could be even more polarizing and opposed a
statement that not supporting this type of resolution at this time means a lack of support for law
enforcement.
Councilmember Summers clarified his draft resolution does not need a vote as it is written; he
suggested it could go through additional wordsmithing.
Councilmember Cunniff expressed support for law enforcement and the Police Chief as well as
for maintaining a safe community. He stated sending this through a process will help the final
product and disagreed that not acting on it right now shows a lack of support for police. He
suggested a reasonably quick examination of the resolution by the ad hoc committee.
1.1
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 155
Councilmember Pignataro stated she also understood this type of item would go before the ad hoc
committee. She thanked Councilmember Summers for his work on the resolution noting it is
important for Council to be conscious of the staff workload.
Councilmember Gutowsky supported sending the resolution to the ad hoc committee.
Councilmember Summers asked about the scope of the ad hoc committee and whether this falls
under its purview. City Attorney Daggett replied the commit tee was charged to develop
recommendations for ways to enhance and achieve a safe and equitable community for all,
examine policy initiatives, police operations, and other municipal programs and services, provide
recommendations to Council for the 2021 budget cycle in furtherance of these objectives, and
review higher level performance indicators for Police Services and other related programs and
services to improve the measurement of success in providing a safe and equitable community for
all. It is within Council's purview to interpret and modify the committee's charge.
Councilmembers agreed it is appropriate for this item to go before the ad hoc committee. City
Attorney Daggett noted it is important that the three members of the committee will be those who
vote though other Councilmembers may attend meetings and comment.
C. Consideration of a motion to adjourn into an executive session to discuss real property acquisition and
legal issues related to Hughes Stadium annexation property .
Mayor Pro Tem Stephens stated she would not be participating in the Executive Session due to the
ongoing ethics review.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Pignataro, that the City
Council go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the Hughes Stadium property with
City staff and the City’s attorneys, and particularly to discuss:
1. Real property acquisition and disposition related to the Hughes Stadium property, as permitted
under:
• City Charter Article Roman Numeral Two, Section 11(3),
• Section 2-31(a)(3) of the City Code and
• Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6-402(4)(a); and
2. Specific legal questions related to potential litigation regarding the Hughes Stadium property
and the manner in which the particular policies, practices or regulations of the City related to
the acquisition or development of the Hughes Stadium property may be affected by existing or
proposed provisions of federal, state or local law, as permitted under:
• City Charter Article Roman Numeral Two, Section 11(2),
• City Code Section 2-31(a)(2) and
• Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-6-402(4)(b).
Adam Eggleston questioned where funds would come from for the City to purchase the property
and discussed the types of housing that could be placed on the property.
1.1
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
City of Fort Collins Page 156
RESULT: ADOPTED [6 TO 0]
MOVER: Ross Cunniff, District 5
SECONDER: Julie Pignataro, District 2
AYES: Pignataro, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Summers, Troxell, Cunniff
RECUSED: Stephens
• ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:48 PM.
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
1.1
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: September 1, 2020 (9535 : MInutes - 9/1)
Agenda Item 2
Item # 2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager
Cyril Vidergar, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2020, Making Supplemental Appropriations and Authorizing Transfers
of Appropriations for the Northside Aztlan Resilience HUB Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 2020, appropriates $200,000 in
Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge grant funds from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for a project
to establish the Northside Aztlan Community Center (Aztlan Center) as a resilience hub. The City has been
notified of an award of $200,000 in support of energy and storage measures at the Aztlan Center to improve its
function as a resilience hub during community emergencies.
The total project cost is $425,000, which includes an additional $200,000 as a required local match, and
$25,000 for non-reimbursable project fees. The structure of the funding for the total project would use the
$200,000 in grant proceeds from DOLA, $200,000 for the required local match from the 2020 Energy Services
budget (already appropriated in the Light & Power Fund), and $25,000 for the non-reimbursable project fees
from the 2020 Municipal Innovation Fund (already appropriated in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund). The
$200,000 for the local match from the 2020 Energy Services budget is available as a result of anticipated
underspend due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 113, 2020 (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 29
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 15, 2020
City Council
STAFF
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager
Cyril Vidergar, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 113, 2020, Making Supplemental Appropriations and Authorizing Transfers of
Appropriations for the Northside Aztlan Resilience HUB Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to appropriate $200,000 in Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge grant funds from
the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for a project to establish the Northside Aztlan Community Center (Aztlan
Center) as a resilience hub. The City has been notified of an award of $200,000 in support of energy and storage
measures at the Aztlan Center to improve its function as a resilience hub during community emergencies.
The total project cost is $425,000, which includes an additional $200,000 as a required local match, and $25,000
for non-reimbursable project fees. The structure of the funding for the total project would use the $200,000 in
grant proceeds from DOLA, $200,000 for the required local match from the 2020 Energy Services budget
(already appropriated in the Light & Power Fund), and $25,000 for the non-reimbursable project fees from the
2020 Municipal Innovation Fund (already appropriated in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund). The $200,000 for
the local match from the 2020 Energy Services budget is available as a result of anticipated underspend due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
DOLA launched the Renewable/Clean Energy Challenge grant program in the summer of 2019 to spark efforts
in reaching Colorado’s 2040 100% renewable energy goal. Projects funded by this initiative should achieve
renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation efforts; support innovations in renewable energy;
achieve multiple objectives and/or serve those with the greatest need. Proposed projects were also to respond
to needs and opportunities identified by the local government. The grant requires a 50% match.
The City submitted a letter of intent in August 2019 and a complete application in December before the impact
of the coronavirus pandemic was felt on our community or facilities. The Aztlan Center has since served as a
shelter for vulnerable populations over the last several months. The recent use of the facility has been a
demonstration of a resilience hub; the Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub project would add capabilities for
operation in emergencies where the electric grid may also be impacted. This highlights the importance of
proceeding with projects such as this one, which will also provide active demonstration of additional distributed
generation and battery storage on an ongoing basis to minimize operational costs and provide electric grid
benefits. The battery storage system would remain a Light & Power-owned asset which can provide ongoing
benefits to the ratepayers via this project.
Given the current financial landscape, staff recommends the following approach:
ATTACHMENT 1 2.1
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (9498 : SR 113 Aztlan DOLA Grant)
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 2
• Proceed with appropriating the full project amount of $425,000, funded from:
o $200,000 from the DOLA Renewable and Clean Energy Challenge grant, which would reimburse the
Light & Power Fund over the course of the project as expenses are incurred.
o $200,000 in local match funds from the 2020 Utilities Energy Services budget, which is available from
anticipated underspend due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
o $25,000 from the 2020 Municipal Innovation Fund, which is already appropriated in the Keep Fort Collins
Great Fund, to cover permit fees for building improvements, Poudre Fire Authority, and bonding required
by DOLA. Those costs cannot be covered with DOLA grant funds. Use of the Municipal Innovation Fund
accomplishes rapid deployment of the funding to support resilience, the municipal sustainability focus
on resilience for 2020, and on a project that benefits the community.
The CAP Executive Team, Utilities Senior Management, and the Executive Leadership Team each reviewed
and supported the above funding approach, as detailed in the proposed Ordinance.
• There are several internal project partners necessary to successfully execute this grant project, including
Operations Services, Recreation, Emergency Preparedness and Security, Environmental Services, Social
Sustainability and Utilities.
• The circumstances presented by COVID-19 have demonstrated the need for and viability of incorporating
resilience, efficiency, and innovation in providing services to the community.
No APP contribution is required. The project is limited to placement of a battery and associated equipment,
including potentially photovoltaic panels, located at, though not affixed to, the Aztlan Center. No structural
modification, remodeling or improvement of any building, structure, street, sidewalk, or other public improvement
are part of the project. As such, the project does not constitute “construction” under Chapter 23, Art. XII of the
City Code for purposes of including contributions to the Art in Public Places Fund in the project budget.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The proposed appropriation can be funded while still meeting service area and department target reductions for
2020. The Light & Power Enterprise Fund will be reimbursed by the DOLA grant, resulting in no negative impact
to the enterprise fund.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Energy Board will receive a staff report on this project at its September 10, 2020 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. State Acknowledgement of Application and Grant Award (PDF)
2. Grant Agreement Terms (PDF)
3. Scope of Project (PDF)
2.1
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (9498 : SR 113 Aztlan DOLA Grant)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 113, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS
FOR THE NORTHSIDE AZTLAN RESILIENCE HUB PROJECT
WHEREAS, in the summer of 2019, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
launched the Renewable/Clean Energy Challenge grant program to support energy efficiency
efforts that align with needs and opportunities identified by local governments and will help the
State of Colorado reach its 2040 100% renewable energy goal; and
WHEREAS, DOLA solicited Clean Energy Challenge grant projects with multiple
objectives that targeted renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy conservation efforts;
supported innovations in renewable energy, and served populations with the greatest need; and
WHEREAS, in December 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic impacted Colorado
communities and City facilities, the City filed a Clean Energy Challenge grant application detailing
a $425,000 project to create a resiliency hub at the Northside Aztlan recreation center by adding
off-grid energy storage and management capabilities through battery systems to enable operation
in emergencies where the electric grid may be impacted (“Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub
project”); and
WHEREAS, throughout 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City used the
Northside Aztlan Center property and facilities for waves of community sheltering and resiliency
service efforts, through which the City demonstrated the community need and viability of the
proposed Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub project; and
WHEREAS, DOLA selected the Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub project for a Clean
Energy Challenge grant award of $200,000, conditioned on a $200,000 local fund match by the
City, which staff has identified is available in the 2020 Utilities Energy Services budget from
anticipated underspending due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, accepting the DOLA grant funds and commitment of matching funds, in
conjunction with Keep Fort Collins Great monies and other community funding, to complete the
Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub project will serve utility ratepayers by enabling installation of
energy system features in a community emergency facility that will lower demands on the City’s
electric grid and leverage outside funding to reduce the financial impact on the Electric Utility
enterprise fund (“Light & Power Fund”) for the project; and
WHEREAS, appropriating the DOLA grant and other matching and complementary
financial resources described in this Ordinance to complete the Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub
project benefits public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Collins and serves the
public purpose of ensuring more stable standalone operation of the facility as a community
emergency resource center ahead of the next pandemic or emergency; and
2.2
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Ordinance No. 113, 2020 (9498 : SR 113 Aztlan DOLA Grant)
-2-
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9, of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon
recommendation of the City Manager, 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 Light &
Power Fund and will not cause the total amount appropriated in the Light & Power 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, upon
recommendation of the City Manager, 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, the City Manager has recommended the transfer of $25,000 from the Keep
Fort Collins Great Fund to the Light & Power Fund for the Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub
project and determined that the purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains
unchanged; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the transfer of $200,000 from the
Utilities Energy Services operating budget to the Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub project and
determined that the proposed transfer is from an account in which the amount appropriated exceeds
the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the appropriation ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from unanticipated grant revenue in the
Light & Power Fund the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000) for
expenditure in the Light & Power Fund for the Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub project and
appropriated therein.
Section 3. That the unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount of TWENTY
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000) is hereby authorized for transfer from the Keep Fort
Collins Great Fund to the Light & Power Fund for the Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub project
and appropriated therein.
2.2
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Ordinance No. 113, 2020 (9498 : SR 113 Aztlan DOLA Grant)
-3-
Section 4. That the unexpended and unencumbered appropriated amount of TWO
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($200,000) is hereby authorized for transfer from the
Energy Services operating budget to the Northside Aztlan Resilience Hub project.
Section 5. That the DOLA Renewable/Clean Energy Challenge grant program terms
and conditions, as provided to the City, are approved and agreed to as a condition of accepting the
grant funds without entering into a separate grant contract or intergovernmental agreement with
the State.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
September, A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
2.2
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Ordinance No. 113, 2020 (9498 : SR 113 Aztlan DOLA Grant)
Agenda Item 3
Item # 3 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Richard Anderson, Sr. Manager, Building Devt. and Review
Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, Comm. Devt. & Neighborhood Serv.
Claire Havelda, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2020, Adopting the 2020 National Electric Code Standards.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 2020, adopts the most up -to-date
electrical code that will align the City and the minimum St ate allowed Electrical Code. The National Electrical
Code (NEC) as Adopted by the State of Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) is the standard
for all electrical installations in the State. By aligning our local adoptions with DORA, we will b e in line with the
minimum life safety requirement for electrical installations and repairs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 114, 2020 (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 35
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 15, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Richard Anderson, Sr. Manager, Building Devt. and Review
Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, Comm. Devt. & Neighborhood Serv.
Claire Havelda, Legal
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 114, 2020, Adopting the 2020 National Electric Code
Standards.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to adopt the most up-to-date electrical code that will align the City and the minimum
State allowed Electrical Code. The National Electrical Code (NEC) as Adopted by the State of Colorado
Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) is the standard for all electrical installations in the State. By aligning
our local adoptions with DORA, we will be in line with the minimum life safety requirement for electrical
installations and repairs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 1924, the City has periodically reviewed, amended, and adopted the latest nationally recognized building
standards available for the times. The City has updated the minimum construction standards sixteen (16) times
since 1924.
This Ordinance will replace the 1993 edition of National Electrical Code which was adopted by Ordinance No.
25, 1994 on March 1, 1994. This Code adoption is important for the following reasons:
In 2018 the Code Adoption Committee recommended to Council an amendment to the International
Building Code (IBC) to reference:
o Electrical. All references to the Electrical Code shall mean the electrical code currently in effect as
enacted by the State of Colorado.
Council Approved this recommendation and this adoption will align our Municipal Code with the intent of the
Code Committees amendment to the IBC.
Maintain the highest Insurance Services Office (ISO) insurance rating which affects homeowner insurance
rates in the community. The best score is achieved by adopting the most recent series of Codes within 12
months of issuance.
DORA has adopted the 2020 NEC effective August 1, 2020, and this will provide consistency and maintain
regulations in the region.
The 2015 City of Fort Collins Energy Policy has committed to adopting the newest International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC) Energy Code within 12 months of issuance. The adoption of the NEC will provide
code consistency with the rest of the adopted Codes.
Adopting each 3-year code cycle typically means Code changes are in small steps instead of large, costly
ones.
ATTACHMENT 1 3.1
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (9500 : SR 114 Electric Code)
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 2
The NEC standards are reviewed and voted on by code officials and construction industry professionals from
across the country and are updated and published every three years under the oversight of the National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA). The 2020 NEC represents the latest publication from NFPA for electrical installations
and repairs.
Review Process
The implementation of new building standards can have a dramatic impact on the construction industry and the
economy of the community. On March 16, 2020, DORA held a stakeholder meeting to discuss this proposed
rule change. There was no objection noted during this meeting or the meeting where the adoption was approved.
Updates to the 2020 NEC
The updates in the 2020 NEC adds additional life safety requirements. These minimum requirements are in
place to ensure the safety of the Electrical Contractors, Property Owners, Electrical Purveyors, First Responders,
and the end user.
Cost Impact to Construction
DORA has mandated the 2020 NEC as the minimum electrical code in the State of Colorado, there will be a
construction cost increase across the State for electrical installation, repairs, and maintenance work. Staff is not
recommending any amendments that will add any additional construction costs to the current state requirements.
Therefore, the construction costs will not increase above what is already incurred due to the adoption of the
2020 NEC by DORA.
Local Amendments Overview
Staff is proposing a few amendments as part of the Ordinance:
Staff is only proposing a few amendments to the NEC as part of the Ordinance.
Relocating the photovoltaic (PV) ready provision in our local amendment for the International Residential
Code (IRC) from part VIII Electrical of the IRC to part 3 Building Planning and Construction. This will maintain
these current requirements that Council approved with the adoption of the 2018 IRC.
The deletion of part VIII of the IRC to only reference the NEC as adopted by DORA for all electrical work
performed. Since DORA does not adopt the IRC for electrical work in the state, this will align the City with
the State requirement.
Other amendments to Chapter 5 include:
o Section 5-81 Short title
This is needed as part of the reorganization of this section.
o Section 5-82
To delete reference to the 1993 NEC and now reference the 2020 NEC.
Add a section that permits are required and reorganize this section to include provisions previously
housed in sections 5-83 and 5-84 regarding electrical standards for signs and penalties for
violations.
Background and History
When the City received notification that DORA was adopting the 2020 NEC, staff researched our current Code
provisions to see if they were aligned with these new standards. Staff found the last Electrical Code adoption
was for the 1993 NEC in 1994. Installations or repairs to electrical systems regulated by this 1993 code do not
meet the current minimum life safety requirements in the 2020 NEC. This Ordinance will align the City with
industry standards and allow contractors to utilize the 2020 NEC.
3.1
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (9500 : SR 114 Electric Code)
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 3
Intent of Recommending Local Amendments to the NEC
There are reasons for exploring local amendments to the NEC, including:
Consideration of the Climate Action plan;
Maintaining current City specific requirements for:
o Photovoltaic (PV) ready
o Electric Vehicles (EV) ready
o Permitting
o Appeals process
o Violation process
o Electrical Sign materials
Council approved the Climate Action Plan in 2015, which includes a carbon neutral goal by 2050. Likely
steps toward achieving this will be increased renewable energy, energy storage systems, electric vehicle
infrastructure and smart grid technology. Adoption of the 2020 NEC provides increased support for the most
current technology, safe installation standards and enhanced responder safety. The 2020 NEC will align us
with industry standards and will ensure that electrical installation, repairs, and upgrades better support City
goals.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Alterations to and/or new construction of City-owned properties must comply with the provisions of the 2020
NEC. The scope of work will determine the financial impact to the City. In general, there are no financial impacts
expected with the adoption of the 2020 NEC.
Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) anticipates the following financial impacts which
are accommodated by the current CDNS budget:
Purchase of new NEC books, approximately $2,000. The necessary copies of the 2020 NEC will be
purchased for staff.
Staff training on the 2020 NEC is mostly accomplished in-house. When possible, staff will attend code
classes that are offered at various times throughout the year. This additional training cost is expected not to
exceed $1,500.
The anticipated budget impacts are included in budget and will have no negative impact on the Department’s
budget.
Triple Bottom Line Scan
The 2020 NEC adoption was not identified as one of the select major projects requiring a triple bottom line scan.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At the August 27, 2020 meeting of the Building Review Board, boardmembers voted unanimously to recommend
adoption of the 2020 NEC with local amendments.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Code of Colorado Regulations - Electrical Board (PDF)
2. Building Review Board Minutes - August 27, 2020 (PDF)
3. Building Review Board - Letter of Support (PDF)
4. Poudre Fire Authority - Letter of Support (PDF)
5. Fort Collins Energy Services - Letter of Support (PDF)
6. Public Comment - Northern Colorado Home Builder Association (PDF)
7. 2014-2017-2020 NEC Cost Analysis (PDF)
3.1
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (9500 : SR 114 Electric Code)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 114, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ADOPTING THE 2020 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE STANDARDS
WHEREAS, on March 1, 1994, City Council adopted the 1993 National Electrical Code
in Ordinance No. 25, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (“DORA”) adopted the
updated National Fire Protection Association standard number 70, hereinafter known as the
National Electrical Code, 2020 Edition (the “2020 NEC”), effective August 1, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the 2020 NEC was adopted by DORA as the minimum standards governing
the “planning, laying out, and installing or the making of additions, alterations, and repairs in the
installation of wiring apparatus and equipment for electrical light, heat, and power,” in the State
of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2019, City Council adopted the International Residential Code
(“IRC”) through Ordinance No. 095, 2019, which included reference to electrical standards; and
WHEREAS, the electrical standards in the current IRC are not recognized by DORA; and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to remove most of the IRC electrical standards from the
City Code; and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to retain City Code provisions regarding Electrical
Vehicle Ready and Photovoltaic Ready standards currently included in the IRC electrical standards
being deleted by this Ordinance by relocating them to other subsections of Section 5-30 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins (which adopts local amendments to the IRC); and
WHEREAS, Section 5-30 of the City Code governs amendments to the City’s adopted IRC
and is the place to which the provisions regarding the electrical Vehicle Ready and Photovoltaic
Ready standards will be relocated; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter II, Section 7, City Council may enact any
ordinance which adopts a code by reference in whole or in part provided that before adoption of
such ordinance the Council hold a public hearing thereon and that notice of the hearing is published
twice in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City, with one of such publications
occurring at least eight (8) days preceding the hearing and the other publication occurring at least
fifteen (15) days preceding the hearing, which notices have been published as required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it in the best interests of the residents of Fort Collins
and is necessary for the public’s health, safety and welfare to update the Fort Collins City Code
from the 1993 NEC standards to the updated 2020 NEC standards as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
3.2
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Ordinance No. 114, 2020 (9500 : SR 114 Electric Code)
-2-
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 5-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph (36) which reads in its entirety as follows and all subsequent
subparagraphs renumbered accordingly:
(36) R324.1.1 Photovoltaic Ready. All new single family dwellings shall be provided
with an empty metallic conduit of 3/4 inch (19.05 mm) minimum, installed from the
dwellings attic space beneath the roof which most likely would support the majority of
installed photovoltaic system, to a junction box located within 12 inches of the dwellings
electrical meter or connected directly to the dwellings electrical panel board.
Section 3. That Section 5-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Colins is hereby amended
by the addition of a new subparagraph (41) which reads in its entirety as follows and all subsequent
subparagraph are hereby renumbered accordingly:
(41) A new Section R332 Electric Vehicle Ready is hereby added to read as follows:
SECTION R332
Electrical Vehicle Ready
R332.1 General. All new single family dwellings with an attached garage or carport shall
be provided with an empty conduit of 3/4 inch (12.7 mm) minimum, installed from the
dwellings electrical panel board to a junction box in readily accessible location in the
garage or carport, capable of supporting a 50 ampere 220 volt outlet.
Section 4. That Section 5-30, subparagraph (93) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
is hereby amended to read as follows:
(93) Part VIII - Electrical is hereby deleted in its entirety. All electric work shall be
done in accordance with Section 5-80 of this Code.
Section 5. That Section 5-30 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
by the deletion of subparagraph (94) in its entirety and all remaining subparagraphs renumbered
accordingly:
Section 6. That Article III, Electric Standards contained in Chapter 5 of the
Code of the City of Fort Collins hereby amended to read as follows:
3.2
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Ordinance No. 114, 2020 (9500 : SR 114 Electric Code)
-3-
ARTICLE III. - ELECTRICAL STANDARDS*
Sec. 5-80. Adoption of standards.
Pursuant to the power and authority conferred on the City Council by Section 31-16-202,
C.R.S., and Article II, Section 7 of the Charter, there is hereby adopted by reference the National
Electrical Code, 2020 Edition, as promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, to have
the same force and effect as if fully set forth in this Code in every particular, and its provisions
shall be controlling, except as amended in Code § 5-82, within the City for the protection of the
public health and safety, and for the purpose of regulating electrical wiring methods and regulating
the installation, alteration and repair of electrical systems in the City.
Sec. 5-81. Short title.
The National Electric Code adopted in Code § 5-80 and as amended by Code § 5-82, together with
this § 5-81, may be known and cited as the City of Fort Collins Electrical Code.
Sec. 5-82. Amendments to code adopted.
National Electrical Code, 2020 Edition, adopted in Code § 5-80, is hereby amended in the
following respects by the addition of the following new Sections:
(1) Section 90.4.1. Permit Required. Any owner, owner’s authorized agent or contractor
who desires to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of
a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace
any electrical system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any
such work to be performed, shall first make application to the code official and obtain the
required permit for the work.
(2) Section 90.4.2. Appeals. Whenever the Administrative Authority disapproves an
application or refuses to grant a permit applied for or it is claimed that the provisions of
the National Electrical Code do not apply or that the true intent and meaning of the code
has been misconstrued or wrongly interpreted, the applicant or party in interest may appeal
such decision to the Building Review Board as provided for in Section 5-27(15) of the City
Code.
(3) Section 90.4.3. Fees. The fee for each permit shall be based on the value of the work
regulated herein, as set forth in 'Table No. 3-A, Building Permit Fees,' of the Building Code
of the City of Fort Collins, except that such fee shall not be less than fifteen dollars ($15.)
nor exceed the amount prescribed by Section 12-115-121, C.R.S.
(4) Section 90.4.4. Violation and penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or
corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or
demolish, equip, use or maintain an electrical system or equipment or cause or permit the
same to be done in violation of this Code. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of
3.2
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Ordinance No. 114, 2020 (9500 : SR 114 Electric Code)
-4-
the provisions of this Code shall be deemed guilty of a civil infraction and subject to the
penalties set forth in Section 1-15 of the City Code.
(5) Section 600.1.1. Use of approved materials; electric signs. Where the use of approved
materials, equipment or devices is required by the National Electrical Code, adopted in §
5-80, the label of or listing by the Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., will be accepted as an
approval. Alternate materials may be approved by the Building Official. All electrical signs
shall be approved before any permit for the installation or erection of such sign is granted.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
September, A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
3.2
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Ordinance No. 114, 2020 (9500 : SR 114 Electric Code)
Agenda Item 4
Item # 4 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager
Judy Schmidt, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2020, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and
Amending Ordinance No. 177, 2017, by Changing the Zoning Classification for Property Known as the Spring
Creek Rezoning REZ170001 – Correction of Map Errors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 15, 2020, make s minor corrections to
the legal description for a previously approved rezoning. On January 2, 2018, Council approved a rezoning
ordinance for the Spring Creek Rezone with six conditions, following a recommendation of approval from the
Planning and Zoning Board. In 2019, staff discovered errors in the legal description related to this rezoning
action. The revised Ordinance and attachments correct the errors that have been identified. The City of Fort
Collins is the applicant for this item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 115, 2020 (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 43
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 15, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager
Judy Schmidt, Legal
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 115, 2020, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins and Amending Ordinance No. 177, 2017, by Changing the Zoning Classification for Property Known as
the Spring Creek Rezoning REZ170001 – Correction of Map Errors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in
accordance with Section 1(f) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2019-064.
The purpose of this item is to make minor corrections to the legal description for a previously approved rezoning.
On January 2, 2018, Council approved a rezoning ordinance for the Spring Creek Rezone with six conditions,
following a recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Board. In 2019, staff discovered errors
in the legal description related to this rezoning action. The revised Ordinance and attachments correct the errors
that have been identified. The City of Fort Collins is the applicant for this item.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
This request was initiated by City staff to make minor corrections to the legal description and zoning map for a
previously approved rezoning. Following initial Council approval of the rezoning, technical errors were
discovered by staff, and Council action is required to correct the errors.
The rezoning of this property has already been approved by Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 177, 2017 on
January 2, 2018. The proposed corrections to the legal description and zoning map fully comply with the intent
of the rezoning action that occurred in 2018, and the previous analysis and findings related to the rezoning
request remain valid for the current request. The changes to the legal description and zoning map are technical
in nature and seek to accurately codify Council’s prior action.
ORIGINAL APPROVAL
The original rezoning resulted in adjustments to the location, size and boundary of two zo ne districts within a
19.55 parcel located at the southeast corner of South Shields Street and Hobbit Street. The Neighborhood
Commercial (N-C) zone was shifted south and reduced by 2.88 acres, while the Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone was shifted north and increased by 2.88 acres. As approved, the N-C zone was
reduced to 6.42 acres and the M-M-N zone was enlarged to 13.13 acres.
ATTACHMENT 1 4.1
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (9497 : SR 115 Spring Creek Rezone)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 2
On January 2, 2018, Council approved the Spring Creek Rezone with the following six conditions:
1. Development of the M-M-N parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this Rezoning, shall include
two-family dwellings along the entire eastern perimeter, forming a buffer and transition between any multi-
family buildings and houses in the adjoining neighborhoods, as generally indicated on the applicant's
Concept Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) with exceptions made for stormwater facilities, private parks,
landscaping and walkways.
2. Multi-family development on the M-M-N parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this Rezoning,
shall not contain any dwelling units that feature a rent-by-the-bedroom leasing model.
3. Development of the M-M-N zone district parcel, as adjusted and enlarged to 13.13 acres by this Rezoning,
shall be limited to residential permitted uses and accessory uses only.
4. The maximum number of multi-family dwelling units in the M-M-N zone district parcel shall be 365.
5. The maximum allowable building height of the two-family dwellings in both zone district parcels shall be two
stories.
6. Development of the N-C zone district parcel, as adjusted and reduced to 6.42 acres by this Rezoning, shall
be limited to the primary and supporting uses as envisioned by Principle LIV 36.1 of City Plan and Section
4.23(8) of the Land Use Code, and that residential permitted uses shall be limited to Accessory Uses, Two-
Family Dwellings and Mixed-Use Dwellings in accordance with Section 4.23(D)(2) of the Land Use Code.
A Concept Plan was submitted to the City alongside the initial rezoning request, which helped to inform all
interested parties of the development potential of the parcel, based on the adjusted zone districts. This Concept
Plan informed the staff recommendation and the six conditions of approval. However, it did not constitute a
formal development plan application. No formal development plans have been submitted to the City since the
rezoning was approved. Staff is aware of development interest in the property and may receive a formal
submittal in 2020 or 2021.
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR REZONING ACTIONS
Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi-judicial
versus legislative) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by Council
only if the proposed amendment is:
Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or
Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property.
Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi-judicial):
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses
surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land;
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on
the natural environment; and
Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development
pattern.
The staff report from the November 16, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board hearing provides an in-depth analysis
and findings related to:
Consistency of the rezoning with City Plan and the West Central Area Plan;
Changed conditions within and surrounding the rezoned property;
Compatibility with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject property;
Suitability of the proposed zone districts for the subject property;
Whether and the extent to which the proposed rezoning would result in significant adverse impacts to the
natural environment; and
Whether and the extent to which the proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly development
pattern.
4.1
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (9497 : SR 115 Spring Creek Rezone)
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 3
This 2017 staff report concluded that these criteria for rezoning were met, Council agreed and adopted
Ordinance No. 177, 2017, and this rezoning to correct errors in the legal description of the zoned parcels remains
consistent with these criteria.
The following links are provided as additional background information on the initial Council approval of the Spring
Creek Rezone:
Original Staff Report for Rezoning - Planning and Zoning Board (November 16, 2017):
fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning
Agenda Item Summary for City Council First Reading (December 19, 2017) and Second Reading (January
2, 2018): fcgov.com/cityclerk/agendas
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
This item received unanimous recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Board (5-0) at the
August 20, 2020, hearing.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
No comments have been received related to this item. Any communication received prior to the Council hearing
will be forwarded to Council for consideration. All requirements for public notice have been satisfied, as follows:
Sign Posting: March 16, 2020, Sign #538
Written Hearing Notice: Initial notice mailed March 12, 2020, with additional notices sent each time the
hearing was cancelled or rescheduled. Notice for the August 20 Planning and Zoning Board hearing and
September 15 City Council hearing was mailed August 6, 2020. Notices were mailed to 478 addresses.
Published Hearing Notice (Coloradoan): August 23, 2020
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised Map and Legal Description (PDF)
2. Planning & Zoning Board Staff Report (PDF)
3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
4.1
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (9497 : SR 115 Spring Creek Rezone)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 115, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 177, 2017, BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
SPRING CREEK REZONING REZ170001 – CORRECTION OF MAP ERRORS
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Land Use Code”)
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, on January 2, 2018, Fort Collins City Council adopted on second reading
Ordinance No. 177, 2017, amending the City Zoning Map by changing the zoning classification,
with 6 conditions, for certain property known as the Spring Creek Rezoning REZ170001 (the
“2017 Rezoning Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Rezoning Ordinance adjusted the location, size and boundary
between two zone districts within a 19.55 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of South
Shields Street and Hobbit Street, by shifting the Neighborhood Commercial (N-C) zone south and
reducing it by 2.88 acres to 6.42 acres and shifting the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(M-M-N) zone north and increasing it by 2.88 acres to 13.13 acres; and
WHEREAS, the 2017 Rezoning Ordinance contained minor typographical errors in the
text of the legal descriptions (the “Map Errors”) for the two parcels of the property described
therein (collectively, the “Property”) that require correction; and
WHEREAS, correction of the Map Errors will not modify the location, size of or the
boundary between the two zone district parcels located within the Property, but will only adjust
the written legal description of those parcels to correct errors in the written text of the legal
descriptions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning of the Property to correct the Map Errors does not alter
the intent, analysis, findings or conditions related to the 2017 Rezoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, no formal development plans have been submitted to the City since the 2017
Rezoning Ordinance was approved, although City staff is aware of development interest in the
property and may receive a formal submittal in 2020 so that time is of the essence to correct the
Map Errors in the legal description of and zoning map for the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this proposed rezoning of the Property to
correct these Map Errors (“Rezoning to Correct Map Errors”), including information, materials,
findings of fact and conclusions contained in the Agenda Item Summary and Agenda materials
prepared for this hearing, as well as the information, materials, public comment presented at this
hearing and Council discussion thereof; and
4.2
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Ordinance No. 115, 2020 (9497 : SR 115 Spring Creek Rezone)
-2-
WHEREAS, the City Council has found and determined that this proposed Rezoning to
Correct Map Errors continues to comply with all applicable Land Use Code requirements,
including the requirements established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also found and determined that this proposed Rezoning
to Correct Map Errors remains consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted
by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has further found that the Conditions included in the 2017
Rezoning Ordinance remain in compliance with the provisions of LUC Section 2.2.9 in that they
are necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of the LUC and have a reasonable nexus to
the potential impacts of the proposed rezoning and are roughly proportional in nature and extent
to such impacts, and that such Conditions are not impacted or modified by this proposed Rezoning
to Correct Map Errors; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered this
Rezoning to Correct Map Errors and has determined that said Property is the subject of this
Ordinance should be rezoned to correct the Map Errors as hereinafter provided.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code and as
modified by the 2017 Rezoning Ordinance is hereby amended to correct the legal description of
the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-N”) zone district to read as follows:
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 7 North, Range
69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, T7N, R69WR68W as
bearing South 00° 19' 01" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 23; thence along the West line of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 23, South 00° 19' 01" West, 713.81 feet; thence, South 89°
21' 59" East, 50.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along a curve concave to
the southeast having a central angle of 90° 19' 00" with a radius of 25.00 feet, an arc length
of 39.41 feet and the chord of which bears North 45° 28' 31" East, 35.45 feet; thence, South
89° 21' 59" East, 456.98 feet; thence along a curve concave to the northwest having a
central angle of 25° 59' 21" with a radius of 267.00 feet, an arc length of 121.11 feet and
the chord of which bears North 77° 38' 20" East, 120.07 feet; thence, South 89° 21' 59"
East, 435.72 feet; thence along a curve concave to the south thence along a curve concave
4.2
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Ordinance No. 115, 2020 (9497 : SR 115 Spring Creek Rezone)
-3-
to the north having a central angle of 13° 05' 59" with a radius of 518.12 feet, an arc length
of 118.46 feet and the chord of which bears South 84° 06' 19" West, 118.20 feet; thence,
South 10° 06' 09" East, 153.80 feet; thence along a curve concave to the eastsouth having
a central angle of 24° 24' 52" with a radius of 664.52 feet, an arc length of 283.16 feet and
the chord of which bears South 22° 22' 22" East, 281.02 feet; thence, South 55° 47' 39"
West, 20.96 feet; thence, South 07° 14' 10" East, 409.86 feet; thence, South 05° 39' 23"
East, 103.47 feet; thence, North 52° 49' 40" West, 174.60 feet; thence, North 22° 53' 52"
West, 9.39 feet; thence, North 72° 41' 45" West, 13.65 feet; thence, North 52° 45' 08" West,
71.61 feet; thence along a curve concave to the south having a central angle of 35° 29' 52"
with a radius of 400.00 feet, an arc length of 247.82 feet and the chord of which bears
North 78° 45' 38" West, 243.88 feet; thence, North 00° 19' 01" East, 284.42 feet; thence,
North 89° 40' 59" West, 647.89 feet; thence, North 00° 19' 01" East, 407.00 feet to the
Point of Beginning, containing 571,975 square feet or 13.131 acres more or less.
Section 3. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code as
modified by the 2017 Rezoning Ordinance is hereby amended to correct the legal description of
the Neighborhood Commercial (“N-C”) zone district south to read as follows:
A tract of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 7 North, Range
69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, County of Larimer, State of Colorado being
more particularly described as follows:
Considering the West line of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, T7N, R69WR68W as
bearing South 00° 19' 01" West and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 23; thence along the West line of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 23, South 00° 19' 01" West, 713.81687.86 feet; thence,
SouthNorth 89° 21' 59" EastWest, 50.00 feet; thence, South 00° 19' 01" West,
407.00470.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, South 89° 40' 59" East,
647.89747.89 feet; thence, South 00° 19' 01" West, 284.42 feet; thence along a curve
concave to the south having a central angle of 16° 57' 53" with a radius of 400.00 feet, an
arc length of 118.44 feet and the chord of which bears South 75° 00' 30" West, 118.00 feet;
thence, South 66° 20' 56" West, 227.30 feet; thence, South 68° 21' 24" West, 94.78 feet;
thence South 44° 26' 15" West, 213.35 feet; thence, South 59° 17' 14" West, 104.96 feet;
thence, North 00° 19' 01" East, 650.61 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 279,656
square feet or 6.420 acres more or less.
Section 4. That this Rezoning to Correct Map Errors shall operate to correct, modify
and supersede the legal descriptions of the parcels described in Ordinance 117, 2017; all other
provisions of Ordinance 17, 2017, shall remain in full force and effect, including the Conditions
set forth therein.
Section 5. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said
Zoning Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
4.2
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Ordinance No. 115, 2020 (9497 : SR 115 Spring Creek Rezone)
-4-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
September 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
4.2
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Ordinance No. 115, 2020 (9497 : SR 115 Spring Creek Rezone)
Agenda Item 5
Item # 5 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager
Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, Comm. Devt. & Neighborhood Serv.
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2020, Suspending Certain Provisions of the City's Land Use Code to
Permit Temporary Use of Certain Non-Residential Buildings for Child Care Centers in Response to the COVID -
19 Pandemic.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Read ing on September 15, 2020, will exempt certain child care
uses from development review and Land Use Code requirements through May 28, 2021. The COVID -19
pandemic has created a need for distributed learning and daycare sites, but the number of buildings al ready
approved for child care in the community is too limited to meet current demands. This Ordinance would allow
for child care uses to operate within buildings that have not previously been approved for such use, provided
all applicable health and life safety requirements have been met. It would exempt child care centers, as
defined in the Land Use Code, from the development review process for a limited timeframe, aligned to the
2020-21 academic school year, to allow for remote learning and daytime care of children. Compliance with
building code, fire code, health department requirements, and state licensing would still be required, as
applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading.
ATTACHMENTS
1. First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (PDF)
2. Ordinance No. 116, 2020 (PDF)
5
Packet Pg. 51
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY September 15, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager
Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, Comm. Devt. & Neighborhood Serv.
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 116, 2020, Suspending Certain Provisions of the City's Land Use Code to
Permit Temporary Use of Certain Non-Residential Buildings for Child Care Centers in Response to the COVID-
19 Pandemic.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is consideration of an Ordinance exempting certain child care uses from development
review and Land Use Code requirements through May 28, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a need
for distributed learning and daycare sites, but the number of buildings already approved for child care in the
community is too limited to meet current demands. This Ordinance would allow for child care uses to operate
within buildings that have not previously been approved for such use, provided all applicable health and life
safety requirements have been met. It would exempt child care centers, as defined in the Land Use Code, from
the development review process for a limited timeframe, aligned to the 2020-21 academic school year, to allow
for remote learning and daytime care of children. Compliance with building code, fire code, health department
requirements, and state licensing would still be required, as applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
PURPOSE AND NEED
As a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, local school districts have implemented virtual and hybrid
learning models, all of which require students to conduct learning away from school buildings for at least part of
the school week. Many parents are not able to directly care for their children or supervise virtual learning and
are instead seeking child care services during standard school hours. Many families cannot afford child care
within their home to facilitate remote learning, and will need support from local child care and education
providers.
There is growing interest in the temporary use of churches, vacant commercial spaces, neighborhood
clubhouses, and other non-residential buildings to provide space (outside of schools) for education and child
care. However, because child care has not been previously approved as a designated land use for many of
these sites, a development review process and site improvements would be required in most instances. Site
improvements that may be required include: landscaping, changes in parking lot configuration, screening of trash
and recycling facilities, sidewalk repair, right-of-way or easement dedications, bicycle parking, lighting upgrades,
stormwater management, and utility upgrades.
ATTACHMENT 1 5.1
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (9501 : SR 116 LUC Childcare)
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 2
Support facilities for child care and remote learning are an urgent need in Fort Collins, particularly with the school
year already underway. Development review and site construction are lengthy and costly processes that do not
support the rapid implementation of temporary child care sites in response to the current need. This Ordinance
would allow child care and virtual learning to operate within buildings that have not previously been approved for
such use. It would exempt child care operations from the development review process for a limited timeframe,
aligned to the 2020-21 academic school year. Because health and life safety are still critically important to
protect children and other occupants, compliance with building code, fire code, health department requirements,
and state licensing would still be required.
It is anticipated that the public health emergency will be resolved (e.g., as a result of a widely available vaccine)
by the end of the 2020-21 academic school year. If current conditions still exist at that time, the timeframe of
the Ordinance could be extended to match evolving public health conditions.
PARAMETERS FOR EXEMPTION
Under this temporary Ordinance, the following parameters and limits would apply for any Land Use Code (“LUC”)
exemptions:
Applicable to buildings within City limits with existing approvals for the land uses listed below.
Time-limited exemption to match the 2020-21 academic school year for Poudre School District and
Thompson School District (ending on May 28, 2021)
A temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) must be issued by the City Building Services Division to ensure
health and life safety requirements have been addressed. The end date of the TCO will be no later than
May 28, 2021.
o A building permit and needed improvements may be necessary to address building code requirements
prior to occupancy.
o All applicable state licensing, building code, fire code, Americans with Disabilities Act, and health and
safety requirements must still be satisfied
o Capacity for individual classrooms and/or the building overall will be limited based on building code, fire
code, County health, and state licensing requirements.
This Ordinance would temporarily exempt childcare centers, as defined in the LUC, from the requirement to
bring the site into compliance with the LUC during the time period specified by the TCO; however, these
improvements may be required through subsequent development review if the use extends beyond the
approved timeframe.
If a child care center desires to extend operations beyond the 2020-21 school year, the property owner or
operator must initiate the applicable development review process no later than May 28, 2021.
o The development review process must be diligently pursued according to the timeframes prescribed in
LUC Section 2.2.11 - Step 11: Lapse.
o At the completion of the development review process, if approved, the property owner or operator must
complete all required site and building improvements to satisfy the requirements of the development
review process in order to receive a full Certificate of Occupancy (CO).
o An operator may be allowed to continue operating while they are diligently pursuing the development
review process and installation of site/building improvements, at the discretion of the Community
Development & Neighborhood Services Director.
Child care centers would be permitted in buildings with the following designated land uses, subject to the
parameters described above:
Adult Day/Respite Care Center Offices, Financial Services, and Clinics
Clubs and Lodges Personal & Business Service Shops
Community Facilities Place of Worship/Assembly
Conference/Convention Center Public/Private school
Entertainment Facilities & Theatres Retail Establishment
Exhibit Halls Homeless Shelters
Health & Membership Clubs Day Shelters
5.1
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (9501 : SR 116 LUC Childcare)
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 3
Limited Indoor Small Scale Reception Center
Mixed use dwellings (non-residential portion only) Unlimited indoor recreational uses and facilities
Neighborhood support and recreational facilities, including clubhouses
Residential uses are not included in this exemption for the following reasons:
“Child care center” is defined by the LUC to only include operations serving “seven or more children
under the age of sixteen years who are not related to the owner, operator or manager.” This does not
include “family child care homes,” as defined by the State of Colorado.
In-home daycares and homeschooling “pods” generally would not fall under the definition of “child care
center” and would not require development review, even without the exemption proposed by this
ordinance.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This Ordinance could result in a loss of revenue for the City in the form of development review fees and payments
associated with development review improvements. However, staff time would not be spent on the tasks that
such fees would cover, so the fiscal impact would be negligible.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Staff has been meeting with child care providers and property owners to understand barriers and discuss
alternative locations for virtual learning and child care during the COVID-19 pandemic. This outreach has
assisted in identifying the need for LUC exemptions to support the rapid deployment of child care during the
current public emergency.
5.1
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: First Reading Agenda Item Summary, September 15, 2020 (w/o attachments) (9501 : SR 116 LUC Childcare)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 116, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CITY’S LAND USE CODE
TO PERMIT TEMPORARY USE OF CERTAIN NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FOR
CHILD CARE CENTERS IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is threatened with serious injury and damage,
consisting of widespread human and economic impact caused by the Novel Coronavirus 2019
(“COVID-19”); and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, in order to undertake emergency measures to protect the
life, health, safety and property of the citizens of the City and persons conducting business therein,
and to attempt to minimize the loss of human life and the preservation of property, the City
Manager, as the Director of the City’s Office of Emergency Management, proclaimed a “local
emergency” in accordance with Section 2-671(a)(1) of the City Code and activated the Emergency
Operations Plan established pursuant to Section 2-673 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has, with the adoption of Resolution 2020-030, extended the
City Manager’s proclamation of local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado declared its first Emergency Disaster Declaration
related to COVID-19 on March 11, 2020, and the declared emergency remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, local school districts have
implemented hybrid learning models that require students to participate in remote learning away
from school buildings for some or all of the school week; and
WHEREAS, many parents of students are unable to directly care for or supervise their
children’s remote learning at home during the school day and cannot afford in-home child care, all
of which has created an urgent need for more affordable and available child care centers, as such
term is defined in the LUC, to provide child care and to assist with remote learning; and
WHEREAS, there is community interest in the temporary use of churches, vacant
commercial spaces, neighborhood clubhouses, and other non-residential buildings as child care
centers; and
WHEREAS, approving a child care center use under the City’s Land Use Code (“LUC”)
development review procedure can be a lengthy and costly process often times requiring site
improvements; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the urgent need for child care centers and remote learning
supervision alternatives for families, the City Council wishes to temporarily suspend certain LUC
requirements to allow buildings that have been previously approved for certain uses to be used as
child care centers without following the normal development review process; and
5.2
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Ordinance No. 116, 2020 (9501 : SR 116 LUC Childcare)
-2-
WHEREAS, the temporary suspension will correspond with the 2020-2021 academic
school year, after which any child care center allowed to temporarily operate pursuant to this
Ordinance that desires to continue operation will need to be approved pursuant to the applicable
LUC requirements and development review process; and
WHEREAS, compliance with existing health and safety requirements such as the building
code, fire code, health department requirements, and state licensing will continue to be required
for buildings temporarily approved for child care centers pursuant to this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in order to help address the urgent need for child care centers necessitated by
the COVID-19 public health emergency, the City Council finds it is necessary for public health,
safety and welfare, and in the best interests of the City and its residents, to temporarily suspend
the application of certain LUC requirements to facilitate the operation of child care centers using
buildings that have already been approved for certain uses.
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. Any building on a lot that is currently approved for any of the below uses,
as such uses are defined in the LUC, is eligible for use as child care center (“Eligible Building”)
regardless of whether child care center is a permitted use in the zone district where the building is
located:
a. adult day/respite care centers
b. clubs and lodges
c. community facilities
d. convention and conference centers
e. day shelters
f. entertainment facilities and theatres
g. exhibit halls
h. health and membership clubs
i. homeless shelters
j. limited indoor recreation establishments
k. non-residential portion of mixed-use dwellings
l. neighborhood support/recreational facilities (including clubhouses)
m. offices, financial services, and clinics
n. personal and business service shops
o. places of worship or assembly
p. public/private schools
q. retail establishments
r. small scale reception centers
s. unlimited indoor recreational uses and facilities
5.2
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Ordinance No. 116, 2020 (9501 : SR 116 LUC Childcare)
-3-
Section 3. An Eligible Building in which a child care center is proposed to be operated
pursuant to this Ordinance is exempt from:
a. LUC requirements to obtain an approved Project Development Plan and Final Plan or
amendment to an existing approved development plan;
b. LUC Article 3 General Development Standards; and
c. LUC Article 4 zone district use restrictions on child care centers in certain zones.
Section 4. To operate a child care center pursuant to this Ordinance, the owner or authorized
occupant:
a. Must obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy (“TCO”) from the City Building Services
Division prior to operating a child care center and possess a valid TCO throughout
operation of the child care center;
b. May be required to obtain a building permit to address building code requirements prior to
occupancy and to satisfy those requirements before issuance of the TCO for the child care
center; and
c. Must comply with all other applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including building and
fire codes, City Code, public health orders, state licensing requirements, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act prior to commencing and throughout operation of a child care center.
Section 5. All other applicable provisions of the City Code and any other applicable
laws, rules, and regulations, including, but not limited to health and safety requirements, will
continue to apply to any child care center operating pursuant to this Ordinance.
Section 6. Should a child care center operating pursuant to this Ordinance fail to
comply with the terms of the TCO or applicable laws as described in Sections 4 and 5 above, the
City Building Official in his or her sole discretion may revoke or temporarily suspend the TCO
and the child care center shall not operate until a new TCO is issued or the suspension is lifted.
Section 7. The waiver of LUC requirements pursuant to this Ordinance and any TCO
issued to allow the temporary operation of a child care center pursuant to this Ordinance shall
automatically terminate on May 28, 2021, and any child care center operating pursuant to this
Ordinance shall cease operating unless an extension has been granted pursuant to Section 9.
Section 8. Upon termination of the use of the Eligible Building as a child care center
pursuant to this Ordinance, the prior approved use shall remain valid pursuant to the terms of its
prior approval, the LUC, and applicable law, rules, and regulations. Use of an Eligible Building
as a child care center pursuant to this Ordinance shall not be deemed abandonment of a lawful
nonconforming use pursuant to LUC Division 1.5 or Existing Limited Permitted Use pursuant to
LUC Division 1.6, however, LUC Sections 1.5.3 and 1.6.7 regarding active utilization of
nonconforming and limited permitted uses shall continue to apply.
5.2
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Ordinance No. 116, 2020 (9501 : SR 116 LUC Childcare)
-4-
Section 9. The Director of the Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Department (“Director”), in his or her sole discretion and after consultation with the Building
Official may temporarily allow any child care center operating pursuant to this Ordinance to
continue operating pursuant to the issued TCO provided the owner or authorized occupant has
submitted a development application to the City to approve a child care center pursuant to the LUC
prior to May 28, 2021, and the applicant diligently pursues seeking approval of its application and
the completion of any required development improvements. In deciding whether to allow a child
care center to temporarily continue operating while a development application is being reviewed,
the Director may consider compliance issues and impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The
Director may, in his or her sole discretion and after consultation with the Building Official, revoke
or suspend the temporary permission to continue at any time for reasons including the applicant’s
failure to diligently pursue approval of its development application, failure to complete
development improvements, or non-compliance with the terms of its TCO.
Section 10. Operation of a child care center pursuant to this Ordinance shall not create
any right or expectation that any such child care center shall be able to operate on or after May 28,
2021, and any party operating a child care center pursuant to this Ordinance is deemed to
acknowledge the temporary nature of any such child care center.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 15th day of
September, A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
5.2
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Ordinance No. 116, 2020 (9501 : SR 116 LUC Childcare)
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Travis Storin, Interim Chief Finance Officer
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Pertaining to Annual Adjustment Ordinance.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 117, 2020, Appropriating Additional Revenue and Authorizing Transfers of
Appropriations in Various City Funds.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 118, 2020, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves a nd Authorizing Transfers of
Appropriations in Various City Funds.
The purpose of these Annual Adjustment Ordinances is to combine dedicated and additional revenues or prior-
year reserves that need to be appropriated before the end of the year to cover the related expenses that were
not anticipated and, therefore, not included in the 2020 annual budget appropriation. The additional revenue is
primarily from fees, charges, rents, contributions, donations and grants that have been paid to City
departments to offset specific expenses.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
These Ordinances appropriate additional revenue and prior year reserves in various City funds and authorize
the transfer of appropriated amounts between funds and/or projects. The City Charter permits Council to
appropriate additional revenue received as a result of rate or fee increases or new revenue sources, such as
grants and reimbursements. The City Charter also permits Council to provide, by ordinance, for payment of
any expense from prior year reserves. Additionally, it authorizes Council to transfer any unexpended
appropriated amounts from one fund to another upon recommendation of the City Manager, provided that th e
purpose for which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; the purpose for which they
were initially appropriated no longer exists; or the proposed transfer is from a fund or capital project account in
which the amount appropriated exceeds the amount needed to accomplish the purpose specified in the
appropriation ordinance.
The City Manager is recommending all of the proposed appropriations in these Ordinances and has
determined that they are available and previously unappropriated fro m their respective funds and will not
cause the total amount appropriated from such funds to exceed the current estimate of actual and anticipated
revenues to be received in each such fund during this fiscal year.
6
Packet Pg. 59
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 2
The City Manager is also recommending th e proposed transfers in these Ordinances and has determined that
the purposes for which these transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged.
If these appropriations are not approved, the City will have to reduce expenditures even though revenue a nd
reimbursements have been received to cover those expenditures.
The table below is a summary of the expenses in each fund that make up the increase in requested
appropriations. Also included are transfers between funds and/or projects which do not incr ease net
appropriations, but per the City Charter, require Council approval to make the transfer. A table with the specific
use of prior year reserves appears at the end of this Agenda Item Summary.
Funding Additional
Revenue
Prior Year
Reserves
Transfers TOTAL
General Fund $1,047,839 $340,623 $0 $1,388,462
Capital Projects Fund 15,800 0 23,650 39,450
Equipment Fund 347,587 0 0 347,587
KFCG Fund (PFA) 0 52,335 0 52,335
Transit Services Fund 53,670 0 0 53,670
Transportation Services Fund 5,499 1,323,650 0 1,329,149
Transportation CEF Fund 0 0 0 0
GRAND TOTAL $1,470,395 $1,716,608 $23,650 $3,210,653
A. GENERAL FUND
1. Title: Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebates
Finance requests the appropriation of $291,518 to cover the amount due for the 2019 Manufacturing
Equipment Use Tax Rebate program as established in Chapter 25, Article II, Division 5, of the Municipal
Code. The rebate program was established to encourage investment in new manufacturing equipment by
local firms. Vendors have until December 31st of the following year to file for the rebate. This item
appropriates the use tax funds to cover the payment of the rebates.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate) $291,518
FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $291,518
2. Title: Northern Colorado Drug Task Force Rent
Real Estate Services, part of the Operation Services Department, has a rental agreement with the
Northern Colorado Drug Task Force (NCTDF). NCDTF pays $63,748 annually to Real Es tate Services,
and this revenue is used to pay the mortgage on the building.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Building Rental) $63,748
FOR: Building Mortgage $63,748
3. Title: 212 West Mountain Avenue Insurance Payment for Water Damage
Operation Services will be receiving an insurance payment for all costs associated with water damage at
212 West Mountain Avenue. This request is to appropriate those funds to cover the expenses of repairs
from the water damage.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Insurance Proceeds) $167,648
FOR: Water Damage Repair $167,648
6
Packet Pg. 60
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 3
4. Parks’ Forestry Division is requesting appropriation of new revenues, as well as prior year
reserves. The characteristics of the two funding sources are described below:
a. $32,550 - Forestry Unanticipated Revenue - This request appropriates various additional revenues for
the Forestry Division in 2020. These funds will be used for tree plantings.
b. $1,350 - Forestry City Give Donations - This request appropriates the balance of City Give Reserves
for Forestry from year end 2019. These funds will be used for tree plantings.
TOTAL APPROPRIATION
FROM: Additional Revenue (Forestry Division) $ 32,550
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (City give Donations) $ 1,350
FOR: Tree Plantings $ 33,900
5. Fort Collins Police Services (FCPS) has received additional revenue from various sources. A
listing of these items follows:
a. $36,356 - Battle Grant 2020-2021 - The Beat Auto Theft Through Law Enforcement (BATTLE) Grant is
a state funded grant for overtime for officers to reduce auto theft and bring those who steal
automobiles to justice. This grant pays for overtime on a reimbursable basis. This grant also includes
the expenses for the purchase and installation of an automatic license plate reader (ALPR).
b. $750 - Explorers Gift through City Give - The Police Explorers help with many tasks at Santa Cops,
and as a thank you, Santa Cops has given a gift for the use of the Explorers.
c. $5,000 - 2020 Click It or Ticket Grant - In 2020, Police Services was awarded a Click it or Ticket Grant
from the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for officers to work overtime to conduct
enforcement activities.
d. $19,061 - Police Reimbursement from City of Loveland for CRISP project software - As a part of the
Colorado Regional Information Sharing Program (CRISP) upgrade project some additional software for
Easy Street needed to be purchased for the City of Loveland. Based on the contracts and agreements
in place, Loveland needed additional software, but the City of Fort Collins needed to make the
purchase. The City of Loveland has reimbursed the City of Fort Collins for the purchase.
e. $11,745 - HVE Grant 2020-2021 - In 2020, Police Services was awarded a High Visibility Impaired
Driving Enforcement grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation to pay for overtime for DUI
enforcement during specific holiday time periods.
f. $66,580 - Miscellaneous Police Revenue - FCPS receives revenue from fees related to the costs of
records requests along with other miscellaneous revenue.
g. $10,831 - Remittance from Larimer County Court - As a part of the City contribution to the Northern
Colorado Drug Taskforce, any Drug Offender Surcharge, or Court Ordered Restitution that is rem itted
from Larimer County Court to Fort Collins Police, is then passed along to the NCDTF. Any additional
restitution that is collected by FCPS is additionally passed along to the NCDTF.
h. $133,490 - Police Overtime Reimbursement - Police Services help schedule security and traffic control
for large events. Since these events are staffed by officers outside of their normal duties, officers are
paid overtime. The organization who requested officer presence is billed for the costs of the officers'
overtime. FCPS partners with Larimer County to staff events at The Ranch. Police receives
reimbursement from Larimer County for officers’ hours worked at Ranch events.
TOTAL APPROPRIATION
FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $ 36,356
FROM: Additional Revenue (City Give Donation) $ 750
FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $ 5,000
FROM: Additional Revenue (Reimbursement from City of Loveland) $ 19,061
FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $ 11,745
FROM: Additional Revenue (Miscellaneous Police Revenue) $ 66,580
FROM: Additional Revenue (Remittance from Larimer County Court) $ 10,831
FROM: Additional Revenue (Police Overtime Reimbursement) $133,490
6
Packet Pg. 61
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 4
FOR: Police Overtime, Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) $ 36,356
FOR: Police Explorers within Community and Special Services $ 750
FOR: Police Overtime for Seatbelt Enforcement $ 5,000
FOR: CRISP Project Software $ 19,061
FOR: Police Administration $ 66,580
FOR: Northern Colorado Drug Task Force Contribution $ 10,381
FOR: Police Services $133,490
6. Title: For Fort Collins Partnership
This is a contribution made through the Midtown Business Improvement District to support the For Fort
Collins campaign. In response to the crippling impacts the Coronavirus and stay-at-home orders have had
on our local business community, the Economic Health Office in partnership with CPIO, will implement a
marketing and public relations campaign to encourage community members to support local, especially t he
most impacted industries.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Midtown Business Improvement District) $5,000
FOR: ‘For Fort Collins’ Campaign to Encourage Local Business Support $5,000
7. Title: Radon Kits
Environmental Services sells radon test kits at cost as part of its program to reduce lung-cancer risk from
in-home radon exposure. This appropriation would recover kit -sales for the purpose of restocking radon
test kits.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Radon Test Kit Sales) $1,554
FOR: Radon Test Kit Purchases $1,554
8. Title: Urban Sustainability Directors Network - Transforming Climate Planning and Practice Grant
In 2019, the City, along with 10 other U.S. cities, was awarded a grant from the Urban Sustainability
Directors Network to develop a framework for how to transform climate planning and practice to be
centered in equity. While the total grant is $89,500, per the award letter, the majority of the grant was to be
paid directly to Arup and Movement Strategy Center for payment of their ser vices for the project. This
portion ($8,500) was awarded to the City to fund part of the City's contractual position's salary to advance
this work through the remainder of 2020. The development of this framework is intended to scale to the
over 220 cities and counties across U.S. and Canada who are members of USDN and who are centering
their climate efforts in equity. This work is aligned with the City's Our Climate Future efforts, the combined
update to the Energy Policy, Road to Zero Waste, and Climate Action Plans.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $8,500
FOR: Portion of Contractual Position to Develop Framework $8,500
9. Title: Municipal Industrial Waste Opportunities Analysis
Funds for the Municipal Industrial Waste Opportunities Analysis were allocated in 2019 after being
recommended by the interdepartmental Waste Innovation Program, but the project would not be
completed until 2020. With the restriction on PO carryforwards, we elected to have the allocation return to
the reserves to be reallocated in 2020 once the project was completed. This Program has identified
current reuse or recycle waste programs that could be at risk, but has also identified opportunities for
additional reuse and recycling.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Waste Innovation) $29,155
FOR: Waste Innovation Program $29,155
6
Packet Pg. 62
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 5
10. Title: Land Bank Operational Expenses
This request is intended to cover expenses related to the land bank property maintenance needs for 2020.
As expenses vary from year-to-year, funding is requested annually mid-year to cover these costs.
Expenses for 2020 include general maintenance of properties, raw water and sewer expenses, electricity,
and other as applicable.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank) $18,600
FOR: Land Bank Expenses $18,600
11. Title: Restorative Justice Services Additional Grant Funding
Restorative Justice (RJ) Services received $7,800 in additional grant funds to add to an already active
grant from CO Dept. of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice Juvenile Diversion grant # 2021-DV-21-
30008-08. The grant will pay for additional hours for the half -time supervisor of Mediation and Restorative
Justice to provide additional support for RJ programming. Providing RJ services virtually is requiring more
than 100% more staff time than delivering in person services. This will add an additional 5 hours per week
of the supervisor's time from October 2020 through June 2021.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $7,800
FOR: Restorative Justice Services Program $7,800
12. Title: 2020 DTS and Finance Charges
This item is administrative in nature; it will not increase expenses to the City as expenses exist today. In
past years, fees to finance and IT for support services provided to the Development Review Center were
not properly classified as expenses to the Development Review Center, but rather as direct revenue from
the customer. This practice was out of compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
During 2020, journal entries have been posted monthly to ensure GAAP compliance for revenue/expense.
As this was corrected during 2020, no expense budget was in existence for these items. These entries
and the needed budget reflect no change in cash flows for the City. In 2021, t he budget has been
adjusted to ensure appropriate accounting standards are being followed for revenue recognition.
FROM: Previously Acknowledged Additional Revenue (Development Review) $ 441,000
FOR: Development Review Center Expenses (IT Support) $ 350,000
FOR: Development Review Center Expenses (Finance Support) $ 91,000
13. Title: Community Economic Development Support - Platte River Power Authority
Since 1982, Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) has granted funds annually to support municipalities'
economic development efforts. This year, the City will receive $36,226. In accordance with PRPA
Resolution No. 32-12, payments will be directed to help support the Small Business Capital Access Loan
Program.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $36,226
FOR: Small Business Capital Access Loan Program $36,226
B. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. Title: Gardens on Spring Creek Capital Project donation through City Give
The Gardens on Spring Creek received an additional $15,800 from the Friends of the Gardens on Spring
Creek to help with remaining expenditures from the capital project to complete the Master Plan of the
Gardens.
FROM: Additional Revenue (City Give Donation) $15,800
6
Packet Pg. 63
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 6
FOR: Master Plan of the Gardens on Spring Creek $15,800
2. Title: Engineering Payment In Lieu for Projects (see item #F4 for additional information)
Occasionally, when a development comes into the City, a major capital project is already planned along
the development's Right of Way (ROW) frontage. Typically, in the City's process, the developer is required
to put in amenities along the ROW (such as curb/gutter/sidewalk). When a major capital project is
planned, instead of having the developer build their frontage, the City collects a Payment in Lieu (PIL) a nd
applies that toward the Capital Project. This request appropriates PILs that have previously been collected
for 2 projects: One along Laporte Ave and one at the major intersection of College and Trilby.
FROM: Transfer from Transportation Services Fund $23,650
FOR: College and Trilby Intersection $19,250
FOR: Laporte Ave $ 4,400
C. EQUIPMENT FUND
1. Title: State CNG vehicle and Electric Charging infrastructure Grants
This revenue is from the Alt Fuels Colorado ($330,376) and Charg e Ahead ($17,211) grant programs
administered by the State Energy Office and the Regional Air Quality Council. Alt Fuels Colorado provides
80% reimbursement on the incremental cost of Natural Gas vehicles, while the Charge Ahead provides
infrastructure for vehicle charging stations.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Grants) $347,587
FOR: Natural Gas Vehicles & Charging Stations $347,587
D. KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND
1. Title: KFCG Reserve for Fire (PFA)
Requesting the Keep Fort Collins Great Res erve for Fire to pay for two FC911 Dispatch Consoles
($40,000) and for equipment (hydrafusion pump, chain saw and accessories, and a Stearns ice suit) for
the new Heavy Rescue Apparatus ($12,335).
FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Fire and Emergency Services) $52,335
FOR: Dispatch Consoles and Equipment $52,335
E. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND
1. Title: Purchase of Cutaways Hardware to be reimbursed by CSU
Purchase of 3 Intelligent Vehicle Network (IVN) Retrofits from Clever Devices for Cutaway Buses.
Hardware will provide ridership data for CSU. CSU has agreed to reimburse the City for this purchase.
FROM: Additional Revenue (CSU Reimbursement) $53,670
FOR: IVN Retrofits for Ridership Data $53,670
F. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. Title: FC Moves City Give FONDO Foundation Philanthropic donation
This is a donation from an organization who normally puts on an event every year to help benefit the Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) program. Even though they were not able to put on their event this y ear, they
were still able to raise and provide money to the City to help further the reach of the program. These
6
Packet Pg. 64
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 7
dollars go toward supplies and programming costs for the Safe Routes to School work that is done
annually.
FROM: Unanticipated Revenue (City Give Donation) $1,843
FOR: Safe Routes to School Program $1,843
2. Title: Snow & Ice Removal
The 2020 snow budget has been consumed due to large snow storms in February and March. The total
annual budget is $1.5 million and YTD spending is $1.9 million. Extremely cold temperatures require more
deicer material to keep the roads safe, which drives up the cost of snow operations significantly. Ice cutting
can be required due to the weather pattern where daytime thawing and nighttime freezing occur. Additional
funding of $1.3 million is requested to provide snow removal services from September through December
2020.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $1,300,000
FOR: Snow and Ice Removal $1,300,000
3. Title: 243 North College Sidewalk Improvements
The previous tenant of 243 North College Avenue never completed their obligated sidewalk improvement
work. The City still held the cash escrow from the previous tenant. The building was sold and vacated
before work was complete. With the new tenant moving in, additional work was required and the City
partnered with the new tenant to complete the sidewalk improvements that were needed. The money the
City used was from the prior tenant's escrow (which has already been recognized as revenue). Work was
completed in the spring.
FROM: Additional Revenue (Forfeited Escrow) $3,656
FOR: Sidewalk Improvements $3,656
4. Title: Engineering Payment In Lieu for Projects (see item #B2 for additional information)
Occasionally, when a development comes into the City, a major capital project is already planned along
the development’s Right of Way (ROW) frontage. Typically, in the City’s process, the developer is required
to put in amenities along the ROW (such as curb/gutter/sidewalk). When a major capital project is
planned, instead of having the developer build their frontage, the City collects a Payment in Lieu (PIL) and
applies that toward the Capital Project. This request appropriates PILs that have previously been collected
for two projects: One along Laporte Ave and one at the major intersection of College and Trilby.
FROM: Prior Year Reserves $23,650
FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $23,650
G. TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE FUND
1. Title: Transportation Capital Expansion Developer Reimbursements (transfer to Non-lapsing)
The Transportation Capital Expansion Fee (TCEF) Program reimburses development for eligible
improvements after they are constructed and accepted by the City. In the past, reimbursements were
always budgeted in lapsing funds, but this did not adequately portray the financial position of the overall
TCEF Fund. For major projects that are under construction, appropriating the estimated reimbursement
amounts into non-lapsing business units ensures that the City accounts for the financial liability that has
already been incurred.
FROM: Previously Appropriated Expenses (Lapsing Business Unit) $1,400,000
FOR: Transfer to Projects (Non-Lapsing Business Units in TCEF Fund) $1,400,000
6
Packet Pg. 65
Agenda Item 6
Item # 6 Page 8
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This Ordinance increases total City 2020 appropriations by $3,210,653. Of that amount, this Ordinance
increases General Fund 2020 appropriations by $1,388,462, including use of $340,623 in prior -year reserves.
Funding for the total increase to City appropriations is $1,470,395 from unanticipated revenue, $1,716,608
from prior-year reserves, and $23,650 from transfers between Funds.
The following is a summary of the items requesting prior -year reserves:
Item # Fund Use Amount
A1 General Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate 291,518
A4b General Forestry City Give Donations 1,350
A9 General Municipal Industrial Waste Opportunities Analysis 29,155
A10 General Land Bank Operational Expenses 18,600
D1 KFCG KFCG Reserve for Fire 52,335
F2 Transportation Services Snow & Ice Removal 1,300,000
F4 Transportation Services Engineering Payment In Lieu for Projects 23,650
Total Use of Prior Year Reserves: $1,716,608
6
Packet Pg. 66
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 117, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL REVENUE
AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS
IN VARIOUS CITY FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City has received additional revenue this fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City has received additional and previously acknowledged revenue that
has not been appropriated; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 9 of the City Charter permits the City Council, upon
recommendation of the City Manager, 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 is recommending the appropriations described herein and
has determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the
Funds named within Section 2 of this Ordinance and will not cause the total amount appropriated
in each Fund named within Section 2 of this Ordinance to exceed the current estimate of actual
and anticipated revenues to be received in each such Fund during this fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council, upon
recommendation by the City Manager, 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, the City Manager has recommended the transfer of $1,400,000 from lapsing
appropriations in the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund to non-lapsing projects in the
Transportation Capital Expansion Fee Fund and determined that the purpose for which the
transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is
necessary for the public’s health, safety and welfare and, therefore, wishes to authorize the
expenditures described in this Ordinance.
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.
Packet Pg. 67
-2-
Section 2. That there is hereby appropriated from the following Funds the amounts of
additional revenue set forth below to be expended for the purposes stated below.
A. GENERAL FUND
1. FROM: Additional Revenue (Building Rental) $63,748
FOR: Building Mortgage $63,748
2. FROM: Additional Revenue (Insurance Proceeds) $167,648
FOR: Water Damage Repair $167,648
3. FROM: Additional Revenue (Forestry Division) $32,550
FOR: Tree Plantings $32,550
4a. FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $36,356
FOR: Police Overtime, Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) $36,356
4b. FROM: Additional Revenue (City Give Donation) $750
FOR: Police Explorers within Community and Special Services $750
4c. FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $5,000
FOR: Police Overtime for Seatbelt Enforcement $5,000
4d. FROM: Additional Revenue (Reimbursement from City of Loveland) $19,061
FOR: CRISP Project Software $19,061
4e. FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $11,745
FOR: Police Overtime for DUI Enforcement $11,745
4f. FROM: Additional Revenue (Miscellaneous Police Revenue) $66,580
FOR: Police Administration $66,580
4g. FROM: Additional Revenue (Remittance from Larimer County Court) $10,831
FOR: Northern Colorado Drug Task Force Contribution $10,831
4h. FROM: Additional Revenue (Police Overtime Reimbursement) $133,490
FOR: Police Services $133,490
5. FROM: Additional Revenue (Midtown Business Improvement District
Contribution)
$5,000
FOR: “For Fort Collins” Campaign to Encourage Local Business
Support
$5,000
6. FROM: Additional Revenue (Radon Test Kit Sales) $1,554
Packet Pg. 68
-3-
FOR: Radon Test Kit Purchases $1,554
7. FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $8,500
FOR: Portion of Contractual Position to Develop Framework to
Transform Climate Planning and Practice to be Centered in Equity
$8,500
8. FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $7,800
FOR: Restorative Justice Services Program $7,800
9. FROM: Previously Acknowledged Additional Revenue (Development
Review)
$441,000
FOR: Development Review Center Expenses (IT Support) $350,000
FOR: Development Review Center Expenses (Finance Support) $91,000
10. FROM: Additional Revenue (Grant) $36,226
FOR: Small Business Capital Access Loan Program $36,226
B. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. FROM: Additional Revenue (City Give Donations) $15,800
FOR: Master Plan of the Gardens on Spring Creek $15,800
C. EQUIPMENT FUND
1. FROM: Additional Revenue (Grants) $347,587
FOR: Natural Gas Vehicles & Charging Stations $347,587
D. TRANSIT SERVICES FUND
1. FROM: Additional Revenue (CSU Reimbursement) $53,670
FOR: IVN Retrofits for Ridership Data $53,670
E. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. FROM: Additional Revenue (City Give Donation) $1,843
FOR: Safe Routes to School Program $1,843
2. FROM: Additional Revenue (Forfeited Escrow) $3,656
FOR: Sidewalk Improvements $3,656
Packet Pg. 69
-4-
F. TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE FUND
1. FROM: Previously Appropriated Expenses (Lapsing Business Unit) $1,400,000
FOR: Transfer to Projects (Non-Lapsing Business Units in TCEF Fund) $1,400,000
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
October, A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 70
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 118, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROPRIATING PRIOR-YEAR RESERVES
AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS OF APPROPRIATIONS IN VARIOUS CITY FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City has prior year-reserves available for appropriation; 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 funds were not previously appropriated; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is recommending the appropriations described herein and
has determined that these appropriations are available and previously unappropriated from the
Funds named within Section 2 of this Ordinance and will not cause the total amount appropriated
in each Fund named within Section 2 of this Ordinance to exceed the current estimate of actual
and anticipated revenues to be received in each such Fund during this fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Article V, Section 10 of the City Charter authorizes the City Council, upon
recommendation by the City Manager, 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, the City Manager has recommended the transfer of $23,650 from the
Transportation Services Fund to the Capital Projects Fund and determined that the purpose for
which the transferred funds are to be expended remains unchanged; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance is
necessary for the public’s health, safety and welfare and, therefore, wishes to authorize the
expenditures described in this Ordinance.
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 the following Funds the amounts of
prior year reserves and authorized transfers set forth below to be expended for the purposes
stated below.
Packet Pg. 71
-2-
A. GENERAL FUND
1. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Manufacturing Use Tax Rebate) $291,518
FOR: Manufacturing Use Tax Rebates $291,518
2. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (City Give Donations) $1,350
FOR: Tree Plantings $1,350
3. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Waste Innovation) $29,155
FOR: Waste Innovation Program $29,155
4. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Land Bank) $18,600
FOR: Land Bank Expenses $18,600
B. CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND
1. FROM: Transfer from Transportation Services Fund $23,650
FOR: College Avenue and Trilby Road Intersection $19,250
FOR: Laporte Avenue $4,400
C. KEEP FORT COLLINS GREAT FUND
1. FROM: Prior Year Reserves (Fire and Emergency Services) $52,335
FOR: Dispatch Consoles and Equipment $52,335
D. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FUND
1. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $1,300,000
FOR: Snow and Ice Removal $1,300,000
2. FROM: Prior Year Reserves $23,650
FOR: Transfer to Capital Projects Fund $23,650
Packet Pg. 72
-3-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of October,
A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 73
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Marcy Yoder, Neighborhood Services Senior Manager
Bronwyn Scurlock, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Control of Animals.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 119, 2020, Amending Section 4-94 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins Regarding Animal Disturbance of Peace and Quiet.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 120, 2020, Amending Various Sections of Chapter 4 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins Regarding Dangerous and Vicious Animals.
The purpose of this item is to clarify existing City Code language to guide enforcement, prosecution and the
Municipal Court regarding violations and penalties for animal disturbance and dangerous animals in the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinances on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City contracts with Larimer Humane Society (LHS) to provide animal protection and control services in
Fort Collins. City and LHS staff determined that several City Code sections pertaining to animal noise
disturbances and dangerous animals should be updated to reflect current enforcement practices and provide
clarification.
Section 4-94 Animal Noise Disturbance
The proposed changes update the existing provisions to define unreasonable noise to include factors for
officers to consider such as time of day, duration of noise, and noise level, and adds a provision to protect
personal information of the reporting party when a warning is issued from being released until such time a
citation is issued.
Section 4-96 Dangerous animals prohibited; permits; impoundment
This section was created in 2009 to give additional options for animal violations so not all aggressive animals
would be required to be seized and destroyed as vicious animals. The following are the proposed changes:
• Align with state law to apply to those who have a property interest in such animals, not only persons who
may be caring for or harboring the animal.
• It clarifies and simplifies permit conditions and registration requirements of a dangerous animal:
7
Packet Pg. 74
Agenda Item 7
Item # 7 Page 2
o Clarifies for the court the requirement to order any person convicted to register their animal
o Specifies for law enforcement officers the requirements of a Temporary Dangerous Animal P ermit
o Clarifies and expands the requirements of the animal owner for such permits in the interest of public
safety
o Clarifies and directs the court regarding the conviction and requirements of sentencing and Permanent
Dangerous Animal Permits
o Takes the Humane Society out of the position of having power to remove or change court ordered
sentences and remands such actions back to the court
o Clarifies fees
o Specifies a limit on how many Dangerous Animal Permits may be issued to any person/household
Sec 4-97 Vicious Animals Prohibited
The proposed changes to this section align the City Code to state law and apply to those who have a property
interest in such animals, not only to persons who may be caring for or harboring the animals.
Sec 4-139 Reclamation of certain animals restricted or prohibited
The proposed change is to remove the requirement that dangerous animals not be released while leaving the
restriction that the court must order the animal released with conditions for “vicious” animals.
Sec 4-197 Additional Penalties or requirements for dangerous and vicious animals
The proposed changes to this section include the following:
• Clarification as to which section and violations these penalties and restrictions are to be applied
• Specifies the additional penalties and requirements for the court to order
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public comment was not sought because the proposed changes are to align with state law and for clarification
for better guidance for enforcement, prosecution, the public and the court.
7
Packet Pg. 75
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 119, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 4-94 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REGARDING ANIMAL DISTURBANCE OF PEACE AND QUIET
WHEREAS, over the years, City staff has received numerous complaints regarding the
enforceability of City Code Section 4-94 on animal disturbance of peace and quiet; and
WHEREAS, based upon those complaints, and after consulting with the animal control
staff at the Larimer Humane Society, staff recommends modifying Section 4-94 to better guide
enforcement, prosecution, the public and the Municipal Court in managing the problems created
by barking dogs and other animal disturbances; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends modifying the definition of unreasonable noise to include
factors to be taken into consideration such as time of day, duration of noise, and noise level when
making a determination as to what constitutes unreasonable noise; and
WHEREAS, staff further recommends adding a provision stating a citation will only be
issued in the event that the party complaining about noise signs an affidavit or verifies in writing
the allegations of the complaint, to put the public on notice that this will be a requirement for
enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the recommended changes are in the best
interests of the City and its residents.
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 4-94 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-94. - Animal disturbance of peace and quiet prohibited.
(a) No owner or keeper of an animal shall permit such animal to make unreasonable noise or
disturb the peace and quiet of any person by barking, whining, howling, yowling, squawking or
making any other noise in an excessive, continuous or untimely fashion., whether the animal is
on or off the owner’s premises.
(b) For purposes of this Section, unreasonable noise shall mean any sound of such level and
duration as to be, or tend to be, injurious to human health or welfare, or which would
unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property. The following factors shall be
taken into consideration when determining unreasonable noise:
Packet Pg. 76
-2-
(1) time of day;
(2) duration of noise;
(3) noise level;
(4) any other factors tending to show the magnitude and/or disruptive effect of the
noise.
(c) No person owner or keeper shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this Section unless the
investigation of such violation was undertaken by the City because of a citizen complaint.
(d) If a complainant requests their identity remain confidential, such identity shall remain
confidential to the extent permitted under the Criminal Justice Records Act until a citation for a
violation of this Section is issued. A citation will only be issued if the complainant signs an
affidavit attesting to the violation or otherwise verifies in writing the allegations of a complaint.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
October, A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 77
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 120, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 4 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS REGARDING DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS
WHEREAS, over the years, City staff has received numerous complaints regarding the
enforceability of the City Code provisions pertaining to dangerous and vicious animals; and
WHEREAS, based upon those complaints, and after consulting with the animal control
staff at the Larimer Humane Society, staff recommends modifying such provisions to better
guide enforcement, prosecution, the public and the Municipal Court in managing the problems
created by dangerous and vicious animals; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends changes that would align such provisions with current
state law and clarify and simplify permit conditions and registration requirements for a
dangerous or vicious animal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the recommended changes are in the best
interests of the City and its residents.
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 4-96 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-96. Dangerous animals prohibited; permits; impoundment.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, harbor, keep or maintain any
dangerous animal within the City any animal for which a dangerous animal citation has been
issued by an animal control officer unless a permit has been issued by the Humane Society or
the Municipal Judge has issued a permit for such animal consistent with the provisions
contained in Subsection (c) b elow. It shall also be unlawful for any person to fail to comply
with the terms and conditions of any such permit or to fail to register a dangerous animal as
required herein.
…
(c) Dangerous animal permit.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person that o wns, possesses, harbors, keeps or
maintains a dangerous animal to fail to comply with the terms and conditions of any
dangerous animal permit or to fail to register a dangerous animal as required herein.
Packet Pg. 78
-2-
(12) If an animal control officer has reasonable g rounds to believe that an animal is
dangerous, the animal control officer may issue a summons to the owner or keeper of
such animal and, in his or her discretion, may also issue a permit temporarily allowing
the continued keeping of the animal within the C ity pending disposition of the
summons so long as the owner or keeper of the animal complies with the requirements
set forth in the permit. Said requirements shall include any conditions necessary to
ensure that no person or animal is injured by the danger ous animal. Permits shall only
be issued for an individual animal. Temporary Permit requirements mayshall include,
but are not limited to, the following:
a. that the animal wear a special and conspicuous form of identification
(such as a blaze orange c ollar);
b. that the owner or keeper provide the name(s) of the person(s) responsible
for animal ownership, and the property location wherein the animal will be
residing;
c. that the owner or keeper provide the names and addresses of two (2)
additional persons who may be contacted to take responsibility in the case of
emergency;
bd. that the owner or keeper immediately notify the animal control officer in
the eventif the animal is loose and unconfined, has attacked or injured a human
being person or another animal, has been sold or given to another person or has
died;
ce. that the animal, while on the property of the owner or keeper, be:
confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked structure, suitable to
prevent the entry of children and designed to prevent the animal from escaping;
1. confined within a residence and under the control of a person
over the age of eighteen (18) years; and
2. when outdoors:
a) confined in a locked pen or other structure that provides
the animal with adequate protection from the elements and that is
located at least three (3) feet from any property line and at least
fifteen (15) feet from any neighboring dwelling unit, that has
secure sides and a secure top and either a floor made of concrete
or other impervious surface or, in the absence of such a floor,
sides imbedded in the ground to a minimum depth of one (1) foot;
or
b) under the control of a person over the age of eighteen (18)
years and securely muzzled and harnessed or leashed on a lead
Packet Pg. 79
-3-
not exceeding six (6) feet in length in a manner that prevents the
animal from chasing, injuring or biting other animals or humans,
as well as preventing damage to public or private property;
df. that the owner or keeper display one (1) or more signs approved or
issued by the Humane Society on the owner's property which provide a clear
warning that a dangerous animal is present on the property;
eg. that, while off the owner's or keeper’s property, the animal be muzzled,
restrained in a parti cular manner, or both, and be under the control of an adult; is
under the control of a person over the age of eighteen (18) years, securely
muzzled, and
1. confined within a residence or a locked pen or other structure that
meets the requirements of su bparagraph e.2.a) above or a locked vehicle;
or
2. harnessed or leashed on a lead not exceeding six (6) feet in length
in a manner that prevents the animal from chasing, injuring or biting
other animals or humans, as well as preventing damage to public or
private property; and
f. that the owner attend one (1) or more educational classes on the
responsible keeping of dangerous animals; and
gh. that, upon request, the owner or keeper make the animal available for
inspection by the animal control off icer.
(23) Temporary dangerous animal permits may be made permanent, modified or
rescinded only upon order of the court upon disposition of the summons issued. In
making such determination, the court may receive evidence from the owner or keeper
and the complainant, the animal control officer, a veterinarian, a licensed animal
trainer, a Humane Society agent and any person having personal knowledge of the
animal's condition. If the court finds that the animal is dangerous but decides that
certain requirements set out in the temporary permit are not necessary for the protection
of the public and other animals, the court may delete or modify those requirements.
If the court finds that the animal is dangerous and does not order the animal destroyed,
the court shall order the animal be registered with a Dangerous Animal Permit and
comply with all permit requirements, in addition to any other requirements ordered by
the court in accordance with § 4 -197 of this Code.
(34) If the owner or keeper of an animal that is the subject of a dangerous animal
citation has not been issued a permit to retain the animal under Paragraph (b)(c)(12) of
this Section, or if such person fails to comply with any of the requirements imposed
under a temporary permit issued under thi s Section, or if such animal is found at large,
Packet Pg. 80
-4-
the Humane Society is authorized to impound the animal at the owner’s or keeper’s
expense until final disposition of any summons issued.
(45) If the owner of an animal determined by the court to be dangero us who believes
that the animal is no longer dangerous or that certain requirements set out in the permit
for the animal are no longer necessary for the protection of the public or other animals,
the owner may request that the Humane Society rescind the de termination that the
animal is a dangerous animal or delete or modify those permit requirements; provided,
however, that no such request may be made within the first twelve (12) months
following the initial determination that the animal is dangerous. After a period of thirty-
six (36) consecutive months, and with no further violations of any provisions of this
Chapter 4, the registered owner or keeper may make a written request to the court to be
released from the requirements of this Section, which the cour t may grant upon finding
that the conditions of the permit have been satisfied for the requisite period In
reviewing the request, the Humane Society court may require the owner to produce the
animal for inspection and, allow an animal control officer to ob serve the animal in its
natural surroundings, and to submit information pertinent to the dangerousness of the
animal. If the Humane Society court determines that the animal still constitutes a
dangerous animal but that certain requirements contained in the permit are no longer
necessary, the Humane Society court may delete those conditions from the permit or
modify them.
(6) Any person to whom a dangerous animal permit has been issued, or who
requests that such a permit be modified or rescinded under the provisions of this
Section, shall pay a fee to the Humane Society in an amount sufficient to cover the
estimated costs of issuing, modifying or rescinding such permit, as applicable. The
amount of such fee and the time of payment shall be determined by the Humane Society
and are in addition to any other fees authorized under this chapter .
(7) No person or dwelling unit or premises shall be issued more than two (2)
dangerous animal permits at any time.
Section 3. That Section 4-97 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-97 Vicious animals prohibited.
(a) No person shall own, possess, harbor, keep or maintain within the City any vicious
animal except as authorized by the Municipal Judge under Paragraph 4-197(6) of this Chapter. If
an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an animal is vicious, such animal
shall be impounded and kept by the Humane Society, at the owner’s or keeper’s expense, until
final disposition of the citation issued to the owner or keeper for a violation of this Subsection.
. . .
Packet Pg. 81
-5-
Section 4. That Section 139 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-139. - Reclamation of certain animals restricted or prohibited.
The following restrictions or prohibitions shall apply to the reclamation of the following
impounded animals:
(1) Animals that have been declared vicious or dangerous may not be reclaimed unless and
until the court orders the animal released under conditions consistent with Subsection § 4-197(b);
. . .
Section 5. That Section 4-197 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 4-197. - Additional penalties or requirements for dangerous and vicious animals.
(a) Registration of dangerous and vicious animals. All owners or keepers of animals
determined by the Municipal Judge to be vicious or dangerous animals shall, unless the animal
has been ordered destroyed, annually register their animal under a Dangerous Animal Permit as
specified in Section 4-96, and provide a current color photograph of the animal with to the
Humane Society and pay a registration fee to be set by the Humane Society. At the time of
registration, each owner or keeper of any dangerous or vicious animal kept within the City shall
provide proof of liability insurance in the amount of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.) for
any acts of property damage or liability incurred by virtue of injury inflicted by such animal.
Such insurance shall name the City as co-insured solely for the purpose of notice of cancellation
of the policy. Upon payment of the fee, the Humane Society shall issue a current
vicious/dangerous animal collar of an approved color for the purpose of identification, which
collar is to be worn by the animal at all times as proof of registration. If, due to the length of the
animal's hair, the collar is not visible, an approved colored lead or chain shall be used. A
vicious/dangerous animal collar may be removed from a dangerous animal for grooming or
purposes of other care when the animal is secured indoors or in an approved pen.
(1) Dangerous Animal Permit: If the court finds that the animal is dangerous and does
not order the animal destroyed, the following requirements, in addition to any other
requirements ordered by the court, shall be included in the permanent permit:
a. that the owner or keeper shall provide proof of liability insurance in the
amount of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.) for any acts of property
damage or liability incurred by virtue of injury inflicted by such animal;
b. that the animal wear a special and conspicuous form of identification
(such as a blaze orange collar);
Packet Pg. 82
-6-
c. that the owner or keeper provide the name(s) of the person(s) responsible
for animal ownership, and the address of the property location where the animal
will be kept;
d. that the owner or keeper provide the names and addresses of two (2)
additional persons who may be contacted to take responsibility in the case of
emergency;
e. that the owner or keeper shall immediately notify the Humane Society if
the animal is loose and unconfined, has attacked or injured a person or another
animal, or has died;
f. that the owner or keeper shall immediately notify the Humane Society if
the animal has b een moved from the last reported location, has been stolen, or
has been sold or given to another person, and provide any pertinent information
requested;
g. that the animal, while on the property of the owner or keeper, be:
1. confined within a residence and under the control of a person
over the age of eighteen (18) years; and
2. when outdoors:
a) confined in a locked pen or other structure that provides
the animal with adequate protection from the elements and that
is located at least three (3) feet f rom any property line and at
least fifteen (15) feet from any neighboring dwelling unit, that
has secure sides and a secure top and either a floor made of
concrete or other impervious surface or, in the absence of such a
floor, sides imbedded in the ground to a minimum depth of one
(1) foot; or
b) under the control of a person over the age of eighteen
(18) years and securely muzzled and harnessed or leashed on a
lead not exceeding six (6) feet in length in a manner that
prevents the animal from chasing, in juring or biting other
animals or humans, as well as preventing damage to public or
private property;
h. that the owner or keeper display one (1) or more signs approved or
issued by the Larimer Humane Society on the owner's property which provides a
clear warning that a dangerous animal is present on the property; and
i. that, while off the owner’s or keeper’s property, the animal is under the
control of a person over the age of eighteen (18) years, securely muzzled, and
Packet Pg. 83
-7-
1. confined within a residence or a locked pen or other structure
that meets the requirements of subparagraph (2)(a) above or a locked
vehicle; or
2. harnessed or leashed on a lead not exceeding six (6) feet in
length in a manner that prevents the animal from chasing, injuring or
biting other animals or humans, as well as preventing damage to public
or private property;
j. that the owner or keeper have a licensed veterinarian implant an
electronic identification microchip in the animal and provide the information
contained in the microchip to the Larimer Humane Society;
k. that the animal be spayed or neutered within ten days of the Dangerous
Animal Permit being made permanent, and documentation provided to the
Larimer Humane Society; and
l. that, upon request, the owner or keeper make the animal available for
inspection by the animal control officer; and,
m. that the owner or keeper renew each dangerous permit annually, until
such time that the animal identified in the permit is no longer in their
possession, or is no longer a dangerous animal as determined by the Court.
(b) In addition to the penalties provided in § 1-15, the Municipal Judge may order any
animal determined to be dangerous or vicious destroyed by the Humane Society or, if not
destroyed, made subject to any such additional conditions the Municipal Judge deems
necessary to protect the public and other animals. Such conditions mayshall include, but are
not limited to, requirements that the owner or keeper of the animal shall:
(1) within ten (10) days after sentencing, spay or neuter the animal if not already
done; attend one (1) or more educational classes on the responsible keeping of
dangerous animals or animal training classes or courses;
(2) have a licensed veterinarian implant an electronic identification microchip i n
the animal and provide the information contained in the microchip to the Humane
Society;
(3) notify the Humane Society when the animal is sold, gifted or transferred to
another person, in which event the owner shall remain liable for the actions of th e
animal until formal notification of sale, gift or transfer is given to the Humane
Society;ensure that such animal does not damage or destroy public or private property;
(4) not have any animal further violations of this Chapter 4;
Packet Pg. 84
-8-
(5) ensure that such animal does not damage or destroy public or private property;
(6) notify the Humane Society immediately if the animal is running at large;
(7) ensure that, when such animal is on the property of the owner, such animal is:
a. confined within a resi dence and under the control of a person over the
age of eighteen (18) years; or
b. when outdoors:
1. confined in a locked pen or other structure that provides the
animal with adequate protection from the elements and that is located at
least three (3) feet from any property line and at least fifteen (15) feet
from any neighboring dwelling unit, that has secure sides and a secure
top and either a floor made of concrete or other impervious surface or,
in the absence of such a floor, sides imbedded in t he ground to a
minimum depth of one (1) foot; or
2. under the control of a person over the age of eighteen (18) years
and securely muzzled and harnessed or leashed on a lead not exceeding
six (6) feet in length in a manner that prevents the animal from chasing,
injuring or biting other animals or humans, as well as preventing
damage to public or private property.
(8) ensure that, when such animal is off the property of the owner, it is under the
control of a person over the age of eighteen (18) years, securely muzzled and:
a. confined within a residence or a locked pen or other structure that meets
the requirements of Subparagraph (7)a.1. above or a locked vehicle; or
b. harnessed or leashed on a lead not exceeding six (6) feet in length in a
manner that prevents the animal from chasing, injuring or biting other animals or
humans, as well as preventing damage to public or private property;
(9) post and maintain signs issued or approved by the Humane Society placed at each
entrance to the premises where the animal is kept and on the pen or other structure in
which the animal is confined; and
(105) agree that failure to comply with any of the conditions shall result in surrender of
the animal and impoundment, at the owner’s or keeper’s expense, by the Humane Society
for disposition, which disposition may include euthanasia, without further notice or
hearing.
Packet Pg. 85
-9-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
October, A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 86
Agenda Item 8
Item # 8 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
Carrie Daggett, City Attorney
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 121, 2020, Amending the Code of the City of Fort Collins to Correct an Error in
Section 7-134 Relating to the Registration of Committees During Election Campaigns.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to correct a long-standing error in Section 7-134 relating to the registration of
committees prior to accepting any contributions or making any expenditures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In November 2000, Council established local election campaign provisions, which were patterned after the
language of the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act at that time.
One of the local provisions enacted relates to the timely registration of various types of committees engaging in
election campaigns. At the time of enactment of the local provision, a typographical error was made, which
error still remains in the City Code today.
This Ordinance, if adopted, will correct the error so that it makes clear that committees engaging in election
campaign activities must register prior to accepting any contributions or making any expenditures. The
current language reads, “….prior to accepting any contributions or making any contributions.”
Other provisions of the City Code make it clear that committees are prohibited from making contributions.
8
Packet Pg. 87
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 121, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN SECTION 7-134 RELATING
TO THE REGISTRATION OF COMMITTEES DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 162, 2000,
establishing local election campaign provisions as Article V of Chapter 7 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, at the time of adoption of Ordinance No. 162, 2000, the local provisions
were patterned after the provisions of the Fair Campaign Practices Act; and
WHEREAS, one of the local provisions enacted relates to the timely registration of
various types of committees engaging in election campaigns; and
WHEREAS, said provision, currently contained in Section 7-134 of the City Code,
contained a typographical error at the time of enactment, which error still remains in the City
Code today; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes that the interests of the public are best served by
correcting said error.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS that the first paragraph of Section 7-134(a) is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 7-134. Registration of committees; termination.
(a) All candidate committees, political committees and issue committees shall
register with the City Clerk before accepting or making any contributions or making any
expenditures. Registration must be on a form provided by the City Clerk and must
include the following, together with any other information required to complete the
registration form.
…
Packet Pg. 88
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
October, A.D., 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of October, A.D.
2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 89
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Noah Beals, Senior City Planner/Zoning
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2020 Amending the Zoning Ma p of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification of that Certain Property Known as the Fischer Rezoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in
accordance with Section 1(f) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2019 -064.
The purpose of this item is to amend the City’s Zoning Map to change the zoning designation on two existing
single family residential properties, 1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, from RL, Low Density Residential, to NCB,
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. 1185 Westward abuts the single family property at the southwest corner of
Shields Street and Westward Drive, and 1201 abuts 1185. The rezoning would merg e the two properties into a
larger NCB-zoned area along South Shields Street that abuts the properties on two sides.
The rezoning request is subject to the criteria in Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code. The rezoning may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by Council after receiving a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Board, which voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the request with one condition as recommended
in the staff report with agreement from the petitioner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance of First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
PURPOSE OF THE REZONING REQUEST
The purpose of the petitioner’s request is to enable the two subject lots to be assembled with two other
abutting properties that are currently zoned NCB and owned by the petitioner. The rezoning and potential
subsequent assembly of these properties would make redevelopment for multifamily housing more viable on
the assembled properties.
OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report details the main considerations in this request. (Attachment 1)
Rezonings are governed by five criteria in Land Use Code Subsection 2.9.4(H)(2) and (3). They can be
paraphrased as 1) ‘consistent with the comprehensive plan’; 2) ‘warranted by changed conditions’; 3)
‘compatible with surrounding uses’; 4) ‘impacts to the natural environment’; and 5) ‘a logical and orderly
development pattern’.
9
Packet Pg. 90
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 2
Staff finds that the most pertinent criterion in this case is consistency with th e Comprehensive Plan (City Plan)
and that the Fischer Rezoning is consistent with City Plan. The Comprehensive Plan includes the West Central
Area Plan as a related element of City Plan and the two plans work in conjunction to guide land use and
change in the area.
Policies in these documents recognize the tension and balance between maintaining existing character of
stable, established single family neighborhoods, and recognizing the continuum of change and urban evolution
with infill and redevelopment in appropriate locations. After considering the body of policy direction, the
primary consideration staff finds to tip the balance in staff’s recommendation is the concluding sentence on
page 23 of the West Central Area Plan under the heading of Vacant and Under-Utilized Parcels:
“Collaboration with surrounding neighbors is expected to result in land uses that are appropriate with a design
that is sensitive to the surrounding context.”
Accordingly, the most prominent consideration in staff’s review of the proposal was the neighborhood meeting.
The primary topic at that meeting was attendee concerns about parking in the neighborhood generally, and
their appreciation of strong statements by the petitioner about a commitment to provide a parking space for
every bedroom if a multi-family redevelopment project is ever brought forward under the requested NCB
zoning.
The petitioner stated that if the rezoning is approved, he plans to be the developer of a multi -family housing
project, and the main reason for requesting the rezoning is to enable more space for generous parking.
Assembly of the properties would also enable alternative access other than Shields Street, which would be a
goal of the City due to the evolution of Shields as a high-volume arterial.
There was no opposition at the meeting to the rezoning proposal, largely based on the parking commitment of
one space per bedroom. In addition, the petitioner is not guaranteed to be the developer but the parking
commitment is a condition in staff’s recommendation of approval.
Staff’s understanding is that all of the adjoining and facing single family houses have been rental properties for
many years and has heard no opposition from owners or tenants of those properties.
In addition to finding the Fischer Rez oning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, staff also finds that the
rezoning is warranted by changed conditions, compatible with surrounding uses, and is a logical and orderly
development pattern. The Planning and Zoning Board staff report explains these findings on pages 5-11.
PLANNING BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
1201 Westward is part of the 1955 Western Heights subdivision, and 1185 Westward is on an older unplatted
parcel, as are the residential properties that face Shields in the NCB zone. The pr operties along Shields were
developed as large residential properties generally ranging in size from about ½-acre to over an acre, outside
City Limits in the early 1900’s.
NCB zoning was placed on properties along Shields as part of implementing the 1999 West Central Area Plan
(WCAP). The WCAP was updated in 2015.
The four parcels under unified ownership wrap around the property at the southwest corner of Westward Drive
and Shields Street. The proposal would extend the western boundary of NCB zoning str aight northward to
incorporate the two subject properties. The current NCB zone boundary did not originally include these two
parcels so that facing houses on both sides of Westward Drive are in the RL zone.
CONDITION
Land Use Code Section 2.9.4(I) allows conditions to be imposed upon rezonings. Based upon neighborhood
concerns over parking congestion in the area if the properties subject to rezoning are redeveloped, a
recommended condition of the rezoning is that at least one parking space be provided fo r each bedroom if one
9
Packet Pg. 91
Agenda Item 9
Item # 9 Page 3
or both of the lots being rezoned are redeveloped for residential use. Staff considers this condition to be
appropriate for the reasons stated in this AIS and the Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report, and the
Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the rezoning with the condition. Because this condition
will be incorporated into the zoning for this property, it will limit future flexibility in regulating the property with
regards to minimum parking requirements. The owner of the properties subject to the Fischer Rezoning
has consented to the condition.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no direct financial impacts associated with the requested zoning.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 20, 2020, Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board recommended that Council approve the
Fischer Rezoning on a 4-2 vote. The two members who did not support the proposal spoke about
appropriateness of the existing RL zoning on the existing single -family properties proposed to be rezoned. A
related point was that the loss of the two houses would reduce the supply of housing for families. A second
point discussed as being contrary to the proposal was the contradiction in the recommended condition to
require more parking in potential future redevelopment than standard requirements —the area is within the
Transit Oriented Overlay District which allows for reduced parking requirements based on proximity to
convenient transit and CSU.
Members supporting the proposal acknowledged the change that has occurred in the area, appropriateness of
extending the NCB zoning line, and the recommended parking condition being a result of collaboration with
neighbors. (Attachment 2)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A neighborhood meeting was held on February 10, 2020. Eight neighbors were in attendance. Discussion of
the proposed rezoning centered on increased parking demand if the two houses were redeveloped as multi -
family housing. One other topic of discussion was existing traffic on Shields Street and di fficulties of left turns
in this stretch. (Attachment 3)
A similar conceptual plan was considered in the spring of 2017 including a neighborhood meeting with 26
people in attendance. Notes from that meeting are also attached because they are similar and r elevant to the
current proposal. The neighborhood concerns were essentially the same, i.e., increased parking and traffic
associated with more people residing in the neighborhood. (Attachment 4)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Staff Report (PDF)
2. Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (PDF)
3. Neighborhood Meeting Notes - February 2020 (PDF)
4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes - 2017 (PDF)
9
Packet Pg. 92
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 1
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing: August 20, 2020
Fischer Rezoning, #REZ200001
Summary of Request
This is a request to rezone two existing single family residential
properties, 1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, from RL, Low Density
Residential, to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. The
purpose behind the request is to enable the lots to be assembled
with other abutting property to the south that is zoned NCB and is
under the same ownership. The rezoning and subsequent assembly
of these parcels would make the redevelopment of multifamily
housing on the property to the south more viable.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the Board will make a
recommendation to City Council. City Council would then consider a
rezoning Ordinance.
Site Location
1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, across Shields
Street from CSU. These are adjoining
properties located between Shields and Del Mar
Streets, on the west side of Shields separated
from Shields by one lot.
Petitioner
Erik Fischer
125 S. Howes St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Owners
Erik Fischer
125 S. Howes St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Bruce A. Hotman
1185 Westward Dr.
Fort Collins, CO, 80521
Staff
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Contents
1. Project Introduction .................................... 2
2. Public Outreach ......................................... 3
3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 4
4. Article 3 - Applicable Standards ................. 5
5. Article 4 – Applicable Standards: ....... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
6. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 11
7. Recommendation ..................................... 11
8. Attachments ............................................. 11
Recommendation
Approval with one condition.
ATTACHMENT 1
9.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 2 of 11
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed rezoning would enable an assembly of four parcels under the ownership of the petitioners. The
four parcels wrap around the property at the corner of Westward Drive and Shields Street , which is zoned
NCB. The proposal would extend a portion of the western boundary of NCB zoning straight northward to
incorporate the two subject properties, which are currently zoned RL. The boundary of the NCB zoning did
not originally include these two parcels in order to keep facing houses on both sides of Westward Drive in the
RL zone.
B. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
1201 Westward is part of the 1955 Western Heights subdivision, and 1185 Westward is an older unplatted
parcel, as are the residential properties that face Shields in the NCB zone.
1. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North South East West
Zoning Low Density Residential
(RL)
Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer
(NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer
(NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer
(NCB)
Land
Use
Single family houses Single family houses Single family houses Single family houses
9.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 3 of 11
Back to Top
C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Five criteria govern the review and findings on rezonings. They can be paraphrased as ‘consistent with the
comprehensive plan’; ‘warranted by changed conditions’; ‘compatible with surrounding uses’; ‘impacts to the
natural environment’; and ‘a logical and orderly development pattern’.
These criteria are explained and evaluated in the staff analysis section of this report. Staff finds that the most
pertinent criterion in this case is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Pertinent Comprehensive Plan
documents are City Plan and the West Central Area Plan, which is a related element of City Plan.
Policies in those documents recognize the tension and balance between maintaining existing character of
stable, established neighborhoods, and allowing for change with infill and redevelopment in appropriate
locations. After considering the body of policy direction, the primary consideration staff finds to tip the
balance in staff’s recommendation is the concluding sentence on page 23 of the West Central Area Plan
under the heading Vacant and Under-Utilized Parcels: “Collaboration with surrounding neighbors is expected
to result in land uses that are appropriate with a design that is sensitive to the surrounding context.”
Accordingly, the most prominent consideration in staff review of the proposal was the neighborhood meeting .
The primary focus at that meeting was attendees’ appreciation of strong statements by the petitioner about
their intent. The petitioner stated that if the rezoning is approved, he would be the developer of a multi-family
housing project, and that his main reason for requesting the rezoning was to allow space for one parking stall
per bedroom (which exceeds standard Land Use Code requirements for multi-bedroom units). There was no
opposition at the meeting to the rezoning proposal, largely based on this commitment.
There is no way to assure that the petitioner would be the developer, but the parking commitment is a
condition in staff’s recommendation of approval.
Staff’s understanding is that all of the adjoining and facing single family houses have been rental houses for
some time, and has heard no concerns from owners or tenants of those properties.
9.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 4 of 11
Back to Top
2. Public Outreach
A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Neighborhood meeting notes are attached. The petitioner explained a long personal history in the
neighborhood, and his family’s intent to redevelop the subject parcels, along with another adjoining parcel
abutting on the west in the RL zone, accessed from Del Mar Street. That parcel would remain in RL zoning
and be developed as single family houses.
As previously noted, parking on the streets in the neighborhood was the top issue of discussion, focused on
heavy use of street parking. Other topics included the petitioner’s vision and intent, and traffic and left turn
conflicts on Shields, which were generally noted as existing challenges.
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public contacts have been received.
3. Land Use Code Article 2 Procedural Standards
A. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
1. Conceptual Review - CDR190012
A conceptual review meeting was held on December 12, 2019.
2. Petition – REZ200001
The petition was received on February 26, 2020.
3. Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting was held on February 10, 2020, at Plymouth Congregational Church on West
Prospect Road.
4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted Notice: January 28, 2020, Sign # 529
Written Hearing Notice: April 2, 2020, 425 addresses mailed.
Published Hearing Notice: April 2, 2020, Coloradoan Confirmation #0003922474
9.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 5 of 11
Back to Top
4. Article 2 – Rezoning Standards
A. DIVISION 2.9 – AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP
Applicable
Code Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
2.9.4 – Map
Amendment
Review
Procedures
This one Code Section enables City Council to approve a change to the zoning map
after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board; and contains
the applicable standards governing rezoning of property , as follows:
“Any amendment to the Zoning Map involving the rezoning of land shall be
recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City
Council only if the proposed amendment is:
• Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan; and/or
• Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
Additional considerations for rezoning parcels less than 640 acres (quasi -judicial):
• Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the
appropriate zone district for the land.
• Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
• Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
Petitioners’ Justification: The petitioners’ justification is attached and addresses these
criteria in detail.
Staff Analysis: Staff analysis follows, for each of these criteria.
Complies
Staff Analysis:
Is the proposed
rezoning
“Consistent
with the City’s
Comprehensive
Plan”?
City Plan
City Plan:
City Plan principles and policies juxtapose issues related to maintaining our unique
character and sense of place; and issues related to promoting infill and redevelopment
as the approach to managing growth.
For example, Principle LIV 2 on page 40, “Promote infill and redevelopment”, is
followed on page 41 with Principle LIV 3, “Maintain and enhance our unique character
and sense of place as the community grows.”
While these two principles may reflect different perspectives, staff finds no tension or
conflict in the policies under these principles. Pertinent excerpts are:
“Policy LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF
UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES
Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise
underutilized structures and buildings, including, but not limited to:
…Voluntary consolidation and assemblage of properties to coordinate the
redevelopment of blocks or segments of corridors where individual property
configurations would otherwise limit redevelopment potential.”
Complies
9.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 6 of 11
Back to Top
Applicable
Code Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
Policy LIV 2.3 - TRANSIT-ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT.
Require higher-density housing and mixed-use development in locations that are
currently, or will be, served by BRT and/or high-frequency transit in the future as
infill and redevelopment occurs. Promote a variety of housing options for all income
levels.”
The assemblage of property that would be enabled would be consistent with these two
policies.
A policy under Principle LIV 3 is related, but reflects more of a perspective of
evolutionary change:
“Policy LIV 3.4 - DESIGN STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES.
Maintain a robust set of citywide design standards as part of the City’s Land Use
Code to ensure a flexible, yet predictable, level of quality for future development
that advances the community’s sustainability goals, e.g., climate action. Continue
to develop and adopt location-specific standards or guidelines where unique
characteristics exist to promote the compatibility of infill redevelopment.”
The Land Use Code contains standards to implement local goals for compatibility.
The next page 42 in City Plan juxtaposes Principle LIV 4 “Enhance neighborhood
livability”, with Principle LIV 5, “Create more opportunities for housing choices.”
Again, these principles could be interpreted differently from different perspectives. For
some, “enhancing neighborhood livability” could mean limiting and slowing growth and
change; while “create more opportunities for housing choices” reflects a whole
approach in City Plan to allowing for growth and change.
With that acknowledgment, staff finds no tension or conflict in the policies under these
two principles. Following are some relevant excerpts:
“Policy LIV 4.2 - COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT
DEVELOPMENT
Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and
enhances the positive qualities of existing neighborhoods. Developments that
share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing neighborhood should
promote compatibility by:
Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve access to servi ces
and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood;
Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale
and materials); and
Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods —
such as noise and traffic—will be minimized.”
The assemblage of property that would be enabled would allow for redevelopment of
multi-family housing, which would have to comport with Land Use Code requirements
addressing these topics. In a Conceptual Review planning discussion, good
opportunities were apparent for additional connectivity through the 10-acre block;
shaping compatible building programming and design; and landscape buffers.
9.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 7 of 11
Back to Top
Applicable
Code Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
Policies under Principle LIV 5 reflect a perspective of expanding housing to
accommodate the continuum of growth and change:
“Policy LIV 5.1 - HOUSING OPTIONS
To enhance community health and livability, encourage a variety of housing types
and densities, including mixed-used developments that are well served by public
transportation and close to employment centers, shopping, services and amenities.
Policy LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development
to positively influence housing supply and expand housing choice.”
Another housing policy, on the following page 43, recognizes student housing. The
petitioners have stated that their specific intention is not to develop student housing
oriented to undergraduates, but rather to design for CSU employees, graduate
students, and the community generally. Nevertheless, zoning to enable multi-family
housing cannot prescribe the tenants, development across the street from CSU could
ultimately result in student housing. Housing for students is generally acknowledged
by the following policy:
Policy LIV 6.3 - STUDENT HOUSING
Plan for and encourage new housing for students on and near campuses and in
areas well-served by public transportation. Coordinate with CSU, Front Range
Community College (FRCC) and other educational institutions.
Finally, regarding City Plan, part of the overall vision is a general shift in the mix of
housing in the city toward more housing choices other than single family houses (page
29).
In weighing these pertinent policies, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent
with overall policy direction in City Plan.
Staff Analysis:
Is the proposed
rezoning
“Consistent
with the City’s
Comprehensive
Plan”?
West Central
Area Plan
(WCAP)
West Central Area Plan (WCAP)
The parcels are in the West Central Area Plan (WCAP) area -- a related element of the
comprehensive plan. The WCAP tailors citywide goals and policies to specific
circumstances in the area.
Driving issues behind the WCAP have long been the challenges of balancing existing
neighborhood character and quality of life with growth and change.
The WCAP describes the area on a continuum of change, with individual
neighborhoods shaped by several forces over time, including:
• Early agricultural land use
• Incremental expansion of the city
• Colorado State University’s growth and changes to its campuses
• Increased residential, commercial, and institutional development
• Continued expansion of City services
City Plan generally emphasizes accommodating growth through infill development
rather than outward sprawl. The West Central area has been directly influenced by
student and population growth, with increasing demand for rental housing and
pressure for more. (pp. 2, 9, 16 in the WCAP).
Complies
9.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 8 of 11
Back to Top
Applicable
Code Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff
Findings
The WCAP anticipates significant new development or redevelopment on key vacant
or under-utilized parcels, potentially resulting in change of use or intensity.
The map below, on p. 25 of the plan, articulates the plan vision for differing degrees of
change in different parts of the West Central area. The subject properties are located
at the edge of the area shown in orange as ‘Neighborhood Enhancements’, abutting
the area shown in maroon along Shields as ‘Significant Redevelopment’, which
corresponds to the NCB zone in that location.
9.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 9 of 11
Back to Top
9.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 10 of 11
Back to Top
Staff Analysis:
Is the proposed
rezoning
“Consistent
with the City’s
Comprehensive
Plan”?
- Conclusion
and Condition
Conclusion and Condition:
As noted previously, taking all Comprehensive Plan policies together, staff’s
recommendation was ultimately decided by this highlighted language from p. 23 of the
West Central Area Plan:
“Various Vacant or Under-Utilized Parcels
These parcels are scattered throughout the plan area and are generally under
market pressure to redevelop in a manner greater than would otherwise be allowed
by the current parameters of the Low Density Residential (RL) or Neighborhood
Conservation Buffer (NCB) zone districts. Such redevelopment will be carefully
evaluated so that new uses protect neighborhood character, are well-designed, and
mitigate traffic and other external impacts. Collaboration with surrounding neighbors
is expected to result in land uses that are appropriate with a design that is sensitive
to the surrounding context.”
The primary concern of neighbors related to the rezoning was the potential for spillover
parking onto neighborhood streets. At the neighborhood meeting, both the petitioner
and neighbors strongly stated their observations that while tenants living near CSU
may not drive much, most still own vehicles.
In order to implement the 2015 West Central Area Plan overall emphasis on
compatibility with existing development, as described on pp 18, 22, 23, 25, and 31,
staff recommends a condition of approval of the proposed rezoning:
Recommended Condition:
Any development plan involving 1185 and/or 1201 Westward Drive for
residential use must provide at least one parking space per bedroom.
Based on this analysis, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Analysis:
Is the proposed
rezoning
“Warranted by
Changed
Conditions
Within the
Neighborhood
Surrounding
and Including
the Subject
Property”?
The current zoning dates to the original West Central Area Plan in 1999. The
surroundings of the subject properties have experienced change since then, and since
the 2015 West Central Area Plan update.
The 2015 WCAP foresaw change and redevelopment: “The demand for rental
housing, driven in part by the recent recession and the trend of “millennials” delaying
home ownership, has created pressure for additional apartments, townhome, and
single-family rental houses in this area. In addition, CSU houses only a portion of its
students on-campus, so the remaining students must find housing elsewhere in the
city. This results in the conversion of many single-family dwellings into rental units and
short-term occupancy, with associated challenges related to property maintenance,
renter behavior, differing lifestyles, and over-occupancy of homes within
neighborhoods. Maintaining the affordability and desirability of these neighborhoods
for a range of residents, including students and families, has long been a priority for
the West Central area.
Discussion at the neighborhood meeting indicated that all abutting and facing houses
are rental properties, and that the Western Heights Subdivision is currently made up of
more than half rental properties including all adjoining and facing properties.
CSU has continued to increase its influence in the area with major redevelopment
projects on campus.
Evidence of change has been the establishment or residential permit parking in the
area.
Changes in the neighborhood and at CSU have continuously increased traffic volumes
on Shields St.
Staff finds that changed conditions lend additional justification to the proposed
rezoning.
Yes
9.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 8
REZ190001 | Fischer Rezoning
Thursday, April 6, 2020 | Page 11 of 11
Back to Top
Staff Analysis:
“… Compatible
with Existing
and Proposed
Uses… and is
the Appropriate
Zone District
for the Land”
The subject property is at the edge between NCB and RL zoning, with NCB zoning
abutting on two sides. If redevelopment occurs under NCB zoning, development
would be done in a compatible manner with attention to compatibility with existing
houses in the RL zone as required by the Land Use Code.
Staff finds that this additional consideration lends additional justification to the
proposed rezoning.
Yes
Staff Analysis:
“…Adverse
Impacts on the
Natural
Environment…”
The subject properties comprise existing development with no natural environment
issues related to zoning.
NA
Staff Analysis:
“…a Logical
and Orderly
Development
Pattern”
The rezoning would be an extension of an existing zoning line. Any development under
the proposed NCB zoning would abut NCB zoning on two sides.
Staff finds that the proximity to Shields Street and CSU, and potential assembly with
property facing Shields, makes NCB zoning consistent with the pattern in the area and
thus staff finds that this additional consideration lends justification.
Yes
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the petition for Fischer Rezoning to amend the Zoning Map at 1185 and 1201 Westward Drive, from RL ,
Low Density Residential, to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer, Staff finds that the petition complies with the
standards in Section 2.9 with one condition.
6. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a motion to recommend that City Council approve the
Fischer Rezoning, #REZ200001, based on the analysis and Findings of Fact in the Staff Report, with the following
condition:
Any development plan involving 1185 and/or 1201 Westward Drive for residential use must provide at least one
parking space per bedroom.
7. Attachments
1. Petitioners’ Justification Narrative
2. City Plan page 29
3. West Central Area Plan pages
4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes
5. Staff presentation
9.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Development Review Staff Report (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Jeff Hansen, Chair
Virtual Hearing
Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Per Hogestad 300 Laporte Avenue
David Katz Fort Collins, Colorado
Jeff Schneider
William Whitley Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 &
Channel 881 on Comcast
Regular Hearing
August 20, 2020
Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Stephens, Scheidenhelm, Claypool, Mapes and Manno
Discussion Agenda Item 3 Fischer Rezoning:
Project Description: This is a request to rezone two existing single-family residential properties, 1185 and 1201
Westward Drive, from RL, Low Density Residential, to NCB, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual introduction to this project.
Sam Coutts, Ripley Design, then provided a verbal/visual presentation representing the owner Erik Fischer .
Mr. Coutts reiterated the location and extent of the proposed rezoning as noted in Planner Mapes’ introduction,
which involves two single family house lots. He mentioned the owner’s long family history in the neighborhood and
growing up in the house at 1201 Westward. The petitioner’s vision is to develop responsibly and sustainably
consistent with core values of the community. The question tonight is why this rezone is being proposed. The
answer is to allow for a multiple properties to be combined for a future residential development project. Four
properties under unified ownership would be combined. Two of those existing properties are underutilized large
lots. The consolidation of the properties allows for access and parking.
He showed a chart of zoning standards for development in the NCB zone which reflect goals for compatibility. He
showed the example of a redevelopment one block away on Springfield Drive which has come up in discussion with
neighbors. It was developed at a time when the City had no requirements for parking, and it provided .62 spaces
per bedroom—58 spaces for 94 bedrooms.
He showed a chart of 11 recent apartment projects in the general area around CSU with their parking ratios, which
vary from .25 spaces to .76 spaces per bedroom.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 2 9.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 2 of 6
He noted that the petitioner Erik Fischer has committed to provide 1 parking space per bedroom based on his
vision that any apartment development would be done right and respect the neighborhood. That commitment of
one space per bedroom is a recommended condition on the proposed rezoning.
He explained Land Use Code requirements for rezonings in code Section 2.9.4(H).
He explained how the proposal relates to policies in the Comprehensive Plan , in City Plan and the West Central
Area Plan.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
None
Staff Response
Planner Mapes explained staff’s analysis of the request based on pertinent policy plans adopted by City Council,
namely City Plan and the West Central Area Plan. He noted a recommended condition of staff’s recommendation
of approval that the rezoning to NCB include a requirement that future redevelopment of the properties for
residential use would include one parking space per bedroom based on the neighborhood meeting and agreement
from the petitioner.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Member Schneider wanted to know if the residential sign code should also be referenced. Pla nning Manager
Everette responded that in this case the parcels are already within the residential sign district which would not
change.
Vice Chair Haefele commented that fewer parking spaces were required for rent-by-the bedroom than for rent by
unit in the Land Use Code. What is the rationale for this as it seems the opposite would be true? What are the
requirements?
Planner Mapes noted that rent-by-bedroom requirements are part of the Transit Orient Development Overlay (TOD)
standards which apply to the NCB zoning in this area. Those rent-by-bedroom requirements are actually higher
than would be required for equivalent number of bedrooms in rent by unit development. But in any case, none of
the requirements would reach 1 space per bedroom which is being proposed as a commitment and as a condition
of this zoning.
Member Katz noted that in the agenda, the applicant is stated as the City of Fort Collins—is this a clerical
error? Planning Manager Everette responded yes. The agenda was incorrect and the staff report is correct.
Chair Hansen asked: if the parcels were assembled and then redevelopment occurred on the other two properties
along Shields but did not include the subject properties, would they be exempt from that parking
condition? Planner Mapes responded that if development were to occur in the existing NCB zoned parcels and not
include these new houses, then it would not trigger the one-space per bedroom requirement. The condition only
applies to a redevelopment project that incorporates these two lots.
Member Katz asked: if the two properties were to be redeveloped as new single-family houses, would the one
space per bedroom condition apply? Planner Mapes and Planning Manager Everette responded no—that scenario
would not require a development plan—only a building permit—and would not trigger the requirement.
Vice Chair Haefele wanted to know if the houses were currently vacant. Mr. Coutts responded yes.
Member Hogestad asked what makes this a logical and orderly development? Planner Mapes noted that the
question is one that the Board is being asked to evaluate. Staff analysis noted the straight extension of the current
zoning line, and findings of consistency with City Plan and West Central Area Plan, as reasons why staff found that
the request adequately satisfied the rezoning criteria. Member Hogestad feels that the existing single family
residential is logical.
9.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Member Hogestad asked what the changing conditions are. Mr. Coutts responded that one of the biggest changing
conditions is the conversion of single-family homes in the RL district from primary residences into student
rentals. This is paired with redevelopments and infrastructure happening in the area.
Member Hogestad commented that with the students are gone there isn’t pressure for parking on the street. The
parking isn’t because of student rentals, the parking is because of students going to class during the day —they can
park and run across the street. He wonders if this was mentioned in that the conversation with the neighborhood.
Chair Hansen followed up asking if this was a residential parking zone and if it is being enforced. Planner Mapes
responded yes, it is 2-hour parking in the residential permit program.
Member Hogestad feels that in itself is a problem because it allows somebody to park, go to class, leave, and then
somebody else takes that space. What is needed is not some parking restriction as part of this rezone, it’s a
comprehensive parking plan for that neighborhood, something more than 2-hour parking.
Planner Mapes responded that at the neighborhood meeting, the neighbors focused on a single issue related to the
rezoning which would enable more residential units —parking on the streets. Attendees spoke strongly about the
street parking filling up during the day while classes are in s ession, and also related to construction at CSU, so it’s
correct that most of the concern was about daytime.
But the concerns about the rezoning stemmed from the Springfield Drive apartment redevelopment project one
block away on Springfield Drive in a similar situation under NCB zoning where a house was replaced with 94
bedrooms and 58 parking spaces.
Neighbors look at that as an example and are familiar with it on a daily basis, and they feel that it contributes
significantly to the pressure generally on parking in the area. Regarding other questions of orderly pattern, loss of
two houses, or other considerations, there was no opposition to the rezoning based on any of those other things.
The only real concern expressed was increasing the parking press ure, and the applicant suggested the one space
per bedroom based his observation that even though students may not drive as much as the rest of us, the do tend
to have cars, and friends and visitors with cars. So it was a big topic at the meeting, and what is brought forward
here is largely in response to neighbors at the meeting.
Member Hogestad noted that the concern was about a daytime problem which indicated that it’s probably students
going to class, so then if there’s other problems with development, is the TOD operating the way it was intended
to?
Planner Mapes responded that the answer to that goes way beyond this particular rezoning request but there is a
debate on virtually every multi-family project about whether the Land Use Code parking requirements for attached
and multi-family development are adequate, both in the TOD and generally throughout the city. The question is a
bigger communitywide discussion and policy debate and he cannot answer the question.
Chair Hansen commented that the intent of the TOD is that since it is adjacent to public transportation, they are
trying to reduce the parking requirements to encourage individuals to use public transportation.
But there’s always the question of whether its accomplishing its intent. It comes up in every project.
Vice Chair Haefele commented that the parking is a problem. The TOD reduced requirement is aspirational trying
to create development that does not require cars, but Fort Collins is not there yet. We do not have the transit or the
mindset. Almost everyone has a car. On one hand, neighbors are anxious to have more parking in development,
but she doesn’t think it will necessarily will address the issues they are seeing, It might prevent MORE spillover
parking, but then again it sort of cancels out the intention of the TOD which had a maximum number, not a
minimum.
Member Schneider asked what that have to do with this rezone—they’re offering more parking than what the TOD
requires. We’re having a conversation about TODs when this is a rezone offering more parking than currently
required. We’re not looking at a project plan.
9.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Member Hogestad brought up parking because the applicant and staff brought it up. The suggestion is that
somehow this would mitigate something and therefore it’s to the advantage to the neighborhood that the rezone
happen, and he doesn’t think that’s necessarily correct.
Some years ago, he did some design work for an owner of a house on Westward. The owner talked about how you
can see the cars driving around looking for parking and it goes up every time there’s a class change. This is what
its about—its not about adding additional parking to this project as a promise.
Chair Hansen asked if member Hogestad would propose just sticking with what we have in the Land Use Code
rather than offering neighbors false promises?
Member Hogestad answered no, he is concerned about the neighborhood meeting itself and how that became sort
of a carrot, and feels that the whole parking conversation was somewhat misguided.
Vice Chair Haefele noted that conversations about parking are often misguided. Its something which people think
about with their lizard brain according to a book by Donald Shoup called The High Cost of Free Parking. And its a
much bigger issue than rezoning. It brings you back to the land use there and who is served by replacing single
family houses in which families could live regardless of whether they are rent or own, vs. apartment houses which
are a totally different set of residents and how does THAT change affect the neighborhood.
If there’s 100% parking that’s going to be self-contained, and lets be honest that this is about is building an
apartment complex, so it’ll be a net zero on street parking vs. a family that might have one driveway spot and two
cars on the street. But I don’t think that’s the issue. Its whether they have a house to live in and how many people
are DISPLACED when you tear down a house.
Chair Hansen agreed with Vice Chair Haefele that offering to provide one parking space per bedroom is not an
attempt to fix their on-street parking issue, it is an offer to ensure that any development does not contribute to it
more and make it worse.
Vice Chair Haefele does not think that changing occupied single-family houses from owner occupied to rentals
constitutes a change in the condition. A change to a business would be a change in condition. But if they’re
occupied by people living in them, that’s the same as any other house on the street.
Chair Hansen responded that he recently I moved from a neighborhood that was a high rental occupancy, and they
were all single family houses, and while the difference in character was more subtle than if it was a change to a
business, it was a different. When you have a house with a family in it vs. a house with three bedrooms and t hree
students it is a different experience. Maybe not as dramatic as a house becoming a business but there is a
difference.
Vice Chair Haefele agrees but is saying that the rest of neighborhood will go from have 6 tenants to some much
higher number who are going to be of the same lifestyle. Not being one to defend student rental households
necessarily, but its not necessarily fair to consider that a change of condition to warrant rezoning of houses.
In all of this we talk about how good that rezone and development would be, but the West Central Area Plan and
City Plan speak of neighborhoods being preserved as well, and neighborhood character being preserved. We are
running out of low single story somewhat more affordable single family homes. Its evidenced by Avery Park and
how that went from being almost unlivable to now mostly owner occupied homes. So that does work, and to say
that the social change is such that the only fix is a large apartment building…I just don’t buy it.
Vice Chair Haefele noted that people often speak about the missing middle and that is part of the missing middle —
the small affordable single family house. Losing those shuts out a part of the population that doesn’t want to live in
multi-family, who might want to live in a house but don’t want a big house on a large lot or new subdivision. So she
doesn’t see that this is an improvement. She notes that the policies on the facing pages in the City Plan documents
can be read as being inherently incompatible.
Chair Hansen is hearing that the neighborhood may be better served by remaining RL. An argument in favor of the
rezoning would be that when the zoning map was drawn, the line was drawn to get properties on Shields into NCB
9.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 5 of 6
but did not consider whether they can be developed as NCB. If you add these two parcels, then NCB becomes
more viable for development as it is zoned.
An earlier argument was made about the boundary following a logical pattern. He thinks there’s more than one
pattern that can work—current and proposed zoning are BOTH examples of a logical and orderly pattern.
Member Hogestad feels that it is not logical to have an apartment building facing one-story single-family homes
across the street. The map in the West Central Area Plan talks about this part of the neighborhood being within the
area of enhancement, renovations and remodels vs. the area of redevelopment .
Member Katz agreed with Chair Hansen that the proposed plan is also a logical zoning pattern, the board should be
careful not to make too many assumptions about development. We don’t know what the development might be, or
whether there would be an apartment building facing the street. He also mentioned that property owners have
certain rights.
Member Hogestad asked whether a multi-story apartment building across the street from a single story house is
logical? Member Katz replied that one block from a major university, yes he thinks it is logical.
Member Hogestad noted that the land use map in the West Central Area Plan shows this in the designation for
renovations and remodels and such, to continue the tradition of single family homes and still respond to growing
families and such. And that was the thinking that went into that.
Planner Mapes added that for complete discussion, the staff report notes the map and that it’s not a standalone
page in the plan, the plan also has language about underutilized properties. If there were to be new apartment
buildings, collaboration with neighbors would try to achieve compatible development using land use code standards
that would be invoked in any development plan. Specifically in regard to facing houses across the street, staff had
comments on a previous conceptual review plan for these properties and in that review, staff commented that new
buildings would likely have to step down to more the missing middle housing scale as a transition between the
single family and whatever larger building might happen up in the existing NCB portion which is not facing and next
door to houses.
Member Schneider asked about the two properties at the corner and whether they went through a development
review?
Planner Mapes responded that there’s nothing submitted, however the applicant team and Mr. Fischer brought a
previous proposal to conceptual review that included the neighbor to the north or maybe both properties—he didn’t
recall whether it was one or both. But that did not move forward because those other owners, according to Mr.
Fischer, decided to do their OWN redevelopment project at some point, vs. participating jointly wit h Mr. Fischer. So
it appears likely that they could redevelop. They are large older properties.
Member Schneider noted that changing zoning from single family to higher density could pull students out of
houses that could then become owner occupied that families that could move into. And that’s what we ’re seeing—
students moving into these higher density apartments so you’re seeing more homes opening up for s ingle family
use.
Member Hogestad finds the map telling. The NCB properties are from a different time and are much more
disorganized than a neighborhood, he is concerned that the rezoning encroaches on a neighborhood, and this is
exactly what West Central Plan and City Plan talk about NOT doing. He thinks its pretty clear that preserving
neighborhoods is important.
Chair Hansen feels the City and this proposed rezoning is making the neighborhood a more logically and orderly
development pattern.
Member Schneider made a motion that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board make a
recommendation to City Council to approve the Fischer Rezoning REZ20001 based on the analysis,
findings of fact and the staff report with the following condition:
9.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 20, 2020
Page 6 of 6
• That if any development plan involving 1185 or 1201 Westwood Drive is for residential use,
there must be at least one parking space per bedroom.
This also includes materials and information as presented to us in the work session, this hearing and
board discussion with this item. Member Katz seconded. Member Schneider commented that rezoning makes
sense to him and that if they stay residential uses, there is not a development plan that has to be involved with
rezoning or any changes, they could tear down the houses, rebuild single-family homes with no additional
parking. Member Hogestad, he will not be supporting the motion as the rezone does not protect the neighborhood
character. Member Katz agrees with both Chair Hansen and Member Schneider in that the rezone cleans up the
zoning pattern. Chair Hansen cares about the neighborhood but does not feel the rezone is doing anything to
significantly affect it. It makes it a more logical development pattern Vote: 4:2.
Shar Manno
Manager, Customer Support
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.221.6767
smanno@fcgov.com
9.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
Development Review Center
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970-221-6750
fcgov.com/DevelopmentReview
Westward Drive Rezoning Proposal
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
February 10, 2020 Meeting Date
Plymouth Congregational Church
These notes are a summary of the neighborhood meeting discussion and not a verbatim transcript.
Please contact staff at any time with any comments or questions:
Clark Mapes, City Planner, ph 970.221.6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
Marcy Yoder, Development Review Liaison, ph 970.221.6076, myoder@fcgov.com
Purpose of the Meeting and City Process
Ms. Yoder introduced the purpose of the meeting and how it fits into the process for prospective development in the
City. The meeting purpose is to share information between the prospective developer and interested community
members, with City staff supporting as is helpful.
Meeting discussion is intended to be considered by the development team as they decide whether and how to
formulate an actual application for submittal to the City for review.
Mr. Mapes showed the City’s zoning map and briefly explained what zoning is, what rezoning is, and the nature of the
proposed rezoning -- to rezone two properties from the current zoning of ‘Low Density Residential’, or R-L, to
‘Neighborhood Conservation Buffer’, or N-C-B. R-L zoning essentially permits houses, schools and churches. N-C-B
zoning permits multifamily residential development. The process would start with an application explaining the
proposal; staff would then review and provide a recommendation on the proposal; the Planning and Zoning Board
would then consider the proposal and make a recommendation to City Council in a public hearing, and ultimately City
Council would approve or deny the proposal in a public hearing.
Notes from the neighborhood meeting would eventually be provided to P&Z and Council.
The Proposed Development Project
Klara Rossouw, Ripley Design, Inc., Land Planners & Landscape Architects, ph 970.224.5828, klara@ripleydesigninc.com
Eric Fischer, Owner
Ms. Rossouw explained the context of the site and preliminary thinking about potential development if the rezoning is
approved. The two properties proposed for rezoning would be joined with a property facing Shields to enable multi-
family residential redevelopment with access on Westward Drive, and new building construction along both Shields and
ATTACHMENT 3 9.c
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting Notes - February 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 2
Westward. The properties would also be connected to the larger “pasture” property accessed from Del Mar Street to
the west which is under the same ownership and has long been planned for development of single family houses under
the existing R-L zoning. That property would remain in the R-L zoning district. There would be buffers between
multifamily development and adjacent houses.
Mr. Fischer gave a thorough explanation of his background, growing up in the neighborhood, and his intentions for
development which would need the proposed rezoning. His family has lived and invested in these properties over many
years and so he knows the neighborhood and many neighbors and the issues.
He had previously discussed a bigger proposal with neighbors a couple of years ago. This is a smaller proposal. The
intent is to extend the line of the current N-C-B zone to Westward. Development would be multifamily, with one
parking space per bedroom. The main motivation for combining the properties is to allow for that 1:1 ratio of parking,
which is much more than the City requires. He does not want to add parking demand that would require parking on the
streets.
He is working with neighbors to the north and south for lot line adjustments and emergency access.
Questions, Responses, and Comments
Responses are by the prospective applicant
Question: Will you scrape the two houses?
Response: Yes. Most of that space would be for access and a buffer along the access.
Q: Traffic won’t come from Delmar?
R: Correct, there will be no access from Delmar. In that pasture property, we would create a cul de sac and build single
family houses.
Q: So this is similar to the earlier project, but with less apartments? How many potential units and bedrooms are you
thinking?
R: Yes, this is smaller scale. The neighbors to the north who were part of the earlier concept have decided to do their
own thing. They want to do something smaller. We are thinking about 100-110 bedrooms. Previously it was 157. It is
not certain because design is still not done.
Q: So you’re really looking at a parking space for each bedroom? Look at the project on Springfield. There are 94 units
and 50 parking spaces. That’s not enough.
R: Yes. That’s why we are requesting the rezoning.
Comment: I appreciate that.
C: I work from my home office. The two-hour rule has been effective but people still park in front of my house. I can
often go get license numbers on cars that sit there longer.
R: We expect that people will not use their cars very much, because biking and walking are convenient, but my
experience is that when students live off-campus, they have cars. Also, we are envisioning more “higher-end”
apartments, more for professors than students. There’s no pool, not a party spot. Not renting by the bedroom. We
envision integration in the neighborhood.
9.c
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting Notes - February 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 3
Q: What is the other project that the neighbors on the north are thinking of?
r: They decided they want to keep it in the family. They want to do a smaller project with two smaller units and
additional parking. They are thinking about 10-12 units.
Q: Would they have access from Westward?
R: Yes.
Q: Will there be access from Shields?
R: No turn into the project would be allowed from Shields. There might be potential for a right turn out. But more likely
would be emergency vehicle access only.
Q: It sounds like you would be the developer?
R: Yes. I’ve been approached many times to sell, but this is personal. Our intent is to be developer and keep control
over the project. Investors are lined up. I would own it and manage it, along with my sister. We own other properties
and property management is one of the things we do.
C: I work from my home office. The two-hour rule has been effective but people still park in front of my house.
C: There are lots of parking problems. Parking was challenging during development of stadium and other projects
because of construction staff. Construction workers at CSU meet and park in the neighborhood.
Q: Traffic on Westward is already a problem. The northbound left from Shields onto Westward is already a problem.
How will traffic increase?
R: A traffic study will need to be done with any development plan. A developer could have certain requirements to
address their proportional impact on traffic. In this case, there is probably so much existing background traffic that the
proportion from the new development would likely be a small impact. But that would be documented in a traffic study
based on an actual plan.
Q: How long will this project take?
R: If rezoning happens, it will happen over the summer. Then design can happen. We would work with the City to meet
standards and work with other partners (buffers, access, etc.). That is all probably two years minimum. A neighborhood
meeting would happen again during design phase. But this all depends on market and economics.
Q: Will you maintain the pasture?
R: No.
Q: Have you considered for-sale townhomes or condos?
R: Townhomes would not be easy to incorporate. We have considered whether to build the apartments so that in the
future they could potentially be sold as condos. Don’t know for sure yet.
They would be condo style units. We would build it for families, professors, not students partying.
Q: What would a buffer be like?
A: We will work with the City on buffer. It could be a berm, vegetation, potentially fencing. Don’t know until project is
designed but its something we know we want to do.
.
Q: How does it compare to the Springfield project?
R: Similar in size, but with more parking.
9.c
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting Notes - February 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
N e i g h b o r h o o d M e e t i n g N o t e s - P a g e | 4
Q: Will there be another neighborhood meeting before the rezoning?
R: No, but there would be a notification before a Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and you can contact any of us at
any time – email, or call. Both the developer team, and City staff.
Q: Can we give public comment at the P&Z meeting?
R: Yes, and also at City Council.
Q: If this property wasn’t rezoned, how would it be different?
R: Probably less parking for an apartment project along Shields in the N-C-B zone. I want a lot more parking than the City
requires. You can only take out so many units and be cost effective.
C (City): If the rezoning were to be supported based on an intent to have a certain parking ratio, there would need to be
a condition with the rezoning to make sure it would happen. The City tries to stay away from that, but can happen.
Q: If the rezoning or doesn’t go through, what happens?
R: The houses on Westward would remain as rental properties. Even if it’s rezoned, if economics don’t make sense,
nothing will change. If this does all happen, it would be at least a couple of years.
Q: How many houses would go on the cul de sac in the pasture property?
R: Probably 13.
Q: Could you do something like the houses on Bennet?
R: Possibly so. Maybe with the garages in the rear like that, but not sure about that. But that is a good example.
C: Traffic on Shields already should be looked at.
- Left turns on Shields are really tough.
- People coming out on Pitkin turn right and go north to make U-turns at Westward. There is a lot of U-turning like that
in general. It’s getting chaotic.
- We are going to see increased speeds on Westward and Springfield.
- Not sure what could be done. Speed bumps like on Bennet…a little median like the one on Springfield…look at the
game day example of temporary medians on Shields…have lights at every street…?
R: Those are all examples of things that would be looked at in a traffic study based on a plan. Not all caused by the
proportional impact of the proposed development.
Adjourn
7 attendees
2 staff
9.c
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting Notes - February 2020 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
1215 Shields St. Residential
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
- Buffer/mitigate impacts of vehicles at entrance
- Concern that units will have more than one student per bedroom and
therefore the parking is underestimated
- Traffic concern similar to recent Springfield apartments built
- # of units is too high for a residential area
- Entrance on Westward?
- Traffic a concern along Westward Dr.
- Cannot state enough! The traffic around Shields and Prospect is horrible and
will become even worse with more infill/buffer zone, high density housing
- Added traffic a concern for U-turns at Westward off Shields
- Could we add speed bumps along Westward?
- How does this impact the Pitkin bikeway?
o Opportunity to help mitigate safety issues
- How will construction parking be handled?
o 2 hours maximum Monday-Friday 8-5, enforcement begins May 22
- Crossing @ Pitkin? Will development help get bikes across the street?
o HAWK signal being installed
- # of units high for the area
- What is the APU process?
- Any options for a second access point?
- Screening of adjacent properties?
- Height comparable to Carriage House Apartments?
- Will floor area ratio comply with the Land Use Code?
- Don’t bring access off Del Mar Ave.
- High # of U-turns at Shields/Westward intersection
- Another access (to Prospect or future Lakewood) so all traffic is not on
Westward
- Shields needs to be expanded due to high traffic volumes presently
- Changing current RL zone properties to NCB seems like a very poor idea and
a disturbing precedent. Traffic on Westward is already problematic. Curious
if FAR is within City codes.
ATTACHMENT 4 9.d
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Neighborhood Meeting Notes - 2017 (9496 : Fischer Rezoning)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 122, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT
CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE FISCHER REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Land Use Code”)
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for the rezoning of two parcels more
particularly described below from Low Density Residential (“R-L”) Zone District to
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (“N-C-B”) Zone District (“Fischer Rezoning”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board at its August 20, 2020, meeting
recommended that City Council approve the Fischer Rezoning with one condition of approval
regarding the provision of one parking space per bedroom if the Property is redeveloped for
residential uses; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds that the Fischer Rezoning is consistent with City Plan,
the City’s comprehensive plan, is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding the Fischer Rezoning, is compatible with the existing and proposed uses
surrounding the Fischer Rezoning and is the appropriate zone district, and would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern; and
WHEREAS, City Council desires to impose a condition on the Fischer Rezoning to
require that residential development provide at least one parking space per bedroom in order to
mitigate parking congestion in the area and the owner of the property subject to the Fischer
Rezoning has consented to such condition; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has considered the
rezoning of the property that is the subject of this Ordinance and has determined that said
property should be rezoned as hereafter provided.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from Low Density Residential (“R-L”)
Zone District, to Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (“N-C-B”) Zone District, for the following
described properties in the City known as the Fischer Rezoning:
Packet Pg. 115
-2-
Parcel 1:
Lot 15, The Western Heights Subdivision, recorded at Reception No.701791, Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder.
Parcel 2:
Commencing at a point 29.6 feet South of the Northeast corner of the South Half (S1/2)
of the South Half (S1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of the Southeast Quarter
(SE1/4) of Section 15, Township 7 North of Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian; thence West 330 feet; thence South 90 feet; thence East 330 feet; thence North
90 feet to the point of beginning, EXCEPT that parcel as described in deed recorded June
9, 1989 at Reception No. 89025675, County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
Section 3. That the following condition be imposed upon the Fischer Rezoning:
• Any development plan involving 1185 or 1201 Westward Drive, or both,
for residential use must provide at least one parking space per bedroom.
Section 4. That the property subject to the Fischer Rezoning continue to be included
in the Residential Sign District adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7.1(M) of the Land Use Code.
Section 5. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
October, A.D., 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of October, A.D.
2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
Packet Pg. 116
-3-
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 117
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Tawnya Ernst, Real Estate Specialist III
Ingrid Decker, Legal
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2020, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Permanent Waterline Easement
and a Temporary Construction Easement on Meadow Springs Ranch to the Northern Colorado Water
Association.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to authorize the conveyance of a permanent waterline easement and a temporary
construction easement to the Northern Colorado Water Association (NCWA) on Utilities’ Meadow Springs
Ranch. The proposed easement area will traverse Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) over an alignment that City
staff previously worked on, and agreed to, with NCWA in 2009. The primary pu rpose of the pipeline is to
provide a redundant transmission main to assist in providing a reliable water supply to NCWA’s existing and
future customers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Northern Colorado Water Association, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, provides potable water service to
roughly 1,500 rural customers in northern Larimer County.
NCWA approached the City initially in 2009 with a request to install a 12 -inch waterline that will connect
between NCWA’s three existing water storage tanks near its well fields west of Carr, Colorado and its existing
distribution system near Buckeye, Colorado. NCWA’s tanks are located in an easement on MSR. NCWA’s
existing transmission mains (6”/8”) were constructed in 1962 and 1963 and run primarily south across MSR
from the tanks south to their connection with the existing distribution system near CR 76 and CR 7. Most
notably, these pipes feed most of NCWA’s system and cross several fl oodplains. In the event a flood renders
either of these pipes inoperable (broken, washed out at floodplain crossing, etc.), potable water service would
be lost for most of NCWA’s members until adequate repairs could be made.
The proposed pipeline is approximately 11 miles in length, and its primary purpose is to provide a redundant
transmission main to improve reliability to NCWA’s membership. The pipeline will cross City property for
approximately 1.5 miles. As the City owns the lands surrounding its ta nks, NCWA would need to cross City
property regardless of the alignment of any new pipeline. The proposed alignment was selected to provide
said redundancy through a southwesterly route. As part of the Analysis of Alternatives, a third pipeline along
the existing general southerly route was considered but was rejected as it simply replicated the risks the
existing pipelines are subject to.
Due to funding constraints, the project languished for more than a decade. Earlier this year, NCWA staff
informed City personnel that they intended to refocus their efforts in obtaining the alignment/easement from the
10
Packet Pg. 118
Agenda Item 10
Item # 10 Page 2
City as described in 2009 that would accommodate construction of the new water main. NCWA has requested
a 30’-wide permanent easement and a 30’-wide construction easement. Construction is proposed to be
completed with a trencher - arguably one of the least obtrusive pipeline construction methodologies.
The alignment of the proposed waterline crosses MSR in Sections 22, 23, and 27, Township 11 North, Range
67 West of the 6th PM. Utilities purchased the 26,000+-acre property for the beneficial use of municipal sludge
disposal. The proposed pipeline will have minimal, if any, impact on existing City operations. The area is
leased for cattle grazing.
As required by Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins, NCWA hired Stewart
Environmental Consulting in 2009 to complete an ecological characterization study of the potentially affected
area. The original author of the report is in the process of updating that study. The 2009 survey found that the
proposed project will have minimal environmental impact on the shrub shortgrass steppe community. The
affected area is small compared to the vast expanse of this community that includes the Propert y and adjoining
properties. The City would require NCWA to mitigate any impact by reseeding and revegetating the easement
areas. The Property is a key nesting area for grassland birds. This potential for impact can be mitigated by the
timing of construction activities associated with the proposed project. Construction will be timed to avoid the
breeding/nesting/rearing period for grassland birds - approximately April 1 to mid-July. No wetlands were
identified on the proposed easement area and therefore, no wetlands delineation will be required.
The proposed transmission line will cross beneath Spottlewood Creek. Although the report identified no
wetlands associated with the creek, the creek may fall under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The timing of construction for crossing beneath Spottlewood Creek should occur when no flow conditions exist
and groundwater level beneath the creek bed has fallen. This would likely be in fall and winter.
Alternative Alignments Analysis
As briefly discussed above, the City owns the land surrounding NCWA’s potable water storage tanks. NCWA
therefore needs a utility easement from the City for any additional pipeline that will connect to its system.
NCWA completed an exhaustive analysis of pipeline alignment alternatives to determine the most direct and
least impactful route on MSR. The proposed alignment was selected in minimize impacts and follows the route
previously supported by City staff and the original environmental study in 2009.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
In accordance with Sec. 23-114 of the Municipal Code, any conveyance of City real property must be for an
amount equal to or greater than the fair market value. The estimated market value of the City’s ownership in
the requested easements is as follows: $656.28 for the temporary construction easement and $3,285.00 for
the permanent easement. The easement fees are based on 10% and 50% (respectively) of the per acre full
fair market value of Meadow Springs Ranch. In addition, NCWA will also pay a $6,60 0.00 vegetation
management fee to Utilities for the cost of reseeding and revegetating the easement areas following
construction. NCWA will pay all fees associated with this project prior to recording of the easement.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 20, 2020 meeting, the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend Council approve the
conveyance of the waterline easement to Northern Colorado Water Association. (Attachment 2)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map (PDF)
2. Water Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (PDF)
10
Packet Pg. 119
!"`$
Weld
County
Road128
E County Road 82
N County Road 15WeldCountyRoad17N County Road 5Weld Co unty Road 126RawhideFlatsRdE County Road 92
NCountyRoad9NCountyRoad7Weld
C
o
u
nty
R
o
a
d
1
Weld County Road 15010203040506
07 08 09 10 11 12
13141516
12
134
24
252627282930
31 32 33 34 35 36
01
12
13
24
25
36
09 10 11 12
131415161718
01
1718
19 20 21 22 23
19 20 21 22 23 24
252627282930
31 32 33 34 35 36
24
25
36
010203040506
07 08
212019
30 29 28
333231
456
987
161718
212019
282930
333231
456
987
161718
Meadow Springs
Ranch
Larimer/Weld
County Line
Biosolids Headquarters
Proposed waterline
easement alignment
±
Meadow Springs Ranch
Attachment 1
Project Location Map
10.1
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Location Map (9480 : Meadow Springs Easement)
Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES - WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
August 20, 2020, 5:30 p.m.
Online via Zoom
0 8 /20/20 20 – Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES Page 1
Regular Items
(Attachments available upon request)
Waterline Easement Request Across Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR)
Water Reclamation & Biosolids Manager Jason Graham introduced Technical Services
Specialist Jennifer Ward and Real Estate Senior Specialist Tawnya Ernst. Ms. Ward
presented a summary of the project. Northern Colorado Water Association (NCWA)
requested a waterline easement on Meadow Springs Ranch. Context and reasoning include
similar utility easements approved in the past, compensation paid to City; MSR operations
will not be impacted.
Discussion Highlights
No questions. Board members commented on Meadow Springs Ranch as part of Water
Reclamation and Biosolids, for the benefit of new Water Board members; solid waste from
the plant is spread on the property, which is 26,000 acres just south of the Wyoming border.
Board Member Jim Kuiken moved that the Water Board recommend City Council approve
conveyance of a waterline easement and temporary construction easement to Northern
Colorado Water Association on Meadow Springs Ranch.
Board Member Nicole Ng seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
ATTACHMENT 2 10.2
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Water Board Minutes, August 20, 2020 (9480 : Meadow Springs Easement)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 123, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A PERMANENT WATERLINE EASEMENT
AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON MEADOW SPRINGS RANCH
TO THE NORTHERN COLORADO WATER ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of real property located north of Fort Collins in
Larimer County and Weld County known as Meadow Springs Ranch (the “City Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is managed by the City’s Wastewater Utility as a site for land
application of biosolids, and is also a working cattle ranch; and
WHEREAS, the Northern Colorado Water Association (“NCWA”) owns three water
storage tanks located in an easement on the Larimer County portion of the City Property in
Section 23, Township 11N, Range 68W of the 6th P.M. west of Carr, Colorado that connect to its
existing distribution system through water transmission mains constructed in the early 1960s;
and
WHEREAS, NCWA first contacted the City in 2009 about obtaining an easement to
install a redundant transmission main, a portion of which would cross the City Property, to
improve reliability to NCWA’s members, as its existing transmission mains cross several
floodplains and are vulnerable to damage; and
WHEREAS, because NCWA’s infrastructure is surrounded by the City Property, NCWA
cannot build a new, safer waterline without crossing the City Property in some location; and
WHEREAS, the location of the proposed waterline easement is shown and described on
Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “Easement”); and
WHEREAS, NCWA is also requesting a temporary construction easement through
December, 2021, to allow construction of the new waterline, as shown and described on Exhibit
“B”, attached and incorporated herein by reference (the “TCE”); and
WHEREAS, NCWA would pay the City fair market value of $656.28 for the TCE and
$3285 for the Easement, plus a $6,600 vegetation management fee for the cost of reseeding and
revegetating the easement areas following construction of the waterline; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111 of the City Code authorizes the City Council to sell, convey
or otherwise dispose of any interests in real property owned by the City, provided the City
Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other disposition is in the best interests of the
City and, for real property that is part of a City utility system, that the disposition will not
materially impair the viability of that utility system as a whole, and will be for the benefit of the
citizens of the City; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on September 20, 2020, the Water Board voted to
recommend City Council approve the conveyance of the Easement.
Packet Pg. 122
-2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the conveyance of the Easement
and TCE to NCWA as provided herein is in the best interests of the City, will not materially
impair the viability of the City’s Wastewater Utility as a whole, and will be for the benefit of the
citizens of the City.
Section 3. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easement and TCE to NCWA on terms and conditions consistent with
this Ordinance, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in
consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the
interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Ordinance, including any necessary
corrections to the legal descriptions of the Easement or TCE, as long as such changes to not
materially increase the size or change the purpose of the interests to be conveyed.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 6th day of
October, A.D. 2020 and to be presented for final passage on the 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 20th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 123
EXHIBIT AAPacket Pg. 124Attachment: Exhibit A (9527 : Meadow Springs Easement ORD)
APacket Pg. 125Attachment: Exhibit A (9527 : Meadow Springs Easement ORD)
BPacket Pg. 126Attachment: Exhibit B (9527 : Meadow Springs Easement ORD)
BPacket Pg. 127Attachment: Exhibit B (9527 : Meadow Springs Easement ORD)
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Chad Crager, PDT Interim Deputy Director
Claire Havelda, Legal
SUBJECT
Emergency Ordinance No. 124, 2020, Approving Updated Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020 -17A
Regarding Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020 -17 enacted by the City
Manager on May 28, 2020, in response to the COVID -19 emergency. Section 2-671(a)(6)a. of the City Code
provides that emergency rules and regulations must be confirmed at the earliest practical time by Council.
This Emergency Ordinance seeks Council’s approval and ratification of Updated Emergency Rule and
Regulation No. 2020-17A, replacing Regulation No. 2020-17 and extending Outdoor Expansion Permits to
terminate when the declared local emergency ends (rather than September 27, 2020 as currently provided).
The City Charter provides for the adoption of emergency ordinances as immediately necessary, to preserve
the public property, health, peace, or safety, and requires that for adoption an emergency ordinance must be
approved by an affirmative vote of five Councilmembers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City continues to be threatened with serious injury and damage, consisting of widespread human and
economic impact caused by the Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID -19). On March 13, 2020, in order to
undertake emergency measures to protect the life, health, safety and property of the citizens of the City and
persons conducting business therein, and in order to attempt to minimize the loss of human life and the
preservation of property, the City Manager, as the Director of the City’s Office of Emergency Management,
proclaimed a “local emergency” in accordance with Section 2 -671(a)(1) of the City Code and activated the
Emergency Operations Plan established pursuant to Section 2 -673 of the City Code. Council extended the
local emergency until such time as the City Manager determines in writing that the conditions justifying the
local emergency no longer exist, with the adoption of Resolution 2020 -030 on March 20, 2020.
Council has since adopted Emergency Regulation No. 2020-017, authorizing the City Engineer to approve
temporary outdoor expansion permits for fixed eating, drinking and retail establishments, on public and private
property, subject to certain conditions. Staff proposes to amend the end date of this emergency regulation to
coincide with the termination of the declared local emergency by the City. Additional amendments include a
provision relating to the winterization of the outdoor spaces, including weather protection barriers and heating
elements and authorizing the City Engineer to set closing times for outdoor space consistent with other legal
requirements (like State liquor licensing requirements). (Attachment 1-2)
11
Packet Pg. 128
Agenda Item 11
Item # 11 Page 2
Extension of Emergency Outdoor Permits was requested by the majority of local business owners currently
utilizing the program. This Emergency Regulation has been a vital component in supporting local business
owners during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Emergency Regulation 2020-17A - Redline Comparison (PDF)
2. Exhibit A - Redline Comparison (PDF)
11
Packet Pg. 129
City Manager’s Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107
fcgov.com
UPDATED EMERGENCY RULES AND REGULATIONS No. 2020-
1717A
Regarding Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits
To all persons take notice:
That for the protection of life, health, safety and property as affected by reason of the Novel
Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), which resulted in my declaration of a “local emergency” under the
authority of Chapter 2, Article IX of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, (the “City”) and which
declaration of local emergency was filed with the City Clerk and with the Colorado Division of
Emergency Management on March 13, 2020, and extended by City Council adoption of Resolution
2020-030 on March 20, 2020, I have hereby established, under the authority of City Code Section 2-
671(a)(6)a, the following rules and regulations:
1. The purpose of this Emergency Regulation is to authorize the City EngineerThe purpose of
this Updated Emergency Regulation is to replace Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-
17 (“Regulation No. 2020-17”), signed on May 28, 2020. This Updated Emergency Regulation
No. 2020-17A will become effective on signature and shall govern all “Outdoor Expansion
Permits” whether issued under Regulation No. 2020-17 or this Updated Emergency Regulation
No. 2020-17A. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to approve temporary outdoor
expansion permits (“Outdoor Expansion Permit” or “Permit”) to fixed restaurants, liquor
licensed establishments, and retail establishments within the Fort Collins City limits that
otherwise meet all applicable Colorado (“State”), Larimer County (“County”), and City
requirements for operation and are authorized to be open for public service (with or without a
Permit) (“Eligible Establishments”), subject to certain requirements. Neither food trucks nor
outdoor vendors qualify as Eligible Establishments since they have no fixed location.
2. The purpose of the Permit is to allow Eligible Establishments to temporarily expand their
existing premises into a defined area (the “Expansion Area”) on City or private property
adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of their fixed location, thereby facilitating the ability
of the Establishment to conduct business while maintaining required physical or social
distancing and safety for the public when an Eligible Establishment resumes public service and
operates as permitted by State and County public health regulations. City property available
for an Expansion Area is limited to City rights-of-way, including sidewalks, streets, and
parking spaces or lots.
ATTACHMENT 1 11.1
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Emergency Regulation 2020-17A - Redline Comparison (9495 : Outdoor Dining Extension)
Emergency Rules and Regulations No. 2020-1717A
May 28September 18, 2020
Page 2 of 6
3. Applicants for the Outdoor Expansion Permits must comply with all current and applicable
State, County, and local regulations to be considered for approval. Such regulations include,
but are not limited to:
a. State Emergency Regulations 47-302 1 C.C.R. 203-2 which allows for on-premises
liquor licenses to temporarily expand their licensed premises into sidewalks, streets,
and parking lots to increase social distancing measures;
b. State and County Public Health Orders, State Executive Orders and other State and
County emergency orders in effect from time to time; and
c. Other local rules and regulations.
4. A City Outdoor Expansion Permit issued under this Emergency Regulation does not authorize
or license the service of alcohol in the Expansion Area. Applicants wishing to serve alcohol
in an Expansion Area are responsible for obtaining from the local and State liquor
licensing authority approval for any modification to an existing liquor license necessary
to permit liquor service in the Expansion Area.
5. An Outdoor Expansion Permit issued under this Emergency Regulation is expressly subject to
all Terms, Conditions and Procedural Requirements set forth on the Updated Exhibit A
attached hereto.
6. An Outdoor Expansion Permit issued under this Emergency Regulation shall be effective only
when the Eligible Establishment is otherwise permitted to be open to the public under
applicable State, County, and City regulations.
7. Outdoor Expansion Permit applications shall be submitted and processed as follows:
a. Applications shall be submitted to via the City’s website at
https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/5608953/Fort-Collins-Outdoor-Dining-
Encroachment-Application.
b. The permit application will also require verification b y the applicant satisfactory to
the City Engineer that the proposed operation is in compliance with all applicable
State and County regulations for operation of the Eligible Establishment and has
obtained or prior to operation will obtain all State and Co unty approvals or permits
required for operation of the Eligible Establishment. Applicants will be notified of the
issuance or denial of a Permit at and any issued Permit shall be delivered by email to
the email address set forth on the application.
c. Receipt of an email from the City Engineer initially approving the map and set-up
reflected in the application will permit the applicant to set up the Expansion Area as
shown on the application. Before operating in the Expansion Area, the applicant must
email one or more photos of the completed set-up to the City Engineer to verify it
complies with proposed set-up in application and plans. The City Engineer or their
11.1
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Emergency Regulation 2020-17A - Redline Comparison (9495 : Outdoor Dining Extension)
Emergency Rules and Regulations No. 2020-1717A
May 28September 18, 2020
Page 3 of 6
designee may inspect the Expansion Area in person at any time, in their discretion, to
verify compliance. Upon the City Engineer’s approval and issuance of Permit, the
applicant may then occupy the Expansion Space.
8. Outdoor Expansion Permit applications will be reviewed by relevant City Departments and
ultimately approved or denied by the City Engineer in consultation with Poudre Fire Authority.
In order to approve an application, the City Engineer must determine that granting an
application would not be detrimental to the public good and that:
a. The Eligible Establishment meets all applicable City requirements for operating.
b. Any requested closure of a public right-of-way or publicly accessible portions of
private property such as sidewalks, parking spaces and drive aisles to accommodate
the expansion of an establishment can be done in a manner that:
i. Ensures the closure is safe;
ii. Sufficiently mitigates impacts to the public’s ability to safely and
conveniently bypass the proposed closure; and
iii. Complies with all applicable laws including, but not limited to, the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
c. Any requested expansion into the public right-of-way or onto private property:
i. Maintains adequate emergency access to the Eligible Establishment and
other properties in the vicinity; and
ii. Is compatible with the activities, whether commercial, industrial, or
residential, being conducted on properties in the vicinity of the establishment.
9. The City Engineer’s decision to issue or deny a requested Permit is final and not subject to any
administrative or other appeal to the City. If a Permit is denied the applicant may reapply based
on the comments provided by the City Engineer. There will likely be some instances where the
City will not be able to approve a proposed Expansion Area based on safety and/or
compatibility issues.
10. Outdoor Expansion Permits will be issued to an Eligible Establishment on an individual basis
and are non-transferable and site specific. The City Engineer has the discretion to impose site
specific conditions on any Outdoor Expansion Permit in order to assure compliance with the
requirements set forth above and to protect public safety.
11. Outdoor Expansion Permits are revocable and subject to the following provisions regarding
termination:
a. All Outdoor Expansion Permits will terminate on the earlier ofat the termination of the
declared local emergency .
11.1
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Emergency Regulation 2020-17A - Redline Comparison (9495 : Outdoor Dining Extension)
Emergency Rules and Regulations No. 2020-1717A
May 28September 18, 2020
Page 4 of 6
a.b. Eligible establishments wishing to erect weather protection barriers, heating equipment
or September 27, 2020.any additions to their currently permitted Outdoor Expansion
Area must submit an updated plan to the City Engineer which must be approved prior
to the addition of such items. All furniture, fixtures and equipment (“FF&E”) shall be
removed and damagedamaged repaired by the Eligible Establishment on or before
October 4, 2020, unless terminated sooner. within two-weeks of the termination of this
Emergency Regulation.
b.c. Permits are revocable at any time by the City Engineer prior to the date above in the
discretion of the City Engineer with or without cause after ten (10) days’ notice, except
that the City Engineer may summarily suspend or terminate any Permit without ten
(10) days’ advance notice in the interest of public health or safety.
i. Any notice of revocation of the Permit will be sent by email to the
Establishment’s email address on the Permit application.
ii. The Eligible Establishment shall terminate operation in the Expansion Area
immediately after receipt of notice revoking the Permit and remove all FF&E
from and repair all damage to the Expansion Area within 48 hours of receipt of
such notice.
12. ApprovedAn approved Outdoor Expansion Permits arePermit is intended to be a stand-alone
permit for the Expansion Area and will temporarily supersede conflicting provisions of the
Municipal Code and Land Use Code requiring other permits or approvals for the use of the
Expansion Area on public or private property expressly authorized by a Permit, including but
not limited to:
a. City Code Chapter 5 - Buildings and Building Regulation.
b. City Code Chapter 15 - Licenses and Business Regulations: Article XIII: Section 15
Right of Way Contractors and Article XIV: Section 15 Outdoor Vendors.
c. City Code Chapter 23 - Public Property: Article III: Section 23 Obstructions and
Encroachments, Divisions 1 (General), 2 (Obstructions) and 3(Encroachments).
d. City Code Chapter 23 - Public Property: Article IV: Section 23 Disposition of Property,
Division 2 – Real Property.
e. City Code Chapter 24 Streets and Sidewalks: Article II: Section 24 – Sidewalk,
Division 2 – Sidewalks, Curbs, Gutters; Article II: Section 24 Streets, Article IV:
Section 24 Portable Signs.
f. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Articles 3 and 4.
13. I find that this emergency ruleUpdated Emergency Rule and regulationRegulation No. 2020-
17A is reasonable and necessary to promote public safety and support economic recovery
caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic. This emergency ruleEmergency Rule and
11.1
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Emergency Regulation 2020-17A - Redline Comparison (9495 : Outdoor Dining Extension)
Emergency Rules and Regulations No. 2020-1717A
May 28September 18, 2020
Page 5 of 6
regulationRegulation promotes the health, safety and welfare of the public because it will
provide an expedited way for the City’s economy to recover, bolster the economic health of
residents, and ensure public health and safety concerns are prioritized.
Pursuant to Section 2-671(e) of the City Code, the rules and regulations set forth herein shall be
disseminated to local radio and television stations and to a newspaper having a general circulation
within the City. A knowing violation of these rules and regulations shall be a misdemeanor punishable
under Section 1-15 of the City Code.
DATED this ____ day of MaySeptember, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
11.1
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Emergency Regulation 2020-17A - Redline Comparison (9495 : Outdoor Dining Extension)
Emergency Rules and Regulations No. 2020-1717A
May 28September 18, 2020
Page 6 of 6
11.1
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Emergency Regulation 2020-17A - Redline Comparison (9495 : Outdoor Dining Extension)
Emergency Regulation
2020-1717A Exhibit A
Outdoor Expansion Permit Applications U mustU include:
1. A map with of the proposed Expansion Area showing specific areas, defined boundaries,
dimensions and distances from the Eligible Establishment’s existing premises, and the location
of all furniture, fixtures, and equipment to be located within the Expansion Area. All seating
shall be at least six (6) feet apart and accommodate not more than eight (8) people at a single
table.
2. Where applicable, written approval signed by the owner of private property included in any
proposed Expansion Area.
3. A certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured with respect to the Eligible
Establishment’s use of City property, including comprehensive general and where applicable
liquor liability insurance in an amount not less than $1M per occurrence.
4. A verification satisfactory to the City Engineer by the applicant that it is in compliance with all
applicable State and County for operation of the Eligible Establishment and has obtained or
prior to operation will obtain all State and County approvals or permits required for operation
of the Establishment.
U Terms & Conditions of Operation
1. Receipt of an email from the City Engineer initially approving the map and set-up reflected in the
application will permit the applicant to set up the Expansion Area as shown on the application.
Before operating in the Expansion Area, the applicant must email one or more photos of the
completed set-up to the City Engineer to verify it complies with proposed set-up in application
and plans. The City Engineer or their designee may inspect the Expansion Area in person at any
time, in their discretion, to verify compliance. Upon the City Engineer’s approval and issuance of
Permit, the applicant may then occupy the Expansion Space.
2. The City Engineer must approve any changes to the site plan before the Eligible Establishment
makes the proposed modifications. This includes, but is not limited to, modifications that provide
heat and shelter.
2.3. The City shall be responsible for placing barriers on City rights-of-way between the Expansion Area
and streets open for City traffic.
3.4. The Eligible Establishment shall be responsible for providing all temporary, free-standing and
movable furniture fixtures and equipment (FF&E) and temporary fencing or other boundary
makings and/or controls necessary for use of the Expansion Area. No permanent or affixed FF&E
is allowed. All FF&E and other personal property placed in the Expansion Area shall remain the
sole property of the Eligible Establishment and the Eligible Establishment shall place such property
on City Expansion Area at its own risk. The City shall have no liability for loss or damage to such
property and the Eligible Establishment waives all claims against the City for such loss or damage.
4.5. The Eligible Establishment must staff, monitor, and maintain the Expansion Area, including
keeping the Expansion Area free of snow, trash and food scraps, clean, sanitized and adequately
maintained in compliance with all applicable State, County and City regulations.
5.6. Electrical, building or fire permits may be required as reflected on the issued Permit.
6.7. The Eligible Establishment shall not permit the Expansion Area to be used for: a) standing areas
that encourage people to congregate; b) outdoor entertainment; or c) pets except service animals
per ADA.
8. The City Engineer will determine when Eligible EstablishmentEstablishments must close the
Expansion Area no later 11 p.m.,in consideration of, and compliance with table service ending at 10
p.m, State, County, and City regulations. The City Engineer will
ATTACHMENT 2 11.2
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Exhibit A - Redline Comparison (9495 : Outdoor Dining Extension)
7. provide reasonable notice of relevant closing times. The Eligible Establishment may set other
hours for permanent portions of the business (indoor and existing permanent patios) as permitted by
State, County and City regulations.
8.9. The Establishment shall comply with all other provisions of Emergency Regulation No. 2020-1717A.
11.2
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Exhibit A - Redline Comparison (9495 : Outdoor Dining Extension)
-1-
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 124, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING UPDATED EMERGENCY RULE AND REGULATION NO. 2020-17A
REGARDING TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EXPANSION PERMITS
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins is threatened with serious injury and damage,
consisting of widespread human and economic impact caused by the Novel Coronavirus 2019
(COVID-19); and
WHEREAS, the City and the Larimer County Department of Public Health and
Environment, state officials, Colorado State University and the Poudre School District are
cooperatively working to limit community spread and slow the transmission of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, in order to undertake emergency measures to protect the
life, health, safety and property of the citizens of the City and persons conducting business
therein, and in order to attempt to minimize the loss of human life and the preservation of
property, the City Manager, as the Director of the City’s Office of Emergency Management,
proclaimed a “local emergency” in accordance with Section 2-671(a)(1) of the City Code and
activated the Emergency Operations Plan established pursuant to Section 2-673 of the City Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has, with its adoption of Resolution 2020-030 extended the
City Manager the local emergency until such time as the City Manager determines in writing that
the conditions justifying the local emergency no longer exist; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2020, through Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-17
(Regulation 2020-17), the City Manager authorized Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits
allowing local businesses to temporarily expand their business footprint onto City or private
property adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of their fixed location to accommodate greater
social distancing at their establishments and providing that such Permits expire on the earlier of
September 27, 2020, or termination of the declared local emergency by the City; and
WHEREAS, the prevention and management of exposure to COVID-19 and mitigation of
related impacts of all kinds continue to require emergency action by the City and continued
social distancing to reduce its transmission; and
WHEREAS, Updated Emergency Rule and Regulation 2020-17A (Regulation 2020-17A)
will extend Outdoor Expansion Permits through the termination of the declared local emergency
by the City and make other amendments related to winterization of these outdoor spaces if the
City Engineer approves additional weather protection barriers and heating elements; and
WHEREAS, Regulation 2020-17 had a significant positive impact in supporting the local
economy while maintaining social distancing during the pandemic; and
WHEREAS, City Council finds it in the best interests of the Fort Collins residents to
approve Regulation No. 2020-17A that modifies the terms of the original regulation to include
Packet Pg. 138
-2-
weather barriers and heating components, and extends the termination of Outdoor Expansion
Permits until termination of the declared local emergency by the City; and
WHEREAS, Article II, Section 6 of the City Charter authorizes the Council to adopt
emergency ordinances, which shall be finally passed on first reading by the affirmative vote of at
least five members of the Council and which shall contain a specific statement of the nature of
the emergency.
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 and finds that an emergency exists for the
immediate adoption of this Ordinance under Article II, Section 6 of the City Charter to approve
Emergency Regulation 2020-17A (attached hereto). The COVID-19 emergency continues to
pose a threat to human life (requiring social distancing), property and the economic health of the
community and requires mitigation.
Section 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to cause the publication of this
Emergency Ordinance in accordance with the Fort Collins City Charter.
Introduced, considered favorably by at least five (5) members of the Council of the City
of Fort Collins and finally passed as an emergency ordinance and ordered published this 6th day
of October 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 139
City Manager’s Office
300 Laporte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107
fcgov.com
UPDATED EMERGENCY RULES AND REGULATIONS No. 2020-17A
Regarding Temporary Outdoor Expansion Permits
To all persons take notice:
That for the protection of life, health, safety and property as affected by reason of the Novel
Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), which resulted in my declaration of a “local emergency” under the
authority of Chapter 2, Article IX of the Code of the City of Fort Collins, (the “City”) and which
declaration of local emergency was filed with the City Clerk and with the Colorado Division of
Emergency Management on March 13, 2020, and extended by City Council adoption of Resolution
2020-030 on March 20, 2020, I have hereby established, under the authority of City Code Section 2-
671(a)(6)a, the following rules and regulations:
1. The purpose of this Updated Emergency Regulation is to replace Emergency Rule and
Regulation No. 2020-17 (“Regulation No. 2020-17”), signed on May 28, 2020. This Updated
Emergency Regulation No. 2020-17A will become effective on signature and shall govern all
“Outdoor Expansion Permits” whether issued under Regulation No. 2020-17 or this Updated
Emergency Regulation No. 2020-17A. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to approve
temporary outdoor expansion permits (“Outdoor Expansion Permit” or “Permit”) to fixed
restaurants, liquor licensed establishments, and retail establishments within the Fort Collins
City limits that otherwise meet all applicable Colorado (“State”), Larimer County (“County”),
and City requirements for operation and are authorized to be open for public service (with or
without a Permit) (“Eligible Establishments”), subject to certain requirements. Neither food
trucks nor outdoor vendors qualify as Eligible Establishments since they have no fixed
location.
2. The purpose of the Permit is to allow Eligible Establishments to temporarily expand their
existing premises into a defined area (the “Expansion Area”) on City or private property
adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of their fixed location, thereby facilitating the ability
of the Establishment to conduct business while maintaining required physical or social
distancing and safety for the public when an Eligible Establishment resumes public service and
operates as permitted by State and County public health regulations. City property available
for an Expansion Area is limited to City rights-of-way, including sidewalks, streets, and
parking spaces or lots.
3. Applicants for the Outdoor Expansion Permits must comply with all current and applicable
State, County, and local regulations to be considered for approval. Such regulations include,
but are not limited to:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2ED15B0F-C745-452E-87DC-6219086C8119
EXHIBIT A A
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Exhibit A (9518 : Outdoor Dining Extension ORD)
Emergency Rules and Regulations No. 2020-17A
September 24, 2020
Page 2 of 4
a. State Emergency Regulations 47-302 1 C.C.R. 203-2 which allows for on-premises
liquor licenses to temporarily expand their licensed premises into sidewalks, streets,
and parking lots to increase social distancing measures;
b. State and County Public Health Orders, State Executive Orders and other State and
County emergency orders in effect from time to time; and
c. Other local rules and regulations.
4. A City Outdoor Expansion Permit Udoes not Uauthorize or license the service of alcohol in the
Expansion Area. UApplicants wishing to serve alcohol in an Expansion Area are
responsible for obtaining from the local and State liquor licensing authority approval for
any modification to an existing liquor license necessary to permit liquor service in the
Expansion Area.
5. An Outdoor Expansion Permit is expressly subject to all Terms, Conditions and Procedural
Requirements set forth on the Updated Exhibit A attached hereto.
6. An Outdoor Expansion Permit shall be effective only when the Eligible Establishment is
otherwise permitted to be open to the public under applicable State, County, and City
regulations.
7. Outdoor Expansion Permit applications shall be submitted and processed as follows:
a. Applications shall be submitted to via the City’s website at
28TUhttps://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/5608953/Fort-Collins-Outdoor-Dining-
Encroachment-ApplicationU28 T.
b. The permit application will also require verification by the applicant satisfactory to
the City Engineer that the proposed operation is in compliance with all applicable
State and County regulations for operation of the Eligible Establishment and has
obtained or prior to operation will obtain all State and County approvals or permits
required for operation of the Eligible Establishment. Applicants will be notified of the
issuance or denial of a Permit at and any issued Permit shall be delivered by email to
the email address set forth on the application.
c. Receipt of an email from the City Engineer initially approving the map and set-up
reflected in the application will permit the applicant to set up the Expansion Area as
shown on the application. Before operating in the Expansion Area, the applicant must
email one or more photos of the completed set-up to the City Engineer to verify it
complies with proposed set-up in application and plans. The City Engineer or their
designee may inspect the Expansion Area in person at any time, in their discretion, to
verify compliance. Upon the City Engineer’s approval and issuance of Permit, the
applicant may then occupy the Expansion Space.
8. Outdoor Expansion Permit applications will be reviewed by relevant City Departments and
ultimately approved or denied by the City Engineer in consultation with Poudre Fire Authority.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2ED15B0F-C745-452E-87DC-6219086C8119
A
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Exhibit A (9518 : Outdoor Dining Extension ORD)
Emergency Rules and Regulations No. 2020-17A
September 24, 2020
Page 3 of 4
In order to approve an application, the City Engineer must determine that granting an
application would not be detrimental to the public good and that:
a. The Eligible Establishment meets all applicable City requirements for operating.
b. Any requested closure of a public right-of-way or publicly accessible portions of
private property such as sidewalks, parking spaces and drive aisles to accommodate
the expansion of an establishment can be done in a manner that:
i. Ensures the closure is safe;
ii. Sufficiently mitigates impacts to the public’s ability to safely and
conveniently bypass the proposed closure; and
iii. Complies with all applicable laws including, but not limited to, the
American with Disabilities Act (ADA).
c. Any requested expansion into the public right-of-way or onto private property:
i. Maintains adequate emergency access to the Eligible Establishment and
other properties in the vicinity; and
ii. Is compatible with the activities, whether commercial, industrial, or
residential, being conducted on properties in the vicinity of the establishment.
9. The City Engineer’s decision to issue or deny a requested Permit is final and not subject to any
administrative or other appeal to the City. If a Permit is denied the applicant may reapply based
on the comments provided by the City Engineer. There will likely be some instances where the
City will not be able to approve a proposed Expansion Area based on safety and/or
compatibility issues.
10. Outdoor Expansion Permits will be issued to an Eligible Establishment on an individual basis
and are non-transferable and site specific. The City Engineer has the discretion to impose site
specific conditions on any Outdoor Expansion Permit in order to assure compliance with the
requirements set forth above and to protect public safety.
11. Outdoor Expansion Permits are revocable and subject to the following provisions:
a. All Outdoor Expansion Permits will terminate at the termination of the declared local
emergency.
b. Eligible establishments wishing to erect weather protection barriers, heating equipment
or any additions to their currently permitted Outdoor Expansion Area must submit an
updated plan to the City Engineer which must be approved prior to the addition of such
items. All furniture, fixtures and equipment (“FF&E”) shall be removed and damaged
repaired by the Eligible Establishment within two-weeks of the termination of this
Emergency Regulation.
c. Permits are revocable at any time by the City Engineer prior to the date above in the
discretion of the City Engineer with or without cause after ten (10) days’ notice, except
that the City Engineer may summarily suspend or terminate any Permit without ten
(10) days’ advance notice in the interest of public health or safety.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2ED15B0F-C745-452E-87DC-6219086C8119
A
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Exhibit A (9518 : Outdoor Dining Extension ORD)
Emergency Rules and Regulations No. 2020-17A
September 24, 2020
Page 4 of 4
i. Any notice of revocation of the Permit will be sent by email to the
Establishment’s email address on the Permit application.
ii. The Eligible Establishment shall terminate operation in the Expansion Area
immediately after receipt of notice revoking the Permit and remove all FF&E
from and repair all damage to the Expansion Area within 48 hours of receipt of
such notice.
12. An approved Outdoor Expansion Permit is intended to be stand-alone permit for the Expansion
Area and will temporarily supersede conflicting provisions of the Municipal Code and Land
Use Code requiring other permits or approvals for the use of the Expansion Area on public or
private property expressly authorized by a Permit, including but not limited to:
a. City Code Chapter 5 - Buildings and Building Regulation.
b. City Code Chapter 15 - Licenses and Business Regulations: Article XIII: Section 15
Right of Way Contractors and Article XIV: Section 15 Outdoor Vendors.
c. City Code Chapter 23 - Public Property: Article III: Section 23 Obstructions and
Encroachments, Divisions 1 (General), 2 (Obstructions) and 3(Encroachments).
d. City Code Chapter 23 - Public Property: Article IV: Section 23 Disposition of Property,
Division 2 – Real Property.
e. City Code Chapter 24 Streets and Sidewalks: Article II: Section 24 – Sidewalk,
Division 2 – Sidewalks, Curbs, Gutters; Article II: Section 24 Streets, Article IV:
Section 24 Portable Signs.
f. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Articles 3 and 4.
13. I find that this Updated Emergency Rule and Regulation No. 2020-17A is reasonable and
necessary to promote public safety and support economic recovery caused by the COVID-19
Pandemic. This Emergency Rule and Regulation promotes the health, safety and welfare of the
public because it will provide an expedited way for the City’s economy to recover, bolster the
economic health of residents, and ensure public health and safety concerns are prioritized.
Pursuant to Section 2-671(e) of the City Code, the rules and regulations set forth herein shall be
disseminated to local radio and television stations and to a newspaper having a general circulation
within the City. A knowing violation of these rules and regulations shall be a misdemeanor punishable
under Section 1-15 of the City Code.
DATED this ____ day of September, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2ED15B0F-C745-452E-87DC-6219086C8119
24
A
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Exhibit A (9518 : Outdoor Dining Extension ORD)
Emergency Regulation 2020-17A
Exhibit A
UProcedural Requirements
Outdoor Expansion Permit Applications UmustU include:
1. A map with of the proposed Expansion Area showing specific areas, defined boundaries,
dimensions and distances from the Eligible Establishment’s existing premises, and the location
of all furniture, fixtures, and equipment to be located within the Expansion Area. All seating
shall be at least six (6) feet apart and accommodate not more than eight (8) people at a single
table.
2. Where applicable, written approval signed by the owner of private property included in any
proposed Expansion Area.
3. A certificate of insurance naming the City as an additional insured with respect to the Eligible
Establishment’s use of City property, including comprehensive general and where applicable
liquor liability insurance in an amount not less than $1M per occurrence.
4. A verification satisfactory to the City Engineer by the applicant that it is in compliance with all
applicable State and County for operation of the Eligible Establishment and has obtained or
prior to operation will obtain all State and County approvals or permits required for operation
of the Establishment.
UTerms & Conditions of Operation
1. Receipt of an email from the City Engineer initially approving the map and set-up reflected in the
application will permit the applicant to set up the Expansion Area as shown on the application.
Before operating in the Expansion Area, the applicant must email one or more photos of the
completed set-up to the City Engineer to verify it complies with proposed set-up in application
and plans. The City Engineer or their designee may inspect the Expansion Area in person at any
time, in their discretion, to verify compliance. Upon the City Engineer’s approval and issuance of
Permit, the applicant may then occupy the Expansion Space.
2. The City Engineer must approve any changes to the site plan before the Eligible Establishment
makes the proposed modifications. This includes, but is not limited to, modifications that provide
heat and shelter.
3. The City shall be responsible for placing barriers on City rights-of-way between the Expansion
Area and streets open for City traffic.
4. The Eligible Establishment shall be responsible for providing all temporary, free-standing and
movable furniture fixtures and equipment (FF&E) and temporary fencing or other boundary
makings and/or controls necessary for use of the Expansion Area. No permanent or affixed FF&E
is allowed. All FF&E and other personal property placed in the Expansion Area shall remain the
sole property of the Eligible Establishment and the Eligible Establishment shall place such property
on City Expansion Area at its own risk. The City shall have no liability for loss or damage to such
property and the Eligible Establishment waives all claims against the City for such loss or damage.
5. The Eligible Establishment must staff, monitor, and maintain the Expansion Area, including
keeping the Expansion Area free of snow, trash and food scraps, clean, sanitized and adequately
maintained in compliance with all applicable State, County and City regulations.
6. Electrical, building or fire permits may be required as reflected on the issued Permit.
7. The Eligible Establishment shall not permit the Expansion Area to be used for: a) standing areas
that encourage people to congregate; b) outdoor entertainment; or c) pets except service animals
per ADA.
8. The City Engineer will determine when Eligible Establishments must close the Expansion Area in
consideration of, and compliance with, State, County, and City regulations. The City Engineer will
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2ED15B0F-C745-452E-87DC-6219086C8119
A
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Exhibit A (9518 : Outdoor Dining Extension ORD)
provide reasonable notice of relevant closing times. The Eligible Establishment may set other hours
for permanent portions of the business (indoor and existing permanent patios) as permitted by State,
County and City regulations.
9. The Establishment shall comply with all other provisions of Emergency Regulation No. 2020-17A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 2ED15B0F-C745-452E-87DC-6219086C8119
A
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit A (9518 : Outdoor Dining Extension ORD)
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Julia Feder, Environmental Planning Manager
John Stokes, Natural Resources Director
Ingrid Decker, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2020-088 Authorizing a Conservation Agriculture Lease on Flores del Sol Natural Area to Poudre
Valley Community Farms.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider a 10-year lease to Poudre Valley Community Farms (PVCF) for a
conservation agriculture project on Flores del Sol Natural Area. Conservation agriculture on natural areas
represents a slight shift in land management for the Natural Areas Department (Department). The approach
aligns agricultural management practices with the Department’s conservation mission, while supporting the
City’s local, sustainable agriculture goals.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Through a competitive Request for Proposals process, PVCF was selected as the conservation agriculture
managing tenant on up to 130 acres within the 152-acre Flores del Sol Natural Area. As a land cooperative,
with a vision of affordable access to community -supported farmland, PVCF will be a valuable partner as
Natural Areas seeks to increase conservation outcomes on the si te, while continuing to manage vegetation
through agriculture. PVCF will sublease various size plots of the farmland to local farmers that share the same
vision.
The Department uses agriculture to manage select properties that are not a restoration prior ity. These efforts
help preserve the agriculture, pastoral views of the landscape, and open space, while minimizing Natural
Areas’ cost of stewarding the land. Conservation agriculture is a small shift in land management practices that
better aligns with the Department’s conservation focus.
The Department maintains a 10-year restoration schedule by evaluating priorities annually. Flores del Sol, an
agricultural property purchased in 2016, ranks as a low restoration priority, meaning it will not be schedule d for
grassland restoration work within the next 10 years, or longer.
If circumstances were to change that this or another property managed through conservation agriculture
became a restoration priority, the lease with PVCF allows for either party to can cel the agreement by giving
180 days’ notice. The Department intends to manage Flores del Sol through conservation agriculture for the
term of this lease, if not longer. However, as requested by Council in the July 28th Work Session, the
Department has identified an exit strategy. The 180 days’ notice of termination allows time for both partners to
facilitate the change, including the needs of community members and organizations that may benefit from the
food production on the site.
12
Packet Pg. 146
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 2
In support of the Department’s mission, the lease agreement with PVCF details the expected conservation
outcomes and provides a framework for documenting partners’ progress toward meeting these goals:
1. Shift from current monoculture to diversified plantings.
2. Integrate native seed mixes into grazed and not actively farmed areas .
3. Conserve water with innovative irrigation techniques.
4. Rebuild the soil body with improved nutrient composition.
5. Integrate native plantings throughout farmed area to benefit wildlife including pollinators, birds, and
small mammals.
Measurement of conservation outcomes will be a shared responsibility between the Department and PVCF.
The Department will conduct assessments of biodiversity (variety of life present) and PVCF will report o n the
following metrics annually:
• Biodiversity enhancements
• Number of community members served
• Number of partnerships formed and/or continued to serve traditionally underrepresented members of
the community
• Emerging farmers engaged
In addition to the conservation goals, the Department anticipates increasing local food production and related
social and economic sustainability goals, as detailed in the 2019 City Plan. PVCF estimates that more than
3,500 community members may be engaged through the sale of food, working on the farm, and visiting the
farm.
In the coming years, conservation agriculture will remain a minor land management strategy. With the following
criteria as a guide, the Department will determine if additional properties pr esent reasonable opportunities on a
case-by-case basis.
1. Property is not identified as a restoration priority within the Department’s 10-year restoration plan.
2. The site is currently managed by agricultural practices.
3. Water for irrigation is available to the site.
4. The property’s location supports thoughtful community access and engagement.
2560 West Vine Street Lease
In the near-term, the Department anticipates conservation agriculture will be applied as a vegetation
management strategy on one additional property in 2021. In August 2020, the Department released a Request
for Proposals for conservation agriculture on the 2560 West Vine Street property. The site meets the criteria
above and is a reasonable opportunity for a second conservatio n agriculture project. The property’s vegetation
is currently managed through a haying lease, it is not a near -term restoration priority, and it has associated
water for irrigation. The Department intends to establish a shorter -term lease for this property with one-year
terms, renewable up to five years. This timeline will allow the Department to undertake a management
planning process and identify long term goals for the site. During this period, conservation agriculture will
support vegetation management on the property in alignment with Natural Areas goals. Given the proposed
lease term and the timeline for proposal submission and review, the Department will bring a lease to the City
Manager for review and approval by mid-October.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The anticipated lease to PVCF on Flores del Sol will allow diversified agriculture production on 130 acres. The
lease rate will be $5,000 per year. The lease includes the option to use the currently unoccupied structures on
nearby natural areas properties for an additional lease rate that will be delayed until the fifth anniversary of the
lease agreement. The lease rate for these structures will be $3,600 per year beginning on the fifth anniversary
12
Packet Pg. 147
Agenda Item 12
Item # 12 Page 3
of the agreement. Delayed fees for renting the structures account for the significant repairs and investment
PVCF will need to make for these structures to be operable. Additionally, the annual lease rate will increase or
decrease, beginning on the fifth anniversary of the lease agreement and each year after, in accordance with
the rate of inflation for Colorado. The yearly lease, commencing on November 1, 2020, will automatically
renew annually for up to 10 years with a termination date of October 31, 2030.
The City will maintain existing water rights at Flores del Sol through payment of associated annual fees. While
significant staff time has been dedicated to development of conservation agriculture as a management
strategy, minimal City resources will be required to support this project moving forward, estimate d at less than
5 Percent of a Full Time Equivalent employee.
Conservation agriculture lease rates are set to account for the Department’s costs. Additionally, a conservation
agriculture partnership positively impacts the City by deferring vegetation mana gement costs until the
Department can prioritize the cost for restoration and long-term maintenance.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 10, 2020, meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to
recommend that Council approve the lease.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Summary (PDF)
2. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Minutes (PDF)
3. Vicinity Map (PDF)
12
Packet Pg. 148
Natural Areas Department
1745 Hoffman Mill Road
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.416-2815
970.416-2211 - fax
fcgov.com/naturalareas
naturalareas@fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 31, 2020
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
John Stokes, Interim Community Services Director
From: Julia Feder, Environmental Program Manager
Zoe Shark, Interim Natural Areas Director
Re: July 28, 2020 Work Session Summary – Natural Areas and Local Agriculture
Summary of Discussion
At the July 28 Work Session, Mayor Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Stephens, Councilmembers
Cunniff, Gorgol, Gutowsky, Pignataro, and Summers reflected on the Natural Areas Department
proposal to shift to a conservation agriculture land management strategy on two natural areas
(Flores del Sol and West Vine Property). There was consensus that the conservation agriculture
approach described by staff is appropriate and that leases could be brought forward for Council
consideration Staff will return in October for Council consideration of the agreements
Follow Up Items
Council requested additional information on the following points. Staff will submit additional
information to Council in the coming weeks, ahead of lease review later this fall.
• Request to further describe the long-term outlook for each property.
• Request to draft a conservation agriculture exit strategy which would be implemented
when the properties become a restoration priority.
• Request for an analysis of resource allocations.
• Request for an analysis of the volume of people that might be served.
ATTACHMENT 1 12.1
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Work Session Summary (9486 : Flores del Sol Lease)
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
September 10, 2020
Regular Meeting – Excerpt
12/11/2019 – MINUTES Page 1
Flores del Sol Natural Areas Conservation Agriculture Lease
Natural Areas Department staff submitted a memo to the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
with information on the proposed ten-year conservation agriculture lease on Flores Del Sol Natural
Area (FDS). The existing lease for haying ends in October 2020. The new lease to Poudre Valley
Community Farms (PVCF) will be considered by City Council in October and is anticipated to be on
the consent agenda.
Through a competitive Request for Proposals process, PVCF was selected as the conservation
agriculture managing tenant on up to 130 acres within the 152-acre natural area. If circumstances
were to change such that this or another property managed through conservation agriculture
became a restoration priority, the lease with PVCF allows for either party to cancel the lease with
180-days notice.
The Board expressed appreciation that the proposed lease incorporates feedback the group
provided at the June 10 2020, LCSB meeting, including a clear rubric for evaluating future
conservation agriculture opportunities and the 180-day notification for either party to cancel the
agreement. There were comments cautioning the Natural Areas Department from allowing
conservation agriculture to distract from the core conservation mission.
Joe Piesman made a motion that City Council adopt a resolution conveying the 10-year lease, on
Flores del Sol Natural Area, to Poudre Valley Community Farms. Alycia Crall seconded the
motion. The motion was unanimously approved 7-0
ATTACHMENT 2 12.2
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Minutes (9486 : Flores del Sol Lease)
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE ON CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL AREAS
1
19TVicinity Map for Flores del Sol Natural Area
ATTACHMENT 3 12.3
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Vicinity Map (9486 : Flores del Sol Lease)
-1-
RESOLUTION 2020-088
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING A CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE LEASE ON
FLORES DEL SOL NATURAL AREA TO POUDRE VALLEY COMMUNITY FARMS
WHEREAS, the City owns a 152-acre property in southeast Fort Collins known as Flores
Del Sol Natural Area (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, before the City’s Natural Areas Department (NAD) purchased the Property
in 2016 it was used for agricultural purposes, and NAD does not anticipate scheduling it for
grassland restoration work within the next ten years; and
WHEREAS, in the meantime, NAD staff is proposing using the property for conservation
agriculture to help manage and preserve the Property until such time as NAD is prepared to
actively restore it; and
WHEREAS, conservation agriculture will allow NAD to manage vegetation on the
Property through agriculture, including shifting to more diversified plantings, integrating native
plantings to create more wildlife habitat, and rebuilding the soil with improved nutrient
composition, which conserves the land while minimizing NAD’s stewardship costs; and
WHEREAS, this approach will also increase local food production, helping to meet
related social and economic sustainability goals as detailed in the 2019 City Plan; and
WHEREAS, through a request for proposals process the City selected Poudre Valley
Community Farms (“Tenant”) as a potential tenant for a 130-acre portion of the Property under a
10-year lease at an initial rate of $5,000 per year, which staff has determined is a fair market
rent; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed lease agreement is attached and incorporated herein
as Exhibit “A” (the “Lease”); and
WHEREAS, the Lease includes an option for the Tenant to use two pole barns located on
nearby City properties: the Cole Pole Barn at 2500 E. County Road 30, and the Soaring Vista
Pole Barn located at 4200 E. County Road 30 (the “Barns”); and
WHEREAS, if the Tenant chooses to use one or both of the Barns, in recognition of the
investment the Tenant would need to make repairing them, resulting in a direct benefit to the
City, the Tenant would not pay rent for the Barns until the fifth year of the Lease, after which the
rent would be $1200 per year for the Cole Pole Barn and $2400 per year for the Soaring Vista
Pole Barn; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on September 10, 2020, the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Lease; and
Packet Pg. 152
-2-
WHEREAS, Section 23-113(b)(1) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to lease
any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City if the City Council first finds
that the lease is in the best interests of the City, with such approval being by resolution unless the
proposed term of the lease exceeds twenty years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Lease of a portion of
the Property to the Tenant as provided herein is in the best interests of the City.
Section 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Lease in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, together with such additional terms and
conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney determines are necessary
and appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any necessary
changes to the legal description of the parcel to be leased, as long as such changes do not
materially increase the size or change the character of the property to be leased.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th
day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 153
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 1 of 27
FLORES DEL SOL NATURAL AREA
CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE LEASE AGREEMENT (“Lease”), is made and entered
into this day of , 20 , by and between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Lessor”), and POUDRE
VALLEY COMMUNITY FARMS, A LAND COOPERATIVE LTD., a Colorado limited cooperative
association (hereinafter referred to as the “Lessee”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Lessor is the owner of that certain real property, together with any improvements
located thereon, situated in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, consisting of
approximately 153 acres of land, commonly known as the Flores del Sol Natural Area, the legal
description of which is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference (hereinafter referred to as "Leased Premises"); and
WHEREAS, the Lessor desires to lease the Leased Premises to the Lessee for conservation
agriculture purposes as described by this Lease, and the Lessee desires to lease the Leased
Premises from the Lessor for conservation agriculture purposes as described by this lease.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and agreements
herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby covenant, promise, and agree to and with each
other as follows:
Article I. Lease of the Leased Premises.
1.1 The Lessor does hereby lease, demise, and let unto the Lessee, and the Lessee does
hereby hire and take from the Lessor the Leased Premises.
1.2 This Lease includes all the agriculture-related improvements located upon the Leased
Premises including, but not limited to raw land and irrigation ditch lateral infrastructure.
Lessee must ensure that its officers and employee(s) working or residing on the Leased
Premises, their dependents, and any guests, strictly comply with the requirements and
restrictions set forth in this Lease Agreement, and with all applicable laws, regulations
and other legal requirements, in connection with the use or occupation of the Leased
Premises.
1.3 Lessee may, but is not required to, lease two Pole Barns ("Barns") located offsite, subject
to additional lease terms, attached hereto in exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by
reference. Any that are checked are incorporated into this agreement:
_X__ Cole Pole Barn: Located at 2500 E County Road 30, Fort Collins.
Approximately 1,400SF Pole Barn as described in exhibit “B”.
EXHIBIT A A
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 2 of 27
_X__ Soaring Vista Pole Barn: Located at 4200 E. County Road 30,
Fort Collins. Approximately 2,400SF Pole Barn as described in
exhibit “B”. Lessee acknowledges the receipt of two (2) keys to
the premises.
1.3.1 Lessor reserves the right to reject Lessee's proposed use of the Barns if the
Lessor, in its sole discretion believes the use does not comply with the intended
use.
1.3.2 If at any time Lessee does not lease the Barns, Lessor reserves the right to utilize
the Barns for its sole use. Lessor will notify the Lessee if such action is taken.
Article II. Term.
2.1 The term of this Lease is for a period of Ten (10) years, commencing on the 1st day of
November 2020. The term of the Lease shall automatically renew for an additional Five
(5) years, terminating at midnight on October 31, 2035, unless terminated early by
operation of law or as otherwise provided in this Lease Agreement. Either party may
cancel this Lease at any time upon one hundred eighty (180) days advanced written
notice to the other.
Article III. Rent.
3.1 Rental Payment by Lessee. Upon commencement of this lease, Lessee shall pay a
yearly rent to Lessor in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). Payment will be
due in advance each year on the anniversary date of this lease. Monthly or quarterly
payment may be scheduled in advance with written approval by the City.
Lessee will make all payments of rent at such place as the Lessor may, from time to
time, designate in writing. For the present, the Lessor designates City of Fort Collins
Natural Areas Department, Attn: Natural Areas Financial Coordinator, P.O. Box 580, Fort
Collins, Colorado 80522, as the place for the making of rental payments. Credit/Debit
Card payments may also be made over the phone by calling the Natural Areas
Department Main Office at (970) 416-2815. All such rent must be paid in current legal
tender of the United States as the same is then by law constituted. If Lessor extends the
time for the payment of any installment of rent or accepts any money other than of the
kind herein specified, Lessor by doing so does not waive its right to insist on having all
other payments of rent made in the manner and at the time herein specified.
3.1.1 Cole Pole Barn: If checked above in section “1.3”. Upon commencement of this
lease, Lessee shall pay a yearly rent to Lessor in the amount of Zero Dollars
($0.00). Payment will be due in advance each year on the anniversary date of
this lease.
3.1.2 Soaring Vista Pole Barn: If checked above in section “1.3”. Upon commencement
of this lease, Lessee shall pay a yearly rent to Lessor in the amount of Zero
A
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 3 of 27
Dollars ($0.00). Payment will be due in advance each year on the anniversary
date of this lease.
3.2 The yearly rent will remain as follows for the first Five (5) years. Flores del Sol at Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000); Cole Pole Barn (if checked) at Zero Dollars ($0.00); Soaring
Vista Pole Barn (if checked) at Zero Dollars ($0.00).
3.2.1 Flores del Sol. Beginning on the fifth-year anniversary of the Lease
Commencement Date (defined above), and on each anniversary thereafter, the
amount of rent due for the Premises shall increase and or decrease in
accordance with the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U. Lessor shall give written
notice to Lessee not less than fifteen (15) days prior to each such anniversary of
the amount of the adjustment of the rent in accordance with the Denver-Boulder-
Greeley CPI-U.
3.2.2 Cole Pole Barn. If Lessee is renting this barn, beginning on the fifth-year
anniversary of the Lease Commencement Date (defined above), Lessee shall
pay a yearly rent to Lessor for the barn in the amount of One Thousand Two
Hundred Dollars ($1,200), and on each anniversary thereafter the amount of rent
due for the Premises shall increase and or decrease in accordance with the
Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U. Lessor shall give written notice to Lessee not
less than fifteen (15) days prior to each such anniversary of the amount of the
adjustment of the rent in accordance with the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U.
3.2.3 Soaring Vista Pole Barn. If Lessee is renting this barn, beginning on the fifth-
year anniversary of the Lease Commencement Date (defined above), Lessee
shall pay a yearly rent to Lessor for the barn in the amount of Two Thousand
Four Hundred Dollars ($2,400) and on each anniversary thereafter, the amount
of rent due for the Premises shall increase and or decrease in accordance with
the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U. Lessor shall give written notice to Lessee not
less than fifteen (15) days prior to each such anniversary of the amount of the
adjustment of the rent in accordance with the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI-U.
3.3 Billing or acceptance by Lessor of any rental shall not imply a definite term or otherwise
restrict either party from terminating this Agreement as provided herein. Payment of
rental specified herein is subject to a late payment charge of one and one-half percent
(1.5%) per month (l8% per annum), on balance past due over thirty (30) days.
3.4 The above rental amount is in addition to Lessee’s obligations to pay real and personal
property taxes, insurance premiums, utilities, and maintenance of the Premises.
Article IV. Use of Leased Premises.
4.1 The Lessee may use the Leased Premises for conservation agriculture purposes only, as
outlined in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter
referred to as “Scope of Work”); except as otherwise provided in this Lease. The Lease
A
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 4 of 27
does not allow for private or commercial recreational rights, hunting, shooting, trapping or
poisoning of wildlife of any kind. All pets must be on a leash, caged or fenced.
4.2 Wildlife management may be conducted during the regular course of business by the
Lessee with prior written approval from the Lessor.
4.3 Only licensed vehicles involved in farming activities are allowed beyond designated
parking areas. Unlicensed vehicles are prohibited except that farming equipment and
ATVs used for farming activities may be used.
4.4 Lessee and Lessor will annually work together in a collaborative effort to develop a
"Grazing Plan" for the Leased Premise, which plan includes stocking rates, grazing
initiation and ending dates, animal unit months for each pasture, and grazing rotation
plans. If the parties have not developed a Grazing Plan for each year's grazing season by
May 1 of that year, Lessor will determine the Grazing Plan for that year, and Lessee
agrees to comply with it.
4.5 The Lessor reserves the right to perform management activities at any time during the
year. Any management activity will be coordinated with the Lessee.
4.6 Lessee acknowledges that the Leased Premises is a City of Fort Collins Natural Area that
portions may be open to the public. The Lessor will coordinate open public areas with the
Lessee.
4.7 The Lessee must not use the Leased Premises in any way that violates any applicable
law, statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation of any governmental entity or body.
4.8 All livestock moved into Colorado from any other state or country must strictly adhere to
all Colorado Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations for
animal movement into and within Colorado.
4.9 The Lessee must not permit or suffer the use of, or presence on, the Leased Premises
by: (1) the general public, except for members of the public using the Flores del Sol
Natural Area in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Code and Natural Areas
regulations and policies, or by (2) any persons other than Lessee's employees or agents,
who are permitted to occupy or use the Leased Premises only to the extent required to
carry out the purposes of the Lease.
4.10 The Lessee is responsible for security activities on the Leased Premises, including but
not limited to the following:
• Answer visitors' questions about the natural area and natural areas rules and
regulations if Lessee's employees are approached on Flores del Sol Natural Area.
• Call for emergency response when necessary.
A
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 5 of 27
• Inspect fencing, gates, water infrastructure, and other structures or areas prone to
security breaches.
• Report suspicious activity including suspicious vehicles, persons or activities on site,
in prohibited areas.
• Communicate promptly with appropriate authorities to request assistance or to report
an incident when suspicious and/or illegal activity or security breech has occurred.
This may include Natural Areas Rangers or other Natural Areas personnel, Larimer
County Sheriff, Colorado Division of Wildlife or other appropriate authorities. Lessee's
employees or agents may be required to complete a written statement.
• Perform other related duties as requested on an occasional basis.
ARTICLE V. Maintenance and Repairs.
The Lessee must maintain and keep in orderly condition and in a good state of repair all of the
Leased Premises and all agriculture-related improvements located thereon, whether existing as
of the date of this Lease or added thereafter, including, but not limited to: boundary and interior
fences and gates; all water infrastructure including but not limited to ditches, head gates,
irrigation ponds, pumps; and any buildings Lessee uses constituting two off site pole barns, and
all infrastructure installed by the Lessee including but not limited to sheds, hoop houses, and
lean to sheds. The Lessee is not responsible for maintenance or repair of public Natural Areas
facilities.
5.1 All maintenance and repairs to the Leased Premises required of the Lessee must be
made promptly and when necessary. In addition, all such maintenance and repairs must
be done in a good and workmanlike manner and in compliance with all applicable laws,
statutes, ordinances, rules, orders, regulations, and requirements of all federal, state,
and county governments and the appropriate departments, commissions, boards, and
officers thereof.
5.2 The Lessee must keep the Leased Premises clean and in good sanitary condition, as
required by the statutes, ordinances, resolutions, and health, sanitary, and police
regulations of the County of Larimer and State of Colorado. Any equipment, materials or
supplies that Lessee brings onto the Leased Premises must be kept under cover (except
large equipment such as vehicles and trailers) in a location acceptable to the Lessor and
removed from the Leased Premises when no longer needed. Any trash, junked
equipment or waste materials generated by the Lessee's activities on the Leased
Premises must be stored under cover or removed promptly from the Leased Premises.
The Lessee must neither permit nor suffer a disorderly noise or nuisance whatsoever
about the Leased Premises having any tendency to annoy or disturb any persons
occupying adjacent land. The Lessee shall neither hold nor attempt to hold the Lessor
liable for any injury or damage, either approximate or remote, occasioned through or
caused by any maintenance, alterations, or repairs made by the Lessee upon or to the
A
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 6 of 27
Leased Premises or the improvements located thereon.
5.3 If the Lessee fails to perform any maintenance or make any repairs it is required to make
under this Lease, the Lessor may, but is not required to, make such maintenance and
repairs on the Lessee's account, and the Lessor may add its costs and expenses for such
repairs or replacements as additional rent due to the Lessor under this Lease. Lessee
will then pay such amount to the Lessor within thirty (30) days after receiving written
notice from the Lessor of the costs and expenses paid by the Lessor for such
maintenance and repairs.
ARTICLE VI. Alterations and Improvements.
6.1 The Lessee must not make alterations, additions, improvements or changes to the
Leased Premises, or the improvements located thereon, without the prior written
approval of the Lessor. Any such alterations, additions, improvements, or changes
approved by the Lessor must be done by the Lessee in a good and workmanlike manner
and in compliance with all applicable building and zoning laws, and all other applicable
laws, statutes, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations, and requirements of all federal,
state, and county governments and the appropriate departments, commissions, boards,
and officers thereof.
6.2 If the Lessee wishes to make additions or improvements to the Leased Premises beyond
what is required for maintenance and repair as described in Article V, the Lessee will be
responsible for the cost of such additions and improvements unless the parties agree to
a cost-sharing arrangement; including but not limited to temporary or permanent
structures, fencing, gas, electric, water, and sewer.
6.3 The Lessee hereby indemnifies and agrees to hold the Lessor harmless from all liens,
claims, or charges on account of any alterations, additions, improvements, or changes
made to the Leased Premises or the improvements located thereon by the Lessee.
6.4 The Lessee is responsible for construction and maintenance of any temporary fencing
necessary to exclude livestock from an area to facilitate rotational grazing. The Lessee
is responsible for the costs of constructing and maintaining temporary fencing for
rotational grazing, and ownership of such fencing.
6.5 The Lessor reserves the right, from time to time (without invalidating or modifying this
Lease) to make alterations, changes and additions to the land and improvements that
constitute the Leased Premises.
6.6 The Lessee, with written approval from the Lessor, may construct an irrigation pond on
the Leased Premises. The Lessee will cost share the expense with the Lessor as follows;
the Lessee will be responsible for the cost of design and construction of an irrigation
pond that meets all state and local laws and regulations and Ditch Company approval.
The Lessor will be responsible for the cost of design and construction of any
enhancements to the pond to meet the Lessor’s aesthetic and wildlife goals without
A
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 7 of 27
detriment to the irrigation function of the pond. The Lessee and Lessor will work together
to achieve these goals.
6.7 At the end of the term of this Lease, all fixtures, equipment, additions and alterations will
remain the property of the Lessor, except as otherwise provided under the terms of this
Lease. However, the Lessor may require the Lessee to remove any or all such fixtures,
equipment, additions and alterations and restore the Leased Premises to the condition
that existed immediately prior to such change and installation, normal wear and tear
excepted, all at the Lessee's cost and expense. All such work must be done in a good
and workmanlike manner and consist of new materials unless otherwise agreed to by the
Lessor.
ARTICLE VII Covenant of Title and Quiet Enjoyment.
7.1 The Lessor covenants that it is well seized of and has good title to lease the Leased
Premises and does warrant the title thereto except and subject to the following: All
easements, covenants, reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way, and prescriptive or
adverse rights, in place or of record;
b. Any restrictions, reservations, or exceptions contained in any United States or State
of Colorado patents of record;
c. All zoning and other governmental rules and regulations; and
d. All oil, gas or other mineral reservations or exceptions of record.
ARTICLE VIII. Insurance.
8.1 The Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, must procure, pay for, and keep in full force
and effect workers compensation insurance for all of its employees to be engaged in work
on the Leased Premises under this Lease.
8.2 The Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, "procure, pay for, and keep in full force and
effect a comprehensive policy of general liability insurance covering the Leased
Premises and insuring the Lessee in an amount not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) covering bodily injury, including death to persons, personal injury, and
property damage liability arising out of a single occurrence. Such coverage must
include, without limitation, the insured's' liability for property damage, bodily injuries,
and death of persons in connection with the operation, maintenance, or use of the
Leased Premises (including acts or omissions of the Lessee or of its officers,
employees, or agents), liability arising out of lawsuits related to employment contracts
of the Lessee, and protection against liability for non-owned and hired automobiles.
Such coverage must also include comprehensive automobile liability insurance and
coverage for such other risks as are customarily required by private institutional
mortgage lenders with regard to property similar in construction, location, and use as
the Leased Premises under this Lease Agreement.
A
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 8 of 27
8.3 All policies of insurance carried by the Lessee must name the Lessee as an insured
and name the Lessor as an additional insured on the policy. The policy or policies must
contain a provision that the policy or policies cannot be canceled or materially altered
either by the insured or the insurance company until fifteen (15) days prior written
notice thereof is given to the Lessor. Upon issuance or renewal of any such insurance
policy, the Lessee must furnish a certified copy or duplicate original of such policy or
renewal thereof with proof of premium payment to the Lessor. Any such policy must
contain waivers of subrogation and waivers of any defense based on invalidity arising
from any act or omission of any assignees or subleases of the Lessee.
8.4 No policy of insurance required by this Article VIII can include a deductible clause in an
amount greater than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). Any insurance policy
purchased by the Lessee must be written by an insurance carrier which has a current
rating by Best's Insurance Reports of "A" (Excellent) or better and a financial rating of
"X" or better or such equivalent classification as may hereinafter be required
customarily for properties similarly situated and it must be approved by the Lessee and
the insurance carrier must be authorized by law to do business in the State of Colorado.
The Lessee must not obtain any policy which, under the terms of the carrier's charter,
by-laws, or policy, loss payments are contingent upon action by the carrier's board of
directors, policy holders, or members. All insurance policies carried by the Lessee may
be reviewed at least annually by the Lessor to ascertain that the coverage provided by
such policy adequately covers those risks required by this Article VIII to be insured by
the Lessee. In case of the breach of any provision of this Article VIII, the Lessor, at its
option, may take out and maintain, at the expense of the Lessee, such insurance as the
Lessor may deem proper and may bill the costs for such insurance directly to the
Lessee. When so billed, the Lessee must reimburse the Lessor for the costs of such
insurance within thirty (30) days of being billed.
ARTICLE IX. Utilities.
Lessee is responsible for all utilities, including, but not limited to, water, gas, electricity, propane,
trash services, cable or satellite TV or internet services and phone services used on the Leased
Premises.
9.1 Flores del Sol. No utilities are currently installed on the Lease Premises.
The Lessor will provide one (1) uninstalled Fort Collins Loveland Water District (FCLWD)
¾” water tap. The Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, may install the FCLWD water tap
on the premises in accordance with requirements set forth in Article VI of this Lease.
The Lessee, at its sole cost and expense with written approval from the Lessor, may install
additional utility services, including but not limited to electric, gas, sewer, trash, and
propane, on the Leased Premises in accordance with requirements set forth in Article VI
of this Lease.
A
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 9 of 27
9.2 Cole Pole Barn (applies only if checked in section 1.3). One (1) FCLWD ¾” water tap is
currently installed on the Leased Premises. The Lessor at its sole cost and expense will
install one (1) Poudre Valley REA (PVREA) electric meter upon lessee’s request.
Electric from the meter to the Pole Barn must be reconstructed prior to use. Water
infrastructure from FCLWD is unknow and may need to be reconstructed.
The Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, may install new water lines and new electric
from the water tap and electric meter on the premises in accordance with requirements
set forth in Article VI of this Lease.
9.3 Soaring Vista Pole Barn (applies only if checked in section 1.3). One (1) FCLWD ¾” water
tap and one (1) PVREA electric meter are currently installed on the Leased Premises.
Electric from the meter to the Pole Barn must be reconstructed prior to use. Water
infrastructure from FCLWD is unknow and may need to be reconstructed.
The Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, may install new water lines and new electric
from the water tap and electric meter on the premises in accordance with requirements
set forth in Article VI of this Lease.
9.4 Raw Water Ditch Shares. The Lessor owns multiple shares in certain Ditch Companies
available for use on Flores del Sol by the Lessee as described in exhibit “C”. Lessee must
adhere to federal, state, county, city laws pertaining to the use of irrigation water. Lessee
must work directly with the Ditch Companies and their Ditch Ryders and must adhere to
Ditch Company bylaws and rules.
9.4.1 Raw Water Assessments. Lessor shall pay yearly assessments put forth by the
associated Ditch Companies for water shares anticipated to be used by the
Lessee. The specific number of shares will be agreed upon by the Lessor and
Lessee by March 1st each year.
9.4.2 Additional Water. Throughout each season the Lessee may rent additional water
above the agreed amount from the Lessor at the rate of assessment plus 10%, if
available. Lessee may also rent water from available sources at their own cost
and expense.
ARTICLE X. Signs.
10.1 The Lessee must not affix, erect, or maintain on the Leased Premises any sign or placard
without obtaining the Lessor’s prior written approval. The costs of erection and
maintenance of such sign or placard are the sole responsibility of the Lessee. In addition,
any sign or placard approved by the Lessor must comply with all state, county, and city
laws, rules, and regulations.
10.2 The Lessor reserves the right to affix, erect, or maintain on the Leased Premises any
A
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 10 of 27
sign or placard, including but not limited to information signs, trail signs, and kiosks.
ARTICLE XI. Subletting and Assignment.
11.1 The Lessee may not assign this Lease, any interest or a part thereof, any right or privilege
appurtenant thereto, nor mortgage or hypothecate the leasehold without the prior written
consent of the Lessor. Lessor's consent to one assignment or hypothecation shall not be
construed as a consent to any subsequent assignment or hypothecation; and it is hereby
mutually covenanted and agreed that, unless such written consent has been obtained,
any assignment or transfer or attempted assignment or transfer of this Lease or any
interest therein or hypothecation either by the voluntary or the involuntary act of the
Lessee or by operation of law or otherwise, shall, at the option of the Lessor, terminate
this Lease; and any such purported assignment or transfer without such consent will be
null and void. The Lessor's consent to any such assignment does not relieve the Lessee
from any obligation under this Lease unless the Lessor expressly agrees in writing to
relieve the Lessee from such obligation.
11.2 If Lessee assigns this Lease or sublets or allows anyone other than the Lessee to occupy
the Leased Premises or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the Lessor
as required in paragraph 11.1 above, the Lessor may terminate this Lease, or may collect
rent from the assignee, subtenant, or occupant, and employ the net amount collected to
the rent herein reserved; and no such collection shall be deemed a release of the Lessee
from the complete performance of its obligations under this Lease.
11.3 The above notwithstanding, Lessee is responsible for arranging agriculture subleases or
contracts with persons acceptable to Lessor that are capable of providing conservation
agriculture services on the Leased Premises (Ag. Contractor).
11.3.1 The Lessee and Ag. Contractor(s) will enter into a sublease agreement or
services contract in a form acceptable to the Lessor (the "Sublease or
Contract"). The Sublease or Contract must require the Ag. Contractor to
comply with and be bound by the following provisions of this Lease:
• Sections 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 regarding use of the Leased
Premises;
• Article V regarding maintenance of the premises;
• Article VI regarding alterations and improvements;
• Article VIII regarding insurance;
• Article X regarding signs;
• Article XII regarding mechanics liens;
A
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 11 of 27
• Article XIII regarding condemnation;
• Article XIV regarding total or partial destruction;
• Article XVIII regarding holding the Lessor harmless;
• Article XX regarding Hazardous Materials;
• Article XXII regarding access and use by Lessor;
• Article XXIV regarding the "as-is" nature of the Leased Premises.
ARTICLE XII. Mechanic's Liens.
12.1 The Lessee agrees to pay or cause to be paid promptly all bills and charges for material,
labor, or otherwise in connection with or arising out of any alterations, additions,
maintenance, repairs, or changes made by the Lessee or its agents or subtenants to the
Leased Premises; and the Lessee agrees to hold the Lessor free and harmless against
all liens and claims of liens for such labor and materials, or either of them, filed against
the Leased Premises or any part thereof and from and against any expense and liability
in connection therewith. The Lessee further agrees to discharge (either by payment or
by filing the necessary bond) any mechanic’s, materialman’s, or other liens against the
Leased Premises arising out of any payment due or alleged to be due for any work, labor,
services, materials, or supplies claimed to have been furnished at the Lessee’s request
in, on, or about the Leased Premises and to indemnify the Lessor against any lien or
claim of lien attached to or upon the Leased Premises or any part thereof by reason of
any act or omission on the Lessee’s part. The Lessee does, however, have the right to
contest any mechanic’s lien or claims filed against the Leased Premises, provided the
Lessee diligently prosecutes any such contest and at all times effectively stays or
prevents any sale of the Leased Premises under execution or otherwise and pays or
otherwise satisfies any final judgment adjudging or enforcing such contested liens and
thereafter procures record satisfaction of the release thereof. The Lessee also agrees in
any such contest, at the Lessee’s cost and expense, to defend the same on behalf of the
Lessor.
ARTICLE XIII. Condemnation
13.1 If, as a result of any exercise of the power of eminent domain (hereinafter referred to as
"proceedings"), either of the following happen: (a) the title to the whole or substantially
all of the Leased Premises is taken; or (b) the Leased Premises are deprived of adequate
ingress or egress to or from all public streets and highways abutting the Leased
Premises, and the Lessee cannot reasonably, operate upon the remainder of the Leased
Premises at the time of such taking, then this Lease will terminate as of the date of such
taking pursuant to such Proceedings. For the purpose of construing the provisions of this
Article, Proceedings" includes any negotiated settlement of any matter involved in a
A
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 12 of 27
condemnation; and a "taking" is deemed to occur when title to the Leased Premises or
possession thereof is acquired by another governmental authority, whichever first occurs.
13.2 If, during the term of this Lease, title to less than the whole or title to less than substantially
all of the Leased Premises is taken in any such Proceedings and the Lessee can
reasonably operate on the remainder of the Leased Premises at the time of such taking,
this Lease will not terminate. However, the Lessee's obligation to pay rent as provided in
Article III. above, will be adjusted accordingly.
13.3 All damages awarded for any taking described in this Article are the property of the
Lessor.
ARTICLE XIV. Total or Partial Destruction.
14.1 If, during the term of this Lease, the Leased Premises or a substantial part thereof is
destroyed or so damaged by fire or other casualties so as to become unusable for
conservation agriculture purposes, then, at Lessee's option, the term hereby created will
cease; and this Lease will become null and void from the date of such damage or
destruction; and the Lessee must immediately surrender the Leased Premises and its
interest therein to the Lessor. The Lessee must exercise such option to terminate this
Lease by notice in writing delivered to the Lessor within thirty (30) days after such
damage or destruction. The Lessee will continue to be liable to the Lessor for all rent
accruing up to the date of termination of this Lease. If the Lessee does not elect to
terminate this Lease, this Lease will continue in full force and effect.
ARTICLE XV. Holding Over.
15.1 Any holding over after the expiration of the term of this Lease Agreement or any extended
term thereof, with the written consent of the Lessor, will be construed as a tenancy from
month-to-month on the same terms and conditions herein specified and at the same
rental provided for herein.
ARTICLE XVI. Default of Lessee.
16.1 If any one or more of the following events (hereinafter referred to as "an event of default")
happens:
(a) The Lessee defaults in the due and punctual payment of the rent or any other
amounts required to be paid hereunder and such default continues for three (3)
business days after the receipt of written notice from the Lessor; or
(b) The Lessee neglects or fails to perform or observe any of Lessee's obligations
hereunder and the Lessee fails to remedy the same within five (5) business days after
the Lessee receives written notice from the Lessor specifying such neglect or failure
(or Lessee fails to begin such cure within said five (5) days and proceed with due
diligence to complete said cure when the default if it is of such a nature that it cannot
A
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 13 of 27
be cured within said five (5) day period); or
(c) The Lessee: (i) is adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent; (ii) files a petition in
bankruptcy or for reorganization or for the adoption of an arrangement under the
Bankruptcy Act (as now constituted or in the future amended); or (iii) makes an
assignment of its property for the benefit of its creditors; or
(d) The Lessee neglects or fails to perform or observe any of Lessee's obligations under
this Lease within one hundred and eighty (180) days after prior notice of any such
neglect or failure, whether or not such prior neglect or failure was remedied within the
time period provided in subparagraph (a) or (b), above.
Then, and in any one or more such events of default, the Lessor has the right, at its
election and while any such event of default continues, to give the Lessee written
notice of its intention to terminate this Lease on the date of such given notice or any
later date specified therein; and on such specified date, the Lessee's right to
possession of the Leased Premises will cease; and this Lease will thereupon be
terminated. The Lessor may then re-enter and take exclusive possession of the
Leased Premises or any part thereof and repossess the same as the Lessor's former
estate and expel the Lessee and those claiming through or under the Lessee and
remove the property and effects of both or either (forcibly, if necessary) without being
deemed guilty of any manner of trespass and without prejudice to any remedies for
arrearages of rent or preceding breaches of covenants.
A. Alternatively, the Lessor may elect if an event of default occurs not to terminate
this Lease, but the Lessor will still have the right to elect to retake exclusive
possession of the Leased Premises by evicting the Lessee if the Lessee has not
otherwise abandoned the Leased Premises. In the event the Lessor elects to so
take exclusive possession, the Lessee will not be relieved of its obligations and
liabilities under the Lease, all of which will survive such repossession. In the event
of such repossession, the Lessee must pay to the Lessor as current liquidated
damages: the then value of the rent and other sums as herein provided which
would be payable if such repossession had not occurred; less
B. The net proceeds, if any, of any reletting of the Leased Premises after deducting
all of the Lessor's expenses in connection with such reletting, including, without
limitation, all repossession costs, brokerage commissions, legal expenses,
attorneys fees, expenses of employees, and necessary alteration costs and
expenses in preparation of such reletting.
The Lessee must pay such damages to the Lessor within thirty (30) days after
receiving written notice from the Lessor of such damages. If the Lessor must
commence any action or proceeding to collect the foregoing amounts, or to enforce
any other obligation of the Lessee under this Lease, the Lessor will be entitled to
reimbursement for all costs and expenses and legal fees incurred in said matter,
A
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 14 of 27
including reasonable attorney's fees.
ARTICLE XVII. Attorney’s Fees.
17.1 The Lessee agrees to pay and indemnify the Lessor against all legal costs and charges,
including attorney’s fees, lawfully and reasonably incurred in obtaining possession of the
Leased Premises after default of the Lessee or termination of this Lease, incurred in
enforcing any covenant of the Lessee herein contained or any right granted to the Lessor,
and incurred in collecting any rent, monies, or other damages owed by the Lessee to the
Lessor under this Lease.
ARTICLE XVIII. Lessee to Save Lessor Harmless.
18.1 The Lessee covenants that it will indemnify, release and hold the Lessor, and its officers
and employees, harmless from all claims, demands, judgments, costs, and expenses,
including attorney’s fees, arising out of any accident or occurrence causing injury to any
person or property whomsoever or whatsoever due directly or indirectly to the use or
neglect of the Leased Premises or any part thereof by the Lessee and its officers, agents,
employees, licensees, and invitees or any entity or person (and their officers, agents,
employees, licensees, and invitees) holding under the Lessee, unless such accident or
occurrence results solely from the tortious misconduct or negligent act or omission on
the part of the Lessor, or its officers and employees; and the Lessee will indemnify and
hold harmless the Lessor, and its officers and employees, from all damages and all
penalties arising out of any failure of the Lessee, in any respect, to comply with all of the
requirements and provisions of this Lease Agreement; and the Lessee covenants that
the Lessee will keep and save the Lessor, and its officers and employees, and the
Lessor's interest in and unto the Leased Premises forever harmless from any penalty,
damage, or charge imposed by any violation of any laws, whether occasioned by an act
or omission of the Lessee, or by another or others in the Leased Premises holding under
or through the Lessee. In addition, the Lessor, and its officers and employees, will not
be liable to the Lessee for any livestock injuries or deaths, regardless of cause, incurred
in connection with such livestock grazing upon the Leased Premises under this Lease
Agreement, unless such injuries or deaths result from a negligent act or omission of the
Lessor. However, any liability of the Lessor, or of its officers and employees, to the
Lessee is subject to all the defenses, immunities, and limitations of the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act (Section 24-10-101, et seq.) and to any other defenses,
immunities, and limitations to liability available to the Lessor, and its officers and
employees, under the law.
ARTICLE XIX. Notices.
19.1 Any notice or other communication given by either party to the other relating to this
Lease Agreement must be hand-delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, return
receipt requested, or by overnight commercial courier, addressed to such other party at
its respective addresses set forth below; and such notice or other communication will be
A
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 15 of 27
deemed given when so hand-delivered or three (3) business days after so mailed, or the
next business day after being deposited with an overnight commercial courier:
If to the Lessor:
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department
Attn: Dave Myers, Land Conservation Manager
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
With a copy to:
City of Fort Collins – Real Estate Services
Attn: Real Estate Manager
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
If to the Lessee:
Poudre Valley Community Farms
Attn: Clinton Wilson, Executive Director
PO Box 26
Laporte, CO 80535
ARTICLE XX. Hazardous Material.
20.1 As used herein, the term "Hazardous Material" means any hazardous or toxic substance,
material, or waste which is or becomes regulated by any local governmental authority,
the State of Colorado or the United States Government. The term "Hazardous Material"
includes, without limitation, any material or substance that is: (i) defined as a "hazardous
substance" under applicable state law provisions; (ii) petroleum; (iii) asbestos; (iv)
designated as "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 311 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1321); (v) defined as "hazardous waste"
pursuant to Section 1004 of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. Section 6903); (vi) defined as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 101
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42
U.S.C. Section 9601); or (vii) defined as a "regulated substance" pursuant to Subchapter
IX, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks) (42 U.S.C.
Section 6991).
20.2 The Lessee must not cause or permit any Hazardous Materials to be brought upon, kept,
or used in or about the Leased Premises by the Lessee, its officers, agents, employees,
contractors, licensees, or invitees, without the prior written consent of the Lessor (which
the Lessor will not unreasonably withhold as long as the Lessee demonstrates to the
Lessor's reasonable satisfaction that such Hazardous Material is necessary or useful to
the Lessee's operation; that it will be used, kept, and stored in a manner that complies
A
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 16 of 27
with all laws regulating any such Hazardous Material and will protect and preserve the
Leased Premises and any other property in a safe and environmentally sound condition;
and that the Hazardous Material will not materially interfere with the Lessor's use of the
Leased Premises or cause damage to said Leased Premises.) If the Lessee breaches
the obligation stated in the preceding sentence, or if the presence of Hazardous Material
on the Leased Premises caused or permitted by the Lessee results in contamination of
the Leased Premises or if contamination of the Leased Premises by Hazardous Material
otherwise occurs for which the Lessee is legally liable to the Lessor for damage resulting
therefrom, then the Lessee will indemnify, defend, and hold the Lessor, and its officers
and employees, harmless from any and all claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines,
costs, liabilities, or losses (including, without limitation, diminution in value of the Leased
Premises, damages for the loss or restriction on use of the Leased Premises, and sums
paid in settlement of claims, attorneys fees, consulting fees, and expert fees), which arise
during or after the Lease term as a result of such contamination. Lessee's indemnification
of the Lessor includes, without limitation, any costs incurred in connection with any
investigation of site conditions or any clean-up, remedial, removal, or restoration work
required by any federal, state, or local governmental agency or political subdivision
because of Hazardous Material present in the soil or ground water on or under the
Leased Premises. Without limiting the foregoing, if the presence of any Hazardous
Material on the Leased Premises caused or permitted by the Lessee results in any
contamination of the Leased Premises, the Lessee must promptly take all actions at its
sole expense as are necessary to return to the Leased Premises to the condition existing
prior to the introduction of any such Hazardous Material to the Leased Premises;
provided that Lessee will first obtain the Lessor's written approval of such action, which
approval will not be unreasonably withheld so long as such action would not potentially
have any material adverse effect on the Leased Premises or the Lessor's use of the
Leased Premises.
ARTICLE XXI. Time of the Essence.
21.1 Time is of the essence of this Lease Agreement and each and every provision hereof.
ARTICLE XXII. Access and Use By Lessor.
22.1 The Lessor, and its officers, employees, and any other person properly authorized by
the Lessor, shall at all times retain the right to enter upon the Leased Premises with prior
reasonable notice.
22.2 The Lessor retains the right to use the Leased Premises so long as such use does not
interfere with the Lessee's continuing use of the Leased Premises as provided in this
Lease Agreement.
ARTICLE XXIII. Education.
23.1 The Lessee or appropriate employee of the Lessee will participate in education and
A
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 17 of 27
outreach programs regularly as described in exhibit “C”.
ARTICLE XXIV. "AS-IS" Nature of Leased Premises.
24.1 The Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the Lessor has not made, does not make,
and specifically negates and disclaims any representations, warranties, promises,
covenants, agreements, or guarantees of any kind or character whatsoever, whether
expressed or implied, oral or written, past, present, or future, of, as to, concerning or with
respect to the Leased Premises and; (a) the value, nature, quality, or condition of the
Leased Premises, including, without limitation, the water, soil, and geology of the Leased
Premises; (b) the income to be derived from the Leased Premises; (c) the suitability of
the Leased Premises for any and all activities and uses which the Lessee may conduct
thereon including conservation agriculture (crops and livestock); (d) the compliance of or
by the Leased Premises or its operation with any laws, rules, ordinances, regulations of
any applicable governmental authority or body; € the habitability, merchantability,
marketability, profitability, or fitness for a particular purpose of the Leased Premises; (f)
the manner or quality of the construction or materials, if any, incorporated into the
improvements located on the Leased Premises; (g) the manner, quality, state of repair or
lack of repair of the improvements located on the Leased Premises; or (h) any other
matter with respect to the Leased Premises and the improvements located thereon, and
specifically, that the Lessor has not made, does not make and specifically disclaims any
representations regarding compliance with any environmental protection, pollution, or
land use laws, rules, regulations, orders, or requirements, including solid waste, as
defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulated at 40 C.F.R., Part 261,
or the disposal or existence, in or on the Leased Premises, of any hazardous substance,
as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Lessee further
acknowledges and agrees that having been given the opportunity to inspect the Leased
Premises, and the improvements located thereon, the Lessee is relying solely on its own
investigation of the Leased Premises and not on any information provided or to be
provided by the Lessor. The Lessee further acknowledges and agrees that any
information provided or to be provided with respect to the Leased Premises was
obtained from a variety of sources and that the Lessor has ‘hot made any independent
investigation or verification of such information and makes no representations as to the
accuracy or completeness of such information. The Lessee agrees that the Lessor is not
liable or bound in any manner by any verbal or written statements or representations, or
information pertaining to the Leased Premises, or the improvements located thereon, or
the operation thereof, furnished by any real estate broker, agent, employee, servant, or
other person. The Lessee further acknowledges and agrees that to the maximum extent
permitted by law, the lease of the Leased Premises as provided herein is made on an
“AS-IS” condition and basis with all faults. It is understood and agreed that the rent
provided for under this Lease Agreement and any other consideration provided by the
Lessee under this Lease Agreement has been adjusted and taken into consideration by
the Lessee to reflect that all of the Leased Premises is being leased by the Lessee from
the Lessor subject to the foregoing.
A
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 18 of 27
ARTICLE XXV. General Provisions.
25.1 Words of the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter gender; and when the
sentence so indicates, words of the neuter gender refer to any gender. Words in the
singular include the plural and vice versa.
25.2 This Lease Agreement is to be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared
by both parties hereto and is deemed to be and contain the entire understanding and
agreement between the parties hereto. There shall be deemed to be no other terms,
conditions, promises, understandings, statements, or representations, expressed or
implied, concerning this Lease Agreement unless set forth in writing and signed by both
of the parties hereto.
25.3 The Article headings used herein are for convenience of reference only and in no way
define or limit the scope or intent of any provision under this Lease Agreement.
25.4 Subject to the provisions hereof, the benefits of this Lease Agreement and the burdens
hereunder inure to and are binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs,
administrators, successors, agents and permitted assigns.
25.5 This Lease will be governed by and its terms construed under the laws of the State of
Colorado. Any judicial proceedings commenced by either party to enforce any of the
obligations, covenants, and agreements contained herein, must be commenced in the
Larimer County District or County Courts.
25.6 Nothing contained herein is deemed or should be construed by the parties nor by any
third party as creating the relationship of principle and agent, a partnership or a joint
venture between the parties, or an employment relationship between the parties, it being
agreed that none of the provisions set forth herein nor any acts of the parties will be
deemed to create a relationship between the parties other than the relationship of lessor
and lessee.
25.7 Failure of the Lessor to exercise any right or rights accruing to it by virtue of the Lessee's
breach of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein does not operate as a waiver of
the exercise of such right or rights in the event of any subsequent breach by the Lessee,
nor will the Lessee be relieved thereby from its obligations under the terms of this Lease
Agreement.
25.8 This Lease Agreement is made for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Lessor and the
Lessee, their successors and assigns, and it is not made for the benefit of any third party.
25.9 The remedies of the Lessor under this Lease are cumulative; no one of them should be
construed as exclusive of any other or of any other remedy provided by law.
25.10 The Lessor reserves the right to grant to any third party such easements and rights-of-
way as it desires over, across, and under portions of the Leased Premises and to lease
A
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 19 of 27
all or any portion of the Leased Premises to any other third party so long as such
easements, rights-of-way, and leases do not unreasonably interfere with the Lessee's
continuing use of the Leased Premises as provided in this Lease Agreement.
25.11 No act or thing done by the Lessor or the Lessor's officers or employees during the term
hereof will be considered as an acceptance of the surrender of the Leased Premises,
and no agreement to accept such surrender will be valid unless in writing signed by the
Lessor.
25.12 The Lessee, upon the expiration or termination of this Lease, either by lapse of term or
otherwise, agrees to peacefully surrender to the Lessor the Leased Premises, including
the improvements located thereon together with any alterations, additions, and changes
made to such improvements by the Lessee during the term of this Lease Agreement, in
good repair, as hereinabove provided, except for acts of God, ordinary wear, and
damage by fire or other casualty not caused by the negligence of the Lessee or anyone
under the Lessee's control.
25.13 The Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the Lessee has not relied upon any
statements, representations, agreements, or warranties except such as they are
expressed herein.
25.14 If any covenant, condition, or provision of this Lease Agreement is held to be invalid by
final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of such a covenant,
condition, or provision will not in any way affect any of the other covenants, conditions,
or provisions of this Agreement, provided that the invalidity of any such covenant,
condition, or provision does not materially prejudice either the Lessee or the Lessor in
their respective rights and obligations under the valid covenants, conditions, and
provisions of this Lease Agreement.
25.15 To the extent necessary to carry out all of the terms and provisions hereof, the said
terms, obligations, and rights set forth herein survive and will not be affected by the
expiration or termination of this Lease Agreement.
25.16 The parties acknowledge that certain items of personal property may now be located on
the Leased Premises. The Lessor makes no representations or warranties regarding its
ownership of any such items of personal property or regarding the condition of such
items. The parties hereto acknowledge that the said items of personal property located
on the Leased Premises and within the improvements located on the Leased Premises
may belong to third parties. The Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Lessor, and its officers and employees, from and against any liability for any improper
use or disposition by the Lessee of any items of personal property belonging to third
parties.
25.17 Neither the Lessor nor the Lessee will be deemed in violation of this Lease Agreement if
prevented from performing any of their respective obligations hereunder by reason of
A
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 20 of 27
strikes, boycotts, labor disputes, embargoes, shortage of energy or materials, acts of
God, acts of public enemies, acts of superior governmental authorities, weather
conditions, rights, rebellions, sabotage, or any other circumstances for which they are
not responsible or that are not within their control.
25.18 This Lease Agreement will not be recorded. However, at the request of the Lessee, the
Lessor and the Lessee will execute a memorandum of lease for recording, containing
the names of the parties, the legal description of the Leased Premises, the term of the
Lease and such other information as the parties mutually agreed upon.
25.19 The obligations of the Lessor to commit or expend funds after calendar year 2020 are
subject to and conditioned upon the annual appropriation of funds sufficient and intended
to carry out said obligations by Lessor's City Council, in its sole discretion. If the City
Council does not appropriate funds necessary to carry out any such obligations, the
Lessor will notify the Lessee promptly of such non-appropriation. If such non-
appropriation results in a material impairment of Lessee's right hereunder, the Lessee
may terminate the lease, with no further recourse against the Lessor, by providing thirty
(30) days written notice to Lessor. If Lessee does not exercise this termination right within
sixty (60) days of receiving Lessor's notice of said non-appropriation, then Lessee waives
its right to terminate the Lease pursuant to this section.
A
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
2020 Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 21 of 27
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Lease Agreement to be executed
the day and year first above written.
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
A Municipal Corporation
By: _____________________________
Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
_________________________
[Print name]
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Assistant City Attorney
__________________________
[Print name]
Poudre Valley Community Farms, A Land Cooperative Ltd.
A Colorado limited cooperative association
By: ____________________________________
Printed:
Title: ___________________________________
A
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
XXXX Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 22 of 27
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description of the Property
The N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.,
County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
Excepting Therefrom that part conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners in deed of
dedication recorded May 4, 1994 at Reception No. 94039129.
AND
The S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.,
County of Larimer, State of Colorado.
Excluding those parcels as described in deeds recorded November 4, 1971 Book 1482 at Page
68 and January 27, 1994 at Reception No. 94008704.
A
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
XXXX Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 23 of 27
A
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
XXXX Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 24 of 27
EXHIBIT "B"
OPTIONAL POLE BARNS
Cole Pole Barn: 2500 E. County Road 30, Fort Collins
▪ Approximately 1,400 square feet.
▪ Uninsulated wood pole frame; metal siding and roof; partial concrete floor.
Soaring Vista Pole Barn: 4200 E. County Road 30, Fort Collins
▪ Approximately 2,400 square feet.
▪ Uninsulated wood pole frame; metal siding and roof; partial concrete floor.
POLE BARNS – VICINITY MAP
A
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
XXXX Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 25 of 27
EXHIBIT "C"
SCOPE OF WORK
Conservation Agriculture. Conservation agriculture takes a broad systems approach and
includes principles from other methods, such as organic farming. What sets it apart, however, is
a focus on protecting and enhancing natural resources. Conservation agriculture recognizes
that production relies on well-functioning ecosystem services such as biodiversity enhancement,
as well as water and soil conservation.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines conservation
agriculture through a focus on the following practices:
1. Protect and enhance biodiversity
2. Provide environmental services (e.g. pollination, carbon sequestration, stormwater
regulation)
3. Promote soil health
4. Conserve water and prevent pollution of waterways
5. Reduce the need for fertilizer or chemical inputs
6. Prepare for/adapt to climate change
The FAO further describes conservation agriculture as, “A farming system that can prevent
losses of arable land while regenerating degraded lands. It promotes maintenance of a
permanent soil cover, minimum soil disturbance, and diversification of plant species. It
enhances biodiversity and natural biological processes above and below the ground surface,
which contribute to increased water and nutrient use efficiency and to improved and sustained
crop production.” Meta studies on conservation agriculture (e.g. Kessam et al., 2009) assert
these practices result in improved ecosystem function and services, reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, better adaptation to climate change and reduced vulnerability, and increased stability
in production yields and incomes for farmers.
Desired Outcomes. As with the Lessor’s current agricultural management efforts, application of
conservation agriculture efforts on natural areas will rely on partnerships with established
agricultural experts and lease agreements that outline clear expectations for all parties. The
Lessor does not want to be prescriptive in how an agricultural partner may manage a site.
However, there is a need to establish an understanding of specific, expected outcomes and
document partners’ progress toward meeting those goals. Expected outcome for conservation
agriculture efforts on natural areas include:
▪ Shift from current monoculture to diversified plantings
▪ Integrate native seed mixes into grazed and not actively farmed areas
▪ Apply irrigation techniques that achieve greater water savings
▪ Employ practices to rebuild soil body for improved nutrient composition
▪ Integrate native plantings throughout farmed area to benefit wildlife including pollinators,
birds, and small mammals; this may include establishment of Natural Areas Department-
led, small scale restoration projects on portions of total acreage for a site
The Lessor will conduct annual assessments to document progress towards these stated
outcomes which may include but not limited to:
▪ Bird and butterfly surveys
A
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
XXXX Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 26 of 27
▪ Small mammal assessments
▪ Water use measurements
▪ Floristic quality surveys
▪ Soil assessments, including carbon capture analysis
The Lessor recommends implementing conservation agriculture farming practices on 85% of
Flores del Sol. The remaining 15% (approximately 20-25 acres) will be conserved and
enhanced through planting of native, pollinator-friendly grasses, shrubs, and forbs. Among the
120 acres dedicated to conservation agriculture, initially 25 acres will be dedicated to diversified
vegetable farming. This will include crop beds of varying size and content, and related
infrastructure. Lessee and Lessor will review and agree upon an annual plan for integrated
pollinator habitat. Approximately 90 acres will initially support grazing and flexible use, which will
allow for expansion of the diversified vegetable farming in the future. Grazed portions will
integrate native species into seed mixes, to the greatest extent possible. This space will also
feature innovative approaches to building habitat for insects, birds, and small mammals, while
supporting intensive, rotational grazing that can be a model for other regional conservation
agriculture projects.
The Lessor will work closely with the Lessee to establish financial contributions and design for
additional habitat patches both surrounding and within agriculture fields. For example, larger
shade trees may be planted, serving the dual purpose of creating a windbreak for agriculture
operations while creating habitat for birds and small mammals. Additionally, the Lessor and
Lessee will work together to plan for community engagement to help residents connect to nature
in new ways. This may include connecting the property to the adjacent Colorado Front Range
Trail and potential partnerships with the neighboring church. Any trail construction for the
purposes of public engagement will be designed and constructed by the Lessor, with input from
the Lessee. Other improvements to foster engagement or further the missions of either the
Lessee or the Lessor (i.e. outdoor classroom space) will be discussed and planned accordingly.
The Lessee will maintain a portion of the site as “incubator fields.” These smaller sections of
farmland (1-2 acres) will be used for training purposes and available to emerging farmers
looking to establish independent operations in the region.
The Lessee will be responsible for providing Lessor with an annual report summarizing activities
related to extending the environmental, social, and economic benefits of the conservation
agriculture project to the community; including but not limited to:
• Biodiversity enhancements
• Number of community members served
• Number of partnerships formed and/or continued to serve underrepresented members of
the community
• Emerging farmers engaged
A
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Conservation Agriculture Lease – Poudre Valley Community Farms
XXXX Flores del Sol Natural Area Agriculture Lease Page 27 of 27
CONCEPTUAL FARM LAYOUT
A
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Exhibit A (9523 : Flores del Sol RESO)
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Caryn Champine, Director of PDT
Ingrid Decker, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2020-089 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Revised Intergovernmental Agreement with Colorado
State University Related to Canvas Stadium.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the CSU - City of Fort
Collins Stadium Operations Intergovernmental Agreement.
In 2015, the City and CSU entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to address the construction and
opening of the new stadium. The 5-year term of this agreement concluded this year and both parties agreed to
a new 5-year IGA. The fundamental structure and intention of the ne w IGA is the same as the previous
version, with the purpose of the original agreement to ensure the stadium experience continues to be of benefit
to the community.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 2015, the City and CSU entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to address the construction and
opening of the new on-campus stadium. The original IGA went before Council during a work session on
October 27, 2015. The purpose of the IGA is to set a framework for more detailed operational agreements and
plans for game day services including Police, Traffic, Parking, and Transfort. The 5 -year term of that
agreement concluded this year and both parties agreed to a new 5 -year IGA.
The revision process included virtual brainstorming, wordsmithing and research into other college towns with
stadiums, resulting in multiple iterations of the IGA. These drafts were reviewed with engagement from other
City departments including Transfort, Parking, Traffic Operations, Police Services and Neighborhood Services.
Multiple reviews and refinement of the draft IGA have taken place by both CSU and the City. Council has been
provided with memos regarding the progress of the CSU IGA revisions in August and Septembe r of 2020.
CSU and the City both agree to a continued partnership to ensure mutually beneficial outcomes during major
events, such as home football games. Most of the updates are to reflect post -construction of the stadium and
existing operation agreements and coordination efforts between CSU and City departments and
neighborhoods. Key changes made to the IGA include:
• Public Transportation Services: CSU and the City will continue the annual partnership supporting public
transportation services for major events at the stadium. The primary change is there will be an annual
assessment of demands and deeper conversation on the best approach to resource those changing
needs. Previous practice has been to renew a separate IGA that provides details on servi ce and pricing.
13
Packet Pg. 181
Agenda Item 13
Item # 13 Page 2
We plan to continue to apply that approach moving forward, as needed. For the 2020/2021 major event
season, we will not deploy additional buses to our normal routes in light of the current pandemic.
• Stadium Advisory Group (SAG): SAG was put in place to maintain neighborhood coordination during the
construction and opening of the stadium. All stakeholders agree this group served its purpose during the
stadium’s opening and can conclude. A formal letter is being sent to the SAG to notify t hem of this change.
Many other established services and agreements are successfully addressing potential neighborhood
impacts such as parking, trash, noise, and lighting. The agreement includes a provision to convene CSU
and City leadership if issues escalate.
• Good Neighbor Fund: The Good Neighbor Fund was intended to provide a funding source to address
neighborhood impacts. This fund was utilized at the opening of the stadium on two different occasions.
Since then, CSU has not received any applications for this funding, even with significant advertising
initiatives. The City and CSU both agree this fund can be discontinued. Existing neighborhood coordination
efforts remain in place to support future concerns.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The revised IGA does not require any financial resources from the City. There is a separate IGA in place with
detailed transportation plans and cost to CSU. The City will continue to meet with CSU annually to assess the
current demands and negotiate the most financially feasible options. In the 2020/2021 season specifically,
CSU and the City have agreed that Transfort will not deploy additional buses to the normal routes given the
current COVID-19 pandemic.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A formal letter is being sent to the Stadium Advisory Group communicating that this group will be dissolved
and thanking them for their service. The City and CSU will continue to use existing methods to connect with
community members to address any future issues regarding the stadium and manage impact t o surrounding
neighborhoods.
13
Packet Pg. 182
-1-
RESOLUTION 2020-089
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A REVISED
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY RELATED TO CANVAS STADIUM
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution 2014-109
approving a mitigation report for an on-campus stadium at Colorado State University (CSU) and
indicating the City’s desire to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with CSU identifying
key impacts that could be caused by an on-campus stadium and mitigation strategies to lessen the
impact of event day operations at an on-campus stadium; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also expressed a desire to, in such intergovernmental
agreement, determine responsibilities for costs that might be incurred in addressing mitigation
measures; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 2015-037
approving an intergovernmental agreement that addressed stadium impacts and mitigation,
identified key stadium-related infrastructure improvements and CSU’s financial responsibility
for them, and also noted additional projects for which future shared responsibility could be
considered (the “2015 IGA”); and
WHEREAS, CSU broke ground on Canvas stadium in September 2015, and the stadium
opened in August 2017; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 2017-047
authorizing a first addendum to the 2015 IGA to update the details and costs of several
infrastructure improvement projects related to the stadium; and
WHEREAS, since then the infrastructure improvements have been completed, and the
2015 IGA expired earlier this year; and
WHEREAS, CSU and the City wish to enter into a new, updated intergovernmental
agreement (the “2020 IGA”) to continue the established partnership related to managing the
impacts of major events at the stadium; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 2020 IGA is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit “A”; and
WHEREAS, the revised IGA, which would be for an initial term of five years, does not
require any financial contribution from the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Packet Pg. 183
-2-
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute the 2020
IGA in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, together with such modifications
and additions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be
necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City, provided such changes are
materially consistent with the terms of this Resolution and the intended purpose of the 2020 IGA.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th
day of October, A.D. 2020.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 184
1
AMENDED AND RESTATED
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
RELATED TO THE ON-CAMPUS STADIUM
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
(“Agreement”), dated ____________, 2020, is entered into by and between THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (“City”), and THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, ACTING BY AND THROUGH COLORADO
STATE UNIVERSITY (“CSU”). The City and CSU are referred to herein individually as a “Party” and
collectively as the “Parties.”
A. On April 13, 2015, the Parties entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement, as later
amended by a First Addendum dated June 22, 2017 (the “2015 IGA”).
B. The purpose of the 2015 IGA was to document plans and agreements developed by the
Parties to identify and mitigate the impacts related to CSU’s construction and operation of an on-campus
stadium facility at the CSU campus, including but not limited to operational planning, infrastructure
improvements, transit operations, parking and traffic issues, law enforcement and security services and
neighborhood relationships.
C. The Parties jointly identified the need and responsibility to evaluate and manage the
existing pedestrian and bicycle traffic entering, exiting, and traversing campus, as well as the increase in
such traffic created by the use of the stadium. The Parties also acknowledged the mutual goal of
promoting bike and pedestrian safety both on- and off-campus. This responsibility, in conjunction with
the Parties’ mutual commitment to reducing vehicle traffic, was achieved by the improvement of access
points around campus, including both grade-separated crossings and same-grade crossings. The safety
and management of pedestrian and bicycle traffic is further achieved by a multi-modal approach to event
operations. By emphasizing public transit, as well as implementing best efforts to disperse and spread
out peak arrival and departure flows, the Parties can avoid unnecessary infrastructure costs while
maximizing the stadium’s benefit to CSU and the City.
D. Now that the major infrastructure improvements contemplated by the 2015 IGA have
been completed, and the stadium has been operational for several seasons, the Parties wish to update the
2015 IGA with an amended agreement that reflects that Parties present intentions regarding stadium
operations.
E. The precise impact of the use of the stadium on the surrounding campus, neighborhoods
and public services and infrastructure cannot always be perfectly predicted. The Parties agree to
continue to work together in good faith to identify impacts and common needs, and to develop plans for
mitigating such impacts going forward.
F. For the purposes of this Agreement the Parties have deemed the terms “campus” and
“main campus” to mean generally the area bounded by Laurel Street, Shields Street, Prospect Road and
College Avenue that is owed and used by CSU for academic purposes, administrative purposes and
EXHIBIT A A
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Exhibit A (9522 : Revised CSU Stadium IGA RESO)
2
other programs and activities associated with CSU. The terms “campus’ and “main campus” are not
intended to have a particular legal or interpretive significance as used in this Agreement.
G. As set forth in this Agreement, the City and CSU agree to take specific steps to mitigate
the impacts of the on-campus multi-use stadium facility and, by continuing the 2015 IGA in this updated
and restated form, agree to continue to collaborate and coordinate together in order to advance these
objectives.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement will begin on the date it is fully executed by
the Parties (the "Effective Date") and shall continue until June 30, 2025, provided that the
Agreement shall be automatically extended for successive five (5) year terms until either party
gives written notice to the other of its intent to terminate this Agreement at the end of its then-
current term. Such notice shall be given at least sixty (60) days prior to the end of the then-
current term. The Parties have agreed to review and update this Agreement as needed through
the adoption of addenda, as more specifically described below.
2. Use of the Stadium.
A. Uses. CSU uses the on-campus stadium facility (the "Stadium") for
several purposes, including but not limited to football practices and games, other CSU
NCAA sports, club sports practices and games, intramural practices and games, band and
cheerleading practices, athletic camps, as well as special events such as welcome and
orientation events, graduation ceremonies, distinguished speakers, and occasional
concerts, and various academic and student support purposes, many of which already
occur in other CSU locations, including on the main campus.
B. Major Events. For purposes of this Agreement, a "Major External Event" is
defined as a ticketed event, for which tickets are offered for sale to the public, featuring a
performance external to CSU, at which attendance is anticipated to exceed 12,000 persons.
For purposes of this Agreement, a "Major CSU Event" shall mean any event held at the
Stadium that is expected to take place (and ultimately does take place) in the Stadium that,
based on past experience, advance ticket sales or other reasonably accurate and publicly
available information, is reasonably expected to attract 12,000 or more attendees who are
primarily CSU students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, or supporters and their respective
family members and guests, including but not limited to CSU football games,
commencement, or new student orientation.
CSU agrees not to hold more than three (3) Major External Events in any calendar year.
CSU agrees to give the City notice of at least sixty (60) days prior to any Major External
Event at the Stadium, and to review each Major External Event with the City, both before
and after it occurs. If significant problems are discovered through good faith discussions,
CSU agrees to discuss with the City a possible limit on the number or extent of future Major
External Events.
A
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Exhibit A (9522 : Revised CSU Stadium IGA RESO)
3
3. Stadium Event Management.
A. Regular Coordination. CSU agrees to continue communicating and
coordinating with the City and Larimer County and other relevant agencies for all Major
CSU Events and Major External Events held at the Stadium (either referred to as a Major
Event"). In addition, CSU has developed a Major Event Coordination and Operations Plan
("the Plan") to provide a framework for management of Major Events, based upon the size,
nature and timing of such events. The Plan is intended to assist CSU and the City in
establishing a framework for planning and coordinating other events that are not considered
Major Events but are anticipated to alter the pattern or volume of pedestrian, transit or other
traffic flows, or otherwise impact the public facilities serving the CSU campus. The Parties
agree to work cooperatively to review and update the Plan from time to time in coordination
to reflect the information developed through experience with events and operation of the
Stadium. The Plan also identifies a process and mechanism for a game-day communications
plan to provide for communication of game-day concerns and coordination, and generally
identifies costs of operations expected to be incurred by the City and required in connection
with Major Events, to facilitate discussion of and planning for reimbursement of those
expenses by CSU.
B. Law Enforcement and Security. Consistent with Section 2(B) above, CSU will
provide sixty (60) days’ notice and will coordinate the provision of law enforcement and
other security for Major Events at the Stadium. CSU agrees to be responsible for additional
costs, if any, that are directly associated with the provision of law enforcement and
security for Major Events, as set forth in writing for each specific Major Event. In addition,
CSU agrees to consult with local law enforcement agencies about entering into a Special
Event Mutual Assistance Agreement or other agreement intended to coordinate and arrange
for cooperation in connection with Major Events at the Stadium or other events anticipated
to result in significant law enforcement and security needs which exceed CSU' s ability or
desire to solely provide. In planning for and responding to emergencies on campus,
including at the stadium, CSU utilizes a comprehensive Emergency Response Plan, which
incorporates the National Incident Management System ("NIMS"), and coordinates with
all other appropriate law enforcement agencies.
C. Traffic and Parking. CSU and the City agree to encourage multi-modal methods
of transportation, such as walking, bicycles, buses, and shuttles, as well as vehicles, to the
Stadium for Major Events. CSU has developed a traffic management and campus parking
plan for Major Events at the Stadium (the "Traffic/Parking Plan"), and CSU agrees to
confer with the City about any amendments, additions or replacements of or to said Plan.
The Parties agree to work together in good faith, in continuation of the spirit of current
practices, regarding such approvals and such a Plan. The Parties acknowledge that any
Traffic/Parking Plan will likely require modifications over time, depending upon
attendance, traffic patterns, and the availability of public transportation, as well as the
evaluation of impacts based on experience with events at the Stadium. The Parties agree to
review and develop plans to address costs associated with heightened or special parking
A
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Exhibit A (9522 : Revised CSU Stadium IGA RESO)
4
enforcement in areas around the campus on Major Event days on an ongoing basis.
D. City Public Transportation Services.
(1) On the days of Major Events during the 2020-21 school year (August
24, 2020 to May 14, 2021) City will provide the level of Transfort
service that is standard for that day of the week at no cost to CSU.
(2) For future school years, CSU and the City agree to assess and discuss
on an annual basis what supplemental transportation services the City
may expect to provide for Major Events at the Stadium (particularly
additional services from Transfort, including MAX bus rapid transit
service), to assist with managing the flow of people to and from such
events, and how the costs for such supplemental services will be
managed by the parties, taking into account any applicable legal or
regulatory limits or requirements. As part of that assessment CSU and
the City agree to also discuss financially feasible resource options for
both parties.
E. Game-Day Activities. CSU has established and supports the ongoing efforts
of the Game Day Agency Coordination Team (the “Coordination Team”): a working group
comprised of CSU and City staff representatives in areas such as traffic, parking, transportation
and public safety, as well as representatives from other emergency services providers such as fire
and ambulance services. The Coordination Team evaluates and develops plans for the conduct of
game-day events and activities, including tailgating, which CSU intends to encourage and provide
opportunities for on the campus (rather than in adjacent neighborhoods). CSU agrees to convene
the Coordination Team in the week before a game day. The Coordination Team will consult with
the City regarding matters of shared interest and concern, and CSU will share plans for the
conduct of game-day events and activities with the City and integrate those plans into the Major
Event Coordination and Operations Plan.
4. Neighborhood Relationships. CSU and the City will work together in good faith to
examine and respond to community impacts and interactions, especially in neighborhoods surrounding
the CSU campus, related to use of the Stadium for Major Events. Relevant issues may include, but are
not limited to, trash and litter, noise, intrusive lighting, traffic, and parking issues that may occur related
to Major Events or other kinds of events at the Stadium. CSU is committed to working with the City
and neighborhoods in the vicinity of the campus to identify and address such issues. In particular, CSU
agrees to employ to the extent reasonably practicable, best practices and available technology
concerning the mitigation of noise and lighting impacts, and agrees to strive to meet the City’s noise
ordinances in connection with non-football game events at the Stadium.
5. Utilities. As agreed by CSU and the City, the City furnishes certain utility services to
the Stadium and related improvements subject to compliance with all terms and conditions for utility
service, payment of all applicable rates, fees and charges, and construction of any required
infrastructure in accordance with applicable City standards and specifications.
A
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Exhibit A (9522 : Revised CSU Stadium IGA RESO)
5
6. Review Procedures and Updates. The Parties agree to meet in good faith for a periodic
review of this Agreement and any procedures attendant thereto, at a time and place to be mutually
agreed upon. Although the Parties agree to discuss any proposed amendments to the Agreement as
part of any periodic review, neither Party is obligated to agree to any subsequent amendment to the
Agreement and its provisions.
7. Existing Rights and Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall act to amend, modify,
or supersede any annexations, any related agreements or any other agreements, rights, or legal positions
by and between the City and CSU external to this Agreement, or to alter in any way their recourse under
the same.
8. Liability. Only to the extent permitted by applicable law, each party will be responsible
for its own negligent acts or omissions and that of its officers, employees, agents and contractors. Any
liability of the City, CSU, or their officers and employees is subject to all the defenses, immunities, and
limitations of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101, et seq., as amended (the
“CGIA”), and to any other defenses, immunities, and limitations to liability available under the law. It
is expressly understood and agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as an
express or implied waiver by CSU or the City of its governmental and sovereign immunities, as an
express or implied acceptance by CSU or the City of liabilities arising as a result of actions which lie in
tort or could lie in tort in excess of the liabilities allowable under the CGIA, as a pledge of the full faith
and credit the State of Colorado, or as the assumption by any of the Parties of a debt, contract or liability
of each other in violation of Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution of Colorado.
9. Default; Dispute Resolution. If any party defaults in its obligations under the terms of
this Agreement, a non-defaulting party may give the defaulting party written notice specifying the nature
of the default. If the defaulting party has not cured the default within thirty (30) days, or, for a default
reasonably requiring more than thirty (30) days to effect a cure, has not commenced a cure within thirty
(30) days and pursued it with diligence, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement,
provided that, if there is any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or
the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, the parties agree to attempt to resolve the dispute
informally before terminating the Agreement. Accordingly, the Parties will first elevate the disputed
issues to senior administration, and if the matters are not resolved, the Parties may then engage in
mediation or other non-binding dispute resolution methods. The Parties agree that in the event of a
breach of this Agreement by either party, except for any breach of the obligations set forth in Section
5(B) herein, the sole remedy of the non-breaching party shall be termination of this Agreement as set
forth herein, and neither party shall be liable to the other for any money damages, expenses, costs or
attorneys’ fees, and neither party shall be entitled to seek and both Parties agree to waive the right to
pursue any equitable remedies, including but not limited to injunctive relief or specific performance.
10. Notices. Any notice or other communication given by any party to another relating to
this Agreement must be hand-delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,
or by overnight commercial courier, addressed to such other party at its respective addresses set forth
below; and such notice or other communication will be deemed given when so hand-delivered or three
(3) business days after so mailed, or the next business day after being deposited with an overnight
commercial courier:
A
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Exhibit A (9522 : Revised CSU Stadium IGA RESO)
6
If to the City:
City Manager
City of Fort Collins
Attn: Darin A. Atteberry
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
With a copy to:
City Attorney's Office
City of Fort Collins
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
If to CSU:
Office of the President
Colorado State University
Attn: President Joyce McConnell
0100 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO 80523-0100
With a copy to:
Office of the General Counsel
Colorado State University System
01 Administration Building
0006 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO 80523-0006
11. Obligations Subject to Appropriation. The obligations of CSU and the City to commit or
expend funds in any subsequent fiscal year are subject to and conditioned upon the annual appropriation
of funds sufficient and intended to carry out said obligations by the Fort Collins City Council and the
Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System, respectively, in the City and CSU’s sole
discretion. If the City Council or the Board of Governors does not appropriate funds necessary to carry
out any such obligations, the City or CSU will notify the other party promptly of such non-
appropriation. If such non-appropriation results in a material impairment of the City’s or CSU’s rights
hereunder, such party may terminate the Agreement, with no further recourse against the other party, by
providing thirty (30) days written notice.
A
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Exhibit A (9522 : Revised CSU Stadium IGA RESO)
7
12. General Provisions.
A. Words of the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter gender; and when
the sentence so indicates, words of the neuter gender refer to any gender. Words in the singular include
the plural and vice-versa.
B. This Agreement is to be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared
by both Parties and is deemed to be and contain the entire understanding and agreement between the
Parties. There shall be deemed to be no other terms, conditions, promises, understandings, statements,
or representations, expressed or implied, concerning this Agreement unless set forth in writing and
signed by the Parties.
C. This Agreement cannot be modified or assigned except in writing signed by all
parties.
D. Subject to the provisions hereof, the benefits of this Agreement and the burdens
hereunder inure to and are binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, administrators,
successors, agents and permitted assigns.
E. This Agreement will be governed by and its terms construed under the laws of the
State of Colorado. Any judicial proceedings commenced by a party to enforce any of the obligations,
covenants, and agreements contained herein, must be commenced in the Larimer County District Court
located in Fort Collins, Colorado.
F. Nothing contained herein is deemed or should be construed by the Parties nor by
any third party as creating the relationship of principle and agent, a partnership or a joint venture
between the Parties, or any employment relationship between the Parties.
G. This Agreement is made for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City and CSU,
and it is not made for the benefit of any third party.
H. If any term or condition of this Agreement is held to be invalid by final judgment
of any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of such a term or condition, will not in any way
affect any of the other terms or conditions of this Agreement, provided that the invalidity of any such
term or condition does not materially prejudice any party in their respective rights and obligations under
the valid terms and conditions of this Agreement.
I. No party will be deemed in violation of this Agreement if prevented from
performing any of its respective obligations hereunder by reason of strikes, boycotts, labor disputes,
embargoes, shortage of energy or materials, acts of God, acts of public enemies, acts of superior
governmental authorities, weather conditions, rights, rebellions, sabotage, or any other circumstances for
which it is not responsible or that are not within its control.
A
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Exhibit A (9522 : Revised CSU Stadium IGA RESO)
8
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
a Municipal Corporation
Date: By:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
________________________________
(Print name)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
__________________________________
(Print name)
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM, ACTING BY AND THROUGH
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Date: ___________________ By: ________________________________
Joyce McConnell, President
Legal Review:
Date: ________________________ By: ____________________________
Colorado State University System
A
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Exhibit A (9522 : Revised CSU Stadium IGA RESO)
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Drew Brooks, Director of Transit
Claire Havelda, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2020-090 Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute, and Amend from Time to Time,
an Intergovernmental Agreement with Colorado State University for Purchase of Transportation Services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) between Colorado State
University, the Associated Students of Colorado State University (collectively “CSU”), and City of Fort Collins
Transfort in which CSU will fund the use of Transfort services by CSU students. CSU supports those efforts
and will fund the use of Transfort services by University faculty and staff, as well as the provision by Transfort
of additional services for the benefit of the students, CSU and its campuses. The parties will further the goals
of public transportation in and for CSU and the City of Fort Collins.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Since 2014, the City has entered into an agreement with CSU for the purchase of Transfort transportation
services. These transportation services include:
• Contribution toward the operation and access for all students and faculty to ride the Transfort system with
a valid RamCard student or faculty identification card.
• Operation of the HORN campus circulator and complementary paratransit service .
• Standard and expanded Foothills Campus Shuttle service.
• Enhanced service on West Elizabeth.
• Operation of the Gold Route.
• 365 weekend and holiday service.
• Flex Route.
• Greeley-operated Poudre Express service.
CSU will also provide a one-time payment for the implementation of real-time on-bus technology on two of the
buses used for contracted fixed route service.
CSU will pay a total of $2,403,611 to the City. $2,349,611 will be paid in two semi-annual payments of
$1,174,805 (to take place September 2020 and March 2021), plus a one -time payment of $54,000 for the real-
time technology. The funds for the expenditure and reimbursement for transit services were appropriated
previously through the BFO process. Therefore, no appropriations are required for this action.
The agreement allows for concurrent execution and will allow small changes or amendments to the final IGA
after approval by Council, if approved by both the City Manager’s office and the City Attorney’s office. The City
14
Packet Pg. 193
Agenda Item 14
Item # 14 Page 2
Manager is authorized to amend the IGA as contemplated by its terms. The ability to make such changes to
the IGA allows the parties to make adjustments periodically to timely react to the COVID -19 pandemic and
resulting ridership fluctuations. The term of this agreement extends through June 30, 2021.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no financial impacts as this agreement provides for expenditures on services to be reimbursed by
CSU and was previously accounted for in the Budgeting for Outcomes process.
14
Packet Pg. 194
-1-
RESOLUTION 2020-090
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE, AND AMEND
FROM TIME TO TIME, AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH COLORADO
STATE UNIVERSITY FOR PURCHASE OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, since 2014, the City has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with
Colorado State University (“CSU”) to provide transportation services to CSU; and
WHEREAS, the transportation services have included access for students and faculty to
ride the City’s Transfort fixed-route bus system, including but not limited to the HORN campus
circulator and complementary paratransit service; standard and expanded Foothills Campus
Shuttle Service; enhanced service on West Elizabeth; Operation of the Gold Route; 365 day a
year service; Flex Route; and Greeley-operated Poudre Express Service all of which are open to
and serve all residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to continue to offer these services to CSU; and
WHEREAS, for the remainder of 2020 through June 30, 2021, CSU will pay a total of
$2,l403,611.30 in two semi-annual installments of $1,174,805.65 plus an additional one-time
payment of $54,000 for real-time technology (to be documented in a separate IGA) for these
services; and
WHEREAS, the funds for the expenditure and reimbursement for transit services for
2020 were appropriated previously through the City’s Budget for Outcomes Process and the
City’s obligation to provide the transportation services in future years is subject to
appropriations; thus no appropriation action is required with this item; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution comes before City Council to authorize the attached
Intergovernmental Agreement for Transportation Services Between the City of Fort Collins and
Colorado State University substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference (the “IGA”); and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to authorize the execution of the IGA, finding it in the
best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the
IGA in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, together with such modifications
and additions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be
necessary and appropriate to protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this
Packet Pg. 195
-2-
Resolution; provided such changes are materially consistent with the terms of this Resolution
and the intended purpose of the IGA.
Section 3. That during the term of the IGA the City Manager, in consultation with the
City Attorney, is also authorized to approve and execute amendments to the IGA as described
therein and consistent with this Resolution so long as the City Manager determines such
amendments: (a) are reasonably necessary and appropriate to protect the City’s interests or
provide a benefit to the City; (b) effectuate the purposes of this Resolution; and (c) limit the
City’s financial obligation to expenditure of funds already appropriated and approved by Council
or conditioned upon such appropriation.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th
day of October, A.D. 2020.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 196
1
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES BETWEEN THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
This Intergovernmental Agreement for Transportation Services (“Agreement”) is made and entered
into by and between the City of Fort Collins (“City”) and the Board of Governors of the Colorado State
University System, acting by and through Colorado State University (“University”) for its use and benefit as
well as the use and benefit of the Associated Students of Colorado State University (“ASCSU”).
RECITALS
A. ASCSU represents various interests of the students at the University ("Students"), including pub lic
transportation and its goals in reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, decreasing parking needs,
and increasing transportation convenience and safety and has entered into a prior intergovernmental
agreements with the City for the provision of Transfort services to the Students (the "Prior IGA");
B. The University represents the interests of its faculty, staff and students and shares the same goals
concerning public transportation, access, parking, reducing traffic congestion, and improving air quality, and
supports ASCSU in its efforts to increase transportation convenience and safety;
C. The City provides public transportation services by its Transfort system over established routes during
published hours and at published frequencies that serve the transportation needs of many Students, as well
as the University's faculty and staff;
D. The Parties desire to enter into an agreement whereby ASCSU will fund the use of Transfort services
by University students and the University will also support those efforts and will fund the use of Transfort
services by University faculty and staff, as well as the provision by Transfort of additional services for the
benefit of the Students, the University and its campuses, and the parties will further the goals of public
transportation in and for the University and the City of Fort Collins.
E. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority of section 29-1-203, C.R.S. 2019, which
allows for the cooperation or contracting of government entities.
1. Term
The term of this Agreement shall be effective on the date that it is fully executed (the “Effective Date”)
and shall terminate on June 30, 2025, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions herein, or
extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. The period from the Effective Date to June 30, 2021
shall be referred to herein as the “first contract year,” and each twelve-month period from July 1st through
June 30th thereafter during the term of this Agreement shall, individually, be a “contract year.”
EXHIBIT A A
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
2
2. Fees for Services
a. Fees for Services Procured by ASCSU and the University. In consideration of the services set
forth in detail in Attachments 1-4 herein, including the use by the Students and the University's
faculty and staff of the entire Transfort system as depicted in Attachment 1, Transfort fixed-route
service levels as shown in Attachment 2, the enhanced transit services to the University as shown
in Attachment 3, and the Gold schedule set forth in Attachment 4, the University shall pay the
City the sum of $ $2,444,773.80 for the first contract year (the "Initial "Payment") payable after
invoice, in two installments on the dates shown below. Transfort shall invoice the University for
the initial Payment as follows:
This sum is inclusive of Transfort services depicted in Attachments 1-4.
Invoices from the City should include an itemized cost breakdown for the specific services
provided under this Agreement, as follows:
2021 Operating Dates Service 2020 Amount 2019 CPI Increase 2021 Total
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021 Horn Shuttle $764,439.00 1.924% $779,146.81
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021 Horn Paratransit $3,000.00 1.92% $3,057.72
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021
Transfort System
Access for Students
and Employees
$626,275.00 1.92% $638,324.53
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021
Foothills Campus
Shuttle $150,070.00 1.92% $152,957.35
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021
West Elizabeth
Enhanced Service $353,060.00 1.92% $359,852.87
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021 Gold Route $20,841.00 1.92% $21,241.98
365 Service $222,207.00 1.92% $226,482.26
September 15, 2020 $1,174,805.65
February 15, 2021 $1,174,805.65
Total $2,349,611.30
A
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
3
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021 Flex Service $62,000.00 1.92% $63,192.88
07/01/2020 -
06/30/2021 Poudre Xpress $10,000.00 1.92% $10,192.40
01/19/2021 -
06/30/2021
Expanded Foothills
Campus Shuttle $95,162.50 N/A - new $95,162.50
2021 Total $2,349,611.30
Each 1/2 year payment $1,174,805.65
One-time cost Real-Time On-Bus
Technology
To be invoiced
separately $54,000.00
b. Annual Payments; Adjustments of Services and Payments; CPI Adjustment.
For the first contract year (July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021), and each successive contract
year, if any, the University shall pay to Transfort the annual sum of 2,349,611.30, subject to any
material changes in the services to the Horn or Foothills Campus shuttle as provided for herein.
The parties acknowledge and agree that ASCSU and the University may modify the services
detailed in Attachment 3, depending upon the demands and needs of the University's campuses
or as proposed by Transfort to achieve and maintain service levels. Services and the resulting
annual payments may be modified two times a year, once between January 1st and June 30th, and
once between July 1st and December 31st by written agreement of the Parties. For the avoidance
of doubt, such semiannual changes to the services do not include any as-needed modifications
to the reallocation of services proposed and implemented by Transfort to maintain or achieve
required service levels.
No later than April 1 of any contract year, the parties shall meet and confer to review any changes
to the services to be provided by Transfort to ASCSU and the University, and any corresponding
adjustments to the annual payment amount. Further, the parties acknowledge that the
additional services to be provided by Transfort, including the enhanced transit services set forth
in Attachment 3, may need to be adjusted during the initial contract year or subsequent contract
years. If, either Party, upon review of route usage, wishes to reallocate services, they will notify
the other Party. These adjustments may include necessary changes resulting from an inability to
meet agreed upon service levels, in which case Transfort will be responsible for reallocating and
proposing modifications to restore such service levels. The parties agree to meet and confer about
making any such adjustment and shall make such adjustments, as needed, and shall negotiate in
good faith any corresponding adjustments in the fees to be paid to the City, if any. The parties
A
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
4
shall memorialize in a written document signed by at least one representa tive of each party any
such changes in services and fees. These representatives are the contract managers for each party,
currently Aaron Fodge for the University and Kaley Zeisel for the City.
In addition, subsequent annual payments shall be increased (but not decreased) in accordance
with the most recent full year Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Colorado, Price Index (CPI-U) as
reported by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, but not to exceed 3% annually. By way of example,
if the published CPI-U for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, Colorado for the second half of 2020 is
reported on Jan 31, 2021 to have increased 3.6% over the second half of 2020, then the increase
in the annual payment for the contract year commencing July 1, 2021 will be 3.0%. Provided,
however, that if CSU student ridership has decreased for the period from July 1 through March
31 of the then-current contract year, as determined using the onboard fare tracking system then
no annual CPI-U adjustment shall be made and the annual payment will remain the same as the
prior contract year. In the subsequent contract year, any increase based on the CPI -U shall be
calculated from the unchanged base price carried over from the previous year.
c. Payment Upon Invoice. Payments shall be remitted to Transfort within 30 days after invoice
dated September 15 and February 15 of each contract year is received and accepted by the
University. If any amount invoiced is disputed, the University shall remit payment of the
undisputed amount, together with a statement of the nature and amount of the dispute. The
parties shall cooperate in good faith to resolve the dispute, and failing such, the dispute shall be
elevated by each party to its senior administrator for further attempts at resolution.
d. Monthly Reports. During the term of this Agreement, Transfort shall submit regular, monthly
ridership reports by route, percentage of trips on-time by route report, and capacity threshold
exceeded by stop by route to ASCSU and the University, in Excel spreadsheet or any other format
that is agreed upon by the parties, no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days following the end
of the prior month for review and discussion with the University. In addition, the City will
timely provide or make available to the University the ridership data that it reports to the public
and/or to the Federal Transit Administration. CSU retains rights to boarding and deboarding
passenger counts collected by location for Transfort transit routes to include Around the Horn
and Foothills Campus Shuttles. Transfort will establish a mechanism to share data files on a
scheduled basis for the purpose of evaluating ridership and delay by route. No later than April 1
of each contract year, the parties shall meet and confer to review ridership. Throughout the year,
Parties will review ridership data and request additional meetings with the University and
ASCSU if such data reasonably shows a gap in service regarding occupancy loads and on-time
arrivals.
Ridership data by fare category is not available for certain Transfort routes, including MAX, the
on-campus shuttle, and Green and Gold service. For these routes, the City shall conduct periodic
surveys to collect data on ridership categories and document feedback. Such information shall
be shared with University.
e. Ram Cards. Use of Transfort Services by Eligible RamCard Holders. The University's faculty,
staff and Students are issued RamCard identification and all current University faculty, staff
A
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
5
and students are deemed eligible RamCard holders. Eligible RamCard users, including full-
time and part-time students, will be able to use Transfort services throughout the fixed-route
system, as well as the services to be provided by Transfort under this Agreement, without
charge and without limit as to the number of times the Transfort services may be used during
the given academic term.
The University will upload current eligible RamCard data onto the card portal website.
RamCards will be active upon successful data transfer onto the card portal website. Upon request
by the City, the University will also provide Transfort with an "eligible" list of RamCard holders
to be compared against the ineligible list.
For purposes of this Agreement, the academic terms are based upon the academic calendar of
the University published on its official website as of January 1st of the year prior. Any changes
made after the 1st of the year prior will require a written modification of this agreement as
approved by the City.
• Fall Semester - starts one week prior to commencement of classes and ends five
(5) days before beginning of Spring semester
• Spring semester - starts January 1 of each year and ends May 31 each year
• Summer semester - starts June 1 of each year and ends five days before beginning of Fall
semester.
The City agrees to provide an adequate number of Transfort service route schedules for
distribution to Students.
f. Changes in Transit Service. During routine reporting, if ridership data indicates a significant
variation in occupancy loads or on-time arrival trends, either Party may notify the other of a
requested change in service levels. Transfort shall propose a service change as agreed upon by
both parties to maintain consistent service levels. Service improvement proposals will include
alternatives allowing parties to maintain current fee structures as well as changes that may require
adjustments to fee structures. Improvements may include but are not limited to additional buses
and or modified routes or schedules. All parties agree to review service changes and associated
fee adjustments. If the City is not meeting service levels under this IGA, but has resources in its
staffing and vehicle inventory to do so, it will reallocate resources to ensure that CSU service
levels are met to the degree practicable. In addition to any changes to the services to be provided
by Transfort to ASCSU and the University under this Agreement, the parties also recognize that
there may be changes in transit service from time to time in response to changing needs of the
Transfort System, direction of the City Council, and requests from ASCSU or the University.
Any such changes in service or changes in fare to the Transfort system will comply with Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Transfort will at all times use its best efforts to advise ASCSU's
leadership (President and Vice President) and University leadership of anticipated route and
service changes, to involve the University in discussions and planning for changes that affect
service to the University, and to avoid changes that would substantially reduce the level of
service provided. As part of this cooperative effort, the City shall notify the ASCSU President
and the University Vice President for University Operations of all major issues regarding
A
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
6
Transfort services not less than seven (7) days in advance of any scheduled public hearing or
City Council action on such issues. The ASCSU and the University reserve the right to terminate
this Agreement at the end of any contract year if route or service changes are proposed by
Transfort for the following year that appear to be unacceptable to ASCSU or the University.
g. Force Majeure. Regardless of foreseeability, should circumstances beyond the control of either
party impact the ability of a party to perform its obligations hereunder or frustrate a party’s
purpose for entering into this Agreement, the party so affected shall be excused from
performance to the degree hindered by such a force majeure event; however, the one-time fixed
costs which are the subject of a separate IGA are excluded. Such circumstances include but are
not limited to laws, regulations, orders, or directives of any government or governmental
authority, as well as acts of God, fire, flood, weather, epidemics, quarantines, or civil unrest. In
such event, the affected party shall have the right to reasonably suspend performance to th e
degree so impacted, including the temporary suspension of some or all transportation services.
Should any services be suspended pursuant to this section, the suspending party will give the
other party official written notice. In the event either Party gives notice of suspension to
Transfort for Around the Horn or Foothills Campus Shuttle services pursuant to this paragraph,
University will remain obligated to pay for fifty percent of Transfort’s fixed, non-cancelable costs
during the time of such suspension; these costs include bus operator salaries and administrative
costs. These fixed costs do not include maintenance and fuel, which are variable. Transfort will
make best efforts to mitigate and limit such costs. The parties will meet within fourteen (14) days
of any such suspension to discuss and agree upon the contents of such fixed costs. During such
suspension, if desirable for logistical or other reasons, Transfort may continue to operate Around
the Horn or Foothills Campus Shuttle services, with University’s consent, but the University will
have no further responsibility for payment. In the event Transfort gives notice of suspension to
University, University will have no financial responsibility for such suspended services (other
than the fixed costs described above) beyond the last date of services rendered. All payments
impacted by or modified under this section shall be calculated on a pro rata basis from actual
reductions in transportation services.
h. Around the Horn and Foothills Shuttle. ASCSU and the University will work with Transfort to
review Around the Horn and Foothills Campus Shuttle ridership data annually, including the
reports outlined herein, and establish acceptable service levels. Such annual review process will
include any proposed changes to the route in order to support forecasted University ridership
changes. Throughout the year the Parties will utilize ridership data and request additional
meetings with one another as needed to address identified gaps in service related to occupancy
loads and on-time arrivals. Transfort will work with all parties to propose solutions to maintain
service standards.
i. Gold Fare. In addition to the above described consideration and such other consideration as
the City may independently identify, the City will not charge patrons using the Gold a fare. A
fare shall not be implemented without express written agreement by the University.
A
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
7
j. Poudre Express Service. The University acknowledges that the City provides its Poudre Express
Service through a third-party Intergovernmental Agreement by and between the City, Greeley
and Windsor (“GW IGA”). The University understands that terms of the GW IGA relating to
that portion of service are subject to the rights and responsibilities held by the GW IGA Parties.
As such, the University acknowledges that this Agreement is subordinate to the GW IGA
previously entered into by the City in 2019.
3. Representatives & Notices
The parties hereby designate the following representatives for purposes of determining service levels
and managing daily operations of this Agreement and receiving notices hereunder. A party may change its
designated representative(s) at any time by service of notice in the same manner as any other notice. Any
notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed received when hand-delivered
to the other party or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to such party at the following addresses:
FOR THE UNIVERSITY: FOR THE CITY:
ASCSU President Transfort General Manager
Associated Students of Colorado 6570 Portner Road
State University Fort Collins, CO 80525
Lory Student Center
8033 Campus Delivery
Collins, CO 80523-8033
Vice President for University Operations Office of the City Manager
318 Administration City of Fort Collins
Colorado State University PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80523 Fort Collins, CO 80522
Office of General Counsel
Colorado State University
0006 Campus Delivery
Fort Collins, CO 80523-6010
Proof of service of any notice in accordance with this provision may be required.
4. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated as follows:
a. Termination for Default. A party will be considered in default of its obligations under this
Agreement if such party should fail to observe, to comply with, or to perform any term, condition,
or covenant contained in this Agreement. The non-defaulting party shall provide written notice to
the defaulting party of any such default. The defaulting party shall have 30 days after receipt of such
notice to remedy said default. During the 30-day period in which the defaulting party may cure the
default, the parties will make reasonable attempts to resolve the claimed default. If the default is not
A
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
8
cured by the end of this 30-day period, the non-defaulting party may declare this Agreement
terminated, but shall not be relieved of its obligations incurred prior to the date of termination.
b. Termination for Convenience. The University and the City each have the right to terminate
this Agreement for any or no reason upon not less than thirty (30) days' advance written notice to
the other party, and upon such termination for convenience the University shall receive a pro -rata
refund of any amount paid in advance for services that would have been provided by the City under
this Agreement.
5. Miscellaneous Provisions
a. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and
supersedes any previous contracts, understandings, or agreements of the parties, whether verbal
or written, concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. Any amendment to this Agreement
must be in writing and must be signed by the parties.
b. Waiver of Breach. The waiver by either party of a breach or violation of any provision of this
Agreement shall not operate as or be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the
same or other provision hereof.
c. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held unenforceable for any reason, the
remaining portions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
d. Assignment. No assignment of this Agreement or the rights and obligations thereunder shall
be valid without the specific written consent of both parties hereto.
e. Appropriations. Financial obligations of the University payable after the current fiscal year are
contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, or otherwise made
available.
Appropriations. To the extent that this Agreement or any provision in it constitutes a multiple
fiscal year debt or financial obligation of the City, it shall be subject to annual appropriation by
City Council as required in Article V, Section 8(b) of the City Charter, City Code Section 8-186,
and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. The City shall have no oblig ation to
continue this Agreement in any fiscal year for which no such supporting appropriation has been
made.
f. Independent Contractors. Each party and its governing board, officers, directors, employees, and
agents are independent contractors in relation to the other party with respect to all matters
arising under this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be construed to create any partnership,
joint venture, nor other agency relationship between the parties, who are independent of one
another. The City and its employees shall not be considered employees of the University for any
purpose whatsoever and are not entitled or eligible for any employment benefit or compensation
from the University, for example, medical benefits, retirement benefits, or worker’s
compensation coverage.
A
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
9
g. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, without
regard to the conflict of laws provision thereof. Venue shall be district court in Larimer County,
Colorado.
h. Third Party Beneficiaries. Enforcement of this Agreement and all rights and obligations
hereunder are reserved solely to the City and the University, ASCSU being a constituent element
of the University. Any services or benefits that third parties receive as a result of this Agreement
are incidental to the Agreement, and do not create any rights for such third parties.
i. Controller’s Approval. C.R.S. § 24-30-202(1). This contract shall not be valid until it has been
approved by the Colorado State University Controller or designee.
j. Fund Availability. C.R.S. § 24-30-202(5 .5). Financial obligations of the Parties payable after the
current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and
otherwise made available.
k. Governmental Immunity/Liability. Each governmental party shall be solely responsible for its
actions, including the actions of its employees or authorized volunteers. No term or condition
of this contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, by either party
of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions, of the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 et seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28
U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended.
l. Employee Financial Interest / Conflict of Interest. The signatories aver that to their knowledge,
no employee of the State has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or
property described in this contract. The City has no interest and shall not acquire any interest,
direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the City's
services and the City shall not employ any person having such known interests.
m. The transportation services described in this Agreement are part of the City's fixed-route bus
system and available for use by the public on the same terms as CSU faculty, staff and students.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
A
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS AGREEMENT:
CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
______________________________
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Date: _____________________
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Assistant City Attorney
A
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
11
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System,
Acting by and through Colorado State University
By:
Lynn Johnson
Vice President for University Operations
Date:
APPROVED:
By:
Ben Admundson
President, ASCSU
LEGAL REVIEW:
By:
Grant Calhoun
Associate Legal Counsel
CSU CONTROLLER:
By:
David Ryan
Controller
A
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
12
Attachment 1: Transfort System
A
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
13
Attachment 2: Transfort Fixed-Route Service Levels (to be updated from time-to-time)
Route Days Peak
Frequency
Hours Season Area served
Route 2 Mon-Sun
30 minutes 6:23 a.m. - 10:09 p.m.,
Sun: 8:15 a.m. - 7:09
p.m.
year -
round
CSU campus and West Fort
Collins
Route 3 Mon-Sun 15 minutes/
30 minutes
6:53 a.m. - 6:15 p.m.,
Sun: 8:05 a.m. - 7:15
p.m.
CSU i n
session/
CSU o ut
session
CSU campus and West
Elizabeth Road
Route 5 Mon-Sat 60 minutes 6:05 a.m. - 7:15 p .m. year -
round
The Foothills Mall,
Poudre Val ley Hospital
and Downtown
Route 6 Mon-Sat 60 minutes 6:11 a.m. - 10:08 p.m. year -
round
West Fort Collins from the
CSU Transit Center to the
Foothills shopping center
Route 7 Mon-Sat 30 minutes 6:40 a.m. - 1 0:29 p .m. year -
round
CSU campus, Senior
Center, Drake Road, and
Rigden Farm
Route 8 Mon-Sun 30 minutes 6:22 a.m. - 10:38 p.m.,
Sun: 8:22 a.m. - 7:11
p.m.
year -
round
North Fort Coll ins and the
Larimer County Department
of Human Services
Route 9 Mon-Sat 60 minutes 6:15 a.m . - 6:38 p.m. year -
round
Northwest Fort Collins,
Overland Trail, and Laporte
Route 10 Mon-Sat 60 minutes 6:45 a.m. - 7:08 p.m. year -
round
Downtown, City Park and
CSU
Route 11 Mon-Sat 60 minutes 7:00 a.m. - 10:25 p.m. year -
round
West Harmony Road, Front
Range Community College,
Horsetooth Road, and Fort
Collins High School
Route 12 Mon-Sat 60 minutes 6:26 a.m. - 9:54 p.m. year -
round
East Horsetooth Road, Fort
Collins High School, Foothills
Mall, and JFK Parkway
Route 14 Mon-Sun 60 minutes 6:10 a.m. - 6:47 p.m.,
Sun: 8:10 a.m. - 6:47
p.m.
year -
round
East Mulberry Street, and
portions of northwest Fort
Collins
Route 16 Mon-Sun 30 minutes 5:45 a.m. - 10:33 p.m.,
Sat: 6:15 a.m. - 10:33
p.m., Sun: 7:45 a.m. -
6:22 p.m.
year -
round
East Harmony Road to Fossil
Ridge High School and
Harmony Transfer Center
Route 18 Mon-Sat 60 minutes 6:31 a.m. - 7:30 p.m. year -
round
Eastside neighborhoods,
Prospect Road, and the
Midpoint area
A
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
14
Route 19 Mon-Fri 30 minutes/
60 minutes
6:45 a.m. - 7:36 p.m. CSU or
PSD in
session/
CSU or
PSD out
session
CSU, Rocky Mountain High
School and Front Range
Community College a l ong
Shields Street
Route 31 Mon-Fri 10 minutes 6:58 a.m. - 6:26 p.m. CSU in
session
CSU campus and Campus
West
Route 32 Mon-Fri 30 minutes 6:45 a.m. - 10:40 p.m. CSU in
session
CSU campus and West Fort
Collins
Route 33:
Foothills Campus
Shuttle
Mon-Fri 15 minutes 7:22 a.m. - 7:02 p.m. CSU in
session
CSU Foothills Campus
Route 81 Mon-Fri 30 minutes 6:37 a.m. - 6:54 p .m. year -
round
North Fort Collins and the
Larimer County Department
of Human Services
Route 92 Mon-Fri 1 trip 4:04 p.m. - 4:22 p.m. PSD in
session
Poudre High School and
Downtown
FLEX:
Regional Service
Mon-Sat Varies 5:14 a.m. - 9:02 p.m.,
Sat: 6:24 a.m. - 8:19
p.m.
year -
round
Stops between Fort Collins,
Loveland, Berthoud,
Longmont, and Boulder
GOLD:
Late Night
Weekend Service
Fri-Sat 15 minutes 10:30 p.m. - 2:42 a.m. year -
round
Gold Route departs at
Mountain Avenue and
Remington Street, serves
Downtown, Laurel,
Elizabeth, Prospect, and
College.
HORN:
Around the Horn
Campus Shuttle
Mon-Sat 10 minutes/
20 minutes
6:42 a.m. - 6:42 p.m.,
(8:34 p.m. 8/24/20-
11/20/20), Sat: 6:52 a.m.
- 6:32 p.m.
CSU i n
session/
CSU o ut
session
CSU campus including
South Residence Halls
and Vet Teaching
Hospital
MAX:
Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT)
Mon-Sun 10 minutes 5:10 a.m. - 1:16 a.m.,
Sat: 5:48 a.m. - 1:16
a.m., Sun: 8:03 a.m. -
7:26 p.m.
year -
round
Mason Corridor, Major
activity and employment
centers throughout our
community including
Midtown, CSU and
Downtown
A
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
15
Attachment 3: Enhanced Service Levels (Service provided on behalf of CSU)
Transit Service – CSU In Session Route Peak
Frequency Start Date
Around the Horn Campus Shuttle 10 Minutes Ongoing
Foothills Campus Shuttle 60 Minutes Ongoing Until
August 23, 2020
Foothills Campus Shuttle 15 Minutes August 24, 2020
Enhanced West Elizabeth Service 10 Minutes Ongoing
Transit Service – CSU Out of Session Route Peak
Frequency Start Date
Around the Horn Campus Shuttle 20 Minutes Ongoing
Foothills Campus Shuttle 15 Minutes August 24, 2020
A
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
16
Attachment 4: Gold Schedule
A
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Exhibit A (9511 : Transportation Services IGA RESO)
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Matt Parker, Crew Chief
Ingrid Decker, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2020-091 Authorizing a Livestock Grazing Lease, Sublease and Residential Lease on Soapstone
Prairie Natural Area with Folsom Grazing Association, LLC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider a 10-year grazing lease with Folsom Grazing Association (FGA) at
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area (SPNA). The outcome associated with the lease is the cultiv ation and
maintenance of a healthy grassland ecosystem. Grazing is an essential conservation management tool. The
current lease agreement between the City and FGA expires in December 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Through a competitive Request for Proposals process , FGA was selected as the primary grazing tenant on up
to 22,497 acres of SPNA. FGA has proven to be a valuable partner in the grassland management of SPNA
and has been awarded two previous long-term leases based on its demonstration of collaboration and a
commitment to conservation values.
The Soapstone Prairie Natural Areas Management Plan (adopted 2007) identifies “conservation targets,” or
natural and cultural resources of highest conservation value. Many of the natural conservation targets depend
upon, or are strongly influenced by, continued grazing for their survival and success. Shortgrass prairie, the
largest conservation target by acreage, evolved with three primary e cological drivers: grazing, climate, and fire.
Historically, large ungulates such as bison, elk, deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn grazed the shortgrass
prairie system. However, current wildlife densities are not sufficient to provide the same effects as h istoric
grazers, so proper management of domestic livestock grazing is used as a best alternative. While staff have
worked with Colorado State University to graze bison on a portion of SPNA, it is not feasible at this time to
extend bison grazing across the entire property, for numerous reasons including feasibility, wildlife
considerations and visitor safety.
The past ten years of managing Soapstone Prairie’s grasslands has been a collaborative effort between
various agencies and entities including; Bird Conservancy of the Rockies, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife, USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service, CSU’s Animal Reproduction and
Biotechnical Laboratory, Larimer County Open Lands, and Folsom Grazing Association. The Natural Areas
Department has collaborated with these partners to realize the following ecological improvements to
Soapstone Prairie:
• Re-introduction of black-footed ferrets
• Re-introduction of American bison
15
Packet Pg. 213
Agenda Item 15
Item # 15 Page 2
• Enhanced habitat for ground nesting birds
• Enhanced habitat for prairie dogs
• Improved survivability for prairie dogs and all wildlife associated with prairie dogs
• Protected riparian areas through the installation of exclosure fencing
• Protected raptor nests through the installation of exclosure cribs
• Improved grassland health by increasing livestock water sources and improving reliability of water sources
for livestock
Key features of the lease include:
• A lease term of one year, renewing automatically each year for nine additional years, unless either party
terminates it sooner.
• FGA may house an employee on site in the existing ranch house, with FGA responsible for all utilities and
general maintenance for the residence.
• The City and FGA will establish and operate a Range Management Advisory Committee to enha nce
communication and collaboration on range management and conservation matters, including development of
an annual grazing plan.
• The lease requires FGA to also arrange, through a sublease agreement or services contract, for a “Grazing
Contractor” to graze an additional 100-200 “animal units” on the property in addition to FGA’s animal units.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The annual lease payment is based upon the number animals allowed to graze on SPNA for that year, which
depends on factors such as precipitation, forage (grass) conditions, water availability, status of conservation
targets, etc. This lease is expected to generate approximately $50,000 to $80,000 per year. Grazing fees will
be based on a sliding scale of $16 per animal unit per month (AUM) fo r up to seven hundred and fifty AUM’s,
$17 per AUM for the next 150 AUM’s, and $18 per AUM for any AUM’s over 900. Each year the dollar amounts
per AUM will be increased by 2.0%. This revenue will be placed into the Natural Areas Department fund for
land acquisition and restoration.
Grazing lease rates in the area vary depending on the landowner, number of acres, number of animal units
included in the lease, forage quality and quantity, market demand, etc. Rates range from $1.35/AUM for
federal land rates (Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service 2019 rate), to $20.20/AUM for Colorado
State Land Board leases (2020 data), and $17.53/AUM average for private grazing leases statewide in
Colorado (2016 data).
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its August 5, 2020, meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to
recommend Council approve the lease.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board - Excerpt August 5, 2020 (PDF)
15
Packet Pg. 214
Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
Regular Meeting
August 12, 2020
08/12/2018 – MINUTES Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER
5:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Andrea Elson, Vicky McLane, Alycia Crall, Kelly Ohlson, Joe Piesman,
Mike Weber, Raymond Watts, David Tweedale
NAD Staff: Mark Sears, Zoe Shark, Tawnya Ernst, Dave Myers
Other: Dan Woodward, City Engineering Department; Kelly Smith, Community
Development and Neighborhood Services; Cassie Archuleta, Environmental
Services; Meegan Flenniken and Charlie Johnson, Larimer County Department
of Natural Resources
Unfinished Business:
USoapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Update
There were some concerns during the July meeting regarding the discussed terms
of the proposed grazing lease. Mark Sears reported that staff had renegotiated the
lease to include a 2% annual lease rate escalator and brought to the Board’s
attention that the lease had a termination clause that would allow the lease to be
terminated at any time with a 180 day notification. After some discussion Board
members agreed that most of their concerns had been resolved.
Andrea Elson made a motion that the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board
would like to amend the recommendation the Board made in July, since many of
their issues have been resolved. The LCSB support the recently re-negotiated
grazing lease with Folsom Grazing Association, for ten years of grazing rights
on portions of Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. David Tweedale seconded the
motion. The motion was unanimously approved 8-0
ATTACHMENT 1 15.1
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board - Excerpt August 5, 2020 (9494 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease)
-1-
RESOLUTION 2020-091
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING A LIVESTOCK GRAZING LEASE, SUBLEASE
AND RESIDENTIAL LEASE ON SOAPSTON PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA
WITH FOLSOM GRAZING ASSOCIATION, LLC
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of approximately 21,900 acres of land known as
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area in northern Larimer County (the “City Property); and
WHEREAS, in 2005, in order to continue grazing as a habitat management tool while
the management plan for the City Property was being completed, City staff proposed leasing
portions of the City Property to a local grazing association; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 160,
2005, authorizing a grazing lease with Folsom Grazing Association (“Folsom”) on portions of
the City property from January 2006 through December 2008 (the “2006 Lease”); and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 2008-116
extending the 2006 Lease through December 2010 and placing new limits on the number of
animals and the area that Folsom could graze; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2010, following a competitive process to select a tenant
for a new grazing lease, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 097, 2010, authorizing a new
lease with Folsom through December 2020; and
WHEREAS, with the current lease about to expire, City staff conducted a competitive
process to select a tenant for a new 10-year grazing lease, and through that process Folsom was
again selected as the tenant; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the proposed grazing lease agreement is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” (the “Lease”); and
WHEREAS, the portion of the property that would be subject to the Lease is described in
Exhibit A to the Lease; and
WHEREAS, the Soapstone shortgrass prairie was historically grazed by large ungulates
such as bison, elk, deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn, whose current population numbers are not
sufficient to maintain the health of that ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, managed grazing on the City Property is an essential conservation
management tool, helping to enhance wildlife habitat for species such as black-footed ferrets,
ground nesting birds and prairie dogs; and
WHEREAS, City staff expects the Lease to generate an annual revenue of approximately
$50,000 to $80,000 per year depending on how many animals are grazed and for how long each
year; and
Packet Pg. 216
-2-
WHEREAS, the City Property includes a residence (the “Ranch House”) that would be
available to Folsom at no additional rent as housing for an employee, and if Folsom chooses not
to use the Ranch House the City reserves the right to lease it to a third party tenant; and
WHEREAS, the Lease also requires Folsom to arrange, through a sublease agreement or
services contract, for a grazing contractor to graze an additional 100 to 200 “animal units” on the
property in addition to Folsom’s animal units; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-113(b)(1) of the City Code authorizes the City Council to lease
any and all interests in real property owned in the name of the City if the City Council first finds
that the lease is in the best interests of the City, with such approval being by resolution unless the
proposed term of the lease exceeds twenty years; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on August 5, 2020, the Land Conservation and
Stewardship Board voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Lease.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into a
grazing lease agreement with Folsom Grazing Association in substantially the form of the Lease
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, together with such additional terms and conditions as the City
Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines to be necessary or appropriate to
protect the interests of the City or effectuate the purposes of this Resolution.
Section 3. That as part of the Lease, and consistent with the terms of the Lease,
Folsom is hereby authorized to enter into a sublease agreement or services contract with a
grazing contractor, and to authorize an employee to occupy the Ranch House during the term of
the Lease.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 6th
day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 217
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 1 of 41
SOAPSTONE PRAIRIE NATURAL AREA
GRAZING LEASE AGREEMENT
THIS GRAZING LEASE AGREEMENT (“Lease”), is made and entered into this day of
, 20 , by and between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a municipal
corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Lessor”), and FOLSOM GRAZING ASSOCIATION,
LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the “Lessee”).
RECITALS
A. The Lessor is the owner of that certain real property, together with any improvements
located thereon, situated in the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, consisting of
approximately 22,497 acres of land, commonly known as the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
(the "Leased Premises"), the legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference, which Exhibit includes the following Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Soapstone Natural Area Map
3. Residence Map
4. Leased Premises Overview
5. Leased Premises Pasture Descriptions
B. The Lessor desires to lease the Leased Premises to the Lessee for livestock grazing
purposes only, and the Lessee desires to lease the Leased Premises from the Lessor for
livestock grazing purposes only.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and agreements
herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby covenant, promise, and agree to and with each
other as follows:
Article I. Lease of the Leased Premises.
1.1 The Lessor does hereby lease, demise, and let unto the Lessee, and the Lessee does
hereby hire and take from the Lessor the Leased Premises.
1.1.1 The actual acres grazed may be less than the total leased premises acreage,
and the actual acres grazed may periodically change.
1.2 This Lease includes all the grazing-related improvements located upon the Leased
Premises including, but not limited to, the ranch headquarters facilities. Lessee must
ensure that its officers and employee(s) working or residing on the Leased Premises,
their dependents, and any guests, strictly comply with the requirements and restrictions
set forth in this Lease Agreement, and with all applicable laws, regulations and other
legal requirements, in connection with the use or occupation of the Leased Premises.
EXHIBIT A A
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 2 of 41
1.2.1 Lessee may, but is not required to, authorize an employee of Lessee who is
assigned to work on the Leased Premises to occupy the ranch headquarters
residence ("Residence") at no additional rent, subject to the Residence Lease
terms listed in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Lessee will notify Lessor at the commencement of this Lease whether Lessee
intends to allow an employee to occupy the Residence, who that employee will
be, and must provide notification to the Lessor 30 days prior to a change in the
occupancy of the Residence.
1.2.2 Lessor reserves the right to reject Lessee's proposed employee occupant of the
Residence if the Lessor, in its sole discretion believes the employee will not be a
suitable occupant. Any proposed occupant of the Residence must be willing to
consent to a criminal background check.
1.2.3 If at any time Lessee has not designated an employee to live in the Residence,
Lessor reserves the right to lease the Residence, for a time period in Lessor's
discretion, to another tenant suitable to Lessor, which tenant will have access to
the Residence on and across the Leased Premises via a route designated by
Lessor. Lessor will notify Lessee of any such lease of the Residence.
Article II. Term.
2.1 The term of this Lease is for a period of one (1) year, commencing on the 1st day of
January 2021. The term of the Lease shall automatically renew each year for each of
nine (9) additional successive years continuing until the 31st day of December 2030,
unless terminated by operation of law or as otherwise provided in this Lease Agreement.
Either party may cancel this Lease at any time upon one hundred eighty (180) days
advanced written notice to the other.
Article III. Rent.
3.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Lease, the Lessee will pay to the Lessor rent
calculated each year based upon the formula of a pre-determined dollar amount for each
animal unit grazed each month upon the Leased Premises (animal unit month or AUM)
per year. The dollar amount for each AUM will be based on the total number of animal
units (AUs) grazed on the property, as defined in Section 3.2, below. The AUM fee will
be adjusted upward as the total number of AUs increases. For the first one-year term of
this Lease, the amount of rent will be as follows:
• $16.00 per AUM for 600 AUs to 750 AUs
• $17.00 per AUM for 751 AUs to 900 AUs
• $18.00 per AUM for 901+ AUs
As an example, if Lessee grazes 1000 AUs for four months, rent would be calculated as
follows:
A
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 3 of 41
(750 X 4 X 16.00) + (150 X 4 X 17.00) + (100 X 4 X 18.00) = $65,400.
In addition, upon each annual renewal of this Lease, the dollar amounts per AUM shall be
increased by 2.0%. The allowable length of time to graze the property will be determined
annually as outlined in Article IV. The parties will determine the number of AUMs and the
amount of rent for each one year term of the lease as part of the development of the
Grazing Plan described in Section 4.3, below. Lessee will pay the total annual rental for
each one-year term of this Lease, without demand or notice, as follows: thirty percent
(30%) of the total due and payable on May 15 and seventy percent (70%) on December
1 of each year.
3.2 For purposes of this Lease, an animal unit (AU) shall be defined as follows:
1. A cow and un-weaned calf pair shall constitute one (1) animal unit.
2. A mature bull shall constitute one and one-half (1.5) animal units.
3. A 1,000-pound yearling shall constitute one (1) animal unit, but if the yearling weighs
less than 1,000 pounds, then the animal unit value assigned to that yearling shall be
based upon the percentage that the yearling's weight is to a 1,000 pounds weight. (For
example, if the yearling weighs 600 pounds, then it shall constitute .6 of an animal
unit.) The weights for yearlings shall be confirmed by certified scale receipts at the
time of delivery of the animal upon the Leased Premises, or by any technique mutually
agreeable to the Lessor and the Lessee.
4. A horse shall constitute one and one-half (1.5) animal units.
5. Five (5) sheep or goats shall constitute one (1) animal unit.
6. A bison cow shall constitute one (1) animal unit.
7. A bison bull shall constitute one and one-half (1.5) animal units.
8. AU equivalent for any other animal type will be determined by Lessor.
3.3 Lessee will make all payments of rent at such place as the Lessor may, from time to time,
designate in writing. For the present, the Lessor designates City of Fort Collins Natural
Areas Department, Attn: Natural Areas Financial Coordinator, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins,
Colorado 80522, as the place for the making of rental payments. All such rent must be
paid in current legal tender of the United States as the same is then by law constituted. If
Lessor extends the time for the payment of any installment of rent or accepts any money
other than of the kind herein specified, Lessor by doing so does not waive its right to insist
on having all other payments of rent made in the manner and at the time herein specified.
3.4 Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Article III, the Lessee agrees that if the
Lessor determines that the grazing conditions of the Leased Premises warrant it, whether
A
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 4 of 41
such conditions are caused by drought, pestilence, insect infestation or any other
circumstance beyond Lessor's control, the Lessor may reduce the agreed upon number
of AUMs per year to that number that Lessor determines is appropriate under the then-
existing grazing conditions. In such event, Lessor agrees that Lessee's rental payment
due in May or December shall be reduced in proportion to the reduction in AUMs per year.
If favorable grazing conditions exist, and the Lessor determines that conservation
objectives will not be negatively impacted by additional grazing, the Lessor may increase
the numbers of AUMs per year to a number that Lessor determines is appropriate under
the then-existing grazing conditions. In such event, Lessee agrees that Lessee's rental
payment due in May or December shall be increased in proportion to the increase in AUMs
per year.
3.5 If Lessee fails to pay when due any rental payment required under this Lease, the unpaid
rental amount shall accrue interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum from
the due date until paid.
ARTICLE IV. Range Management Advisory Committee and Conservation Programs.
4.1 The Lessor and the Lessee agree to establish and operate a Range Management
Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) for the purpose of
enhancing communications between the Lessor and the Lessee in connection with their
respective performance under this Lease Agreement and to provide assistance and
recommendations concerning matters arising under this Lease Agreement. The
Committee will review and make recommendations regarding range management and
conservation matters, including, but not be limited to: (a) development of an annual
“Grazing Plan”; (b) recommendations to Lessor on grazing related issues; (c) assistance
in creating a ranch improvement plan and schedule to help the Lessor address long-range
planning issues; (d) assistance in development of land management practices in the areas
of vegetative diversity, conservation of threatened and endangered species and noxious
plant management; and (e) working with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to help maintain
wildlife populations at sustainable levels to match existing forage conditions, and other
conservation plans and programs.
4.2 The Lessor reserves the right to identify additional conservation values that warrant
additional management actions, e.g. using fence to control access to riparian areas,
exclusion of or controlled access to areas of unique vegetation, or the permittance of
prairie dog colonies to expand. Impacts of such management actions on the AUMs
available to the Lessee will be identified via the Committee and adjustments made to total
AUMs with Lessor reserving the right to make final decisions.
4.3 Lessee and Lessor will annually work together in a collaborative effort to develop a
"Grazing Plan" for the Leased Premise, which plan includes stocking rates, grazing
initiation and ending dates, animal unit months for each pasture, and grazing rotation
plans. If the parties have not developed a Grazing Plan for each year's grazing season by
May 1 of that year, Lessor will determine the Grazing Plan for that year, and Lessee
A
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 5 of 41
agrees to comply with it.
4.4 The Lessee agrees to cooperate with the Lessor in connection with the development of
the Grazing Plan for the Leased Premises, as described in Section 4.3, for the purpose of
research and evaluation related to range management and restoration and conservation
of plant and animal species and resource protection, during the term of this Lease
Agreement.
4.5 To support range management evaluation and research efforts, and to provide consulting
expertise to Lessee in connection with Lessee’s development of the Grazing Plan,
monitoring and management of range conditions and the time and pattern of grazing
rotations based on range and weather conditions, the Lessee may hire, at the Lessee's
cost, a range management expert.
4.6 To support range management and conservation efforts, the Lessor will hire at the
Lessor’s cost a range management specialist. The Lessor reserves the right to have final
say on amount of AU’s permitted on Soapstone Prairie and length of grazing season
annually.
4.7 Prior to commencing livestock grazing on the Leased Premises, the Lessor’s range
management expert shall submit a written report to the Lessee evaluating current range
conditions and recommending a date to initiate livestock grazing (but not before May 15),
and a draft Grazing Plan for Lessee’s review. Further written evaluations to the Lessee
from said expert shall be due on July 15 and September 15 of each year of the term of
this Lease. The September 15 evaluation shall include a recommended date for the
cessation of livestock grazing for that grazing season.
4.8 On or before December 31 of each year of the term of this Lease, the Lessor shall submit
a preliminary report to the Lessee on the outcomes and results of the recommended
Grazing Plan and the condition of grazing range, and other property conditions that have
resulted from the implementation of the Grazing Plan during the annual term of the Lease
(a “Range Report”). The final Range Report regarding each grazing season under this
Lease Agreement shall be due to the Lessee no later than March 1 of the succeeding
year.
Article V. Use of Leased Premises.
5.1 The Lessee may use the Leased Premises for livestock grazing purposes only, as outlined
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred
to as "Scope of Work"); except as otherwise provided in this Lease. This Lease does not
allow for feeding of livestock outside of the corrals, private or commercial recreational
rights, hunting, shooting, trapping or poisoning of wildlife of any kind, or control of prairie
dogs. All pets must be on a leash, caged or fenced, with the exception of two spayed
cats, which may roam freely around the ranch headquarters to control mice, and dogs
owned or controlled by the Lessee and used for ranching activities such as the herding of
A
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 6 of 41
livestock. Only licensed vehicles involved in ranching activities are allowed beyond the
ranch headquarters and are to remain on existing established roads, identified by the
Lessor as open for grazing-related access. Unlicensed vehicles are prohibited except that
ATVs used for ranching activities may be used on or off established roads, but only with
Lessor's express written permission. Even with such permission, Lessee must keep off
road ATV use to an absolute minimum. Lessor will provide to Lessee on an annual basis
maps and documents identifying the acceptable roads and routes that Lessee may use
for travel with vehicles and ATVs. Lessor may update these maps and documents from
time to time at Lessor's sole discretion, and any such updates shall be effective when
delivered to the Lessee's President and/or the Ranch Manager in the manner described
in Article XX.
5.2 Grazing may begin with certain restrictions on June 1 of each year, and must end by
November 15, unless moisture conditions and forage availability allow or require
modification of time, dates, or stocking rates. If Lessor believes modification is necessary,
the Lessor, in consultation with the Lessee, will determine modified grazing dates and
stocking rates. The Lessor reserves the right to make the final decision in accordance
with the terms of this Agreement.
5.3 Lessee and Lessor will work in a collaborative effort to develop grant proposals to
implement the grazing plan. Grant efforts may include payment or reimbursement for
infrastructure costs, marketing programs, ecosystem service studies and/or other grazing
related management activities.
5.4 The Lessor reserves the right to perform management activities at any time during the
year including the grazing season. Any management activity that has the potential to
influence stocking rates or grazing dates will be coordinated with the Lessee.
5.5 Lessee acknowledges that the Leased Premises is a City of Fort Collins Natural Area that
is open to the public annually from March 1 through November 30. The Lessor reserves
the right to open or close any portion of the Leased Premises to public use at any time
during this Lease. Lessor will coordinate any modification to stocking rates, grazing dates,
and grazing rotations with the Lessee.
5.6 The Lessee must not use the Leased Premises in any way that violates any applicable
law, statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation of any governmental entity or body. All cattle
moved into Colorado from any other state or country must strictly adhere to all Colorado
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations for animal
movement into and within Colorado.
5.7 The Lessee must not permit or suffer the use of, or presence on, the Leased Premises
by: (1) the general public, except for members of the public using the Soapstone Prairie
Natural Area in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Code and Natural Areas
regulations and policies, or by (2) any persons other than Lessee's employees or agents,
who are permitted to occupy or use the Leased Premises only to the extent required to
A
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 7 of 41
carry out the purposes of the Lease.
5.8 The Lessee is responsible for security activities on the Leased Premises, including but
not limited to the following:
• Answer visitors' questions about the natural area and natural areas rules and
regulations if Lessee's employees are approached on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
• Call for emergency response when necessary.
• Inspect fencing, gates, Roman House, Gate Station and other structures or areas
prone to security breaches.
• Report suspicious activity including suspicious vehicles, persons or activities on site,
in prohibited areas or near site boundary (e.g., access roads).
• If Lessee has an employee living in the Ranch Residence on the Leased Premises,
provide after-hours contact and response to Fort Collins dispatch and emergency
personnel.
• If Lessee has an employee living in the Ranch Residence on the Leased Premises,
provide surveillance of site including parking lots, gate security after hours on an
occasional basis or as requested by staff.
• Communicate promptly with appropriate authorities to request assistance or to report
an incident when suspicious and/or illegal activity or security breech has occurred.
This may include Natural Areas Rangers or other Natural Areas personnel, Larimer
County Sheriff, Colorado Division of Wildlife or other appropriate authorities. Lessee's
employees or agents may be required to complete a written statement.
• Perform other related duties as requested on an occasional basis.
ARTICLE VI. Maintenance and Repairs.
The Lessee must maintain and keep in orderly condition and in a good state of repair all of the
Leased Premises and all grazing-related improvements located thereon, whether existing as of
the date of this Lease or added thereafter, including, but not limited to: boundary and interior
fences and gates; all livestock watering facilities including but not limited to stock tanks, corrals;
and any buildings Lessee uses constituting part of the ranch headquarters.
6.1 Maintenance of watering facilities includes filling stock tanks prior to grazing activities
and draining them, along with other water system infrastructure, upon completion of the
grazing season. Lessee and Lessor will share maintenance responsibilities for buried
water pipes and pumps as described in Section 6.3 below. The Lessee is not responsible
for maintenance or repair of public Natural Areas facilities.
A
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 8 of 41
6.2 The Lessee is only responsible for maintenance and repairs on cattle fences in pastures
used by Lessee. The Lessee is not responsible for upkeep of infrastructure related to the
bison herd unless separate compensation is agreed upon by the City of Fort Collins or
CSU. The Lessee is only responsible for repairs that are ordinary and routine in nature
and are within the skillset of the Cattle Ranch Manager. Lessee will promptly notify Lessor
of needed maintenance and repairs to the Leased premises that are extraordinary or
major in nature. (see also Article VII. Alterations and Improvements).
The following repairs are considered extraordinary or major in nature:
• Windmill Repair
• Solar panel repair/replacement
• Submersible pump repair
• Installation of poured concrete
• Digging to a depth greater than 4 feet
• Installing spring collectors or permanent stock tanks
• Any work that is considered a skilled trade such as electrical, carpentry, interior
plumbing.
• Building new fence any distance greater than 100 yards.
The following repairs are considered routine in nature:
• Stock tank plumbing repair and install including poly, steel, PVC pipes and associated
couplers, joints, valves.
• Mixing ready-made concrete for posts.
• All facets of fence repair/construction including building H-braces, driving t-posts,
stretching wire, hammering nails etc.
• Hanging steel gates
• Building wire ranch gates
6.3 The Lessor is responsible for the reasonable cost of all materials necessary for both
routine and extraordinary maintenance and repairs. Lessee is responsible for the costs
of all labor for routine maintenance and repairs unless otherwise agreed upon with the
Lessor. For maintenance and repairs to the Leased Premises that are necessary and are
extraordinary or major in nature, the Lessee is responsible for up to One Thousand
A
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 9 of 41
Dollars ($1,000.00) in labor per month unless waived by the Lessor. This is calculated at
a rate of $25 an/hour per person provided by the Lessee. Any additional labor is the
Lessor's responsibility.
6.4 All maintenance and repairs to the Leased Premises required of the Lessee must be
made promptly and when necessary. In addition, all such maintenance and repairs must
be done in a good and workmanlike manner and in compliance with all applicable laws,
statutes, ordinances, rules, orders, regulations, and requirements of all federal, state,
and county governments and the appropriate departments, commissions, boards, and
officers thereof.
6.5 The Lessee must keep the Leased Premises clean and in good sanitary condition, as
required by the statutes, ordinances, resolutions, and health, sanitary, and police
regulations of the County of Larimer and State of Colorado. Any equipment, materials or
supplies that Lessee brings onto the Leased Premises must be kept under cover (except
large equipment such as vehicles and trailers) in a location acceptable to the Lessor and
removed from the Leased Premises when no longer needed. Any trash, junked
equipment or waste materials generated from Lessee's maintenance and repair activities
on the Leased Premises must be stored under cover or removed promptly from the
Leased Premises. The Lessee must neither permit nor suffer a disorderly noise or
nuisance whatsoever about the Leased Premises having any tendency to annoy or
disturb any persons occupying adjacent land. The Lessee shall neither hold nor attempt
to hold the Lessor liable for any injury or damage, either approximate or remote,
occasioned through or caused by any maintenance, alterations, or repairs made by the
Lessee upon or to the Leased Premises or the improvements located thereon.
6.6 If the Lessee fails to perform any maintenance or make any repairs required of it to be
made under this Lease, the Lessor may, but is not required to, make such maintenance
and repairs on the Lessee's account, and the Lessor may add its costs and expenses for
such repairs or replacements as additional rent due to the Lessor under this Lease.
Lessee will then pay such amount to the Lessor within thirty (30) days after receiving
written notice from the Lessor of the costs and expenses paid by the Lessor for such
maintenance and repairs.
ARTICLE VII. Alterations and Improvements.
7.1 The Lessee must not make alterations, additions, improvements or changes to the
Leased Premises, or the improvements located thereon, without the prior written
approval of the Lessor. Any such alterations, additions, improvements, or changes
approved by the Lessor must be done by the Lessee in a good and workmanlike manner
and in compliance with all applicable building and zoning laws, and all other applicable
laws, statutes, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations, and requirements of all federal,
state, and county governments and the appropriate departments, commissions, boards,
and officers thereof. If the Lessee wishes to make additions or improvements to the
Leased Premises beyond what is required for maintenance and repair as described in
A
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 10 of 41
Article VI, the Lessee will be responsible for the cost of such additions and improvements
unless the parties agree to a cost-sharing arrangement.
7.2 The Lessee hereby indemnifies and agrees to hold the Lessor harmless from all liens,
claims, or charges on account of any alterations, additions, improvements, or changes
made to the Leased Premises or the improvements located thereon by the Lessee.
7.3 The Lessee is responsible for construction and maintenance of any temporary fencing
necessary to exclude livestock from an area to facilitate rotational grazing. Unless
otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, Lessor will provide all materials necessary for
the construction and maintenance of grazing enclosures, and such enclosures will be
Lessor's property. Responsibility for the costs of constructing and maintaining temporary
fencing for rotational grazing, and ownership of such fencing, will be determined between
the parties on a case-by-case basis.
7.4 The Lessor reserves the right, from time to time (without invalidating or modifying this
Lease) to make alterations, changes and additions to the land and improvements that
constitute the Leased Premises.
7.5 At the end of the term of this Lease, all fixtures, equipment, additions and alterations will
remain the property of the Lessor, except as otherwise provided under the terms of this
Lease. However, the Lessor may require the Lessee to remove any or all such fixtures,
equipment, additions and alterations and restore the Leased Premises to the condition
that existed immediately prior to such change and installation, normal wear and tear
excepted, all at the Lessee's cost and expense. All such work must be done in a good
and workmanlike manner and consist of new materials unless otherwise agreed to by the
Lessor.
ARTICLE VIII Covenant of Title and Quiet Enjoyment.
8.1 The Lessor covenants that it is well seized of and has good title to lease the Leased
Premises and does warrant the title thereto except and subject to the following:
a. All easements, covenants, reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way, and prescriptive
or adverse rights, in place or of record;
b. Any restrictions, reservations, or exceptions contained in any United States or State
of Colorado patents of record;
c. All zoning and other governmental rules and regulations; and
d. All oil, gas or other mineral reservations or exceptions of record.
ARTICLE IX. Insurance.
9.1 The Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, must procure, pay for, and keep in full force
A
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 11 of 41
and effect workers compensation insurance for all of its employees to be engaged in
work on the Leased Premises under this Lease.
9.2 The Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, procure, pay for, and keep in full force and
effect a comprehensive policy of general liability insurance covering the Leased
Premises and insuring the Lessee in an amount not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) covering bodily injury, including death to persons, personal injury, and
property damage liability arising out of a single occurrence. Such coverage must
include, without limitation, the insured's' liability for property damage, bodily injuries,
and death of persons in connection with the operation, maintenance, or use of the
Leased Premises (including acts or omissions of the Lessee or of its officers,
employees, or agents), liability arising out of lawsuits related to employment contracts
of the Lessee, and protection against liability for non-owned and hired automobiles.
Such coverage must also include comprehensive automobile liability insurance and
coverage for such other risks as are customarily required by private institutional
mortgage lenders with regard to property similar in construction, location, and use as
the Leased Premises under this Lease Agreement.
9.3 All policies of insurance carried by the Lessee must name the Lessee as an insured
and name the Lessor as an additional insured on the policy. The policy or policies must
contain a provision that the policy or policies cannot be canceled or materially altered
either by the insured or the insurance company until fifteen (15) days prior written
notice thereof is given to the Lessor. Upon issuance or renewal of any such insurance
policy, the Lessee must furnish a certified copy or duplicate original of such policy or
renewal thereof with proof of premium payment to the Lessor. Any such policy must
contain waivers of subrogation and waivers of any defense based on invalidity arising
from any act or omission of any assignees or subleases of the Lessee.
9.4 No policy of insurance required by this Article IX can include a deductible clause in an
amount greater than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). Any insurance policy
purchased by the Lessee must be written by an insurance carrier which has a current
rating by Best's Insurance Reports of "A" (Excellent) or better and a financial rating of
"X" or better or such equivalent classification as may hereinafter be required
customarily for properties similarly situated and it must be approved by the Lessee and
the insurance carrier must be authorized by law to do business in the State of Colorado.
The Lessee must not obtain any policy which, under the terms of the carrier's charter,
by-laws, or policy, loss payments are contingent upon action by the carrier's board of
directors, policy holders, or members. All insurance policies carried by the Lessee may
be reviewed at least annually by the Lessor to ascertain that the coverage provided by
such policy adequately covers those risks required by this Article IX to be insured by
the Lessee. In case of the breach of any provision of this Article IX, the Lessor, at its
option, may take out and maintain, at the expense of the Lessee, such insurance as the
Lessor may deem proper and may bill the costs for such insurance directly to the
Lessee. When so billed, the Lessee must reimburse the Lessor for the costs of such
insurance within thirty (30) days of being billed.
A
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 12 of 41
ARTICLE X. Utilities.
[This Article intentionally omitted.]
ARTICLE XI. Signs.
11.1 The Lessee must not affix, erect, or maintain on the Leased Premises any sign or placard
without obtaining the Lessor's prior written approval. The costs of erection and
maintenance of such sign or placard are the sole responsibility of the Lessee. In addition,
any sign or placard approved by the Lessor must comply with all state and c ounty laws,
rules, and regulations.
ARTICLE XII. Subletting and Assignment.
12.1 Except for the use of the Residence by an employee of Lessee, the Lessee may not
assign this Lease, any interest or a part thereof, any right or privilege appurtenant
thereto, nor mortgage or hypothecate the leasehold without the prior written consent of
the Lessor. Lessor's consent to one assignment or hypothecation shall not be construed
as a consent to any subsequent assignment or hypothecation; and it is hereby mutually
covenanted and agreed that, unless such written consent has been obtained, any
assignment or transfer or attempted assignment or transfer of this Lease or any interest
therein or hypothecation either by the voluntary or the involuntary act of the Lessee or
by operation of law or otherwise, shall, at the option of the Lessor, terminate this Lease;
and any such purported assignment or transfer without such consent will be null and
void. The Lessor's consent to any such assignment does not relieve the Lessee from any
obligation under this Lease unless the Lessor expressly agrees in writing to relieve the
Lessee from such obligation.
12.2 If Lessee assigns this Lease or sublets or allows anyone other than the Lessee to occupy
the Leased Premises or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the Lessor
as required in Section 12.1 above, the Lessor may terminate this Lease, or may collect
rent from the assignee, subtenant, or occupant, and employ the net amount collected to
the rent herein reserved; and no such collection shall be deemed a release of the Lessee
from the complete performance of its obligations under this Lease.
12.3 The above notwithstanding, Lessee is responsible for arranging either a grazing
sublease or grazing services contract with a firm acceptable to Lessor that is capable of
providing grazing on the Leased Premises (the" Grazing Contractor").
12.3.1 The Lessee and Grazing Contractor will enter into a sublease agreement or
services contract in a form acceptable to the Lessor (the "Sublease or
Contract"). The Sublease or Contract must require the Grazing Contractor to
comply with and be bound by the following provisions of this Lease:
• Sections 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 5.8 regarding use of the Leased Premises;
A
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 13 of 41
• Section 6.4 and 6.5 regarding maintenance of the premises;
• Sections 7.1, 7.2, and 7.4 regarding alterations and improvements;
• Article IX regarding insurance;
• Article XI regarding signs;
• Article XIII regarding mechanics liens;
• Article XV regarding total or partial destruction;
• Article XIX regarding holding the Lessor harmless;
• Article XXI regarding Hazardous Materials;
• Article XXIII regarding access and use by Lessor;
• Article XXV regarding the "as-is" nature of the Leased Premises.
12.3.2 The Grazing Contractor must graze a minimum of 100 AUs but no more than 200
AUs unless otherwise agreed by the Lessor. The AUs grazed by the Grazing
Contractor will not count towards the Lessee's AUs. The Lessee will not charge
rent for contracted or sublet grazing pursuant to the Sublease or Contract unless
otherwise directed or agreed to by the Lessor. The "Grazing Plan" outlined in
paragraph 4.3 above will include objectives and requirements for the Grazing
Contractor.
ARTICLE XIII. Mechanic's Liens.
13.1 The Lessee agrees to pay or cause to be paid promptly all bills and charges for material,
labor, or otherwise in connection with or arising out of any alterations, additions,
maintenance, repairs, or changes made by the Lessee or its agents or subtenants to the
Leased Premises; and the Lessee agrees to hold the Lessor free and harmless against
all liens and claims of liens for such labor and materials, or either of them, filed against
the Leased Premises or any part thereof and from and against any expense and liability
in connection therewith. The Lessee further agrees to discharge (either by payment or
by filing the necessary bond) any mechanic's, materialman's, or other liens against the
Leased Premises arising out of any payment due or alleged to be due for any work, labor,
services, materials, or supplies claimed to have been furnished at the Lessee's request
in, on, or about the Leased Premises and to indemnify the Lessor against any lien or
claim of lien attached to or upon the Leased Premises or any part thereof by reason of
any act or omission on the Lessee's part. The Lessee does, however, have the right to
contest any mechanic's lien or claims filed against the Leased Premises, provided the
Lessee diligently prosecutes any such contest and at all times effectively stays or
prevents any sale of the Leased Premises under execution or otherwise and pays or
A
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 14 of 41
otherwise satisfies any final judgment adjudging or enforcing such contested liens and
thereafter procures record satisfaction of the release thereof. The Lessee also agrees in
any such contest, at the Lessee's cost and expense, to defend the same on behalf of the
Lessor.
ARTICLE XIV. Condemnation
14.1 If, as a result of any exercise of the power of eminent domain (hereinafter referred to as
"proceedings"), either of the following happen: (a) the title to the whole or substantially
all of the Leased Premises is taken; or (b) the Leased Premises are deprived of adequate
ingress or egress to or from all public streets and highways abutting the Leased
Premises, and the Lessee cannot reasonably, operate upon the remainder of the Leased
Premises at the time of such taking, then this Lease will terminate as of the date of such
taking pursuant to such Proceedings. For the purpose of construing the provisions of this
Article, Proceedings" includes any negotiated settlement of any matter involved in a
condemnation; and a "taking" is deemed to occur when title to the Leased Premises or
possession thereof is acquired by another governmental authority, whichever first occurs.
14.2 If, during the term of this Lease, title to less than the whole or title to less than substantially
all of the Leased Premises is taken in any such Proceedings and the Lessee can
reasonably operate on the remainder of the Leased Premises at the time of such taking,
this Lease will not terminate. However, the Lessee's obligation to pay rent as provided in
Article III. above, will be adjusted accordingly.
14.3 All damages awarded for any taking described in this Article are the property of t he
Lessor.
ARTICLE XV. Total or Partial Destruction.
15.1 If, during the term of this Lease, the Leased Premises or a substantial part thereof is
destroyed or so damaged by fire or other casualties so as to become unusable for
livestock grazing purposes, then, at Lessee's option, the term hereby created will cease;
and this Lease will become null and void from the date of such damage or destruction;
and the Lessee must immediately surrender the Leased Premises and its interest therein
to the Lessor. The Lessee must exercise such option to terminate this Lease by notice
in writing delivered to the Lessor within thirty (30) days after such damage or destruction.
The Lessee will continue to be liable to the Lessor for all rent accruing up to the date of
termination of this Lease. If the Lessee does not elect to terminate this Lease, this Lease
will continue in full force and effect.
15.2 If the Leased Premises are only slightly injured by fire or the elements so as not to render
the same unusable for livestock grazing purposes, then the Lessor will repair the same
with all reasonable speed. Lessee is not entitled to any compensation or off-set from or
claim against the Lessor for any inconvenience or annoyance arising from the necessity
of repairing any portion of the Leased Premises, however the necessity may occur.
A
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 15 of 41
ARTICLE XVI. Holding Over.
16.1 Any holding over after the expiration of the term of this Lease Agreement or any extended
term thereof, with the written consent of the Lessor, will be construed as a tenancy from
month-to-month on the same terms and conditions herein specified and at the same
rental provided for herein.
ARTICLE XVII. Default of Lessee.
17.1 If any one or more of the following events (hereinafter referred to as "an event of default")
happens:
(a) The Lessee defaults in the due and punctual payment of the rent or any other
amounts required to be paid hereunder and such default continues for three (3)
business days after the receipt of written notice from the Lessor; or
(b) The Lessee neglects or fails to perform or observe any of Lessee's obligations
hereunder and the Lessee fails to remedy the same within five (5) business days after
the Lessee receives written notice from the Lessor specifying such neglect or failure
(or Lessee fails to begin such cure within said five (5) days and proceed with due
diligence to complete said cure when the default if it is of such a nature that it cannot
be cured within said five (5) day period); or
(c) The Lessee: (i) is adjudicated as bankrupt or insolvent; (ii) files a petition in
bankruptcy or for reorganization or for the adoption of an arrangement under the
Bankruptcy Act (as now constituted or in the future amended); or (iii) makes an
assignment of its property for the benefit of its creditors; or
(d) The Lessee neglects or fails to perform or observe any of Lessee's obligations under
this Lease within one hundred and eighty (180) days after prior notice of any such
neglect or failure, whether or not such prior neglect or failure was remedied within the
time period provided in subparagraph (a) or (b), above.
Then, and in any one or more such events of default, the Lessor has the right, at its
election and while any such event of default continues, to give the Lessee written
notice of its intention to terminate this Lease on the date of such given notice or any
later date specified therein; and on such specified date, the Lessee's right to
possession of the Leased Premises will cease; and this Lease will thereupon be
terminated. The Lessor may then re-enter and take exclusive possession of the
Leased Premises or any part thereof and repossess the same as the Lessor's former
estate and expel the Lessee and those claiming through or under the Lessee and
remove the property and effects of both or either (forcibly, if necessary) without being
deemed guilty of any manner of trespass and without prejudice to any remedies for
arrearages of rent or preceding breaches of covenants.
A. Alternatively, the Lessor may elect if an event of default occurs not to terminate
A
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 16 of 41
this Lease, but the Lessor will still have the right to elect to retake exclusive
possession of the Leased Premises by evicting the Lessee if the Lessee has not
otherwise abandoned the Leased Premises. In the event the Lessor elects to so
take exclusive possession, the Lessee will not be relieved of its obligations and
liabilities under the Lease, all of which will survive such repossession. In the event
of such repossession, the Lessee must pay to the Lessor as current liquidated
damages: the then value of the rent and other sums as herein provided which
would be payable if such repossession had not occurred; less
B. The net proceeds, if any, of any reletting of the Leased Premises after deducting
all of the Lessor's expenses in connection with such reletting, including, without
limitation, all repossession costs, brokerage commissions, legal expenses,
attorneys fees, expenses of employees, and necessary alteration costs and
expenses in preparation of such reletting.
The Lessee must pay such damages to the Lessor within thirty (30) days after
receiving written notice from the Lessor of such damages. If the Lessor must
commence any action or proceeding to collect the foregoing amounts, or to enforce
any other obligation of the Lessee under this Lease, the Lessor will be entitled to
reimbursement for all costs and expenses and legal fees incurred in said matter,
including reasonable attorney's fees.
ARTICLE XVIII. Attorney’s Fees.
18.1 The Lessee agrees to pay and indemnify the Lessor against all legal costs and charges,
including attorney’s fees, lawfully and reasonably incurred in obtaining possession of the
Leased Premises after default of the Lessee or termination of this Lease, incurred in
enforcing any covenant of the Lessee herein contained or any right granted to the Lessor,
and incurred in collecting any rent, monies, or other damages owed by the Lessee to the
Lessor under this Lease.
ARTICLE XIX. Lessee to Save Lessor Harmless.
19.1 The Lessee covenants that it will indemnify, release and hold the Lessor, and its officers
and employees, harmless from all claims, demands, judgments, costs, and expenses,
including attorney’s fees, arising out of any accident or occurrence causing injury to any
person or property whomsoever or whatsoever due directly or indirectly to the use or
neglect of the Leased Premises or any part thereof by the Lessee and its officers, agents,
employees, licensees, and invitees or any entity or person (and their officers, agents,
employees, licensees, and invitees) holding under the Lessee, unless such accident or
occurrence results solely from the tortious misconduct or negligent act or omission on
the part of the Lessor, or its officers and employees; and the Lessee will indemnify and
hold harmless the Lessor, and its officers and employees, from all damages and all
penalties arising out of any failure of the Lessee, in any respect, to comply with all of the
requirements and provisions of this Lease Agreement; and the Lessee covenants that
A
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 17 of 41
the Lessee will keep and save the Lessor, and its officers and employees, and the
Lessor's interest in and unto the Leased Premises forever harmless from any penalty,
damage, or charge imposed by any violation of any laws, whether occasioned by an act
or omission of the Lessee, or by another or others in the Leased Premises holding under
or through the Lessee. In addition, the Lessor, and its officers and employees, will not
be liable to the Lessee for any livestock injuries or deaths, regardless of cause, incurred
in connection with such livestock grazing upon the Leased Premises under this Lease
Agreement, unless such injuries or deaths result from a negligent act or omission of the
Lessor. However, any liability of the Lessor, or of its officers and employees, to the
Lessee is subject to all the defenses, immunities, and limitations of the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act (Section 24-10-101, et seq.) and to any other defenses,
immunities, and limitations to liability available to the Lessor, and its officers and
employees, under the law.
ARTICLE XX. Notices.
20.1 Any notice or other communication given by either party to the other relating to this
Lease Agreement must be hand-delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, return
receipt requested, or by overnight commercial courier, addressed to such other party at
its respective addresses set forth below; and such notice or other communication will be
deemed given when so hand-delivered or three (3) business days after so mailed, or the
next business day after being deposited with an overnight commercial courier:
If to the Lessor:
City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department
Attn: Matt Parker, Resource Management Supervisor
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
With a copy to:
City of Fort Collins – Real Estate Department
Attn: Real Estate Manager
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
If to the Lessee:
Folsom Grazing Association, LLC
Attn: William Altenburg, Board President
570 East County Road 64
Fort Collins, CO 80524
ARTICLE XXI. Hazardous Material.
A
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 18 of 41
21.1 As used herein, the term "Hazardous Material" means any hazardous or toxic substance,
material, or waste which is or becomes regulated by any local governmental authority,
the State of Colorado or the United States Government. The term "Hazardous Material"
includes, without limitation, any material or substance that is: (i) defined as a "hazardous
substance" under applicable state law provisions; (ii) petroleum; (iii) asbestos; (iv)
designated as "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 311 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1321); (v) defined as "hazardous waste"
pursuant to Section 1004 of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. Section 6903); (vi) defined as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 101
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42
U.S.C. Section 9601); or (vii) defined as a "regulated substance" pursuant to Subchapter
IX, Solid Waste Disposal Act (Regulation of Underground Storage Tanks) (42 U.S.C.
Section 6991).
21.2 The Lessee must not cause or permit any Hazardous Materials to be brought upon, kept,
or used in or about the Leased Premises by the Lessee, its officers, agents, employees,
contractors, licensees, or invitees, without the prior written consent of the Lessor (which
the Lessor will not unreasonably withhold as long as the Lessee demonstrates to the
Lessor's reasonable satisfaction that such Hazardous Material is necessary or useful to
the Lessee's operation; that it will be used, kept, and stored in a manner that complies
with all laws regulating any such Hazardous Material and will protect and preserve the
Leased Premises and any other property in a safe and environmentally sound condition;
and that the Hazardous Material will not materially interfere with the Lessor's use of the
Leased Premises or cause damage to said Leased Premises.) If the Lessee breaches
the obligation stated in the preceding sentence, or if the presence of Hazardous Material
on the Leased Premises caused or permitted by the Lessee results in contamination of
the Leased Premises or if contamination of the Leased Premises by Hazardous Material
otherwise occurs for which the Lessee is legally liable to the Lessor for damage resulting
therefrom, then the Lessee will indemnify, defend, and hold the Lessor, and its officers
and employees, harmless from any and all claims, judgments, damages, penalties, fines,
costs, liabilities, or losses (including, without limitation, diminution in value of the Leased
Premises, damages for the loss or restriction on use of the Leased Premises, and sums
paid in settlement of claims, attorneys fees, consulting fees, and expert fees), which arise
during or after the Lease term as a result of such contamination. Lessee's indemnification
of the Lessor includes, without limitation, any costs incurred in connection with any
investigation of site conditions or any clean-up, remedial, removal, or restoration work
required by any federal, state, or local governmental agency or political subdivision
because of Hazardous Material present in the soil or ground water on or under the
Leased Premises. Without limiting the foregoing, if the presence of any Hazardous
Material on the Leased Premises caused or permitted by the Lessee results in any
contamination of the Leased Premises, the Lessee must promptly take all actions at its
sole expense as are necessary to return to the Leased Premises to the condition existing
prior to the introduction of any such Hazardous Material to the Leased Premises;
provided that Lessee will first obtain the Lessor's written approval of such action, which
A
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 19 of 41
approval will not be unreasonably withheld so long as such action would not potentially
have any material adverse effect on the Leased Premises or the Lessor's use of the
Leased Premises.
ARTICLE XXII. Time of the Essence.
22.1 Time is of the essence of this Lease Agreement and each and every provision hereof.
ARTICLE XXIII. Access and Use By Lessor.
23.1 The Lessor, and its officers, employees, and any other person properly authorized by the
Lessor, including members of the public, shall at all times retain the right to enter upon
and use the Leased Premises for any purpose. Lessee understands and agrees that
genetically pure and brucellosis-free bison are located on a portion of the Leased
Premises. Lessor will coordinate bison-grazing activity with Lessee through development
of the Grazing Plan, and Lessee shall have no responsibility or liability for activities or
costs associated with such bison grazing unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.
ARTICLE XXIV. Education.
24.1 The Lessee or appropriate employee of the Lessee will participate in occasional
education and outreach programs on an annual basis. The Lessee's participation will
include discussions of ranching heritage, ranch management, and ecological services
provided by ranches and livestock.
ARTICLE XXV. "AS-IS" Nature of Leased Premises.
25.1 The Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the Lessor has not made, does not make,
and specifically negates and disclaims any representations, warranties, promises,
covenants, agreements, or guarantees of any kind or character whatsoever, whether
expressed or implied, oral or written, past, present, or future, of, as to, concerning or with
respect to the Leased Premises and; (a) the value, nature, quality, or condition of the
Leased Premises, including, without limitation, the water, soil, and geology of the Leased
Premises; (b) the income to be derived from the Leased Premises; (c) the suitability of
the Leased Premises for any and all activities and uses which the Lessee may conduct
thereon including the grazing of livestock; (d) the compliance of or by the Leased
Premises or its operation with any laws, rules, ordinances, regulations of any applicable
governmental authority or body; (e) the habitability, merchantability, marketability,
profitability, or fitness for a particular purpose of the Leased Premises; (f) the manner or
quality of the construction or materials, if any, incorporated into the improvements
located on the Leased Premises; (g) the manner, quality, state of repair or lack of repair
of the improvements located on the Leased Premises; or (h) any other matter with
respect to the Leased Premises and the improvements located thereon, and specifically,
that the Lessor has not made, does not make and specifically disclaims any
representations regarding compliance with any environmental protection, pollution, or
land use laws, rules, regulations, orders, or requirements, including solid waste, as
A
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 20 of 41
defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulated at 40 C.F.R., Part 261,
or the disposal or existence, in or on the Leased Premises, of any hazardous substance,
as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended, and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Lessee further
acknowledges and agrees that having been given the opportunity to inspect the Leased
Premises, and the improvements located thereon, the Lessee is relying solely on its own
investigation of the Leased Premises and not on any information provided or to be
provided by the Lessor. The Lessee further acknowledges and agrees that any
information provided or to be provided with respect to the Leased Premises was
obtained from a variety of sources and that the Lessor has not made any independent
investigation or verification of such information and makes no representations as to the
accuracy or completeness of such information. The Lessee agrees that the Lessor is not
liable or bound in any manner by any verbal or written statements or representations, or
information pertaining to the Leased Premises, or the improvements located thereon, or
the operation thereof, furnished by any real estate broker, agent, employee, servant, or
other person. The Lessee further acknowledges and agrees that to the maximum extent
permitted by law, the lease of the Leased Premises as provided herein is made on an
"AS-IS" condition and basis with all faults. It is understood and agreed that the rent
provided for under this Lease Agreement and any other consideration provided by the
Lessee under this Lease Agreement has been adjusted and taken into consideration by
the Lessee to reflect that all of the Leased Premises is being leased by the Lessee from
the Lessor subject to the foregoing.
ARTICLE XXVI. General Provisions.
26.1 Words of the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter gender; and when the
sentence so indicates, words of the neuter gender refer to any gender. Words in the
singular include the plural and vice versa.
26.2 This Lease Agreement is to be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared
by both parties hereto and is deemed to be and contain the entire understanding and
agreement between the parties hereto. There shall be deemed to be no other terms,
conditions, promises, understandings, statements, or representations, expressed or
implied, concerning this Lease Agreement unless set forth in writing and signed by both
of the parties hereto.
26.3 The Article headings used herein are for convenience of reference only and in no way
define or limit the scope or intent of any provision under this Lease Agreement.
26.4 Subject to the provisions hereof, the benefits of this Lease Agreement and the burdens
hereunder inure to and are binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs,
administrators, successors, agents and permitted assigns.
26.5 This Lease will be governed by and its terms construed under the laws of the State of
Colorado. Any judicial proceedings commenced by either party to enforce any of the
A
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 21 of 41
obligations, covenants, and agreements contained herein, must be commenced in the
Larimer County District or County Courts.
26.6 Nothing contained herein is deemed or should be construed by the parties nor by any
third party as creating the relationship of principle and agent, a partnership or a joint
venture between the parties, or an employment relationship between the parties, it being
agreed that none of the provisions set forth herein nor any acts of the parties will be
deemed to create a relationship between the parties other than the relationship of lessor
and lessee.
26.7 Failure of the Lessor to exercise any right or rights accruing to it by virtue of the Lessee's
breach of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein does not operate as a waiver of
the exercise of such right or rights in the event of any subsequent breach by the Lessee,
nor will the Lessee be relieved thereby from its obligations under the terms of this Lease
Agreement.
26.8 This Lease Agreement is made for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Lessor and the
Lessee, their successors and assigns, and it is not made for the benefit of any third party.
26.9 The remedies of the Lessor under this Lease are cumulative; no one of them should be
construed as exclusive of any other or of any other remedy provided by law.
26.10 The Lessor reserves the right to grant to any third party such easements and rights-of-
way as it desires over, across, and under portions of the Leased Premises and to lease
all or any portion of the Leased Premises to any other third party so long as such
easements, rights-of-way, and leases do not unreasonably interfere with the Lessee's
continuing use of the Leased Premises as provided in this Lease Agreement.
26.11 No act or thing done by the Lessor or the Lessor's officers or employees during the term
hereof will be considered as an acceptance of the surrender of the Leased Premises,
and no agreement to accept such surrender will be valid unless in writing signed by t he
Lessor.
26.12 The Lessee, upon the expiration or termination of this Lease, either by lapse of term or
otherwise, agrees to peacefully surrender to the Lessor the Leased Premises, including
the improvements located thereon together with any alterations, additions, and changes
made to such improvements by the Lessee during the term of this Lease Agreement, in
good repair, as hereinabove provided, except for acts of God, ordinary wear, and
damage by fire or other casualty not caused by the negligence of the Lessee or anyone
under the Lessee's control.
26.13 The Lessee acknowledges and agrees that the Lessee has not relied upon any
statements, representations, agreements, or warranties except such as they are
expressed herein.
26.14 If any covenant, condition, or provision of this Lease Agreement is held to be invalid by
A
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 22 of 41
final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of such a covenant,
condition, or provision will not in any way affect any of the other covenants, conditions,
or provisions of this Agreement, provided that the invalidity of any such covenant,
condition, or provision does not materially prejudice either the Lessee or the Lessor in
their respective rights and obligations under the valid covenants, conditions, and
provisions of this Lease Agreement.
26.15 To the extent necessary to carry out all of the terms and provisions hereof, the said
terms, obligations, and rights set forth herein survive and will not be affected by the
expiration or termination of this Lease Agreement.
26.16 The parties acknowledge that certain items of personal property may now be located on
the Leased Premises. The Lessor makes no representations or warranties regarding its
ownership of any such items of personal property or regarding the condition of such
items. The parties hereto acknowledge that the said items of personal property located
on the Leased Premises and within the improvements located on the Leased Premises
may belong to third parties. The Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Lessor, and its officers and employees, from and against any liability for any improper
use or disposition by the Lessee of any items of personal property belonging to third
parties.
26.17 Neither the Lessor nor the Lessee will be deemed in violation of this Lease Agreement if
prevented from performing any of their respective obligations hereunder by reason of
strikes, boycotts, labor disputes, embargoes, shortage of energy or materials, acts of
God, acts of public enemies, acts of superior governmental authorities, weather
conditions, rights, rebellions, sabotage, or any other circumstances for which they are
not responsible or that are not within their control.
26.18 This Lease Agreement will not be recorded. However, at the request of the Lessee, the
Lessor and the Lessee will execute a memorandum of lease for recording, containing
the names of the parties, the legal description of the Leased Premises, the term of the
Lease and such other information as the parties mutually agreed upon.
26.19 The obligations of the Lessor to commit or expend funds after calendar year 2010 are
subject to and conditioned upon the annual appropriation of funds sufficient and intended
to carry out said obligations by Lessor's City Council, in its sole discretion. If the City
Council does not appropriate funds necessary to carry out any such obligations, the
Lessor will notify the Lessee promptly of such non-appropriation. If such non-
appropriation results in a material impairment of Lessee's right hereunder, the Lessee
may terminate the lease, with no further recourse against the Lessor, by providing thirty
(30) days written notice to Lessor. If Lessee does not exercise this termination right within
sixty (60) days of receiving Lessor's notice of said non-appropriation, then Lessee waives
its right to terminate the Lease pursuant to this section.
A
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 23 of 41
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Lease Agreement to be executed
the day and year first above written.
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
A municipal corporation
By: _____________________________
Darin A. Atteberry, City Manager
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
_________________________
(Print name)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Assistant City Attorney
__________________________
(Print name)
LESSEE: FOLSOM GRAZING ASSOCIATION LLC
A Colorado limited liability company
By: ____________________________________
Printed:
Member/Manager
A
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 24 of 41
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description of Leased Premises on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Township 11 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, CO
Section 4: ALL
Section 5: ALL
Section 6: ALL
Section 19: ALL
Township 12 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, CO Section 19: All in State
of Colorado
Section 20: All in State of Colorado Section 21: All in State of Colorado Section 28: ALL
Section 29: ALL
Section 30: ALL
Section 31: ALL
Section 32: ALL
Section 33: ALL
Township 11 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, CO Section 1: ALL
Section 2: ALL
Section 3: ALL
Section 4: SW ¼ of NW ¼, S ½, NE ¼ Section 10: ALL
Section 11: SW ¼, N ½ of SE ¼, S ½ of NW ¼, W ½ of NE ¼, A PORTION OF THE E 1/2 OF
THE NE 1/4 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE SE
CORNER OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE N 01° 13' 41" W,
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 11, A DISTANCE OF
485.68 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 54° 15' 46" W, A DISTANCE OF 211.52 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING
470.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE BEING 22° 06' 28", THE CHORD OF
SAID CURVE BEARS N 43° 12' 32" W, A DISTANCE OF 180.23 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 181.35 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 32° 09' 18" W,
A DISTANCE OF 262.96 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE
RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 530.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE
BEING 12° 44' 34", THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS N 38° 31' 35" WA DISTANCE OF
117.63 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 117.87 FEET
TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING
470.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE BEING 43° 30' 56", THE CHORD OF
SAID CURVE BEARS N 23° 08' 24" W, A DISTANCE OF 348.44 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 356.96 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 01° 22' 56" W,
A DISTANCE OF
891.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS OF SAID
A
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 25 of 41
CURVE, BEING 530.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE OF SAID CURVE BEING 11° 05' 14",
THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS N 06° 55' 33" WA DISTANCE OF 102.40 FEET,
THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 102.56 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE N 12° 28' 10" W, A DISANCE OF 270.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE
TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 530.00 FEET, THE CENTRAL ANGLE
OF SAID CURVE BEING 04° 44' 56", THE CHORD OF SAID CURVE BEARS N 14° 50' '38"
WA DISTANCE OF 43.92 FEET, THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE A DISTANCE
OF 43.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 11; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 618 FEET, MORE OR LESS,
TO THE NW CORNER OF THEE 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11,
2676 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SW CORNER OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 11; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THEE 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4
OF SAID SECTION 11, 1320 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Section 13: NE ¼, SE ¼, SW ¼, West ½ of NW ¼
Section 14: NW ¼, NE ¼, SE ¼
Section 15: NE ¼, North ¼ of NW ¼
Section 23: NE ¼, N ½ of SE ¼
Section 24: East ½ of NW ¼, NE ¼, N ½ of SE ¼, NE ¼ of SW ¼
Township 12 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, CO Section 20: All in State
of Colorado
Section 21: All in State of Colorado Section 22: All in State of Colorado Section 23: All in State of
Colorado Section 24: All in State of Colorado Section 25: ALL
Section 26: ALL
Section 27: ALL
Section 28: ALL
Section 29: ALL
Section 32: ALL
Section 33: ALL
Section 34: ALL
Section 35: ALL
Section 36: ALL
A
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 26 of 41
ATTACHMENT 1 TO EXHIBIT A
VICINITY MAP – SOAPSTONE NATURAL AREA
A
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 27 of 41
ATTACHMENT 2 TO EXHIBIT A
SOAPSTONE NATURAL AREA MAP
A
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 28 of 41
ATTACHMENT 3 TO EXHIBIT A
RESIDENCE MAP
A
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 29 of 41
ATTACHMENT 4 TO EXHIBIT A
LEASED PREMISES OVERVIEW
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area (SPNA) is a City-owned property at the northern boundary of
Larimer County, Colorado (see Attachment A – Vicinity Map). The entire property comprises
approximately 22,500 acres of land. The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department (NAD)
owns the property and operates under the following mission:
The mission of the Natural Areas Department is to protect and enhance lands with existing or
potential natural areas values, lands that serve as community separators, agricultural lands, and
lands with scenic values. Protection of natural habitats and features is the highest priority, while
providing for education and recreation for the Fort Collins community.
More specific management of SPNA is guided by the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
Management Plan (available online at http://fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/soapstone-
management-plan.pdf). The plan identifies “conservation targets,” or natural and cultural
resources of the highest conservation value. This plan will be updated, likely in 2021, but will not
substantially change in its direction or mission.
The NAD believes that livestock grazing is a necessary and effective tool to aid in managing for
conservation targets and is looking for a cooperator to manage grazing operations on the
property. To date, under management of the NAD, grazing utilization has been capped at
roughly 50%. Grazing will continue to be managed conservatively to ensure its use as a tool for
improving conservation targets. Five of NAD’s conservation targets are directly related to, and
influenced by, grazing management on the property. These conservation targets and grazing-
related management goals are listed below (“Rare and threatened plants” conservation target
changed to “Rare, endangered, and threatened species” in anticipation of upcoming change to
management plan):
• Shortgrass prairie
o Natural Areas Department goal: Provide high quality habitat for grassland birds,
black-tailed prairie dog communities, pronghorn and swift fox.
o Grazing role: Livestock grazing can help the shortgrass prairie system by
providing a diversity of grass structure, increasing health and vigor of plants, and
helping incorporate seeds into the soil through hoof action. Providing a habitat
mosaic, with patches of heavily grazed grasslands and patches of lightly grazed
or un-grazed habitat, is essential for grassland wildlife species success. Over
time, important components of the shortgrass plant community have been
removed or reduced, such as four-wing saltbush, winterfat, and needlegrasses.
Timing and duration of grazing can help these species return.
• Wetlands/Riparian systems
o Natural Areas Department goal: Maintain or restore functioning riparian systems
in order to provide high quality habitat for northern leopard frog, native fish, and
birds of prey (see Birds of prey).
o Grazing role: The wetlands and riparian areas on the ranch are highly productive
and good sources of forage for livestock. They can benefit from livestock grazing
by increasing plant vigor and helping open soils for seed germination (also see
comments under Rare and threatened plants, below). However, there is also the
potential that livestock can over-use riparian areas. Wetlands and riparian areas
are key areas for management of Soapstone Prairie, and the Natural Areas staff
A
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 30 of 41
would like to work with the Lessee to ensure that livestock do not over-use and
degrade these areas.
• Rare, endangered, and threatened species
o Natural Areas Department goal: Improve habitat for, and/or maintain or
reintroduce appropriate rare, endangered, and threatened species.
▪ Colorado butterfly and Rocky Mountain blazing star
▪ Black-Footed Ferret – The NAD partnered with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to reintroduce
black-footed ferret to the Laramie Foothills ecosystem in 2014. Since
then, NAD and USFWS have released additional ferrets and conducted
annual population monitoring.
▪ Fish – NAD has partnered with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife to
reintroduce Northern Redbelly Dace and Plains Topminnow to
Spottlewood Creek. NAD is continuing to acquire and document in-
stream flows to support additional fish reintroductions.
▪ American Bison partnership - The NAD partners with Colorado State
University (CSU) and Larimer County Department of Natural Resources
to provide grazing for and support of the Laramie Foothills Conservation
Bison Herd (LFCBH). The LFCB herd is managed through the Animal
Reproduction and Biotechnology Laboratory within CSU’s College of
Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences. The herd is comprised of
genetically valuable bison from the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem and
is an important global natural resource. The herd currently utilizes 2,700
acres in 3 pastures in the southwest area of SPNA.
o Grazing role: We believe these rare plants, which exist in wet meadows on
SPNA, exist because of the historic grazing system where the meadows were
grazed in late spring and/or fall. Grazing may be necessary to help create open
soils for seed germination. Grazing, coupled with prescribed fire, can also be
used to expand the extent of prairie dog colonies, therefore providing additional
habitat for black-footed ferret. Additionally, appropriately managed grazing
systems can provide conditions that promote invertebrate diversity along stream
and creek edges, improving larval feeding resources for native fishes.
• Foothills shrublands system
o Natural Areas Department goal: Maintain high quality of foothills shrubland
system.
o Grazing role: The mountain mahogany shrublands with a mixed grass
understory can benefit from grazing through weed management efforts. While
the NAD does extensive chemical, biological and mechanical weed control on
the property, the timing and type of grazing can help reduce weeds. Dalmatian
toadflax is a particular concern in this area.
• Birds of prey
o Natural Areas Department goal: Provide future nest locations for birds of prey.
o Grazing role: Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is home to many raptors including
golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, Swainson’s hawks, red-tailed hawks, prairie
A
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 31 of 41
falcons and American kestrels. Big cottonwoods along riparian areas often serve
as nest sites for these birds. Appropriate grazing management can help ensure
recruitment of tree and shrub species to provide future nest locations for birds of
prey.
A. Resources
• Land
This property lies just east of the boundary between the plains and the Front Range.
Moderately rugged hills and shallow canyons associated with the complex geology of
this boundary are present in the western part of Soapstone Prairie, with the
remainder consisting of the more subdued and generally eastward-sloping
grasslands. Elevations range from approximately 5,820 feet on the southeast portion
of the Round Butte Pasture to 7,201 feet at the summit of a ridge along the
northwestern edge.
• Vegetation
Soapstone contains several high value vegetation complexes, which are generally
associated with the area’s topography. The hills and canyon areas of the west side
contain mountain mahogany shrublands with a mixed grass understory while the
gentler eastern side supports shortgrass prairie, with blue grama being the most
dominant forage species. Additionally, several wetland and riparian systems are
present on the property, including wet meadows that contain populations of rare and
threatened plants (Colorado butterfly plant, Rocky Mountain blazing star and pale
blue-eyed grass). National Resource Conservation Service range health
assessments indicate fair to good condition of the rangeland.
The NAD will manage both vegetation and wildlife habitat with prescribed fire.
Prescribed fires are typically 500-1500 acres in size (though it is possible larger fires
may be conducted) and are timed to influence positive changes in vegetation
composition or improve wildlife habitat. Natural Areas staff will communicate plans
for prescribed burns with Lessee.
• Water
A 2009 decree documents rights on Graves Creek Spring (northwest, northeast, and
south), Spottlewood South Spring, Stateline East Spring, Brannigan, Central,
Rawhide (south and central), Round Butte East, Mountain Dam Spring, Canyon
West Spring, as well as Bear House Spring. Additionally, a series of wells are also
adjudicated. All rights identify the beneficial use as watering of livestock.
• Wildlife
These properties support a diverse array of wildlife species. Currently, approximately
1,000 acres of prairie dog colonies are present on the property. The grazing Lessee
should recognize that the NAD intends to manage prairie dog colonies as a critical
component of a functioning grassland ecosystem. Prairie dog colonies and
shortgrass prairie support a diverse bird community which includes a number of
Species of Greatest Conservation Need, as identified by the Colorado Division of
Wildlife. In 2014 the NAD, in cooperation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced Black-footed ferret to Soapstone Prairie.
Swift foxes have also been documented on the property. The entire eastern portion
of the property provides excellent pronghorn habitat, and the western portion
A
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 32 of 41
supports elk and mule deer. Several riparian and wetland systems provide extensive
habitat, and numerous intermittent and ephemeral drainages also occur on the
property.
Public Recreation
Lessees must be aware that grazing management needs to be accomplished with public
use of the property in mind. Soapstone Prairie Natural Area opened to public recreation
in the summer of 2009; the property contains two parking lots with associated picnic
shelters and restrooms, trails and other visitor facilities. Visitor use is significantly higher
on weekends and may fluctuate seasonally. Use is generally greater on the western
portion of the property. Recreational uses include hiking, biking and horseback riding on
designated trails only. Soapstone Prairie is open to hunting opportunities in the fall via a
special permit application process. Recreational hunts will be managed to ensure limited
impact to livestock. Visitors are not allowed to use motorized vehicles off the main
access road between the parking lots. Dogs are not permitted on the property, with an
exception for the grazing lessee as defined in the grazing lease contract.
Research
Natural Areas staff and researchers from other organizations will continue to use the
property extensively for research and educational purposes. The NAD expects the
grazing Lessee, and representatives of the Lessee, to interact positively and
professionally with visitors and encourages Lessee to actively participate in public
education. Opportunities for volunteer involvement in ranching operations are also
viewed positively by NAD.
Infrastructure
Fencing has been significantly modified or removed in the central and western portions
of the property to accommodate public recreation including trails. In these areas historic
pastures no longer exist, leaving one large pasture over 5,500 acres in size. The NAD is
continually interested in opportunities to improve grazing management via improvements
in fencing. Historic pastures remain intact on the remainder of the property and range in
size from 200 acres to nearly 4,000 acres. Fence is generally barbed wire, with much of
the fencing conforming to NRCS “wildlife-friendly” standards. Lessee may propose new
fence location, either temporary or permanent, or other methods of livestock distribution.
Pastures use a combination of surface water, solar-powered tanks, windmills, and spring
tanks. See Attachment B for a map depicting location of fences and water infrastructure.
The headquarters in the northeast corner of the property contain corrals and holding
pens. A second set of corrals is located at Soapstone Springs, in the central portion of
the property. A third set of corrals are located in the eastern section of the Round Butte
Pasture.
House/ Caretaker
A house is available for use by the grazing Lessee at the headquarters in the northeast
corner of the property per the terms of the Lease. Primary site security responsibility of
the caretaker/ranch manager is awareness of prohibited activities and notification of
Natural Areas Rangers and/or the Larimer County Sheriff.
A
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 33 of 41
A second house, known as the “Roman House” is located in the central portion of the
property and is used by the NAD as a maintenance facility. This house is not available
for use by the grazing Lessee.
Access
Public access to SPNA is from Rawhide Flats Road, the northern extension of County
Road 15. There is also an eastern access from the I-25 frontage road via Soapstone
Ranch Road. However, this is a private access only, and if this access is used by
Lessee it should be for ranch related access only. Large stock trucks traveling to the
majority of the property should access from the east. Public access to the headquarters
is limited by one or more gates.
Grazing Management
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area has historically been grazed by both sheep and cattle.
Most recently it has been grazed by cow-calf pairs on the eastern and southern portions
in a simple rotation system from June through November, and first year heifers in the
Round Butte Pasture for the same period. Sheep had been historically grazed in the
west/ northwest portions from June through September. If a proposal includes the
grazing of sheep in the west/northwest portions, it is advisable to discuss potential
disease communication mitigation efforts between domestic and wild sheep. Sheep and
goats also present concern for disease transmission with the CSU managed bison herd
grazing in adjacent or proximal pastures; a proposal of sheep and/or goats should
address these concerns. Grazing animals can include cattle, sheep, bison, goats, and
/or any other animal type that Lessee demonstrates can effectively be managed to
achieve conservation targets (combinations of grazing animals will be considered and
are encouraged).
A
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 34 of 41
ATTACHMENT 5 TO EXHIBIT A
LEASED PREMISES PASTURE DESCRIPTIONS
PASTURE
(ACRES)
WATER
RESOURCES
MAX
AUM GRAZING CONSIDERATIONS
Jack
Springs
(3882
acres)
One tank, surface
water 1,391
• Grazing pressure must be heavy in areas to
provide short structure grass for nesting
grassland birds (e.g., Mountain plover).
• General focus should be on providing habitat
mosaic (areas of heavy grazing as well as
areas of light grazing).
• Large prairie dog colonies may exist in this
pasture (currently plagued out but likely to
return and expand).
• A portion of Spottlewood Creek is fenced with
a 3-strand high tensile electric fence. It
includes access points for livestock at 6
locations. This riparian pasture may be grazed
as appropriate.
Brannigan
(3757
acres)
Three spring tanks,
surface water 1,006
• General focus should be on providing habitat
mosaic (areas of heavy grazing as well as
areas of light grazing).
Meadow
(693 acres) Surface water 198
• Rare plants exist in this pasture which must
be grazed in spring or fall but not during bulk
of growing season.
State Line
(613 acres) Tank 168
• General focus should be on providing habitat
mosaic (areas of heavy grazing as well as
areas of light grazing).
HQ
(217 acres) Springs/Surface water 111
• Rare plants exist in this pasture which must
be grazed in spring or fall but not during bulk
of growing season.
LR/ East &
West
Canyon
(8569
acres)
18 tanks (2 are
windmill, rest are
springs or piped from
Cedar Canyon)
1,543
• The traditional pasture boundaries and fences
have been extensively modified or removed
to accommodate trails for public recreation. If
your proposed grazing animal in this area
requires additional fencing, include this
information in proposal.
• Grazing will need to avoid damage to public
facilities (restrooms, picnic shelters, etc.).
• General focus in the shortgrass should be on
providing habitat mosaic (areas of heavy
grazing as well as areas of light grazing).
• Focus of grazing in the mountain mahogany
shrublands should be on weed control,
especially for Dalmatian toadflax.
A
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 35 of 41
South
Roman
(720 acres)
Two windmills 150
• General focus should be on providing habitat
mosaic (areas of heavy grazing as well as
areas of light grazing).
Tree
(343 acres) One windmill 70
• General focus should be on providing habitat
mosaic (areas of heavy grazing as well as
areas of light grazing).
Bernard
(1760
acres)
One windmill, surface
springs 420
• General focus should be on providing habitat
mosaic (areas of heavy grazing as well as
areas of light grazing).
* Round
Butte
(1349
acres)
No reliable water
source; in the past
Lessee has hauled
water
130
• General focus should be on providing habitat
mosaic (areas of heavy grazing as well as
areas of light grazing).
Total 5,187
*Note: The SE portion of the Round Butte Pasture is not included in this Grazing Lease as it is
subject to a separate grazing lease with another Lessee.
A
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Grazing Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 36 of 41
EXHIBIT B
Lease Provisions for Employee Occupancy of Ranch Residence
Should Lessee choose to allow an employee of Lessee to occupy the Ranch Residence located
on the Leased Premises, the following terms and conditions will apply.
1. Definitions. As used in this Exhibit B, "Residence" refers to the house and any associated
facilities located on the Leased Premises, as shown on Attachment 3 to Exhibit 1.
"Occupant" refers to an employee of Lessee authorized by Lessee to occupy the Residence.
2. Occupancy Contingent on Employment. Occupant’s right to live in the Residence is
contingent upon Occupant's continued employment as an agent of the Lessee assigned to
Soapstone Prairie. Lessee will require Occupant to vacate the Residence if Occupant is no
longer in this designated employment position, for whatever reason, within thirty (30) days
from the date of the change in employment status.
3. Termination. Upon termination of occupancy of the Residence for any reason, Lessee must
remove or ensure that Occupant removes all personal property or improvements not owned
by Lessor. If Lessee fails to remove said personal property before vacating the Residence,
the Lessee hereby grants the Lessor the absolute right to keep, convey, destroy, or
otherwise dispose of such property in any manner Lessor chooses, and Lessee agrees to
pay any net costs incurred by Lessor in doing so, within ten (10) days of receipt of Lessor's
statement of costs therefor.
4. Permissible Use of Residence. Lessee agrees to use and occupy the Residence only for
the purpose of residential housing and for no other purpose whatsoever without the prior
written consent of the Lessor.
5. Repairs and Maintenance.
(a) The Lessee must, during any term of occupancy by an Occupant and at its sole expense,
keep the Residence in a clean, orderly and safe condition, and free of litter, debris, and
any unsightly or dangerous condition as required by the ordinances, resolutions, statutes
and health, sanitary and police regulations of Larimer County and the State of Colorado,
and applicable laws and policies of the City of Port Collins. Lessee must not store or
permit the storage of any inoperable vehicles outside of the buildings on the Leased
Premises.
(b) The Lessor, during the term of the Lease, shall keep and maintain the Residence,
including without limitation, the structural support, roof, plumbing/electrical, kitchen
range, refrigerator, windows, and exterior walls in good condition, working order and
repair. The Lessor is responsible for heating system maintenance and repair. Any
repairs, other than normal wear and tear, required because of damage caused by the
Lessee or Occupant will be the responsibility of the Lessee.
A
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Ranch House Residential Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 37 of 41
(c) The Lessee must, upon termination of any occupancy by an Occupant, restore the
Residence to as good or better condition as it was in at the time the Occupant first
occupied the Residence.
6. Conduct.
(a) Pets: Occupant is allowed to keep the following pets.
• Dogs: Occupant is allowed to keep up to four (4) dogs at the Residence, so long as
those dogs are working animals that assist Occupant in his work for Lessee and
are not allowed to roam at-large on the surrounding Soapstone Prairie Natural
Area. Occupant is only allowed to keep up two dogs if they are considered Pets. All
Dogs must be on a leash or under voice command if they are to be allowed outside
of a fenced yard. All dogs must have current Rabies and Distemper Vaccinations.
Dogs found to be aggressive or otherwise dangerous to visitors will not be
permitted.
• Cats: No more than two (2) cats may be kept as barn cats, which must be spayed
or neutered. Cat are not allowed to be kept inside the residence.
• Horses: Occupant may keep up to four (4) horses in the corrals adjacent to the
Residence, provided such horses are working animals used in Lessee's work on
the Leased Premises.
• Cows: up to six (6) pairs. Additional cows can be discussed with the Lessor.
• Any additional pets or working animals require the prior written consent of the
Lessor. Since these pets are kept in conjunction with the Occupant's
responsibilities as an employee of the Lessee, Lessee may determine the extent to
which the Occupant may make use of facilities (barns, outbuildings, corrals, etc.)
on the Leased Premises that are not part of the Residence for housing such pets.
Animals not belonging to Lessee or Occupant may not be kept or boarded at the
Residence. Dogs, cats and horses may not be bred on the Leased Premises. If hay
is to be fed to animals, Occupant must feed certified weed free hay.
(b) Smoking: The Residence is rented as smoke-free and Lessee agrees not to permit
smoking in or near the Residence and to ensure that Occupant's guests adhere to the
non-smoking policy.
(c) Marijuana: The possession, consumption or cultivation of marijuana plants or products,
including hydroponic cultivation, is prohibited on the Leased Premises.
7. Utilities. The Lessee is responsible for ensuring the payment of all utilities, including, but not
limited to, electricity, water, sewer, trash services, cable services and phone services
occasioned by Occupant's use of the Residence. Under no circumstances may anyone bum
trash on the Premises.
8. Right of Inspection. The Lessor has the right at all reasonable times to enter the Residence
for the purpose of inspecting the Residence and all buildings, grounds and improvements
thereof. The Lessor will notify the Lessee orally or in writing in any reasonable manner at
A
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Ranch House Residential Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease Page 38 of 41
least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such visit. This notice requirement does not apply in the
event of an emergency reasonably requiring Lessor access to the Residence.
9. Total or Partial Destruction. If the Residence or any part thereof is destroyed or so damaged
by fire or other casualty as to become untenantable, then, at the option of the Lessor,
Lessee’s right to use the Residence will cease; and the Lessee must immediately surrender
the Residence and its interest therein to the Lessor; provided, however, that the Lessor must
exercise such option to so terminate Lessee's right to use the Residence by notice in writing
delivered to the Lessee within thirty (30) days after such damage or destruction. Or, the
Lessor may elect to repair the Residence, in which case Lessor will do so with all reasonable
speed, placing the same in as good a condition as it was at the time of the damage or
destruction and for that purpose may enter upon the Residence. In either event, the Lessee
must remove all rubbish, debris, furniture, furnishings, equipment and other items of
personal property within five (5) days after request being made by the Lessor. If the
Residence is only slightly injured by fire or the elements so as to not render the same
untenantable and unfit for occupancy, then the Lessor will repair the same with all
reasonable speed. The Lessee and any Occupant of the Residence through Lessee will
have no claim for compensation or otherwise against the Lessor because of any
inconvenience or annoyance arising from the necessity of repairing any portion of the
Residence, however the necessity may occur.
10. Insurance. Lessee may provide or ensure that any Occupant of the Residence procures,
pays for and keeps in full force and effect a policy of renter's property insurance covering all
of the Lessee's and Occupant's equipment, appliances, furniture, furnishings and personal
property from time to time in, on or at the Residence. If neither Lessee nor Occupant
procures renter's insurance as described above, the City will not be responsible for any
uninsured loss of property belonging to Lessee or Occupant and kept at the residence, and
Lessee will indemnify and hold the City harmless against any claims for such loss.
11. Indemnification. Lessee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Lessor against all
damages, claims, liabilities for injury or damage to person, property or whenever and by
whomever brought and causes of action arising from or in any way relating to the Occupant's
possession or use of the Residence.
Attachments:
1. Lead-Based Paint Disclosure
2. Occupancy Limits Disclosure
A
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Ranch House Residential Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease
Page 39 of 41
ATTACHMENT 1 to EXHIBIT B
Disclosure of Information on Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards
Lead Warning Statement
Housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Lead from paint, paint chips, and dust can pose health hazards
if not managed properly. Lead exposure is especially harmful to young children and pregnant women. Before renting pre-
1978 housing, lessors must disclose the presence of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the
dwelling. Lessees must also receive a federally approv ed pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention.
Lessor’s Disclosure
(a) Presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards (check (i) or (ii) below):
(i) ____ Known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards are present in the housing (explain).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(ii) ___X__ Lessor has no knowledge of lead-based paint and//or lead-based paint hazards in the housing.
(b) Records and reports available to the lessor (check (i) or (ii) below):
(i) ____ Lessor has provided the lessee with all available records and reports pertaining to lead-based paint and/or
lead-based paint hazards in the housing (list documents below).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
(ii) __X__ Lessor has no reports or records pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the
housing.
Lessee’s Acknowledgment (initials)
(c)_____ Lessee has received copies of all information listed above.
(d)_____ Lessee has received the pamphlet Protect Your Family from Lead in Your Home.
Agent’s Acknowledgment (initials)
(e) ____ Agent has informed the lessor of the lessor’s obligations under 42 U.S.C. 4852d and is aware of his/her
responsibility to ensure compliance.
Certification of Accuracy
The following parties have reviewed the information above and certify, to the best of their knowledge, that the information
they have provided is true and accurate.
Lessor: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, a Municipal Corporation
By: ________________________________________________________ _________________
Keith Hanson, Real Estate Services Manager Date
____________________________________________________________ _________________
Lessee Date
____________________________________________________________ _________________
Lessee Date
____________________________________________________________ _________________
Lessee Date
A
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Ranch House Residential Lease – Folsom Grazing Association
9042 Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Grazing Lease
Page 40 of 41
ATTACHMENT 2 TO EXHIBIT B
Neighborhood Services
281 N College Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970-224-6046
OCCUPANCY LIMITS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FOR PROPERTY LEASE
The City of Fort Collins Code requires that any person selling or leasing a home, apartment or other dwelling
unit must inform the buyer or renter about the maximum number of people who, by law, are allowed to
occupy that home. All parties must sign where indicated below.
The maximum permissible occupancy of this dwelling unit is:
1. One (1) family (related by blood, marriage, adoption) and not more than one (1) addition person; or
2. Two (2) adults and their dependents, if any, and not more than one (1) additi onal person.
3. Up to four (4) unrelated persons in a dwelling unit located in an apartment complex containing units which were approved
by the City to house four unrelated persons.
Actual signatures are required on this form. *It is required that this form be verified by electronic means OR notarize, attached to
your lease, and a copy kept at the leased property or on-site management office. The shaded areas are for notary use. If the form
is not notarized, the shaded areas should be left blank.
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
TENANT 1 Name: __________________________________ Signature: _______________________________ Date:__________
Subscribed to and affirmed before me on __/__/20__ by _________________________
Notary Public: ________________________________ State of Colorado
County of Larimer My Commission expires: _______________________
TENANT 2 Name: __________________________________ Signature: _______________________________ Date:__________
Subscribed to and affirmed before me on __/__/20__ by _________________________
Notary Public: ________________________________ State of Colorado
County of Larimer My Commission expires: _______________________
TENANT 3 Name: __________________________________ Signature: _______________________________ Date:__________
Subscribed to and affirmed before me on __/__/20__ by _________________________
Notary Public: ________________________________ State of Colorado
County of Larimer My Commission expires: _______________________
Property Owner: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Phone: (970)416-2669
Owner/Manager: Keith Hanson, Real Estate Services Manager, City of Fort Collins Phone: (970)221-6127
Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: __________________________
If requested by the City, you are required to provide this fully executed disclosure statement to the City pursuant to City Code Section 5-265(b).
Failure to properly execute and retain this statement is a civil infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $1000, in addition to any costs, fees
or surcharges assessed by a court or referee. Fines may be assessed to the owner, manager, and/or tenant(s).
A
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
A
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Exhibit A (9526 : Soapstone Prairie Grazing Lease RESO)
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Shane Boyle, Civil Engineer III
Ken Sampley, Director, Stormwater Eng/Devt Review
Eric Potyondy, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2020-092 Deferring Payment of the Stormwater Plant Investment Fee for the Poudre R-1 School
District’s School Site Located on East Prospect Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek Council’s approval on the deferral of Stormwater Plant Investment Fees for
the current development of the Poudre School District Prospect Site pending de-annexation from the City of
Fort Collins and annexation into the Town of Timnath.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Fort Collins Utilities requires a Stormwater Plant Investment Fee (PIF) for all development creating impervious
surfaces within the Fort Collins City limits. Poudre School District (PSD) is in the process of developing a new
school site at the northwest corner of County Road 5 and Prosp ect Road, which is currently within Fort Collins’
City limits. The new school site is part of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Fort
Collins and Town of Timnath allowing the site to be disconnected (“de -annexed”) from Fort Collins and
annexed into Timnath. (Attachment 1)
City Code Section 26-511(c) states that the Stormwater PIF must be paid prior to the issuance of a full building
permit. However, this section of City Code also provides that Council may defer all or any portion of the
Stormwater PIF by resolution.
The proposed Resolution is to defer the Stormwater PIF for this PSD development until December 31, 2021.
In the event this parcel is de-annexed before then, no Stormwater PIF would be due. In the event this parcel is
still within the City of Fort Collins’ boundary at that time, the Stormwater PIF would be due.
CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS
There are no City financial impacts as this site will be located in the Town of Timnath and will not be served by
Fort Collins.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Resolution was presented to Water Board on August 20, 2020. Water Board voted unanimously
to recommend that Council adopt the proposed Resolution . (Attachment 2)
16
Packet Pg. 259
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Property Description and Map (PDF)
2. Water Board Minutes - Excerpt August 20, 2020 (PDF)
3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
16
Packet Pg. 260
-1-
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Poudre R-1 Parcel
A parcel of land being part of the South Half (S1/2) of Section Fifteen (15), Township Seven North
(T.7N.), Range Sixty-eight (R.68W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of
Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of said Section 15 and assuming the South line of the
Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) of said Section 15 as bearing North 89°56'23" West, as determined by
a GPS observation, a distance of 2638.04 feet with all other bearings contained herein relative
thereto:
THENCE North 89°56'23" West a distance of 2638.04 feet to the South Quarter Corner of said
Section 15;
THENCE North 89°56'38" West along the South line of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of said
Section 15 a distance of 635.26 feet;
THENCE North 00°03'22" East a distance of 468.93 feet to the Southerly line of that strip of land
as described in that Warranty Deed as recorded November 30, 1972 in Book 1531 on Page 759 of
the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder (LCCR);
Thence along said Southerly line by the following Two (2) courses and distances:
THENCE South 54°55'30" East (Rec. S. 55°01' E.) a distance of 764.90 feet;
THENCE South 89°53'30" East (Rec. S. 89°59' E.) a distance of 8.89 feet to the East line of said
SW1/4;
THENCE North 00°09'39" East along said East line a distance of 54.76 feet to the Northerly line
of the aforesaid parcel of land;
THENCE North 54°55'30" West (Rec. S. 55°01' E.) along said Northerly line a distance of 775.87
feet;
THENCE North 00°03'22" East a distance of 804.25 feet to the North line of the South Half of the
Southwest Quarter (S1/2 SW1/4) of said Section 15;
THENCE South 89°47'03" East along said North line a distance of 637.70 feet to the Northeast
Corner of said S1/2 SW1/4;
THENCE South 89°48'01" East along the North line of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter
(S1/2 SE1/4) a distance of 2639.15 feet to the Northeast Corner of said S1/2 SE1/4;
THENCE South 00°12'32" West along the East line of said S1/2 SE1/4 a distance of 1326.04 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT 1 16.1
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Property Description and Map (9524 : Prospect Site Stormwater PIF Deferral Request)
-2-
16.1
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Property Description and Map (9524 : Prospect Site Stormwater PIF Deferral Request)
Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES - WATER BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
August 20, 2020, 5:30 p.m.
Online via Zoom
08/20/2020 – Excerpt from Unapproved DRAFT MINUTES Page 1
Regular Items
(Attachments available upon request)
Poudre School District (PSD) Prospect Site
Stormwater Plant Investment Fee (PIF) Deferral Request
Dan Mogen, Development Review Engineer/Water Utilities Engineering, summarized the
project and staff request. He and Shane Boyle, Development Review Manager/Water
Utilities Engineering, answered questions.
Poudre School District is in the process of planning/building a new school at the northwest
corner of County Road 5 and Prospect Road. This site is currently in Fort Collins, but it is
anticipated the site will deannex from Fort Collins and annex into Timnath. PSD is pursuing
a deferral/waiver of Stormwater Plant Investment Fee. The deferral sunsets in December
2021.
Staff requests the Water Board recommend Council adopt the proposed resolution
“DEFERRING PAYMENT OF THE STORMWATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEE FOR THE
POUDRE R-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SCHOOL SITE LOCATED ON EAST PROSPECT ROAD”
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on and inquired about various related topics including whether
development review fees are still being collected for the project (yes); reason for PSD’s
plans (regional school to be build first, then PSD will complete deannexation process); the
existing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) approves deannexation plans; this staff
request is merely procedural.
Board Member Greg Steed moved that the Water Board recommend City Council adopt
the proposed resolution on first reading.
Board Member Randy Kenyon seconded the motion.
Vote on the Motion: it passed unanimously, 10-0
ATTACHMENT 2 16.2
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Water Board Minutes - Excerpt August 20, 2020 (9524 : Prospect Site Stormwater PIF Deferral Request)
October 6, 2020
Poudre School District –Prospect Site SW PIF Deferral
Shane Boyle
ATTACHMENT 3 16.3
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9524 : Prospect Site Stormwater PIF Deferral Request)
PSD Prospect School Site Map
2
16.3
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9524 : Prospect Site Stormwater PIF Deferral Request)
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends City Council adopt the proposed resolution on first
reading.
3
16.3
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9524 : Prospect Site Stormwater PIF Deferral Request)
-1-
RESOLUTION 2020-092
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
DEFERRING PAYMENT OF THE STORMWATER PLANT INVESTMENT FEE FOR THE
POUDRE R-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SCHOOL SITE
LOCATED ON EAST PROSPECT ROAD
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates Fort Collins Utilities, which includes a
Stormwater Utility; and
WHEREAS, there is a stormwater plant investment fee (“PIF”) established by City Code
Section 26-512 that is imposed on each and every lot or parcel of land within Fort Collins with
respect to which any improvement creates an impervious surface covering more than three
hundred fifty (350) square feet of the lot or parcel, and the owners thereof; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Section 26-511(c), the PIF may be paid at any time
after the approval of the plat of a subdivision or, in the case of unplatted property, upon the
issuance of a building permit and not before; provided, however, that such fee shall be paid prior
to the issuance of a full building permit, or if no building permit is required, upon
commencement of construction except to the extent that the deferral of all or any portion of such
payment has been approved by the City Council by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Poudre School District R-1, a Colorado statutory school district
(“School District”) owns a parcel of land along the north side of East Prospect Road in the S½
of Section 15, T7N, R68W of the 6th P.M., the approximate location of which is depicted on
Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Subject Parcel”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Parcel was annexed into Fort Collins through Ordinance
No. 131, 1990 (adopted on second reading on January 15, 1991) and is thus subject to the PIF;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement
(Regarding Cooperation on Annexation, Growth Management and Related Issues) between the
City and the Town of Timnath (which City Council approved in Ordinance No. 113, 2014), the
City and the Town of Timnath have agreed that the Subject Parcel be disconnected (commonly
known as, “de-annexed”) from Fort Collins and annexed into Timnath, subject to the completion
of the various requirements for those processes; and
WHEREAS, if the disconnection is completed, the Subject Parcel would not be in Fort
Collins and would not be subject to the PIF; and
WHEREAS, in the unique facts of this situation, City Council determines that it is
appropriate to defer the payment of the PIFs for the Subject Parcel as set forth in this Resolution
to provide the opportunity for the School District to complete disconnection of Subject Parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Packet Pg. 267
-2-
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 stormwater plant investment fees for the Subject Parcel are
hereby deferred until December 31, 2021, provided that no such fees shall be due on that date if
the Subject Parcel has been disconnected from the City of Fort Collins and annexed into Timnath
on or before that date.
Section 3. If the Subject Parcel is not disconnected from the City of Fort Collins and
annexed into Timnath on or before December 31, 2021, the City reserves all rights regarding this
matter and will take any and all appropriate action including: enforcing any relevant agreements
in law and equity; and recovering the stormwater plant investment fees for the Subject Parcel
pursuant to City Code and other relevant authority.
Passed and adopted on at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
6th day of October, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 268
-1-
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Poudre R-1 Parcel
A parcel of land being part of the South Half (S1/2) of Section Fifteen (15), Township Seven North
(T.7N.), Range Sixty-eight (R.68W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of
Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of said Section 15 and assuming the South line of the
Southeast Quarter (SE1/4) of said Section 15 as bearing North 89°56'23" West, as determined by
a GPS observation, a distance of 2638.04 feet with all other bearings contained herein relative
thereto:
THENCE North 89°56'23" West a distance of 2638.04 feet to the South Quarter Corner of said
Section 15;
THENCE North 89°56'38" West along the South line of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of said
Section 15 a distance of 635.26 feet;
THENCE North 00°03'22" East a distance of 468.93 feet to the Southerly line of that strip of land
as described in that Warranty Deed as recorded November 30, 1972 in Book 1531 on Page 759 of
the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder (LCCR);
Thence along said Southerly line by the following Two (2) courses and distances:
THENCE South 54°55'30" East (Rec. S. 55°01' E.) a distance of 764.90 feet;
THENCE South 89°53'30" East (Rec. S. 89°59' E.) a distance of 8.89 feet to the East line of said
SW1/4;
THENCE North 00°09'39" East along said East line a distance of 54.76 feet to the Northerly line
of the aforesaid parcel of land;
THENCE North 54°55'30" West (Rec. S. 55°01' E.) along said Northerly line a distance of 775.87
feet;
THENCE North 00°03'22" East a distance of 804.25 feet to the North line of the South Half of the
Southwest Quarter (S1/2 SW1/4) of said Section 15;
THENCE South 89°47'03" East along said North line a distance of 637.70 feet to the Northeast
Corner of said S1/2 SW1/4;
THENCE South 89°48'01" East along the North line of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter
(S1/2 SE1/4) a distance of 2639.15 feet to the Northeast Corner of said S1/2 SE1/4;
THENCE South 00°12'32" West along the East line of said S1/2 SE1/4 a distance of 1326.04 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT 1 A
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Exhibit A (9510 : Prospect Site Stormwater PIF Deferral Request RESO)
-2-
A
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Exhibit A (9510 : Prospect Site Stormwater PIF Deferral Request RESO)
September 15, 2020
Staff Report
Larry Schneider
Community Dashboard Metric
Cumulative Lane Miles
STAFF REPORT a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Staff Report- Community Dashboard Metric: Cumulative Road Miles (9473 : Staff Report:
2
a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Staff Report- Community Dashboard Metric: Cumulative Road Miles (9473 : Staff Report:
We st Harmony RoadWest Harmony Road
3
a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Staff Report- Community Dashboard Metric: Cumulative Road Miles (9473 : Staff Report:
Agenda Item 17
Item # 17 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Travis Storin, Interim Chief Finance Officer
Lawrence Pollack, Budget Director
John Duval, Legal
SUBJECT
Public Hearing #2 on the 2021 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort Collins.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the second public hearing on the City Manager’s 2021 Recommended Budget for the City of Fort
Collins. The purpose of this public hearing is to gather public input on the 2021 budget. The first public
hearing was conducted at Council’s Tuesday, September 15, 2020, regular meeting. Both hearings were set
by Council adoption of Resolution 2020-081 at its September 1, 2020, meeting. The City Manager’s 2021
Recommended Budget can be reviewed at the City Clerk’s Office by appointment only and online at
fcgov.com/budget.
On May 19, 2020, Council adopted Ordinance No. 067, 2020, suspending the biennial budget term
requirement in Code Section 8-1 for fiscal years 2021 and 2022 in order to allow for a one-year budget term for
both years, and to return to the biennial budget term required by Code Section 8 -1 beginning with fiscal years
2023 and 2024. Both hearings provided the public the option for in -person comment or remote participation
through the online Zoom platform.
17
Packet Pg. 274
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY October 6, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, Comm. Devt. & Neighborhood Serv.
Brad Yatabe, Legal
SUBJECT
Consideration of an Appeal of Hearing Officer Decision on 613 S. Meldrum Carriage House Modifications of
Standards (MOD 200001).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to consider an Appeal of the Hearing Officer Decision, dated July 15, 2020, denying
the request for five Modifications of Standards (MOD 200001) for a "carriage house" (i.e., a single-family
detached dwelling) located behind a street-facing dwelling in the Neighborhood Conservation (NCB) zoning
district. On July 28, 2020, a Notice of Appeal was filed alleging that the administrative hea ring officer failed to
properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) in rendering a
final decision.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
SUBJECT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
The subject of the hearing was a stand-alone request for five modifications of standards under the LUC (MOD
200001) related to the applicants’ proposed plan for a carriage house in the rear yard of an existing historic
house at 613 S. Meldrum Street. The five modifications were described on pag e 2 of the Staff Report provided
to the hearing officer as follows:
Zoning Standard Modified Request
Building Footprint 600 sq. ft.(max) 1,570 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area 1,000 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.
Floor Area in Rear Half of Lot 1,583 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.
Eave Height Along Side Lot Line 13 feet (max) 23 feet
Width of Dormers Along Side Lot Line 25% of side wall length (max) 43% of side wall length
The specific LUC standards for which modifications were requested were:
• Section 4.9(D)(2) regarding floor space area limit
• Section 4.9(D)(2) regarding building footprint limit
• Section 4.9(D)(5) regarding building floor area limit in the rear half of lots
• Section 4.9(E)(2) regarding side wall eave height limit in the rear yard
• Section 4.9(E)(2) regarding dormer height in relation to side wall eave height
Review of the proposed modifications was governed by two requirements in LUC Section 2.8.2(H) regarding
the modification of standards: that the granting of the modification would not be detri mental to the public good;
and that the plan as submitted would promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
18
Packet Pg. 275
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 2
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is
requested.
The crux of the hearing was the wording in the LUC that “the plan as submitted will promote the general
purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which
complies.” The applicants contended that the proposed plan promotes the general purpose of the NCB zoning
district equally well or better than other plans for other permitted forms of development in the NCB zoning
district. The contention was that other forms of development that would comp ly with NCB standards are more
impactful than the larger carriage house would be.
The hearing officer acknowledged contradictions presented by the applicants and their proposed plan:
• she concluded that the proposed plan would not be detrimental to the public good (Hearing Officer Decision
p. 5), however,
• she also concluded that she was obligated to make a decision based on her interpretation that the purpose
of the LUC standards to specifically limit the extent and mass of construction in rear yards, and that the
much larger construction would not promote that general purpose as well as a compliant plan.
The hearing officer struggled (Hearing Transcript, p. 25, starting at line 22) with the applicants’ point that their
plan to maintain their existing house and add the larger carriage house is equal or better than a plan for
several other types of redevelopment that are permitted in the zone, based on the stated purpose of the NCB
zoning district to provide a transition from residential to commercial areas.
She concluded that the “equal or better” criterion refers to the purpose of the size limit standards and not the
larger purpose of the NCB zone district and so the hearing officer found no basis for approval (Hearing Officer
Decision pp. 5-6).
As just one example of other types of development that would be permitted in the NCB zone district, the
applicants noted that zoning allows for an existing house to be demolished and replaced with an apartment
building and parking lot, without the same size limits. This has occurred at 621 S. Meldrum, two lots south of
the applicants’ house. (Verbatim Transcript, pp. 8, starting at line 13)
As another example, the proposed carriage house could be connected to the existing historic house with a
breezeway hallway, resulting in classification as a duplex which is permitted. (Verbatim Transcript, p. 23,
starting at line 30)
These and other technicalities and apparent contradictions were discussed. The hearing officer acknowledged
that a text amendment to the zoning appears to be warranted to address and clarify the contradictions and
questions raised by the discussion.
The Verbatim Transcript page 25, lines 26-28 reflects the hearing officer’s dilemma with the wording in the
LUC.
The Hearing Decision pages 5-7, B.i.-vi. are the hearing officer’s conclusions based on the extensive
discussion.
APPEAL ALLEGATION
The Notice of Appeal alleges that the hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant LUC
provisions, namely Sections 4.9(D)(2), 4.9(D)(5), and 4.9(E)(2).
Page 4 of the Notice of Appeal states the Appellant’s “primary objection” to the hearing Officer’s decision is her
finding that she lacks the authority to grant the modifications for reasons other than the wording of the “”e qual
or better” criterion in the LUC, and that this contradiction between her findings about that criterion and the
“detriment to the public good” criterion demonstrates a failure to properly interpret the Land Use Code.
18
Packet Pg. 276
Agenda Item 18
Item # 18 Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Notices with Mailing List (PDF)
2. Notice of Appeal - July 29, 2020 (PDF)
3. Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (PDF)
4. Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (PDF)
5. Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (PDF)
6. Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (PDF)
7. Project Plans (PDF)
8. Verbatim Transcript (PDF)
9. Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (PDF)
10. Appeal Video Link (PDF)
11. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
18
Packet Pg. 277
ATTACHMENT 1
City Clerk’s
Public Hearing Notice
Site Visit Notice
Mailing List
18.1
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Public Notices with Mailing List (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221-6295 - fax
fcgov.com/cityclerk
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer Decision regarding the 613 South Meldrum
Street Modification of Standards, MOD 200001, located at 613 South Meldrum Street
The Fort Collins City Council will hold a public hearing on the enclosed appeal.
Appeal Hearing Date: October 6, 2020
Time: 6:00 pm (or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing)
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO
Agenda Materials: Available after 3 pm, October 1, 2020 , in the City Clerk’s office and at
29TUfcgov.com/agendasU29T.
Why am I receiving this notice? City Code requires that a Notice of Hearing be provided to
Parties-in-Interest, which means you are the applicant of the project being appealed, have
a possessory or proprietary interest in the property at issue, received a City mailed notice
of the hearing that resulted in the decision being appealed, submitted written comments to
City staff for delivery to the decision maker prior to the hearing resulting in the decision
being appealed, or addressed the decision maker at the hearing that resulted in the
decision being appealed.
Further information is available in the Appeal Guidelines online at 29Tfcgov.com/appeals29T.
The Notice of Appeal and any attachments, any new evidence that has been submitted and
presentations for the Appeal Hearing can be found at 29Tfcgov.com/appeals.
If you have questions regarding the appeal process, please contact the City Clerk’s Office
(970.221.6515). For questions regarding the project itself, please contact Rebecca Everette,
Community Development and Neighborhood Services Senior Manager (reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625).
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 the City Clerk’s Office at 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay
Colorado) for assistance.
A petición, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas
que no dominan el idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad,
para que puedan acceder a los servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia,
llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48
horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
___________________________________
Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
Notice Mailed: September 10, 2020
cc: City Attorney
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Lori Strand, Administrative Hearing Officer
18.1
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Public Notices with Mailing List (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221-6295 - fax
fcgov.com/cityclerk
NOTICE OF SITE INSPECTION
An appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer decision of July 15, 2020 regarding the 613 South
Meldrum Street Modification of Standards, MOD 200001, will be heard by the Fort Collins City
Council on October 6, 2020.
Pursuant to Section 2-53 of the City Code, members of the City Council will be inspecting the site
of the proposed project on Monday, October 5, 2020 at 3:30 p.m.. Notice is hereby given that this
site inspection constitutes a meeting of the City Council that is open to the public, including the
appellants and all parties-in-interest. The gathering point for the site visit will be 613 South
Meldrum Street, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Any Councilmember who inspects the site, whether at the date and time above, or independently
shall, at the hearing on the appeal, state on the record any observations they made or
conversations they had at the site which they believe may be relevant to their determination of
the appeal.
If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact the City Clerk’s
Office at 970.221.6515.
__________________________________
Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk
Notice Mailed: September 10, 2020
Cc: City Attorney
Community Development and Neighborhood Services
The purpose of the site inspection is for the City Council to view the site and
to ask related questions of City staff to assist Council in ascertaining site
conditions. There will be no opportunity during the site inspection for the
applicant, appellants, or members of the public to speak, ask questions,
respond to questions, or otherwise provide input or information, either orally
or in writing. Other than a brief staff overview and staff responses to
questions, all discussion and follow up questions or comments will be
deferred to the hearing on the subject appeal to be held on October 6, 2020.
18.1
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Public Notices with Mailing List (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
OBJECTID Parcel Number Site Address Name Name1 Address City State Zipcode Tax District Site City Schedule NuOBJECTID_ACCTTYPE
58724 9714106015 219 W MULBERRY ST 219 WEST MULBERRY LLC 1010 ASHFORD CT FORT COLLINS CO 80634 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066761 28280 Residential
60455 9714106013 229 W MULBERRY ST 229 W MULBERRY LLC 1404 43RD AVE GREELEY CO 80634 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066745 28278 Residential
137011 9714120003 321 W MYRTLE ST 321 W MYRTLE LLC 2012 TOPANGA CT FORT COLLINS CO 80528 1100 FORT COLLINS 1616414 140688 Multiple Unit
58950 9714107017 326 W MYRTLE ST THRU 326-332 W MYRTEL LLC 904 W MOUNTAIN AVE FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067016 28395 Multiple Unit
135075 9714205016 529 S WHITCOMB ST 529 S WHITCOMB STREET LLC 1201 PARKWOOD DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068861 26996 Residential
137012 9714120002 604 S MELDRUM ST 604 SOUTH MELDRUM STREET LLC 10374 PUMA GULCH RD LOVELAND CO 80538 1100 FORT COLLINS 1616413 140687 Residential
136761 9714111015 605 S MELDRUM ST 605 SOUTH MELDRUM STREET LLLP 2291 ARAPAHOE AVE BOULDER CO 80302 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067687 28543 Residential
136760 9714111026 606 S SHERWOOD ST 606 S SHERWOOD LLC PO BOX 1017 BOULDER CO 80306 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067784 26717 Residential
137951 9714113005 615 S MASON ST 615 SOUTH MASON STREET LLC 526 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067997 26732 Multiple Unit
137945 9714113013 620 S HOWES ST 620 S HOWES ST LLC PO BOX 1164 FORT COLLINS CO 80522 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068080 26739 Residential
137937 9714113004 631 S MASON ST ABS I LLC 202 W LAUREL ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067989 26731 Commercial
136759 9714111016 411 W MYRTLE ST ACERS LADANA K PO BOX 2125 LOVELAND CO 80539 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067695 28544 Residential
58695 9714107010 321 W MULBERRY ST ALLEN ASWAD 321 W MULBERRY ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066931 28389 Residential
136827 9714212026 619 S WHITCOMB ST THRU ATN INVESTMENTS LLC 5125 E COUNTY ROAD 52 FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071307 27898 Residential
137948 9714113018 203 W MYRTLE ST BAKER ERIC GUNNARSDOTTIR STEFANIA 1736 BUSHNELL DR LOVELAND CO 80537 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068136 26743 Commercial
137002 9714117001 630 S SHERWOOD ST BBK PROPERTIES LLLP 3020 ABBOTSFORD ST FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 1153412 87408 Multiple Unit
145071 9714124001 621 S MELDRUM ST BIG DEAL REAL ESTATE LLC 2519 RIDGE CREEK RD FORT COLLINS CO 80528 1100 FORT COLLINS 1655093 15118 Multiple Unit
37577 9714109013 502 W MYRTLE ST BLUTEGEL CPA LLC PO BOX 270930 LOUISVILLE CO 80027 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067334 28517 Multiple Unit
58691 9714107901 555 S HOWES ST CSU BOARD OF GOVERNORS CAMPUS DELIVERY 6009 FORT COLLINS CO 80523 1109 FORT COLLINS 0066834 28286 Exempt
137967 9714113010 608 S HOWES ST BROWN MITCHELL F/SHERRI A 1907 N WHITCOMB ST FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068055 26736 Multiple Unit
63331 9714110024 630 S WHITCOMB ST BRZEZINSKI WAYNE E/WAYNE 7760 WELD COUNTY ROAD 5 LONGMONT CO 80504 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067598 28536 Residential
60454 9714106016 506 S HOWES ST CASAUS WENDIE WOLCOTT LIVING TRUST THE 1210 SALAZAR RD STE D TAOS NM 87571 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066770 28281 Residential
137960 9714113011 612 S HOWES ST CENTER GREEN PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 4655 BOULDER CO 80306 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068063 26737 Residential
60452 9714106012 526 S HOWES ST CFR INVESTMENTS LLC 4630 ROYAL VISTA CIR APT 13 WINDSOR CO 80528 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066737 28277 Multiple Unit
135074 9714205015 527 S WHITCOMB ST CHAVEZ DAVID A/MILLER-CHAVEZ PAMELA A CHAVEZ ALEXANDER CARLOS 527 S WHITCOMB ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068853 26995 Residential
60451 9714106002 202 W MYRTLE ST CHIU SHEAN-TSONG YUAN-YEE 807 ROCKY MOUNTAIN WAY FORT COLLINS CO 80526 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066613 28270 Residential
137016 9714112916 622 S MELDRUM ST CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS 50 E NORTH TEMPLE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 1100 FORT COLLINS 1582670 123267 Exempt
134952 9714116001 634 S WHITCOMB ST CLEMENTS DAVID ARTHUR 634 S WHITCOMB ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068632 26881 Residential
58431 9714106005 212 W MYRTLE ST 1/2 COLLEGE HEIGHTS LLC 7480 N COUNTY ROAD 15 FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0966584 15782 Mobile Home
137006 9714122001 306 W LAUREL ST COLORADO DELTA ASSN OF SIGMA ALPHA EPSILONSIGMA ALPHA EPSILON 3528 PRECISION DR STE 100 FORT COLLINS CO 80528 1109 FORT COLLINS 1649863 162485 Commercial
55357 9714108005 515 S MELDRUM ST CSM VENTURES LLC 2306 VALLEY FORGE CT FORT COLLINS CO 80526 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067059 28399 Residential
137019 9714112904 601 S HOWES ST CSURF PO BOX 483 FORT COLLINS CO 80522 1109 FORT COLLINS 0067822 26720 Exempt
136833 9714212019 645 S WHITCOMB ST DOUBLE D RE LLC 608 S COLLEGE AVE FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071234 27795 Commercial
136822 9714212931 601 S WHITCOMB ST FIRST KOREAN CHURCH OF FORT COLLINS/THE 601 S WHITCOMB ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 1582673 123270 Exempt
58693 9714107015 520 S MELDRUM ST FROSETH BRUCE M KREUL-FROSETH SUSAN A 900 PETERSON ST FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066982 28393 Residential
58634 9714107018 522 S MELDRUM ST THRU FROSETH BRUCE M KREUL-FROSETH SUSAN A 524 SPRING CANYON CT FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067024 28396 Residential
136749 9714111012 617 S MELDRUM ST GLASER FOREST E 141 S COLLEGE AVE STE 103 FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067644 28540 Residential
136752 9714111020 612 S SHERWOOD ST GREEN CHRISTIE/STEPHEN D 349 SILVER SPRING CT COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80919 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067725 28547 Residential
117686 9714212027 617 S WHITCOMB ST HAMMERS TIMOTHY J/SUZANNE L 1721 FELTLEAF CT FORT COLLINS CO 80528 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071315 27899 Residential
137941 9714113028 642 S HOWES ST HBC LAUREL LLC PO BOX 271262 FORT COLLINS CO 80527 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068225 26848 Residential
115004 9714212028 611 S WHITCOMB ST HOFFMAN WILLIAM E JR 1616 MEADOWAIRE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071323 27900 Residential
37619 9714109009 515 W MULBERRY ST HOOVER LAURA B HAINES THOMAS L 515 W MULBERRY ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067296 28417 Residential
137965 9714113008 606 S HOWES ST HOWES LLC 214 SOPHIA TER SAINT AUGUSTINE FL 32095 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068039 26734 Residential
137006 9714126001 306 W LAUREL ST HSRE FLATS AT THE OVAL LLC PO BOX 92129 SOUTHLAKE TX 76092 1109 FORT COLLINS 1655596 15363 Commercial
136765 9714111022 620 S SHERWOOD ST J AND M INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 657 CASTLE ROCK CO 80104 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067741 26715 Residential
37620 9714109010 511 W MULBERRY ST JAH LLC 500 E OAK ST FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067300 28418 Residential
135076 9714205025 531 S WHITCOMB ST JOHNSON MARK S/JANE G 7957 BAYSIDE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80528 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068969 27005 Residential
117706 9714212033 609 S WHITCOMB ST K AND R TOWNSEND LLC 528 WHEDBEE ST FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071366 27904 Residential
37636 9714109005 510 S WHITCOMB ST KENNY PAUL J (.50)KENNY STACIE L (.50)1506 W OAK ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067253 28413 Residential
137020 9714112013 608 S MELDRUM ST KEYS ELSA A/JAMES M 521 MAPLE ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067865 26722 Residential
37628 9714109007 504 S WHITCOMB ST KIRKPATRICK KRISTIN/ROBERT 504 S WHITCOMB ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067270 28415 Residential
37617 9714109018 517 W MULBERRY ST KLUDING AARON G 3305 N COUNTY ROAD 23E LAPORTE CO 80535 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067393 28519 Residential
58487 9714110023 626 S WHITCOMB ST KOA INVESTMENTS LLC 6577 COTTONWOOD SHORES DR WELLINGTON CO 80549 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067580 28535 Residential
58654 9714107006 515 S HOWES ST KRUGER RENTALS INC 515 S HOWES ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1109 FORT COLLINS 0066893 28386 Residential
136835 9714212018 608 W LAUREL ST LIVINGSTON RICHARD A 608 W LAUREL ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071226 27794 Residential
137950 9714113016 211 W MYRTLE ST LJD PROPERTIES LLC 4134 HARBOR WALK DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068110 26742 Commercial
137954 9714113027 636 S HOWES ST M AND R PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 273487 FORT COLLINS CO 80527 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068217 26847 Residential
137949 9714113019 605 S MASON ST M H MALL INC 605 S MASON ST FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1109 FORT COLLINS 0068144 26744 Commercial
36209 9714109008 500 S WHITCOMB ST MAGNUSON CELESTE G 409 E PROSPECT RD FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067288 28416 Residential
37637 9714109004 516 S WHITCOMB ST MANNO LUKE H 516 S WHITCOMB ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067245 28412 Residential
137964 9714113009 600 S HOWES ST MARTIN FAMILY TRUST THE 429 S LOOMIS AVE FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068047 26735 Multiple Unit
37627 9714109012 503 W MULBERRY ST MATLOCK JAMES J MENGES ZONA-EMORY E PO BOX 1453 FORT COLLINS CO 80522 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067326 28516 Residential
58492 9714110012 617 S SHERWOOD ST MCELHOES DAVID/ALYCE 16605 DANCING WOLF COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80908 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067458 28524 Residential
136830 9714212017 612 W LAUREL ST MCENDAFFER DAVID A CAROL J 5113 MAIL CREEK LN FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071218 27793 Residential
63323 9714110026 511 W MYRTLE ST MCGUIRE KENNETH/JULIE 2007 FAMILY TRUST 1390 SHADY TREE LN MEADOW VISTA CA 95722 1100 FORT COLLINS 1485733 114863 Residential
58686 9714107014 516 S MELDRUM ST MELDRUM HOUSE LLC 6312 CATTAIL CT FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066974 28392 Multiple Unit
55345 9714108002 519 S MELDRUM ST MELDRUM PROPERTIES INC 215 W MAGNOLIA ST 200 FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067032 28397 Multiple Unit
58494 9714110014 609 S SHERWOOD ST MEYER JACK D/KAREN T 3207 ALUMBAUGH CT FORT COLLINS CO 80526 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067474 28526 Residential
137935 9714113003 625 S MASON ST MINI INVESTMENTS LLC PO BOX 607 FORT COLLINS CO 80522 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067962 26730 Commercial
145207 9714106004 208 W MYRTLE ST MISHLOVE DAVID NICHOLAS 905 S SUMMIT VIEW DR FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066630 28272 Residential
137968 9714113034 MYRTLE STREET VILLAGE APARTMENTS ASSOC PO BOX 395 TIMNATH CO 80547 1100 1603162 133225 Multiple Unit
58481 9714106011 520 S HOWES ST NEW HOWES STREET HIDEAWAYS LLC 1920 LINDEN RIDGE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066729 28276 Multiple Unit
119147 9714212030 611 W MYRTLE ST NIELSEN BYRON W/MARTHA R 3918 N COUNTY ROAD 13 FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071340 27902 Residential
136756 9714111027 417 W MYRTLE ST NORMAN JAMES 422 W MYRTLE ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067792 26718 Residential
136751 9714111013 613 S MELDRUM ST PALOMO JEFF A 2345 WALNUT ST UNIT 23 DENVER CO 80205 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067652 28541 Residential
18.1
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Public Notices with Mailing List (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
137958 9714113026 218 W LAUREL ST PECK THOMAS H/MARY MCQUAID/MCQUAID THOMAS O/COOL JEA 4122 VISTA LAKE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068209 26749 Multiple Unit
146026 9714115904 412 W LAUREL ST THRU PHI EPSILON HOUSE CORP OF KAPPA DELTA SORORITY PO BOX 891 FORT COLLINS CO 80522 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068594 26880 Exempt
134954 9714119001 518 W LAUREL ST PURA VIDA FTC CO LLC 999 SHADY GROVE RD S STE 600 MEMPHIS TN 38120 1100 FORT COLLINS 1652088 166315 Multiple Unit
58499 9714110015 605 S SHERWOOD ST QUANSTROM ROY/AMANDA 605 S SHERWOOD ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067482 28527 Residential
136748 9714111021 616 S SHERWOOD ST RAJA PROPERTIES LLC 2212 S QUEEN ST LAKEWOOD CO 80227 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067733 28548 Residential
63326 9714110018 521 W MYRTLE ST RAY CHRISTIAN PHILIP JR RAY CHRISTIAN PHILIP SR 521 W MYRTLE ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067539 28530 Residential
63325 9714110025 517 W MYRTLE ST REILLY CHRISTOPHER B 6427 COUNTY ROAD 68 1/2 WINDSOR CO 80550 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067601 28537 Residential
145208 9714123001 505 S MASON ST 100 RHI 1 MAX FLATS LLC 5200 W 20TH ST GREELEY CO 80634 1109 FORT COLLINS 1654641 165609 Commercial
60425 9714106003 206 W MYRTLE ST RHT LLC 2731 GRANADA HILLS DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066621 28271 Residential
63329 9714110017 602 S WHITCOMB ST ROBINSON TIMBERLINE HOLDINGS LLC 1812 LAKESHORE CIR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067512 28529 Multiple Unit
117703 9714212022 635 S WHITCOMB ST ROSOFF INGRID K MARK 1437 S SUMMIT VIEW DR FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071269 27797 Residential
37635 9714109019 515 S SHERWOOD ST S SHERWOOD STREET LLC 515 S SHERWOOD ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067407 28520 Residential
136750 9714111009 629 S MELDRUM ST SCHMID JAMES E 4803 PRAIRIE RIDGE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80526 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067610 28538 Residential
136762 9714111019 610 S SHERWOOD ST SCHNEIDER EDWARD M/JENNIFER G 1013 FOSSIL CREEK PKWY FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067717 28546 Residential
136763 9714111014 609 S MELDRUM ST SMELDRUM LLC 10 STONEHOUSE RD SOMERS NY 10589 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067679 28542 Residential
137018 9714112017 624 S MELDRUM ST SMITH LESTER N/MARIE L 624 S MELDRUM ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067890 26723 Residential
136755 9714111025 600 S SHERWOOD ST SMITH RYAN MICHAEL 600 S SHERWOOD ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067776 26716 Residential
58712 9714107009 325 W MULBERRY ST SOTH BRYAN J SAILER DWIGHT D 429 S HOWES FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0066923 28388 Residential
137015 9714112002 629 S HOWES ST ST VRAIN LAND HOLDINGS LLC 14570 CLAY ST BROOMFIELD CO 80023 1109 FORT COLLINS 1582669 123266 Residential
37631 9714109006 506 S WHITCOMB ST STOLDT DEREK S 506 S WHITCOMB ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067261 28414 Residential
117708 9714212029 615 W MYRTLE ST STONE CHARLES FELIX WATERSON SARAH JANE 615 GILGALAD WAY FORT COLLINS CO 80526 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071331 27901 Residential
137017 9714112028 626 S MELDRUM ST SUMNER ZACHARY A/COLLEEN 626 S MELDRUM ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 1296540 97656 Residential
55354 9714108006 511 S MELDRUM ST TGI PROPERTIES INC 2803 E HARMONY RD FORT COLLINS CO 80528 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067067 28400 Residential
63271 9714110016 601 S SHERWOOD ST TIMBER ROCK INVESTMENTS LLC 434 CRYSTAL BEACH DR WINDSOR CO 80550 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067504 28528 Residential
117701 9714212023 631 S WHITCOMB ST TOWNSEND MARY C 2930 QUERIDA ST FORT COLLINS CO 80526 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071277 27798 Residential
134955 9714116002 522 W LAUREL ST UNGER DON E/KAREN L 920 CHEYENNE DR FORT COLLINS CO 80525 1100 FORT COLLINS 0068659 26980 Commercial
136764 9714111010 625 S MELDRUM ST UTOPIAN CAPITAL LLC 4636 BROOKWOOD DR LOVELAND CO 80538 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067628 28539 Residential
137996 9714113001 212 W LAUREL ST WASHECKA LINDA C/GAIL A JONES STEVE D 212 W LAUREL ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067946 26728 Commercial
136758 9714111017 603 S MELDRUM ST WELTE JAMES A/MERCEDES 15475 GADSDEN DR BRIGHTON CO 80603 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067709 28545 Residential
146027 9714125001 406 W LAUREL ST WEST RANGE FORT COLLINS LLC 8347 W RANGE CV MEMPHIS TN 38125 1100 FORT COLLINS 1655218 15607 Multiple Unit
55348 9714108017 412 W MYRTLE ST WILLIAMS MARK 412 W MYRTLE ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 1100 FORT COLLINS 0067164 28406 Residential
136828 9714212025 625 S WHITCOMB ST WOLFF FUND MANAGEMENT LLC 2009 LINDEN LAKE RD FORT COLLINS CO 80524 1100 FORT COLLINS 0071293 27897 Residential
617 S MELDRUM ST TUTTLE CAROLINE & NICK 617 S MELDRUM ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521
10 STONE HOUSE ROAD CHRISTENSEN COLIN & RITA 10 STONE HOUSE ROAD SOMERS NY 10589
47 Bradwell Road MARTIN RAYNE 47 Bradwell Road Newcastle Upon Tyne Englan NE3 3LJ
18.1
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Public Notices with Mailing List (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
ATTACHMENT 2
Notice of Appeal
- Notice of Appeal filed by Jeff
Palomo, July 29, 2020
18.2
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Notice of Appeal - July 29, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.2Packet Pg. 284Attachment: Notice of Appeal - July 29, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.2Packet Pg. 285Attachment: Notice of Appeal - July 29, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.2Packet Pg. 286Attachment: Notice of Appeal - July 29, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.2Packet Pg. 287Attachment: Notice of Appeal - July 29, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Staff Report
(with attachment)
Provided to the
Administrative Hearing
Officer,
Hearing held on July 1, 2020
ATTACHMENT 3
Staff Report 18.3
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 1
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 www.fcgov.com
Administrative Hearing: July 1, 2020
613 South Meldrum Street Modifications of Standards, MOD 200001
Summary of Request
This is a stand-alone request for five Modifications of Standards in
the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) governing size limits
on carriage houses in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB)
zone district.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
If approved by the Hearing Officer, the applicant would be eligible to
submit a development plan application for a carriage house with the
modified size limits within the next 12 months. This application for
building size modifications is separate from subsequent review of an
actual development plan and must not be construed as an implied
approval of a development plan. If the modifications are approved,
they would represent modified maximum size limits for building
footprint and floor area. A development plan process could possibly
involve design and compatibility findings that could result in reduced
final dimensions.
Site Location
613 S. Meldrum Street, located on the first block
north of the Colorado State University (CSU)
main campus.
Zoning
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District
(NCB)
Property Owner
Jeff Palomo
613 S. Meldrum St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Applicant/Representative
Same as above
Staff
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Contents
1.Project Introduction .................................... 2
2.Public Outreach ......................................... 4
3.Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 4
4.Article 3 - Applicable Standards ................. 5
5.Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 7
6.Recommendation ....................................... 8
7.Attachments ............................................... 8
Staff Recommendation
Denial of the Modification Requests.
ATTACHMENT 3
Staff Report 18.3
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 2 of 8
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (NCB) Zoning District contains detailed standards that limit the size
of carriage houses in rear yards of residential lots. This stand-alone request consists of the following five
Modifications of Standards:
Subject Zoning Standard Modified Request
Building Footprint 600 sq. ft.(max) 1,570 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area 1,000 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.
Floor Area in Rear Half of Lot 1,583 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.
Eave Height Along Side Lot Line 13 feet (max) 23 feet
Width of Dormers Along Side Lot Line 25% of side wall length (max) 43% of side wall length
1. Development Status and Background
Historic Resource. The subject property contains a brick Classic Cottage constructed circa 1910 and found
eligible for local landmark designation in 2018, based on its original architectural integrity. This eligibility limits
any ability to remove and replace the principal building on the lot and requires that any new construction on
the site meets design compatibility and historic resource treatment standards. Compatibility requirements
would be applied when a future development plan is submitted.
Old Town Neighborhoods Plan and NCB zoning. The subject property is in the Old Town Neighborhoods
subarea plan area of Fort Collins. The neighborhoods encompass many of the earliest residential blocks in
Fort Collins and are characterized by the classical grid street pattern of short blocks, historic home styles, and
mature trees.
An ongoing neighborhood concern has long been how best to preserve, protect and enhance neighborhood
character while still allowing opportunities to adapt to evolving community and social changes.
A continuum of community planning has produced subarea plans, character studies, zoning standards, and
design guidelines in open and highly engaged public processes since at least the 1980’s. The NCB zoning
district, and carriage house standards specifically, result from some of these processes.
The adopted Old Town Neighborhoods Plan recognizes the NCB area around south Meldrum as catering
primarily to college student rental housing, including many apartment buildings. NCB zoning allows two-family
and multifamily residential development, and within the past 10 years, several larger apartment projects have
been constructed along Laurel Street, across from the CSU campus and located within the same zone district
as this proposal.
The Modification of Standard requests are based largely on apparent contradictions in the NCB zoning – i.e.,
that it allows for removal of original houses, if they are not historic landmark-eligible, for replacement by much
larger apartment buildings and parking lots; while it limits new construction to a greater degree when an
existing house is preserved and a detached carriage house is proposed. The applicant suggests that the
latter approach is the most compatible approach to new construction.
18.3
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 3 of 8
Back to Top
2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North South East West
Zoning Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer (NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(NCB)
Land
Use
Single family houses and a
rear yard duplex
Single family houses and
apartment buildings
CSU parking lot and
single family houses
Rear yards and parking
for single family houses
and a rear yard duplex
across the alley
B. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS IN STAFF REVIEW
Staff engaged in extensive consideration and exploration of potential support for the requested Modifications
of Standards, due to the context on this particular block and adjoining blocks. The original historic pattern of
modest houses with generous rear yards and small garages has been altered by 1) re-subdivision of corner
lots, resulting in additional houses in formerly rear yard areas; 2) assembly of lots and removal of houses,
replaced by larger apartment buildings, an office building, and parking lots in the southern portion of the block;
and 3) construction of duplexes in rear yards. A large carriage house in the rear yard of a preserved and
renovated historic landmark could arguably represent one of the more compatible changes that has occurred
and will occur on the block.
Staff review has included extensive discussion with the applicants to reach mutual understanding of both the
NCB standards and the specific proposal. The proposal has evolved in pre-submittal discussions and
throughout the review process. For example, the original Conceptual Review meeting in January 2020 was
for a proposed duplex in the rear yard (which is not a permitted use), followed by extensive exploration of the
idea of two carriage houses, leading to this proposal for a large carriage house requiring modifications to all
size limit standards.
Discussion has highlighted nuances and apparent contradictions in the NCB zone, which have been part of
the applicant’s justifications.
Staff considered the possibility of findings based on modifications serving the purpose of the standards
equally well or better than less-conservation-oriented plans that would meet NCB standards, e.g., demolition
of houses and construction of larger multifamily buildings .
However, historic landmark eligibility would prevent such a plan on the subject property; and this perspective,
i.e., that a more intense plan could meet the standards, has come up in the past but has not been used for
staff findings.
Essentially, the proposed justification is that NCB zoning is not appropriate for its purposes. To the extent
that may be the case, it is not a criterion on which staff can base findings on the carriage house standards.
A Potential Subsequent Development Plan. The consideration of modifications of size limits is separate
from subsequent review of an actual development plan if the modifications are approved. They would
represent maximum size limits; however it is important to be clear that review of the development plan could
involve staff findings regarding design and compatibility that could require reduced building size in order for
staff to recommend approval of the actual development plans.
18.3
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 4 of 8
Back to Top
2. Public Outreach
A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
A neighborhood meeting was not required for this land use, which requires ‘Administrative Review’ and for
which neighborhood meeting requirements are not applicable.
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public comment has been received to-date. Any comments received prior to the hearing will be forwarded
to the hearing officer for consideration.
3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Procedural Requirements
A. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
1. Conceptual Review – CDR200005
A conceptual review meeting for the property was held on January 23, 2020.
2. First Submittal – PDP200002
The first submittal of this modification request was completed on May 22, 2020.
3. Neighborhood Meeting
Not required and not held as noted above.
4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted Sign: June 1, 2020, Sign #546
Written Hearing Notice: June 17, 2020, 107 addresses mailed.
Published Hearing Notice: June 2, 2020 in the Coloradoan newspaper
Hearing notification area (blue shading)
Laurel St. Meldrum St. SITE
18.3
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 5 of 8
Back to Top
4. Land Use Code Article 2 - Staff Analysis of Modifications of Standards
A. STANDARDS SUMMARY
The applicant requests modifications of five standards in Division 4.9, the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer
zone district, in order to enable construction of a carriage house that would be larger than would otherwise be
permitted by the standards. The standards address building footprint, total floor area, floor area in the rear
half of a lot, side wall eave height, and extent of dormers along side walls .
Staff analysis of the request discusses the modification requests together as a single unified request because
they are all inseparable aspects of the larger building construction sought by the applicant.
B. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF MODIFICATIONS
Modifications are governed by Section 2.8.2(H) and are provided here for reference:
“The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification
would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification
is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent
and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city -
wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project
would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in
the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the
strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to
such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness
or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the
strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties
or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this
Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the
entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in
Section 1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings
showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or
(4).”
18.3
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 6 of 8
Back to Top
C. MODIFICATION REQUESTS AND APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION
The specific request comprises five standards as follows:
1. Code Section 4.9(D)(2) limits the total floor area for carriage houses as follows:
“Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal
building shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area.”
The request is for 2,190 square feet.
2. Code Section 4.9(D)(2) also limits the building footprint:
“The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square
feet.”
The request is for 1,570 square feet.
3. Code Section 4.9(D)(5) limits building floor area in the rear half of lots:
“The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the
area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot.” The rear half of the lot is 4,750 square feet; 33
percent of that is 1,583 square feet.
The request is for 2,190 square feet.
4. Code Section 4.9(E)(2) limits side wall eave height in the rear yard:
“The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from
grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable
space.”
The request is for a gabled eave 23 feet high.
5. Code Section 4.9(E)(2) limits dormers, related to the issue of side wall eave height:
“An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two
(2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length.”
The request includes a dormer feature that is 43% of the wall length. It is set back approximately 15
feet.
Applicant’s Justification. The applicant’s justification is attached. Staff’s interpretation is that the request is
based upon the modification criteria in subparagraph 2.8.2(H)(1) above -- “as good or better.”
Staff’s interpretation of the applicant’s key points in the request is summarized as follows:
• The zoning does not fit well with the character of this particular NCB area as it exists and is evolving .
Much of the original neighborhood context has been lost due to redevelopment and infill that alters the
character of this block, as well as adjacent blocks in this NCB area.
• Relatedly, the historic neighborhood context continues to be lost because more of the original houses can
be removed for multifamily development – i.e.,, those houses that are not eligible for landmark designation.
• The proposed approach to infill -- preserving the house and adding floor area in the rear yard – is “as good
or better” than other changes that have occurred and will continue to occur under NCB zoning, for
purposes of the NCB zoning.
• The applicant has noted that the zoning does not prohibit construction of two carriage houses, and the
justification suggests that the requested floor area allowance is similar to two carriage houses.
18.3
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 7 of 8
Back to Top
The application highlights nearby examples of the bullet points above. For example, a recent example is two
doors to the south, 621 S. Meldrum, where the original house was removed and replaced with a new large
multifamily building, which overlooks the subject property as well as the intervening lot, and has a parking lot
in its rear yard. Other examples are noted on the block and adjoining blocks. The request includes photos of
these examples.
Also, on the intervening lot between the 621 S. Meldrum example and the subject property, the owner has
had a Conceptual Review meeting for a proposal to remove the existing house and construct two duplexes,
one behind the other. The second duplex would not be permitted behind the street-facing one under NCB
zoning, and so the proposal connects the two duplexes with a roof over an intervening patio, which changes
the classification to a fourplex, which is permitted. That conceptual proposal for the lot next door is shown on
the last page of the request. No plan has been submitted following the Conceptual Review, but it is an
example of what the NCB zoning permits.
As part of the overall block context, the applicant notes that two other rear yard duplexes exist on the block –
one two doors to the north, and one across the alley , built before the NCB zoning standards were adopted.
The one to the north is a garden level two-story building that faces the neighboring rear yard and has similar
floor area to the proposed floor area.
D. STAFF FINDINGS
Staff finds that the Modifications of Standards would be detrimental to the public good and are not justified
under subparagraph 2.8.2(H)(1) because:
1) The carriage house size and height standards specifically limit the scale of construction in rear yards, with
limits on total size and side walls facing and overlooking neighboring rear yards. The standards result from
thorough public processes and represent an adopted compromise among varied interests. The overall
scale of proposed building as well as the high side walls would introduce construction of a scale that
exceeds the specific limits to a degree that would introduce significant visual and privacy impacts that are
intended to be avoided under the standards.
2) The standards require a scale of construction that is typically subordinate to the original houses which
define the historic character that is intended to be reflected in development projects. The proposed
modifications would allow a building with similar or greater mass than the original houses along the fronts
of lots in the area.
3) To the extent that the proposal may represent compatibility with neighborhood character to a greater
degree than zoning allows for other proposals on other properties, the larger question of whether the NCB
zone standards are appropriate is beyond the scope of review of an individual development pursuant to
the standards as adopted.
4) To the extent that the proposal may represent compatibility with neighborhood character that is equal or
better in comparison to past development prior to the current zoning, it would not be a reason to support
the modifications because the current standards may reflect a community response to past development.
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
18.3
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 8 of 8
Back to Top
In evaluating the request for the 613 South Meldrum Street Modifications of Standards, MOD200001, staff
makes the following findings of fact:
• The modification requests comply with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
• The proposed modifications do not comply with standards in Section 2.8.2(H) and would be
detrimental to the public good due to the extent of departure from the adopted carriage house size
limit standards.
• The extent of the proposed increased size limits does not meet the purposes of the carriage house
size limits standards equally well or better than a compliant plan, regardless of design mitigation of
the size.
6. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny MOD200001 based on the analysis and Findings of
Fact/Conclusion in this Staff Report.
7. Attachments
1. Applicants’ Narrative
18.3
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Modification Request for
613 South Meldrum Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
DIVISION 4.9 - NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION, BUFFER (N-C-B) DISTRICT
IN THE UNIVERSITY NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD
(D) Land Use Standards.
(5) Allowable Floor Area on Rear Half of Lots. The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not
exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot.
In the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B) District, carriage houses are permitted in this zoned
area. They are considered by City of Fort Collins definition as "a single-family detached dwelling,
typically without street frontage, that is located behind a separate, principal dwelling on the same lot,
which fronts on the street" (City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, 5.1.2 – Definitions; adopted amendments
Sept. 3, 2019).
Per the City of Fort Collins Carriage House Development Standards Brochure, the maximum total floor
area, which includes the floor area of the basement (if any), ground floor plus the portion of any second
story having a ceiling height of at least 7 ½ feet, in the N-C-B District is 1,000 sq. ft. with a maximum
building footprint of 600 sq. ft. In March 2019, the N-C-B District Land Use Code was modified to permit
carriage homes on lots less than ten thousand sq. ft. as confirmed by a city planner. Also confirmed in a
conversation with a city planner is that the current Carriage House Development Standards brochure
contains an error in that the basement is not included in the allowable square foot; instead, it is
excluded as well as deck space.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The project requests to construct a carriage home behind an existing single-family structure. The site
(parcel #9714111013) is approximately 1,600 feet west of S. College Avenue and approximately 700 feet
south of W. Mulberry Street. Future access will be taken from S. Meldrum Street. The proposal will
include an additional two garage parking spaces. The property is within the N-C-B District and is an
addition of a Permitted Use application subject to City Council Review.
REASON FOR MODIFICATION REQUEST
The purpose statement for the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B) District states that the
district “is intended for areas that are a transition between residential neighborhoods and more
intensive commercial-use areas or high traffic zones that have been given this designation in accordance
with an adopted subarea plan.”
ATTACHMENT 2
Applicant's Narrative 18.3
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Fort Collin’s demographics are changing, creating a demand for different housing types and a focus on
livability issues. Neighborhoods need to ensure that development contributes to the positive character
of the city, meet the needs of a variety of community members – including those who wish to age in
place - and protect and enhance our historic resources. Likewise, the University North neighborhood
and the 600 block of South Meldrum character, located in the N-C-B District, have evolved, and since the
Land Use Code was adopted initially; however, the same neighborhood goals remain timeless.
This modification is requesting to modify the maximum total floor area allowed for a single carriage
home under the current requirement, which is 1,000 sf. ft. maximum total floor area (600 sq. ft.
maximum footprint) (City of Fort Collins Carriage House Development Standards brochure). The
applicant requests a variance to construct a single Carriage home per plan in Attachment A: 613 S
Meldrum Carriage House 4-23-20, consisting of 1468 sq. ft. of livable sq. ft. above 7’6” above grade, 510
sq. ft. below 7’6”, 730 sq. ft. of garage space and 848 sq. ft. of basement on the rear yard at 613 S.
Meldrum St., Fort Collins, CO 80521. The N-C-B District permits carriage houses, and the proposed
design will be in keeping with the character of the primary home, built in 1910, and continuity of the
neighborhood.
The applicant intends for the enhanced total floor area allowance to construct a single carriage home,
which provides housing in the community and extra storage (e.g., cars, lawn equipment) and accessory
hobby rooms (e.g., fitness, art) for the primary residence, better than a plan that would comply. This
working design (Attachment A: 613 S Meldrum Carriage House 4-23-20) strengthens compatibility
between the proposed new development, the existing primary structure, and the current neighborhood
context. Without the modification, the development would require the construction of two separate
carriage homes, a carriage home and a separate storage building, or a duplex; however, these permitted
options do not complement but compromise the integrity of the primary residence and green space on
the lot.
The applicant understands the Landmark Preservation Commission and have taken code into account on
the plans based on 613 S. Meldrum being identified by the city as a historic resource.
JUSTIFICATION
Fort Collin’s demographics are changing, creating a demand for different housing types and creative
solutions to livability issues. Land Use Standards and zoning restrictions are established by cities to help
provide a framework for growth that maintains property values, supports neighborhood character, and
enhances community livability. Neighborhoods need to ensure that any development contributes to its
positive character, meets the needs of a variety of community members – including those who wish to
age in place - and protects and enhances historic resources. The character of the University North
neighborhood and the 600 block of South Meldrum, located in the N-C-B District, has evolved over time,
and since the Land Use Code originally was adopted; however, the overarching neighborhood goals
remain constant.
18.3
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Once a street lined with single-family homes situated on generous lots, this block now consists of single-
family homes (several considered historic resources, including 613 S. Meldrum) surrounded by multi-
family complexes, a fraternity, a Colorado State University commercial parking lot, and the Church of
Latter-Day Saints facing the street. Several duplexes and an apartment complex line the alley at the rear
of the lot (Attachment B: Visual Context of Neighborhood Block). In 2013, the city approved the
construction of a quadplex at 621 S. Meldrum and, more recently, a conceptual review from Oct. 3,
2019, for a direct neighboring property (617 S. Meldrum, built in 1920) indicates a plan to demolish this
structure to allow for construction of a duplex behind a street-facing building attached by a roof on the
site, essentially another quadplex which does not honor the historic resource buffer (Attachment C:
Proposed Concept for Neighboring 617 S. Meldrum Property).
Furthermore, the proposed site of development, 613 S. Meldrum St., is one block away from Howes St.
and two blocks from Mulberry St. which is zoned as the Downtown District. As the N-C-B District’s
purpose is to provide a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-
use area. The address of this property puts it right on the front line of this transition. This location also
adds to the responsibility of properties to help balance the transition between residence and
commercial use by maintaining a blend of single and multi-family residences, residential and commercial
properties, preserved and new-build structures.
For residents on this block, only two of the homes appear to be owner-occupied, the applicant’s
property and the neighboring property at 609 S. Meldrum; the remainder of the residential population
on the street seems to be renters of college-age. The applicant, property/homeowner of 613 S.
Meldrum, appreciates the vibrancy of the street due to its demographics, proximity to Old Town and the
Colorado State University campus, and its appeal as an age-in-place residence. Additionally, the large lot
and the historic charm of the 1910 home was a draw. Following the purchase of the property, the
applicant has invested additional time, resources, and money to revitalize and restore the home’s
historical features.
However, the family usage of a home in 1910 compared to that of 2020 has evolve. The original
structure lacks a garage for storage of a car and lawn equipment, or adequate space needed to
accommodate equipment for fitness or hobbies. As the lot size is large, the applicant explored various
options to add storage space and a separate line of income from a rental unit that would ease the ability
to age-in-place. This idea was buoyed by the fact that several other properties on the block possess
large duplexes on the rear of their lot, behind the primary residence. As the applicant wishes to only
manage one rental residence onsite while creating extra space for primary residence usage, a duplex like
neighboring properties does not make sense to construct. The applicant then explored carriage houses
as an alternate option. The carriage house concept adheres to the historic resources buffer (concerning
the main house and the neighboring properties), maintains the neighborhood character by preserving
the original primary structure while creating a secondary structure that complements the home and
remains invisible from the street.
18.3
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Through the exploration and idea evolution process, the applicant has engaged city planning staff in
conversation to best achieve city goals and project-specific ones and comply with zoning codes. In
recent discussions, the city expressed concern regarding eave height on the carriage house design, and
the applicant is working to address this.
These conversations with city staff guided the evolution of the project; various explorations include:
• Demolishing the original 1910 structure for new construction, which better accommodates
storage/accessory use needs and a separate carriage house for additional investment or a
duplex.
This idea does not appeal as the historic charm of the home is what led to its purchase.
Additionally, much time and money have already been invested in refreshing the existing
property. Currently, the applicant sees demolition as a last resort.
• Maintaining the original primary structure and constructing a duplex to the rear of the lot.
While permitted, a duplex inhibits real improvement to the property in a reasonable manner as
the applicant does not require two additional fully habitable units. Additionally, this option
causes practical hardship due to the expense of extra infrastructure not reflective of the
project's true scope. This option also significantly reduces green space on the property.
• Maintaining the original primary structure and constructing two new buildings - both carriage
houses or a carriage house/separate storage structure combinations on the rear of the lot.
While permitted, as with the previous duplex option, this design inhibits real improvement to the
property in a reasonable manner as the applicant does not require two additional fully habitable
units. Additionally, this option causes practical hardship due to the expense of extra
infrastructure not reflective of the project's true scope. This option also significantly reduces
green space on the property.
• Constructing an enhanced single carriage house that combines habitable living space and
additional storage/hobby space in one structure.
This design takes up less of the rear lot footprint than other considerations, maintains more
green space, and provides a structure that meets the goals of the development. This option also
keeps design and construction costs in the project's scope, best complements the primary
structure on the property and is in harmony with neighboring properties. This option does not
alter the character of the N-C-B District or University North neighborhood.
The preferred option of an enhanced carriage house, however, is not a permitted use as under current
build codes, a carriage house may not exceed 1,000 sf. ft. maximum total floor area (600 sq. ft.
maximum footprint). Thus, the applicant requests the modification be allowed.
18.3
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
The modification is justified (although not currently permitted) by current Land Use Standards and build
code, including how these standards have been applied to neighboring development projects on the
block over the past decade.
Article 3 – General Development Standards
Division 3.1 – General Provisions
Applicability
Under the Land Use Standards General Provisions, the following section on applicability aligns with the
modification request:
3.1.1 – Applicability
All development applications and building permit applications shall comply with the
applicable standards contained in divisions 3.1 through 3.11 with the following exceptions:
(A) Single-family detached dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses on platted lots
that are subject only to building permit review.
(B) Accessory buildings, structures and accessory uses associated with the single-family
dwellings and extra occupancy rental houses listed in (A) above.
Applications for the development noted in exceptions (A) and (B) above must comply only
with the standards contained in division 3.8; and with respect to extra occupancy rental
houses, the additional standards contained in Section 3.2.2(k)(1)(j).
Existing Development. In addition to the foregoing, this Land Use Code shall continue to
apply to ongoing use of land in completed developments to the extent that the
provisions of this Land Use Code can be reasonably and logically interpreted as having
such ongoing application.
(Ord. No. 59, 2000 §11, 6/6/00; Ord. No. 204, 2001 §§1, 11, 12/18/01; Ord. No. 120,
2003 §1, 9/2/03; Ord. No. 198, 2004 §3, 12/21/04; Ord. 123, 2005 §3, 11/15/05; Ord.
104, 2006 §12, 7/18/06; Ord. No. 063, 2018 , §6, 6/5/18; Ord. No. 077, 2019 , §5,
7/16/19)
Division 3.4 – Environmental, Natural Area, Recreational and Cultural Resource Protection Standards
Historic Resource
As the applicant’s primary structure was built in 1910 and identified by the city as a historic resource,
the following sections align with the modification request:
3.4.7 – Historic and Cultural Resources
(A) Purpose
(1) The purpose of this Section is to ensure that proposed development is compatible
with and protects historic resources by ensuring that:
(a) Historic resources on a development site are preserved, adaptively reused, and
incorporated into the proposed development;
18.3
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
(b) Development does not adversely affect the integrity of historic resources on
nearby property within the area of adjacency surrounding a development site;
and
(c) The design of new structures and site plans are compatible with and protect the
integrity of historic resources located within a development site and within the
area of adjacency surrounding a development site.
(2) To accomplish its purpose, this Section provides:
(a) The requirements for the treatment of historic resources located on a
development site; and
(b) The standards for design compatibility between proposed development and
historic resources on a development site and within the delineated area of
adjacency surrounding a development site.
(c) This Section is intended to work in conjunction with the standards for the
treatment of historic resources set forth in Chapter 14 of the Fort Collins
Municipal Code and any relevant adopted standards for historic resources.
In Fort Collins, a historic resource is “any resource (a building, structure, object, or site) that has
importance to the past for association with important history, culture, or design…Buildings and other
resources that help tell the story of a historic district are considered ‘contributing’ to that district and are
integral pieces of the larger historic story.” Maren Bzdek, with the Historic Preservation Department
identified the primary structure at 613 S. Meldrum as a “historic resource.” The property is also eligible
for landmark status; however, the applicant is not pursuing that designation at this time.
As stated earlier in the request, the applicant purchased the property because of its 1910 historic charm
and has invested significant time, resources, and funds into preserving the property. Additionally, the
applicant is working with an architect to design a carriage house that is compatible in design and size so
as not to impact the integrity of the primary structure adversely.
Approving this modification will support the city’s desire to ensure that this historic resource remains in
the N-C-B District, supporting the neighborhood character, while also providing the site to be adaptively
“reused.” The addition of an enhanced carriage house will support both historic resource and
contemporary usage needs.
(B) Historic Resources on the Development Site and within the Area of Adjacency.
(1) As used in this Section, the area of adjacency shall mean an area, the outer
boundary of which is two hundred (200) feet in all directions from the perimeter of
the development site. Any lot or parcel of property shall be considered within the
area of adjacency if any portion of such lot or parcel is within the two hundred (200)
foot outer boundary.
(2) Historic preservation staff shall identify as expeditiously as possible the historic
resources on the development site and within the area of adjacency to be used for
application of the design standards contained in below Subsection (E), Design
18.3
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Requirements for a Proposed Development, and provide a list of such resources to
the applicant. The procedure for identifying the relevant historic resources shall be
as follows:
(a) The location of the following shall be identified within the area of adjacency:
1. Any historic resource; and
2. Any building, site, structure, and object that requires evaluation as to
whether it is eligible for Fort Collins landmark designation and, therefore,
qualifies as a historic resource.
(b) All historic resources on the development site shall be identified and the
procedure in below Subsection (C)(1) shall be completed if necessary.
(c) Any building, site, structure, or object requiring evaluation shall be reviewed for
eligibility for Fort Collins landmark designation pursuant to below Subsection
(C)(2).
(d) Any historic resource identified in above steps (a), (b), or (c) shall be the historic
resources utilized as the basis for applying Subsection (E). Identified historic
resources on the development site and within the area of adjacency shall be
classified as follows for purposes of applying the design standards set forth in
the below Subsection (E):
1. Historic resources on the development site, or abutting or on the other side of
a side alley that abuts the development site; and
2. All other historic resources.
(e) The historic comparison boundary shall be established at two hundred (200) feet
in all directions from the perimeter of each identified historic resource except
those located on the development site. The historic influence area formed by the
overlapping area between the outer boundary of the development site and the
historic comparison boundary is the area within which the standards in below
Subsection (E) apply to any new construction proposed within such area.
(f) The historic influence area for any historic resource located on the development
site shall be the entire development site.
Example of Area of Adjacency, Historic Comparison Boundary, and Historic Influence Area
18.3
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
(3) The historic preservation staff determination pursuant to this Section of the historic
resources relevant to the application of the design standards set forth in below
Subsection (E) is not subject to appeal. Notwithstanding, eligibility determinations
pursuant to below Subsection (C)(1) are subject to appeal pursuant to Fort Collins
Municipal Code Section 14-23.
Additionally, Maren Bzdek stated that the abutting property, 609 S. Meldrum, is also a historic resource
and eligible for historic landmark status. A historic comparison boundary is to be “established at two
hundred (200) feet in all directions from the perimeter of each identified historic resource except those
located on the development site.”
Contrary to the description cited above, the neighboring property at 605 S. Meldrum has a duplex
constructed on the rear lot, which does not align architecturally with the historic character of other
properties within the historic boundary comparison. Attachment B: Context of the Neighborhood Block
illustrates that multiple buildings have been developed within 100 feet of the properties at 613 and 609
S. Meldrum St. which do not maintain a compatible design with these historic resources. However, these
buildings now also contribute to the character of the neighborhood. The city has permitted the
construction of duplexes and quadplexes within the boundary of these historic resources, which
demonstrates precedence in veering from the Land Use Standards in the N-C-B District.
Unlike these multi-family developments, the applicant proposes a structure that aligns with efforts to
preserve what remains of the historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed design of an
enhanced carriage house provides cohesiveness to not only the primary structure but an appropriate
design to the abutting historic 609 S. Meldrum as well. The modification to allow the carriage home to
increase its total floor area also aligns the plan with the character of newer developments in the
neighborhood.
Article 4 – Districts
Division 4.9 – Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B) District
Permitted Uses
Several options for permitted residential use are outlined in the context of the N-C-B District’s Land Use
Standards. In particular, the following sections align with the modification request:
(2) The following uses are permitted in the N-C-B District, subject to administrative review:
(a) Residential Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwellings when there is more than one (1) principal building
on the lot and/or when the lot has only alley frontage.
18.3
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
2. Two-family dwellings when there is more than one (1) principal building on the lot,
provided that such two-family dwelling is located within a street-fronting principal
building.
(3) The following uses are permitted, subject to Planning and Zoning Board review:
(a) Residential Uses:
2. Single-family attached dwellings
4. Mixed-use dwellings which are combined with any other use subject to
Planning and Zoning Board review.
As stated earlier in the request, there is a need in Fort Collins to find a variety of housing options that
add to neighborhood livability and character. The cited permitted uses allow for multiple dwellings on a
single lot within the N-C-B District. The applicant’s property has an existing single-family, principal
building on the lot and space available at the rear of the lot, which has remained undeveloped and
possesses alley frontage for access. A second structure – such as the proposed enhanced carriage house
- could easily subscribe to these parameters, including consideration as a mixed-use dwelling (single-
family dwelling with additional storage space). The applicant recognizes that the permitted uses within
the cited section are subject to either administrative or Planning and Zoning Board review.
The applicant also wishes to highlight that the block consists of duplexes and a quadplex, both
constructed in recent years. While each of these structures is a permitted use, the duplexes possess
larger footprints than the applicant's proposed modification for an enhanced carriage house. This
requirement presents a hardship for the applicant by inhibiting the ability to improve the property with
a right-sized design.
City Plan
This modification request is further justified through the City Plan, unanimously adopted by City Council
on April 16, 2019. The City Plan outlines important community values and provides an aspirational vision
for the future. The Principles and Policies, Structure Plan, and Implementation and Monitoring sections
of the document provide further support that this modification aligns with the city’s vision and core
values.
Principles and Policies
First, the 2019 City Plan identifies Livability as a core value establishing an overall policy foundation and
a reference as questions arise. In particular, the following Livability outcome areas align with the
modification request:
• Principle LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community
grows.
o Policy LIV 3.4 – Design Standards and Guidelines: Maintain a robust set of citywide
design standards as part of the City’s Land Use Code to ensure a flexible, yet predictable,
18.3
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
level of quality for future development that advances the community’s sustainability
goals, e.g., climate action. Continue to develop and adopt location-specific standards or
guidelines where unique characteristics exist to promote the compatibility of infill
redevelopment.
o Policy LIV 3.5 – Distinctive Design: Require the adaptation of standardized corporate
architecture to reflect local values and ensure that the community’s appearance remains
unique. Development should not consist solely of repetitive design that may be found in
other communities.
o Policy LIV 3.6 - Context-Sensitive Development: Ensure that all development contributes
to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials, architectural
details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should
be tailored to the surrounding area.
• Principle LIV 4: Enhance neighborhood livability.
o Policy LIV 4.2 - Compatibility of Adjacent Development: Ensure that development that
occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive qualities of existing
neighborhoods. Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage with an
existing neighborhood should promote compatibility by:
▪ Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve access to services
and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood;
▪ Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size,
scale and materials); and
▪ Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods—
such as noise and traffic—will be minimized.
Policies LIV 3.4, 3.5 and 3.5, along with LIV 4.2, identify the goal for development to be context-
sensitive, avoid repetitive design, and work with location-specific standards to promote utilization of un-
developed infill property. The rear lot at 613 S. Meldrum offers an opportunity build a develop an
enhanced carriage house that is sensitive to the historic and changing character of the neighborhood.
This structure also avoids cookie-cutter design through an architectural design which supports the
unique characteristics of the primary structure. This use would also promote infill utilization of a
previously undeveloped property.
• Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for housing choices
o Policy LIV 5.6 - Existing Neighborhoods: Expand housing options in existing
neighborhoods (where permitted by underlying zoning) by encouraging:
▪ Infill development on vacant and underutilized lots; » Internal ADUs such as
basement or upstairs apartments;
▪ Detached ADUs on lots of sufficient size; and
▪ Duplexes, townhomes or other alternatives to detached single-family homes that
are compatible with the scale and mass of adjacent properties.
18.3
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Policies LIV 5 promotes the desire creative housing solutions that expand options in existing
neighborhoods like the N-C-B District. The policy calls for infill development on unutilized lots and for
detached alternative housing solutions that are a compatible with adjacent properties. As stated before,
the modification would align with both the context of the historic main property as well as adjacent
duplexes on the block. This development would serve as both additional single-family housing, as well as
be a creative solution for storage and accessory space needs of the primary structure.
• Principle LIV 6: Improve access to housing that meets the needs of residents regardless of their
race, ethnicity, income, age, ability or background.
o Policy LIV 6.5 – Aging in Place: Retain attainable housing options in existing
neighborhoods so residents can “age in place.”
Policy 6.5 recommends development provide opportunities to age-in-place. As the applicant wishes to
retire while living in the primary structure, the enhanced carriage house modification would provide a
residence which allows the applicant to do so in this neighborhood, while also maintaining an ongoing
income stream from the rental unit.
• Principle LIV 10: Recognize, protect and enhance historic resources.
o Policy LIV 10.1 – Identify Historic Resources: Determine through survey techniques what
historic resources exist within the GMA; how significant these resources are; the nature
and degree of threat to their preservation; and methods for their protection.
o Policy LIV 10.2 – Preserve Historic Resources: Preserve historically significant buildings,
sites and structures throughout Downtown and the community. Ensure that new
construction respects the existing architectural character of the surrounding historic
resources without artificially duplicating historic elements.
o Policy LIV 10.5 – Planning and Enforcement: Recognize the contribution of historic
resources to the quality of life in Fort Collins through ongoing planning efforts and
enforcement of regulations.
Finally, the policies listed under Principle LIV 10 states a need to identify and preserve historic resources.
Addressed in an earlier section, allowance of the modification to the size of the carriage house supports
both the preservation of this historic resources and its vital role in maintaining this history as part of the
neighborhood’s character.
Structure Plan
The city’s Structure Plan (City Plan, pages 47) provides direction on a growth framework, the how and
where different areas of the community may change or grow in the future. This section of the City Plan
is a tool for city staff to evaluate and make decisions regarding the location, intensity and design of
future development, including infill development.
Per the Structure Plan, the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B) District is identified as a Mixed
Neighborhood. The primary home, and site of the proposed carriage home development, is at 613 S.
18.3
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Meldrum St.; this site is a block away from Howes St. and two blocks from Mulberry St. which is
identified in the plan as a Downtown neighborhood. As referenced earlier, the N-C-B District’s purpose is
to provide a transition between residential neighborhoods and more intensive commercial-use area. The
address of this property puts it right on the front line of this transition.
The Mixed Neighborhood has a Principal Land Use of single-family detached homes, duplexes, triplexes
and townhomes with a Supporting Land Use of ADUs, small-scale multifamily buildings, retail,
restaurants/cafes, community and public facilities, parks and recreational facilities, school, places of
worship. Key characteristics/considerations for existing neighborhoods, such as University North
include:
• While many existing Mixed-Neighborhoods may consist predominantly of single-family detached
homes today, opportunities to incorporate ADUs or other attached housing options of a
compatible scale and intensity may be feasible in some locations.
• The introduction of larger townhome or multifamily developments into existing single-family
neighborhoods should generally be limited to edge or corner parcels that abut and/or are
oriented toward arterial streets or an adjacent Neighborhood Mixed-Use District where transit
and other services and amenities are available.
• Where townhomes or multifamily buildings are proposed in an existing neighborhood context, a
transition in building height, massing and form should be required along the shared property line
or street frontage.
• As existing neighborhoods change and evolve over time, rezoning of some areas may be
appropriate when paired with a subarea or neighborhood planning initiative. See the Priority
Place Types discussion on page 107 for more details about changes in existing neighborhoods
over time.
Additionally, the Structure Plan states that opportunities for Mixed Neighborhoods include diversifying
housing options in existing neighborhoods based on the age and condition of existing homes and lot
sizes. Additional considerations shared detailed a need to reinvest in existing neighborhoods and
provide more housing alternatives.
Implementation and Monitoring
Finally, the 2019 City Plan identifies performance measurements to track outcomes tied to the plan’s
Policy and Principles in its Implementation and Monitoring section. The following dashboard
strategies/measurements further justify granting the modification request:
• Principle LIV 2: Promote Infill and redevelopment.
o Strategy LIV-2a: Review and update the Land Use Code as needed to align with the place
types established in the Stricture Plan.
• Principle LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community
grows.
o Strategy LIV-3c: Identify locations within the community in the need of neighborhood or
subarea planning to address area-specific issues and opportunities.
18.3
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
• Principle LIV 4: Enhance neighborhood livability.
o Strategy LIV-4a: Develop and adopt updated design standards to address transitions
between areas desired for intensification and existing neighborhoods.
o Strategy LIV-4d: Explore developing a conditional use permit process to allow for a
greater range of compatible uses.
• Principle LIV 5: Create more opportunities for range of housing choices.
o Strategy LIV-5a: Conduct an evaluation and community dialogue with existing
neighborhoods to determine the feasibility of and reasonable requirements for
expanding allowances of attached/detached ADUs, duplexes, or other housing options.
Consider factors such as lot size, age and condition of exiting housing stock, long-term
attainability, proximity to services and amenities, and level of community support.
o Strategy LIV-5b: Update development standards to require or encourage the inclusion of
greater range of housing product types.
• Principle LIV 10: Recognize, protect and enhance historic resources.
o Strategy LIV-10d: Reevaluate the design, development and demolition review processes
to increase consistency and predictability.
o Strategy LIV-10e: Consider codifying general compatibility standards for new
construction. Clarify the role of the adopted design guidelines and standards and
develop guidelines for additional districts or general guidelines.
As shared in previous section related to the Livability Principle, allowance of this modification supports
each of these strategies to achieve the principle’s goal. The enhanced carriage house provides an
opportunity to address infill development and transitional needs of the neighborhood, which itself is
defined as a transition between downtown and more residential neighborhoods. The design creates an
opportunity for a diverse housing options as it serves as additional housing and as support to the
primary structure. It is also designed to support the historic character of the primary structure and
surrounding properties.
In conclusion, the City of Fort Collin’s demographics are changing, which creates a demand for different
housing types and a focus on solving livability issues. Property owners are adapting remodel and
development plans to enhance neighborhood livability and compatibility. The goal for the development
of the property at 613 S. Meldrum is to construct a right-sized carriage home that provides an additional
housing unit and accessory space for the primary residence in a single design that keeps with the
character of the primary home and continuity of the neighborhood.
By allowing this development to proceed with an enhanced maximum total floor area, the city will fill a
need to help grow the property, and the neighborhood, in a way that is orderly and serves the public
interests of enhancing historic resources and neighborhood livability, while supporting City Plan
principles and policies. Strict compliance with the current Land Use Standard regarding carriage houses
in the N-B-C- District inhibits improvement of the property in a reasonable manner that is consistent
with other properties in the area. Such compliance would cause practical hardship due to the expense of
18.3
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
additional infrastructure, which permitted alternatives cost considering the scope of the project. These
permitted options make it more feasible, although less desirable, to demolish the historic resource of
the 1910 built property. In contrast, the city will meet the purpose of the N-B-C- District equally well or
better by allowing this modification.
18.3
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Attachment A: 613 S Meldrum Carriage House 4-23-20
18.3
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.3
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.3
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Attachment B: Context of Neighborhood Block
The applicant’s property,
located at 613 S. Meldrum St.
613 S. Meldrum St. (Picture 2),
illustrates proximity to 617 S.
Meldrum St. which is planned
for demolition (see Attachment
C for Proposed Concept Plan)
18.3
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.3
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.3
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.3
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.3
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.3
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.3
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Attachment C: Proposed Concept for Neighboring 617 S. Meldrum Property
18.3
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Staff Report to Hearing Officer - July 1, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
ATTACHMENT 4
Staff Presentation to the
Administrative Hearing
Officer,
July 1, 2020
18.4
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Contact InformationCity Staff Information:Clark Mapes, AICPCity PlannerT: 970.221.6225 cmapes@fcgov.comLeslie SpencerCommunity Development970.416.4288lspencer@fcgov.comPlease give Leslie your name and address to receive the decision report.1Alyssa StephensNeighborhood Development Liaison970.224.6076 astephens@fcgov.comPlease contact Alyssa with any technical questions.18.4Packet Pg. 323Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
2613 Meldrum Carriage House – Modification of StandardsClark Mapes, City PlannerJuly 1, 202018.4Packet Pg. 324Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Hearing AuthorityAs required by City Council Ordinance No. 079, 2020, a determinationhas been made that it is desirable to conduct a remote hearing toprovide reasonably available participation by parties-in-interest andthepublic, because meeting in person would not beprudent.318.4Packet Pg. 325Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
4During the hearing:• You will join the meeting and be automatically muted. Your video feed will not be on.• Use the "raise hand" button to let us know you would like to speak. City staff will call on you and unmute you when it’s your turn.• If you are joining by phone, dial *9 to raise your hand and press *6 to unmute yourself in Zoom (you may still need to unmute your phone) .• Please state your name and address when you speak, so we can send you the decision report. OR,• If you prefer, email your name and address to lspencer@fcgov.com.• If you experience technical issues and need assistance during the hearing, please contact:Alyssa Stephens, Neighborhood Development Liaison, at astephens@fcgov.comor 970.224.6076.18.4Packet Pg. 326Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
5Order of Proceedings1.Project Introduction (staff)2.Applicant Presentation3.Staff Presentation4.Staff Response to Applicant Presentation5.Public Testimony6.Applicant Response 7.Staff Response8.Decision• Within 10 business days, Hearing Officer issues written decision• May approve, approve with conditions, or deny the development application9. Decision is mailed to applicant and any person who provided testimony at public hearing10. Appeal Process• Appeals are filed with the City Clerk’s Office• Written appeal must be received within 14 calendar days of the decision• Filing fee of $100.00• City Clerk will schedule appeal for City Council18.4Packet Pg. 327Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.4Packet Pg. 328Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Contact InformationCity Staff Information:Clark Mapes, AICPCity PlannerT: 970.221.6225 cmapes@fcgov.comLeslie SpencerCommunity Development970.416.4288lspencer@fcgov.comPlease give Leslie your name and address to receive the decision report.7Alyssa StephensNeighborhood Development Liaison970.224.6076 astephens@fcgov.comPlease contact Alyssa with any technical questions.18.4Packet Pg. 329Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Proposal Overview8Location18.4Packet Pg. 330Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
S. Sherwood St.Looking EAST Over the Rear Yard18.4Packet Pg. 331Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Proposal Overview10LocationSubject Zoning Standard Modified RequestBuilding Footprint600 sq. ft.(max) 1,570 sq. ft.Total Floor Area1,000 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.Floor Area in Rear Half of Lot1,583 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.Eave Height Along Side Lot Line13 feet (max) 23 feetWidth of Dormers Along Side Lot Line25% of side wall length (max)43% of side wall length18.4Packet Pg. 332Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
S. Sherwood St.Looking EAST Over the Rear Yard18.4Packet Pg. 333Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
AlleyLooking EAST Over the Rear Yard18.4Packet Pg. 334Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
13Looking WEST Over the Front YardAlley18.4Packet Pg. 335Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
(Laurel Street)Myrtle St.Sherwood St.
Meldrum St.18.4Packet Pg. 336Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Modification“The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) “as good or better” in achieving the general purpose of the standard than a plan which complies; or(2) “alleviate a defined community need”(3) “unusual or exceptional physical hardship”; or(4) “the plan will not diverge from the standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.Land Use Code Modification Criteria 18.4Packet Pg. 337Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
1.2.2 - PurposeThe purpose of this Code is to improve and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:(A) ensuring that all growth and development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan and its adopted components.(B) encouraging innovations in land development and renewal.(C) fostering the safe, efficient and economic use of land, transportation infrastructure, and other public facilities and services.(D) facilitating and ensuring the provision of adequate public facilities and services such as transportation.(E) avoiding the inappropriate development of lands and providing for adequate drainage and reduction of flood damage.(F) encouraging patterns of land use which decrease trip length of automobile travel and encourage trip consolidation.(G) increasing public access to mass transit, sidewalks, trails, bicycle routes and other alternative modes of transportation.(H) reducing energy consumption and demand.(I) minimizing the adverse environmental impacts of development.(J) improving the design, quality and character of new development.(K) fostering a more rational pattern of relationship among residential, business and industrial uses for the mutual benefit of all.(L) encouraging the development of vacant properties within established areas.M) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods.(N) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to natural areas and features.(O) encouraging a wide variety of housing opportunities at various densities that are well-served by public transportation for people of all ages and abilities.18.4Packet Pg. 338Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Modification18.4Packet Pg. 339Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Modification18.4Packet Pg. 340Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Modification18.4Packet Pg. 341Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Staff Findings20…detrimental to the public good and not justified under 2.8.2(H)(1) because:1) Specific limits on scale of construction in rear yards; total size and side walls facing/overlooking neighboring rear yards. Limits based on thorough public processes and compromise among varied interests. The overall scale and walls would introduce significant visual and privacy impacts that are intended to be avoided under the standards.1) The standards require a scale of construction that is typically subordinate to the original houses which define the historic character that is intended to be reflected in development projects. The proposed modifications would allow similar or greater mass than the original houses in the area.1) To the extent that the proposal may represent compatibility with neighborhood character to a greater degree than zoning allows for other proposals on other properties, that larger question of whether the NCB zone standards are appropriate is beyond the scope of review of an individual development pursuant to the standards as adopted. 1) To the extent that the proposal may represent compatibility with neighborhood character that is equal or better in comparison to pastdevelopment prior to the current zoning, it would not be a reason to support the modifications because the current standards may reflect a community response to past development.18.4Packet Pg. 342Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Staff Findings/ConclusionStaff recommends denial of the Request for Modifications, MOD 2000012118.4Packet Pg. 343Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.4Packet Pg. 344Attachment: Staff Presentation to Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
ATTACHMENT 5
Correspondence provided to
the Administrative Hearing
Officer before the
July 1, 2020 Hearing
18.5
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
613 S. Meldrum Administrative Hearing - Modifications of Standards for a ‘Carriage House’
List of Citizens who provided written comments before the hearing
1. Rayne Martin Architect no address given
2. Colin Christensen 609 S. Meldrum St. Fort Collins
3. Caroline Tuttle 617 S. Meldrum St. Fort Collins
18.5
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Hi Jeff,
The demolition review and public posting process that we use for a proposed new single-family
detached residence is found here: https://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/demolition-review.
Assuming you have approved plans to build a new single-family dwelling that is not subject to the land
use code (see 3.1.1), and the property has been fully documented through an intensive-level survey, we
would sign off on the demolition permit. However, it does include the possibility of a proposed landmark
designation to prevent demolition by 3 or more members of the community, which would have to occur
during the public posting period. That situation occurs only rarely, and City Council would be the
decision maker if such a request were to come forward.
Thanks,
Maren
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAREN BZDEK
970-221-6206 office
mbzdek@fcgov.com
From: japalomo@comcast.net <japalomo@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 1:32 PM
To: Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>; Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: RE: 1925 map
Hi Maren,
Thank you for your quick reply, information, and narrative. I assumed this a possibility, so I appreciate
the clarification, and agree that building onto the existing home is not my preferred option (although an
option nonetheless). My partner and I would rather preserve the historic home as-is and create the
additional living space we and potential future homeowners need in the proposed carriage house.
I also understand size and scale considerations and think we all agree this certainly was not honored in
other developments in this neighborhood in the past - hence, my application for modification. To that
point, this property is in a transitional (NCB) zone. The attic in the existing home is substantial and
primary home height is greater than that I proposed on back lot structure; I feel it would certainly appear
subordinate. As shared in my application, I’m certain the proposed carriage home would not even be
visible from the street.
That aside, I continue to consider all possibilities should my modification request be denied, ev en
demolishing and creating from scratch. This would certainly be my last option; however, can you confirm
that property labeled a ‘historic resource’ does not preclude it from demolition as an option? Hopefully, I
get approved with my preferred option and all this moot, but I continue to seek information that allows me
to keep all options on the table as I choose the best path forward so as not to waste more time and
money. Particularly should the modification request be denied.
Let me know.
Thanks,
Jeff
18.5
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
From: Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 5:01 PM
To: japalomo@comcast.net; Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: 1925 map
Jeff,
Typically, it is easier to get approval under the historic review standards for new construction that is not
attached to the original structure, just because creating that attachment impacts the original building
form and materials and will often bring the new construction close enough to be more visible from the
street. However, additions on the rear are definitely possible and successful recent examples that meet
our current code requirements use a “hyphenation” technique that creates a connecting element
between the original building and new construction, minimizes how much you need to cut into the rear
elevation, and preserves the original building form and roofline. So picture a passageway of sorts that
can have a variety of functions, perhaps connected through an existing rear opening as closely as
possible to preserve most of the rear elevation.
Do note that, like new construction anywhere on the site, there is this idea for additions to historic
buildings of “sensitive and subordinate” in terms of design character, massing, and placement. With that
principle in mind, there are several ways to add square footage to a historic property, but sticking points
in that conversation are often centered on size/scale of the new construction.
I think it is something you could look into for your property, although it would be less preferable than a
smaller carriage house than what you are showing now, so that would be another option we would
encourage you to consider.
Also, an addition to your single-family historic home that meets lot coverage requirements, since it is
not a historic landmark, would not require the application of the 3.4.7 standards because that would not
fall under the land use code. The principles I have highlighted above would only be regulated by Historic
Preservation if the land use code were otherwise triggered, as is the case with adding a carriage house.
Hope this helps!
Maren
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAREN BZDEK
970-221-6206 office
mbzdek@fcgov.com
From: japalomo@comcast.net <japalomo@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:48 PM
To: Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com>; Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: RE: 1925 map
Less preferred of course, but just want to consider all options. At some point I have to get results on the
money I’m spending!
18.5
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
From: Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:41 PM
To: japalomo@comcast.net; Maren Bzdek <mbzdek@fcgov.com>
Subject: RE: RE: 1925 map
Now THAT I have seen. Maren, what are chances of an addition on the back?
Clark Mapes
City of Fort Collins
Planning
cmapes@fcgov.comNow
970-221-6225
Tell us about our service, we want to know!
From: japalomo@comcast.net <japalomo@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: 1925 map
Another option I had thought of was expanding the back of the home in addition to a carriage and
accessory building to try and achieve desired rooms and purpose. I see that some historic homes have
done so, in particular the one on corner of college and mulberry.
From: Clark Mapes <CMAPES@fcgov.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:21 PM
To: japalomo@comcast.net
Subject: 1925 map
Hello, regardless of what happens with your proposals, I thought you might be interested to see these
1925 map images from an old archive. No agenda here, just interesting to see the original development.
18.5
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
June 26, 2020
To: Clark Mapes, City of Fort Collins Planning Department
RE: 613 S. Meldrum
Dear Mr. Mapes,
I am writing to you in support of the Development Modification Request at 613 S. Meldrum, Fort
Collins, CO. When I began working with Jeff Paloma, we discussed the design of a carriage house to be
built to the rear of the property. We began with some concept drawings, and adapted them to adhere to
the Design Standards of the City of Fort Collins.
As the design evolved, It became clear that the additional enclosed space would be required.
One option was a duplex, which was quickly dismissed as, it would not be keeping in the character of the
existing home. A second option for an additional accessory building was looked at. While this option
presented some promise as it provided the additional room, it was determined that the most efficient use of
space would be to enlarge the single carriage home.
I believe this is the best option because it combines the quiantness of the carriage home, and the
flexibility of a comfortable sized space. It will also allow for better landscaping between the buildings,
that would have been broken up by the presence of a thrid structure.
As the archtectural designer of other carriage homes within the City, I am coffident that should
the request be granted, this home will be an attractive and harmonious addition to the character of the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Rayne Martin
Rainbird Design
RAYNE MARTIN
raynebyrd@gmail.com
1.970.690.1433 US
+44 7444 584055 UK
AAAIIINNNBBBIIIRRRDDD
Design
18.5
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Colin Christensen (cell) 914-325-6337
CBC Construction Corp.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Colin Christensen <Colin.B.Christensen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:52 PM
Subject: 613 S.Meldrum Rd, Fort Collins
To: <CMAPES@fcgov.com>
Clark,
I am the current owner of 609 S.Meldrum Rd, Fort Collins. Our adjacent neighbor, Jeff Palomo, shared
with my wife and I his Application for Modification Request at 613 S.Meldrum. He explained the project
to us and we are aware of the elements of this request. I am writing to let you know that we take no
exception to his plans and fully support the request.
We are particularly pleased to see he is maintaining the architectural and historical character of the
property. Unlike many of the surrounding properties that have much more substantial structures which
bear no resemblance to the original neighborhood, we believe Jeff's request helps protect and enhance
the historical character of the original community.
We hope you find our support helpful in your review of Jeff & Denise's request.
Thank you
Colin Christensen
18.5
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
From:Caroline Tuttle
To:Clark Mapes
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 613 S Meldrum
Date:Thursday, June 25, 2020 4:55:52 PM
Good afternoon Clark,
Jeff and Denise have shared their challenges with the approval of their architectural plans and we
are reaching out to let you know that we strongly support what they are hoping to do to the
property. We really appreciate their effort to thoughtfully preserve the historical appearance of the
original house, while creating more livable space for themselves and also trying to allow for more
affordable housing in the back. We believe that their plans would not negatively impact the
character of the neighborhood, unlike the neighboring building to our south.
Thanks for taking our support into consideration as you make a decision!
Sincerely,
Caroline and Nick
617 S Meldrum St
(512)517-3834
18.5
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
1
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6689
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com
January 24, 2020
Jeff Palomo
Fort Collins, CO
Re: 613 S. Meldrum Duplex
Description of project: This is a request to construct a duplex behind an existing
single-family structure. The site (parcel #9714111013) is approximately 1,600 feet west of
S. College Avenue and approximately 700 feet south of W. Mulberry Street. Future access
will be taken from S. Meldrum Street. The proposal includes 2 on -site parking spaces. The
property is within the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District (N-C-B) zone district and
is an Addition of a Permitted Use application subject to City Council Review.
Please see the following summary of comments regarding 613 S. Meldrum Duplex. The
comments offered informally by staff during the Conceptual Review will assist you in preparing
the detailed components of the project application. Modifications and additions to these
comments may be made at the time of formal review of this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments or the next steps in the review process, please contact your
Development Review Coordinator, Tenae Beane via phone at 970-224-6119 or via email at
tbeane@fcgov.com.
Comment Summary
Development Review Coordinator
Contact: Tenae Beane, 970-224-6119, tbeane@fcgov.com
1. I will be your primary point of contact throughout the development review and permitting
process. If you have any questions, need additional meetings with the project reviewers, or
need assistance throughout the process, please let me know and I can assist you and your
team. Please include me in all email correspondence with other reviewers and keep me
informed of any phone conversations.
2. The proposed development project is subject to an Addition of Permitted Use process.
The decision maker for your project will be City Council at a public hearing. Prior to City
Council, the Planning & Zoning Board will make a recommendation on the project to City Council.
For both hearings, we will formally notify surrounding property owners within 800 feet (excluding public
right-of-way and publicly owned open space). A neighborhood meeting is required at least
10 days prior to formal submittal of a development review application. For the
18.5
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
2
neighborhood meeting, we will formally invite surrounding neighbors to attend the meeting.
Neighborhood meetings offer an informal way to get feedback from surrounding neighbors,
identify any potential concerns prior to the formal hearing, and are an opportunity for you to
share your development proposal. The assigned Planner and the City’s Development
Review Liaison will help facilitate the meeting. Please contact me, your Dev elopment
Review Coordinator, to assist you in setting a date, time, and location.
3. I will provide you a roadmap specific to your development review project, helping to identify
each step of the process. For more detailed process information, see the Development
Review Guide at www.fcgov.com/drg . This online guide features a color coded flowchart
with comprehensive, easy to read information on each step in the process. This guide
includes links to just about every resource you need during development review.
4. I will provide a Project Submittal Checklist to assist in your submittal preparation. Please
use the checklist in conjunction with the Submittal Requirements located at:
http://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php.
The checklist provided is specific to this Conceptual project; if there are any significant
changes to this project, please let me know so we can adjust the checklist accordingly. I
can send an updated copy of the Submittal Checklist to ensure you are submitting the
correct materials.
5. As part of your submittal you will respond to the comments provided in this letter. This letter
is provided to you in Microsoft Word format. Please use this document to insert responses
to each comment for your submittal, using a different font color. When replying to the
comment letter please be detailed in your responses, as all comments should be
thoroughly addressed. Provide reference to specific project plans or explanations of why
comments have not been addressed, when applicable.
6. The request will be subject to the Development Review Fee Schedule:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/fees.php
I will provide estimated fees, which are due at time of project submittal for formal review.
This is an estimate of the initial fees to begin the development review process based on
your Conceptual Review Application. As noted in the comments, there are additional fees
required by other departments, and additional fees at the time of building permit. The City
of Fort Collins fee schedule is subject to change - please confirm these estimates before
submitting. If you have any questions about fees, please reach out to me.
7. Submittals are accepted any day of the week, with Wednesday at noon being the cut-off for
routing the same week. Upon initial submittal, your project will be subject to a
completeness review. Staff has until noon that Friday to determine if the project contains all
required checklist items and is sufficient for a round of review. If complete, a formal Letter
of Acceptance will be emailed to you and the project would be officially routed with a
three-week round of review, followed by a formal meeting.
8. When you are ready to submit your formal plans, please make an appointment with me at
least 24 hours in advance. Applications and plans are submitted electronically in person
with initial fees.
Pre-submittal meetings can be beneficial to ensure you ha ve everything for a complete
submittal. Please reach out and I will assist in those arrangements.
18.5
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
3
Planning Services
Contact: Clark Mapes, 970-221-6225, cmapes@fcgov.com
1. As we discussed by phone, the Addition of a Permitted Use process in code Section
1.3.4 allows an applicant to "submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the
understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level of review, with close
attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation. This process is intended to
allow for consideration of unforeseen uses and unique circumstances on specific parcels
with evaluation based on the context of the surrounding area. Th e process allows for
consideration of emerging issues, site attributes or changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. For residential
neighborhoods, land use flexibility shall be balanced with the existing residential
character."
2. In this case, findings would have to justify adding a use that is specifi cally prohibited. The
unique circumstances of the eclectic, scruffy pattern of rear yards on this block are
understood. A basic question would appear to be "why not just add a permitted carriage
house"? If a duplex could be fitted onto the site within constraints of stormwater runoff and
parking, could one of the units be qualified affordable to help justify it?
3. If you proceed to a neighborhood meeting, staff would like to coordinate on ideas for
findings to justify the APU as part of proceeding and preparation.
4. This development proposal will be subject to all applicable standards of the Fort Co llins
Land Use Code (LUC), including Article 3 General Development Standards. The entire
LUC is available for your review on the web at
http://www.colocode.com/ftcollins/landuse/begin.htm.
5. If this proposal is unable to satisfy any of the requirements set forth in the LUC, a
Modification of Standard Request will need to be submitted with your formal development
proposal. Please see Section 2.8.2 of the LUC for more information on criteria to apply
for a Modification of Standard.
Department: Historic Preservation
Contact: Maren Bzdek, 970-221-6206, mbzdek@fcgov.com
1. CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES ON DEVELOPMENT SITE:
This property was determined to be eligible for Fort Collins landmark status in 2018,
which means that the adaptive reuse requirements in 3.4.7 of the land use code will
apply.
This section of the code outlines that the project must include a rehabilitation and
adaptive reuse plan for those structures pursuant to Land Use Code Section 3.4.7(B), to
the maximum extent feasible.
Designated historic resources are eligible for financial incentives to support adaptive
reuse and historic rehabilitation projects that meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If the development site contains a historic
resource that is on the National or State Register of Historic Places but is not already a
Fort Collins Landmark as well, and you would like to designate it, you would then qualify
for zero-interest landmark rehabilitation loans from the City as well as the state and
18.5
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
4
federal tax credits and other grants from the state for rehab and structural assessment
that are available for properties on the National or State Registers. All proposed work
would have to comply with the federal standards for rehabilitation and our local codes in
order to be eligible for these incentives, and all changes to the property would have to
be approved by staff or the Landmark Preservation Commission, in concurrence with
the development review process.
2. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY WITH HISTORIC RESOURCES ON OR NEAR
DEVELOPMENT SITE
The abutting property at 609 S Meldrum is also eligible for Fort Collins landmark status,
which means that any new construction on the site at 613 S Meldrum will need to be
compatible with the historic resources on both properties.
The design compatibility requirements for new construction are in land use code section
3.4.7(E), Table 1. Those requirements are designed to create an appropriate design
relationship between new construction and nearby historic resource s. They cover
building massing and design features to ensure that any new construction fits in with the
existing historic context.
3. Designated historic resources are eligible for financial incentives to support adaptive
reuse and historic rehabilitation projects that meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If the development site contains a historic
resource that is not already a Fort Collins Landmark, and you would like to designate it,
you would then qualify for zero-interest landmark rehabilitation loans from the City as well
as the state and federal tax credits and other grants from the state for rehab and
structural assessment that are available for all historic properties, including those on the
National or State Registers. All proposed work would have to comply with the federal
standards for rehabilitation and our local codes in order to be eligible for these
incentives, and all changes to the property would have to be approved by staff or the
Landmark Preservation Commission, in concurrence with the development review
process.
Department: Engineering Development Review
Contact: Morgan Stroud, 970-416-4344, mstroud@fcgov.com
1. Site Specific:
There are some sections of the sidewalk in front of this property that do not meet ADA
requirements. These will need to be replaced to bring them up to standard with this
project.
2. Site Specific:
The existing fence is located too close to the sidewalk as it is. It will need to be moved a
minimum of 2 feet from the back of the sidewalk or on the property line, whichever is
greater.
3. Site Specific:
The existing alleyway behind this property is partially paved, the section directly behind
this property appears to be unpaved. Depending on the project and how many units are
being added to the property, this may need to be paved and brought up to standards
with this project.
18.5
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
5
4. Larimer County Road Impact Fees and Transportation Expansion Fees are due at the
time of building permit. Please contact Kyle Lambrecht at 221-6566 if you have any
questions.
5. The City's Transportation Development Review Fee (TDRF) is due at the time of
submittal. For additional information on these fees, please see:
http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/dev-review.php
6. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk existing prior to construction, as well as streets,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, destroyed, damaged or removed due to construction of
this project, shall be replaced or restored to City of Fort Collins standards at the
Developer's expense prior to the acceptance of completed improvements and/or prior
to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
7. All public sidewalk, driveways and ramps existing or proposed adjacent or within the
site need to meet ADA standards, if they currently do not, they will need to be
reconstructed so that they do meet current ADA standards as a part of this project.
8. Any public improvements must be designed and built in accordance with the Larimer
County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS). They are available online at:
https://www.larimer.org/engineering/standards-and-guides/urban-area-street-standards
9. This project is responsible for dedicating any right-of-way and easements that are
necessary or required by the City for this project. This shall including the standard utility
easements that are to be provided behind the right-of-way (15 foot along an arterial, 8
foot along an alley, and 9 foot along all other street classifications). Information on the
dedication process can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/engineering/devrev.php
10. Utility plans will be required and if needed a Development Agreement will be recorded
once the project is finalized.
11. A Development Construction Permit (DCP) will need to be obtained prior to starting any
work on the site.
12. LCUASS parking setbacks (Figure 19-6) apply and will need to be followed depending
on parking design.
13. All fences, barriers, posts or other encroachments within the public right-of-way are only
permitted upon approval of an encroachment permit. Applications for encroachment
permits shall be made to Engineering Department for review and approval prior to
installation. Encroachment items shall not be shown on the site plan as they may not be
approved, need to be modified or moved, or if the permit is revoked then the site/
landscape plan is in non-compliance.
14. The development/ site cannot use the right-of-way for any rain gardens to treat the storm
runoff. We can look at the use of rain gardens to treat street flows – the design
standards for these are still in development.
15. Doors are not allowed to open out into the right-of-way.
16. Bike parking required for the project cannot be placed within the right-of-way and if
placed just behind the right-of-way need to be placed so that when bikes are parked
they do not extend into the right-of-way.
17. In regards to construction of this site, the public right-of-way shall not be used for staging
or storage of materials or equipment associated with the Development, nor shall it be
used for parking by any contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel working for or
18.5
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
6
hired by the Developer to construct the Development. The Developer will need to find a
location(s) on private property to accommodate any necessary staging and/or parking
needs associated with the completion of the Development. Information on the
location(s) of these areas will be required to be provided to the City as a part of the
Development Construction Permit application.
Department: Traffic Operations
Contact: Steve Gilchrist, 970-224-6175, sgilchrist@fcgov.com
1. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: The addition of two units (or a single duplex) on the
property is not expected to generate a level of traffic that would warrant a traffic impact
study. TIS waived.
2. FOR INFORMATION ONLY: Will need to work with Engineering on improvements that
may be needed to the street frontage, sidewalks, and alley.
Department: Erosion Control
Contact: Chandler Arellano, carellano@fcgov.com
1. Information Only:
No Comment from Erosion Control. Based upon the submitted Plann ing Materials it has
been determined that this project; will disturb less than 10,000 sq. ft., is not proposed to
be in a sensitive area, has no steep slopes (greater than 3H:1V) within or adjacent to
the project, and is not part of a larger common development that will or is under
construction. Therefore, no Erosion Control Material submittal is needed. If this project
substantially changes in size or design where the above criteria now apply, erosion
control materials should be submitted. Though the project at this time requires no
erosion control material submittal, the project still must be swept and maintained to
prevent dirt, saw cuttings, concrete wash, trash debris, landscape materials and other
pollutants from the potential of leaving the site and entering the storm sewer at all times
during the project in accordance with City Code 26 -498. If complaint driven or site
observation of the project seem not to prevent the pollutant discharge the City may
require the project to install erosion and sediment control measures. Nearby inlets that
may be impacted by the pollutants, in particular dirt, should be protected as a good
preventative practice and individual lots should be protected from material escaping
onto the sidewalk. If at building permit issuance any issues arise please email
erosion@fcgov.com to help facilitate getting these permits signed off.
Department: Stormwater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
2. Master plan and criteria compliance (site specific comment):
The design of this site must conform to the drainage basin design of the Old Town
Master Drainage Plan as well the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Please note,
a new stormwater criteria manual was released in December 2018:
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-gu
idelines-regulations/stormwater-criteria
3. Documentation requirements (site specific comment):
A drainage report and construction plans are required and must be prepared by a
18.5
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
7
Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage report must
address the four-step process for selecting structural BMPs.
4. Stormwater outfall (site specific comment):
The stormwater outfall options for this site appear to be surface flow to Meldrum Street.
There is an alley at the west side (rear) of this property. Drainage into alleys in th e Old
Town Basin can be problematic, causing damage to downstream and neighboring
properties. As part of any construction with this development, a drainage analysis will
need to be completed by a Civil Engineer addressing any additional drainage created
by the development and may be required to show how conveyance of site drainage is
conveyed to an adequate public facility without impacting downstream properties.
5. Alley Drainage and Arthur Ditch (site specific comment):
The alley behind this property drains to a stormwater inlet that is connected to the Arthur
Ditch pipe. The Arthur Ditch is contained within a buried pipe and crisscrosses
throughout properties in this area of town. It is recommended that this development
reduces the amount of area and flow that drains to the alley from this property.
Any development that increases stormwater discharge into the alley and the Arthur Ditch
will: 1) need to obtain permission and an agreement from the ditch company f or this
discharge; and 2) need water quality treatment.
The Arthur Ditch company will also need to be contacted about any construction or site
work above or near to the ditch pipe. The Ditch contact information is: Arthur Irrigation
Co. 2600 S. Timberline, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-874-0189
6. Detention requirements (site specific comment):
When improvements are being added to an existing developed site, onsite detention is
only required if there is an increase in impervious area greater than 5000 square feet. If
it is greater, onsite detention is required with a 2-year historic release rate for water
quantity.
7. Imperviousness documentation (standard comment):
It is important to document the existing impervious area since drainage requirements
and fees are based on new impervious area. An exhibit showing the existing and
proposed impervious areas with a table summarizing the areas is required prior to the
time fees are calculated for each building permit.
8. Detention drain times (standard comment):
Per Colorado Revised Statute §37-92-602 (8) that became effective August 5, 2015,
criteria regarding detention drain time will apply to this project. As part of the drainage
design, the engineer will be required to show compliance with this statute using a
standard spreadsheet (available on request) that will need to be included in the
drainage report. Upon completion of the project, the engineer will also be required to
upload the approved spreadsheet onto the Statewide Compliance Portal. This will
apply to any volume-based stormwater storage, including extended detention basins
9. Standard Water Quality – Site Tributary to Udall Water Quality Facility (standard
comment):
The City requires stormwater quality treatment of all new or modified imp ervious areas.
This is requirement has two categories: 1) ‘standard water quality’ treatment, and 2)
‘Low Impact Development’ (LID) requirement. For this site, the ‘standard water quality’
requirement is already provided for in the City’s Udall Natural Area water treatment
18.5
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
8
facility.
10. Low Impact Development requirements (standard comment):
The City requires the use of Low Impact Development (LID) methods to treat stormwater
quality on all new or redeveloping property, including sites required to be brought into
compliance with the Land Use Code. There are two (2) categories of LID requireme nts;
the development will need to meet one of the two following options:
1. LID with Permeable Pavers: When using the permeable pavers option, 50% of the
new or modified impervious areas must be treated by LID methods. Of the new or
modified paved areas, 25% must be pervious.
2. LID - without Pavers: 75% of all new or modified impervious areas must be treated
by LID methods. This typically consists of a rain garden or bioretention system, but other
options are allowed.
Accepted methods are described in the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual
(FCSCM), Chapter 7:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-gui
delines-regulations/stormwater-criteria
**The existing Single Family residence with one proposed Carriage House would not be
required to add LID to the site. A new duplex on the rear of the lot will require LID.
Please feel free to contact Water Utilities with any questions**
11. Erosion control requirements (standard comment):
The erosion control report requirements are in Chapter 2, Section 6 of the Fort Collins
Stormwater Criteria Manual (December 2018, www.fcgov.com/erosion). If you need
clarification concerning this section, please contact the Erosion Control Inspector, Jesse
Schlam at 224-6015 or jschlam@fcgov.com
12. Inspection and maintenance (standard comment):
There will be a final site inspection of the stormwater facilities when the project is
complete and the maintenance is handed over to an HOA or another maintenance
organization. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) for on-going maintenance of all
onsite drainage facilities will be included as part of the Development Agreement. More
information and links can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/stormwater-quality/low-impact-dev
elopment
13. Fees (standard comment):
The 2020 city wide Stormwater development fee (PIF) is $9,447/acre of new impervious
area over 350 square feet and there is a $1,045/acre of site review fee. No fee is
charged for existing impervious area. These fees are to be paid at the time each
building permit is issued. Information on fees can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-develo
pment-fees or contact our Utility Fee and Rate Specialists at (970) 416 -4252 for
questions on fees. There is also an erosion control escrow required before the
Development Construction permit is issued. The amount of the escrow is determined by
the design engineer, and is based on the site disturbance area, cost of the measures, or
a minimum amount in accordance with the Fort Collins Stormwater Manual.
18.5
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
9
Department: Water-Wastewater Engineering
Contact: Matt Simpson, (970)416-2754, masimpson@fcgov.com
1. Existing Water Infrastructure (site specific comment):
There is an existing 8-inch water main in Meldrum Street with an existing 3/4-inch water
service to the site.
2. Existing Sewer Infrastructure (site specific comment):
There is an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Meldrum Street with an existing
sanitary sewer service to the site. The City does not keep accurate records of the
location of sewer services - which are private. The sewer service can be located with
the help of a professional plumber.
3. Water and Sewer Services for Proposed Site (standard comment):
Each building will require a separate water and sewer service connecting to the City
main.
4. Utility Separations (standard comment):
Water and sewer service configurations for redeveloping lots in this area of the City can
be problematic. Exact location of the existing water and sewer services and other
utilities onsite will be required for your site engineer to determine service routing
options.
For your reference, minimum water and sewer service separations are:
> 10-ft min. between water and sewer services.
> 6-ft min. between trees and water or sewer services.
> 4-ft min. between shrubs and water or sewer services.
> 10-ft min. between storm-drain pipes and other utilities.
> Service lines of the same type may be joint trenched with 3-ft of separation
Other utilities, such as gas, electric, and communications will also have spacing
requirements and will need space on the site. Last, please remember that there may be
service lines on the adjacent properties for which clearances also need to be
maintained.
5. Service abandonment (standard comment):
Any existing water and sewer services that are not planned to be re-used with this
project will be required to be abandoned at the main.
6. Water service sizing (standard comment):
The water service and meter for this project site will need to be sized based on the
AWWA M22 manual design procedure. A sizing justification letter that includes demand
calculations for maximum flows and estimated continuous flows will need to be provided
as a part of the final submittal package for this project.
7. Sewer discharge (standard comment):
Please note that all City of Fort Collins Utility Customers are subject to City Code
requirements for wastewater. These requirements include Section 26 -306 Wastewater
Discharge Permit Requirements and Section 26-332 Prohibitive Discharge Standards.
A permit may be required depending on activities on the site; ho wever, discharge
standards apply to every customer, both large and small, regardless of what activities
take place on the site. Please contact Industrial Pretreatment, (970) 221-6900, to
discuss these requirements and how they apply to this development
18.5
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
10
8. Water conservation (standard comment):
The water conservation standards for landscape and irrigation will apply. Information on
these requirements can be found at: http://www.fcgov.com/standards
9. Fees (standard comment):
Additional or larger services will incur development fees and water rights. These fees
are due at building permit. Information on fees can be found at:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/plant-investment-develo
pment-fees or contact our Utility Fee and Rate Specialists at (970) 416-4252 for
questions on fees.
**An additional dwelling unit will incur additional water and sewer fees – even if there are
no new water and sewer services. Please contact Water Utilities with any questions**
Department: Electric Engineering
Contact: Rob Irish, 970-224-6167, rirish@fcgov.com
1. The existing property is currently fed from the rear of the property by a 1/0T underground
cable from an existing 25kva pad mount transformer to the North of 605 Meldrum St.
This cable looks to be direct buried and may need to be relocated for the carr iage
house and upgraded back to the transformer.
2. Any relocation or modification to existing electric facilities will be at the expense of the
owner/developer.
3. Any existing and/or proposed Light & Power electric facilities that will remain within the
limits of the project must be located within a utility easement.
4. Depending on load requirements, it may be necessary for the owner to provide a pocket
easement for a pad mount transformer to handle the additional capacity.
5. Secondary service for any buildings other than single-family detached, will be installed,
owned and maintained by the owner.
6. A commercial service information form (C-1 Form) and a One-line diagram will need to
be submitted to Light & Power Engineering for any proposed electric changes and/or
additions. A link to the C-1 form is below:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers/development-forms-gui
delines-regulations
7. Electric Capacity Fee, Building Site charges, and any system modification charges
necessary will apply to this development. Please contact Light & Power Engineering at
ElectricProjectEngineering@fcgov.com. Please reference our Electric Service
Standards, development charges and fee estimator at the following link:
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers
8. Please contact Light & Power Engineering at ElectricProjectEngineering@fcgov.com if
you have any questions. Please reference our policies, construction practices,
development charge processes, electric services standards, and fee estimator at
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/business/builders-and-developers.
18.5
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
11
Department: Environmental Planning
Contact: Kelly Smith, ksmith@fcgov.com
1. City of Fort Collins Land Use Code [Section 3.2.1 (E)(3)], requires that to the extent
reasonably feasible, all plans be designed to incorporate water conservation materials
and techniques. This includes use of low-water-use plants and grasses in landscaping
or re-landscaping and reducing bluegrass lawns as much as possible. Native plants and
wildlife-friendly (ex: pollinators, butterflies, songbirds) landscaping and maintenance are
also encouraged. Please refer to the Fort Collins Native Plants document available
online and published by the City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department for guidance
on native plants is: http://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/nativeplants2013.pdf. A lso
see the City of Fort Collins Plant List : https://www.fcgov.com/forestry/plant_list.pdf.
2. Site light sources shall be fully shielded and down-directional to minimize up-light,
spill-light, glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property. All lighting shall have a
nominal correlated color temperature (CCT) of no greater than three thousand (3,000)
degrees Kelvin [see LUC 3.2.4(D)(3)].
Department: Forestry
Contact: Molly Roche, 224-616-1992, mroche@fcgov.com
1. 1/21/2020: PRE-SUBMITTAL: Forestry Tree Inventory
There appear to be existing private property and City-owned street trees on-site. What
are the anticipated impacts to them associated with this development? Regardless of
tree impact, please schedule an on-site meeting with City Forestry to obtain tree
inventory and mitigation information. Existing significant trees, specifically City -owned
and maintained street trees, should be retained to the extent reasonably feasible. This
meeting should occur prior to first round PDP.
2. 1/21/2020: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP
Please provide a landscape plan that meets the Land Use Code 3.2.1 requirements
such as ‘full tree stocking’. This should include the existing tree inventory, any proposed
tree removals with their locations clearly noted and any proposed tree plantings
(including species, size, quantity and method of transplant). The plans should also
include the following City of Fort Collins notes:
General Landscape Notes
Tree Protection Notes
Street Tree Permit Note, when applicable.
These notes are available from the city planner or Molly Roche (mroche@fcgov.com)
Required tree sizes and method of transplant:
Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
Evergreen tree: 6.0’ height balled and burlapped
Ornamental tree: 1.5” caliper balled and burlapped
Required mitigation tree sizes:
Canopy Shade Tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
18.5
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
12
Evergreen tree: 8.0’ height balled and burlapped
Ornamental tree: 2.0” caliper balled and burlapped
3. 1/21/2020: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP
Please include locations of utilities on the landscape plan including but not limited to
water service/mains, sewer service/mains, gas, electric, street lights and stop signs.
Please adjust tree locations to provide for proper tree/utility separation.
10’ between trees and public water, sanitary, and storm sewer main lines
6’ between trees and water or sewer service lines
4’ between trees and gas lines
10’ between trees and electric vaults
40’ between canopy shade trees and streetlights
15’ between ornamental trees and streetlights
20-40’ between street trees and stop signs
4. 1/21/2020: INFORMATION ONLY FOR PDP
If applicable, please provide an “Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter” for City
Forestry staff to review. Proposals to remove significant existing trees must provide a
justification letter detailing the reason for tree removal. This is required for all
development projects proposing significant tree removal regardless of the scale of the
project. The purpose of this letter is to provide a document of record with the project’s
approval and for the City to maintain a record of all proposed significant tree removals
and justifications. Existing significant trees within the project’s Limits of Disturbance
(LOD) and within natural area buffer zones shall be preserved to the extent reasonably
feasible. Streets, buildings and lot layouts shall be designed to minimize the disturbance
to significant existing trees.
(Extent reasonably feasible shall mean that, under the circumstances, reasonable efforts
have been undertaken to comply with the regulation, that the costs of compliance clearly
outweigh the potential benefits to the public or would unreasonably burden the proposed
project, and reasonable steps have been undertaken to minimize any potential harm or
adverse impacts resulting from noncompliance with the regulation.) Where it is not
feasible to protect and retain significant existing tree(s) or to transplant them to another
on-site location, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) according to City mitigation
requirements.
Department: Fire Authority
Contact: Jim Lynxwiler, 970-416-2869, jlynxwiler@poudre-fire.org
1. DUPLEX
The following comments apply only to duplex development on this site. Other code
options may allow for construction of a carriage house, should that become the primary
option. Contact PFA for details.
2. REQUIRED FIRE ACCESS
Fire access is required to within 150' of all exterior portions of any building as measured
by an approved route around the perimeter. The building's proposed footprint places the
structure out of access as measured from Meldrum and fire access from residential
alleys is not considered reliable. Future site plans shall account for the construction of a
18.5
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
13
fire lane on the property or how otherwise this requirement is mitigated. Fire lane
specifications provided below.
3. FIRE LANE SPECIFICATIONS
A fire lane plan shall be submitted for approval prior to installation. In addition to the
design criteria already contained in relevant standards and policies, any new fire lane
must meet the following general requirements:
> Fire lanes established on private property shall be dedicated by plat or separate
document as an Emergency Access Easement.
> Maintain the required 20 foot minimum unobstructed width & 14 foot minimum
overhead clearance.
> Be designed as a flat, hard, all-weather driving surface capable of supporting 40 tons.
> Dead-end fire access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an
approved turnaround area for fire apparatus.
> The required turning radii of a fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum of 25
feet inside and 50 feet outside. Turning radii shall be detailed on submitted plans.
> Be visible by red curb and/or signage, and maintained unobstructed at all times. Sign
locations or red curbing should be labeled and detailed on final plans. Refer to LCUASS
detail #1418 & #1419 for sign type, placement, and spacing. Appropriate directional
arrows required on all signs.
4. REQUIRED WATER SUPPLY
A fire hydrant capable of providing 1000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure is required
within 400' of any residential building, as measured along an approved path of vehicle
travel. While the closest hydrant on the NE corner of Meldrum and Myrtle appears to
exceed this distance, it may be deemed acceptable if all other conditions for fire access
have been resolved.
5. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM
The addition of a duplex or triplex will require the installation of a residential fire sprinkler
system. Please contact the City Building Department for further information.
6. ADDRESS POSTING & WAYFINDING
Wayfinding to a residence not immediately fronting the public street and accessible via
an alley is problematic. The residence will need to be addressed off of Meldrum and
accessible from Meldrum via a pedestrian sidewalk. The address shall be posted at
Meldrum with signage directing emergency resources to the duplex. Such information
shall be accounted for and detailed on the site plan.
Department: Building Code Review
Contact: Katy Hand, khand@fcgov.com
1. -Both a duplex and a single family carriage house will be designed/built under the
current IRC Code
2. -A Duplex typically needs to sprinkled to P2904 (installed by a plumber) or in this case,
likely an upgraded 13R system for fire access issues. (installed by a fire sprinkler
contractor)
-A Triplex will need to be sprinkled to a 13R system (installed by a fire sprinkler
contractor)
-A Carriage house does not need to be sprinkled unless there is a fire access issue. If
18.5
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
14
PFA will require a sprinkler system it would be a P2904 systmen
3. To avoid exterior fire rated walls with limited or no openings:
-A Duplex will need to be located 3ft min from property lines or per land use code
(whichever is stricter)
-A Carriage house will will need to be located 5ft min from property lines
-The new building and existing house will need to be separated fr om each other by 10ft
min
4. INFORMATIONAL: Please visit our website for a list of current adopted building codes
and local amendments for building permit submittal:
https://www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php
5. Linked is some additional information/guides for a new house/duplex:
https://www.fcgov.com/building/files/handout-dulplex-conversion-v2.pdf?1576697467
https://www.fcgov.com/building/res-requirements.php
https://www.fcgov.com/building/pdf/single-family-permit-requirements-2015.pdf?157669
7467
Department: Technical Services
Contact: Jeff County, 970-221-6588, jcounty@fcgov.com
1. As of January 1, 2015, all development plans are required to be on the NAVD88 vertical
datum. Please make your consultants aware of this, prior to any surveying and/or design
work. Please contact our office for up to date Benchmark Statement format and City
Vertical Control Network information.
2. If submitting a replat for this property/project, addresses are not acceptable in the
Subdivision Plat title/name. Numbers in numeral form may not begin the title/name.
Please contact our office with any questions.
18.5
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
15
Pre-Submittal Meetings for Building Permits
Pre-Submittal meetings are offered to assist the designer/builder by assuring, early in the
design, that new commercial or multi-family projects are on track to complying with all of the
adopted City codes and Standards listed below. The proposed project should be in the early
to mid-design stage for this meeting to be effective and is typically scheduled after the
Current Planning PDP submittal. Applicants should be prepared to present site plans, floor
plans, and elevations and be able to discuss code issues of occupancy, square footage, type
of construction, and energy compliance method being proposed. Applicants of new
commercial or multi-family projects should contact their Development Review Coordinator to
schedule a pre-submittal meeting.
Construction shall comply with the following adopted codes and standards as
amended:
2018 International Building Code (IBC) with local amendments
2018 International Residential Code (IRC) with local amendments
2018 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) with local amendments
2018 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) with local amendments
2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC) with local amendments
2018 International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC) with local amendments
2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) with local amendments
2015 International Plumbing Code (IPC) as amended by the State of Colorado
2017 National Electrical Code (NEC) as amended by the State of Colorado
Accessibility: State Law CRS 9-5 & ICC/ANSI A117.1-2017.
Snow Load Live Load: 30 PSF / Ground Snow Load 30 PSF.
Frost Depth: 30 inches.
Wind Loads:
Risk Category ll (most structures):
* 140mph (Ultimate) exposure B or
* Front Range Gust Map published by The Structural Engineer's Association of
Colorado
Risk Category l: 130mph (Ultimate) exposure B
Risk Category lll & lV: 150mph (Ultimate) exposure B
Seismic Design: Category B.
Climate Zone: Zone 5.
Energy Code Use:
1. Single Family; Duplex; Townhomes: 2018 IRC Chapter 11 or 2018 IECC Chapter 4
Residential Provisions
2. Multi-family and Condominiums 3 stories max: 2018 015 IECC Chapter 4 Residential
Provisions.
3. Commercial and Multi-family 4 stories and taller: 2018 IECC Chapter 4 Commercial
Provisions.
Current codes and amendments are effective as of January 12, 2019. Copies of the code
amendments can be obtained at www.fcgov.com/building/codes.php or at the Building
Services office.
18.5
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Correspondence to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
ATTACHMENT 6
Applicant Presentation to the
Administrative Hearing
Officer,
July 1, 2020
18.6
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
613 S. MELDRUM
Administrative Hearing July 1, 2020
Modifications of Standards Request
18.6
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
THEN
JANUARY 2019
613
NOW
MAY 2020
18.6
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
THE WHY
HOW DID
WE GET HERE??
Reaching
the decision
to request a
Modification of Use
was a journey.
613 CURRENT | ENHANCED CARRIAGE HOUSE
ROUND 3 | GABLE OR DORMER
ROUND 2 | DUAL CARRIAGE HOMES
Image credit: Rayne Byrd, Architect
ROUND 1 | DUPLEX
18.6
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
WE ARE
UNIQUE
NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER AREA
SURROUNDING CONTEXT/BLOCK
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
LAND USE CODE
613
ZONE DISTRICTS
HISTORIC BOUNDARIES
18.6
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
WHAT
SERVES
GREATER
GOOD
www.yourwebsitehere.com613
Image credit: Storyblocks.com
18.6
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
SITE CONTEXT
“The subject property is in the Old Town
Neighborhoods subarea plan of Fort
Collins…”
-Development Review Staff Report, p. 1
“The Old Town Neighborhoods Plan (Plan) is
a combined update of the Eastside and
Westside Neighborhood Plans developed in
the 1980s, and provides a renewed vision and
policy guidance for the two neighborhoods..
-The Fort Collins Old Town
Neighborhood Plan, p. 7
-Adopted Feb. 21, 2017
Image credit: Google Earth
613
18.6
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
OLD TOWN
NEIGHBORHOODS
PLAN
613
Image credit:
City of Fort Collins
OTNP Plan
18.6
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
SITE CONTEXT
NCB ZONE613
Image credit: Google Earth
18.6
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
SITE CONTEXT
THE BLOCK613
Image credit: Google Earth
18.6
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
OLD TOWN
NEIGHBORHOODS
CHARACTER AREAS
613
Image credit:
City of Fort Collins
OTNP Plan
18.6
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
TIMELINE OF
NEIGHBORHOOD
PLANNING
EFFORTS &
ZONING CHANGES
613
Image credit:
City of Fort Collins
OTNP Plan
18.6
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
NCB
A PLACE WITHOUT
REAL PLACEMAKING…
OR IS IT?
Image credit: City of Fort Collins City Plan
613
18.6
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
SITE CONTEXT
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
Image credit City of Fort Collins
planning document
Square Footage:County Assessor
629 S. Sherwood | Primary with Addition and Sep. Unit
888 sf primary +834 sf addition +2,584 sf separate
617 S. Sherwood | Stucco Duplex Add-on
3,338 sf
627 S. Sherwood | Primary with Duplex
842 sf primary +1,524 sf secondary
515 S. Meldrum | Primary with Carriage and Garage
1,724 sf primary +1,400 sf carriage + 352 sf garage
Proposed Concept for 617 S. Meldrum
2 duplexes connected by a patio roof
621 S. Meldrum Fourplex
9,965 sf
613
18.6
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
613
Image credits:
City of Fort Collins
OTNP Design Guidelines
LEVELS
OF CONTEXT
613
18.6
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
OTNP
VISION
STRUCTURE
613
Neighborhood Character
& Compatibility
Land Use &Transition Areas
Sustainability
Circulation & Mobility
OF CONTEXT
18.6
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
LISTENING TO
OUR COMMUNITY
613
CELEBRATING AND ENHANCING
THE QUALITIES THAT MAKE
THE NEIGHBORHOODS UNIQUE
Image credits:
City of Fort Collins
OTNP Plan
18.6
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
613613
PREFFERED OPTIONAS PROPOSED IN MODIFICATION REQUEST
Image credit: Rayne Byrd, Architect
18.6
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
OF ALL
POSSIBLE
OPTIONS
PROPOSED ENHANCED
CARRIAGE HOUSE IS
EQUAL OR BETTER
&
BEST INTERESTS OF
PUBLIC GOOD
ADDITION TO PRIMARY HOME
1
613
DEVELOP TWO CARRIAGE HOMES,
CARRIAGE HOME & ADU, or
CARRIAGE HOME, ADU & SHED
2
DEVELOP DUPLEX
3
DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE,
DEVELOP NEW
4
Image credit: Storyblocks.com
18.6
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
613613
PLAN B –DUEL CARRIAGE HOMESPERMITTED IN CURRENT L.U.C.
Image credit: Rayne Byrd, Architect
X2
+ SHED
18.6
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
613613
PREFFERED OPTION
EQUALLY GOOD OR BETTER & BEST INTEREST OF PUBLIC GOOD
Image credit: Rayne Byrd, Architect
18.6
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION
18.6
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Applicant Presentation to Administrative Hearing Officer (9529 : Appeal of
ATTACHMENT 7
Proposed Plans
Provided to Administrative
Hearing Officer,
July 1, 2020
18.7
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Project Plans (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.7
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Project Plans (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.7
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Project Plans (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.7
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Project Plans (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.7
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Project Plans (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.7
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Project Plans (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18.7
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Project Plans (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
ATTACHMENT 8
Verbatim Transcript of the
Administrative Hearing
Officer, July 1, 2020
18.8
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Held July 1, 2020
Remote/Virtual Meeting
In the Matter of:
613 South Meldrum Street Carriage House Modifications of Standard #MOD200001
Meeting Time: 5:30 PM, July 1, 2020
Hearing Officer: Staff Members Participating:
Lori Strand Clark Mapes, City Planner
Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic
Preservation Planner
Leslie Spencer
18.8
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
2
MS. LORI STRAND: I'm going to go ahead and open the public meeting; the time is 5:31 PM on 1
July 1st, 2020. Tonight, the City of Fort Collins will be conducting an administrative hearing virtually for 2
the 613 South Meldrum Street project. The project number is MOD200001. My name is Lori Strand, I 3
am going to be the hearing officer this evening. Myself and several members of City staff, as well as the 4
applicant, are participating remotely. I see right now we have Collin and Rita attending from the public, 5
and we'll keep an eye to see if there's other folks that join. 6
I think I'm going to ask you to put your screen up, Clark, if that's okay? As I mentioned, there are 7
a couple members of staff that are here. Clark Mapes will be the presenter on behalf of the City tonight, 8
Leslie Spencer is here tonight to help with the public comment portion. You can also email Leslie if you 9
don't intend on giving public comment put would like to get a copy of my decision. Her email address is 10
up on the screen and we'll be sure to show it again. If you're having any technical difficulties, please 11
reach out to Alyssa Stephens; her phone number and her email address are up on the screen, so I'll go 12
ahead and let that stay up for just a couple minutes in case you want to jot that down…and folks that are 13
either applicants or members of the public, in case you run into technical issues. 14
Okay…so, if we can go to the next screen. In order for us to hold this meeting remotely, as the 15
hearing officer, I'm required by Ordinance 079 to make a determination that it's appropriate and desirable 16
to conduct this hearing using remote technology in order to provide a reasonably available participation to 17
the parties-in-interest and to the public consistent with the requirements of Ordinance 079, because 18
meeting in person would not be prudent for some or all persons due to a public health emergency. I do 19
make that finding; we all know that we're still facing challenges of COVID-19, so it is in fact prudent for 20
us to continue remotely for this particular matter. Next screen please. 21
So, again, tonight everybody is going to be participating through the Zoom platform or by phone. 22
You will be muted, so if you're trying to chat, you won't be able to until it's your turn to speak. We'll go 23
over the order of proceedings in a moment, but there will opportunity for staff to speak, for the applicant 24
to speak, and the public to speak. When it comes time for public comment…actually at any point leading 25
up to public comment, you can raise your hand on your screen. At the middle bottom of your screen, 26
there should be a button that says 'participants.' When you click on that, a screen will show up to your 27
right, and in the bottom right-hand corner there's a 'raise hand' button. So, if you would like to give 28
public comment, go ahead, raise your hand, keep it raised, and come public comment period, we'll 29
unmute you and give you your moment to speak. If you're joining by phone, which it doesn't look like 30
anyone is right now, so I won't speak to that at the moment, but if we see folks that join by phone…I 31
think…Leslie, can you let me know if that occurs? Leslie is muted so… 32
MS. LESLIE SPENCER: Yes, I can do that. I will unmute myself and let you know when we get 33
another attendee who wants to speak during public comment. 34
MS. STRAND: Okay. When it is time to speak, we'll ask that you state your name and address, 35
spelling your name, provide your address to us so that we can give you a copy of the decision, or again, 36
you can email your address to Leslie Spencer at the email address on the screen again. Again, Alyssa's 37
information is up there if you're having technical difficulties. 38
So, before every administrative hearing, we read some of the rules of conduct. So, I'm going to 39
go ahead and do that, and then we'll go through the order of proceedings. So, this is an administrative 40
type I hearing, this is a legal hearing; I will moderate it for civility and fairness to ensure that everyone 41
who wishes to speak can be heard. All persons present by Zoom or phone have an obligation to follow 42
18.8
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
3
my instructions in that regard. Our expectations of all attendees is to not speak until you are 1
recognized…we'll unmute you when you are recognized, so that makes it a little bit more straightforward. 2
Please confine your remarks to the merits of the proposal under consideration, please address your 3
remarks to me and maintain a courteous tone, and avoid injecting personal tone into the debate. We will 4
not tolerate personal attacks or questioning the motivations of another speaker. The proposal and not the 5
speaker is the topic of interest. So, those are our rules of conduct that we like to read for each hearing, 6
and now we'll go ahead to the orders of proceedings so everybody knows what to expect. 7
So, as we do with all administrative hearings, there will be a brief introduction of the project by 8
staff followed by an opportunity for the applicant and their team to present on what they're proposing, 9
followed by a more detailed presentation by staff. Afterwards, there will be an opportunity for me to get 10
clarity from the applicant and the staff and for staff to respond to the applicant presentation. Afterwards, 11
we will open up the public testimony portion, so, again, raise your hand if you'd wish to speak. The 12
applicant will have an opportunity to respond to public testimony as will staff, and then I will close the 13
public hearing and within ten business days, I will issue a written decision. Again, if you provide your 14
address to Leslie, we'll make sure you get a copy of that. I have authority to approve, approve with 15
conditions, or to deny the application. The appeals process is up there; there will be fourteen days to 16
appeal a decision. And, with that, I believe we are done with all the administrative components and I'm 17
going to turn it over to Clark to start us off. 18
MR. CLARK MAPES: Hello, good evening, Clark Mapes, City Planner. I'm going to very 19
quickly here just skip ahead to my screen with some of the maps and graphics on it. This introduction 20
will be very brief. Here we go with the screen…I hope you're seeing the zoning map and the location of 21
the proposal here. The City Land Use Code governs development in Fort Collins and this request is 22
defined as development. The Land Use Code contains legal regulations that govern all the development 23
in the city, and the Land Use Code contains the different zoning districts in different parts of the city. 24
This subject property is in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zoning district. You can see 25
there…and it's the middle area…you see the site highlighted, and you can see that one block to the east is 26
the Downtown zoning district, and a little bit to the west is the next level of intensity in the transition of 27
zoning districts, which is called the Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density zoning district. We'll be 28
talking tonight about the NCB zone, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer district…we'll be talking quite a 29
bit about that I expect. 30
Here's a Google Earth view of the block with the site…the lot highlighted in yellow. You can see 31
the block defined by Meldrum Street, South Meldrum, and the address is 613 South Meldrum, Laurel 32
Street with Colorado State University on the other side of Laurel, Sherwood and Myrtle. So here we have 33
a block sitting right next to Colorado State University, just to help orient you to the location. 34
And then an aspect of the Land Use Code zoning regulations and other development 35
regulations…and by the way, we call those regulations 'standards,' we refer to those as 'standards.' 36
Standards in the Land Use Code come with a section that allows for modification of the standards based 37
on unique circumstances of a property, and based on meeting criteria that are listed for required findings 38
in order to approve modifications of standards. This is the last slide I'm going to present for now. We'll 39
let the applicants give their presentation, and then I'll come back to this later…I'll come back to the 40
criteria for findings that are required to approve or deny modifications of standards. In this case, the 41
request is to modify standards for the size of a building footprint on the ground, and I think everybody 42
can see here, 600 square feet is the stated limit in the NCB zone, and the request is for 1,570 square feet 43
in the building footprint. Likewise, total floor area allowed within a…these standards apply to carriage 44
18.8
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
4
houses in the rear yard of a residential lot in the NCB zoning district. The total floor area allowed for a 1
carriage house, 1,000 square feet. You can see there the request, 2,190. There's a limit on floor area in 2
the rear half of the lot, a limit for the height of building walls alongside lot lines, you can see there, 3
standard 13, a request for about 23 feet, and the…actually…okay, yes, there's a standard involving 4
dormers, kind of getting a little bit technical in the architecture of the building, but there's also a request 5
that requires a modification regarding the dormers. Kind of technical…I'm going to stop here and let the 6
applicant give their presentation and then I can come back and give a little more presentation about the 7
zoning and the modifications and the criteria for modifications. So, I'll stop sharing and I'm ready for the 8
applicant…to see the applicant's presentation. 9
MS. DENISE WHITE: Great, I'm just getting that ready. This is Denise White, and I know you 10
said to start with the presentation slide up, but it's not wanting to let me share my screen once I do that, so 11
I'm going to just go ahead and share screen and we will make a quick transition. 12
MR. JEFF PALOMO: And just so I remain unmute, Denise and I will be tag-teaming this. 13
MS. WHITE: There we go; thank you for your patience there with the little technical…my screen 14
would not show me the share screen when I put it into presentation mode. Thank you everyone for 15
joining us tonight and giving us your time. We realize for many this is before a long holiday weekend, so 16
we do appreciate the time this evening. We also have gratitude for all the conversations we've had with 17
staff between emails and meetings and phone calls that have been supportive in giving us information or 18
helping us get to where we're at tonight, including recommending we go for this modification of use as 19
we do not meet the land codes of use. So, quick introduction to who we are. I'm Densie White, my 20
partner Jeff Palomo is actually the property owner and he is the primary resident in that home. Again, I'm 21
his partner. I'm a former Fort Collins resident…actually used to work for the City, so it's a little strange 22
being on this side of the presentation. But I'm also a current part-time resident of the home as we try to 23
make it something that becomes more of our full-time retirement home for both of us. 24
And so, tonight, kind of as we talk about the process through the meeting…our presentation 25
basically is going to give a quick background of what we put into our application and what we read out of 26
the staff report, a refresher as to why we're asking our request, and then really we're going to focus, since 27
we know the hearing officer and staff have seen our application, kind of addressing some of the concerns 28
we saw in the staff report as we realize, and Clark just said, some technical issues, and the numbers speak 29
for themselves, so really we want to speak to what we feel is in the best interest of public good as well as 30
an answer to our construction dilemma here…or our development dilemma here…that really is equal or 31
better than the options that are currently available to us by those technical standards in the Land Use 32
Code. 33
So, quick look here…this is the property we're talking about, that's 613 South Meldrum. You 34
know, it's got charm. When we first found it, you can see it with the for-sale sign on there. With a little 35
history about ourselves, kind of our elevator pitch is that, you know, we are both individuals that really 36
enjoy historic properties. We also have been drawn to eclectic neighborhoods, and I think you couldn't 37
find one that is maybe a little more eclectic than this one, as we found out…it's actually not even a 38
neighborhood, it's a zone. So, you know, we have another home in Fort Collins that we do have a tenant 39
in. But, we were up in the area and we drove by this home and we both just kind of fell in love with it. 40
We fell in love with the historic nature of it, not even knowing the background to it yet, but just the 41
appeal of…the curbside appeal of the historic resource approach to it. We also loved the vibrancy of the 42
neighborhood. We are definitely not representative of the demographic that's in that neighborhood. We 43
18.8
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
5
skew a little bit older; I'm not going to say how much older, but we do skew a little bit older, and we are 1
owners versus renters. And Jeff, as I said, is a primary resident in that home at this time. I kink of come 2
and go based on my work, but he is on-site living in as a homeowner in a single-family unit right there. 3
Again, we like this neighborhood, we like this house, and we are really looking to design the 4
home in a space that not only can we age-in-place in and enjoy our retirement years, but also one that 5
meets that historic needs with contemporary needs…or the historic preservation with contemporary 6
needs…and give us space that we need for what we want to have a full, rich, live-in-place life which 7
includes things like a hobby space, fitness room, and a garage…these homes don't have garages. Finally, 8
we are looking at long-term, chance to have an income stream to cover the investment we put into 9
development as well as once we retire and we lose some of that income stream that we have from 10
working, how can we help supplement from that. And what we are trying to achieve with the proposal, or 11
with what we've put forth as our preferred option of design, is to really work with rehabilitating the house 12
that we have as a historic resource. You can kind of see the before and after picture there; we've already 13
put a lot of work into it, including having, you know, pulled a permit and done all the work on that front 14
porch. When we purchased the house, the brickwork was pulling away from the home, so we have 15
already invested quite a bit of time, money, and love into making this the home we want it to be to live in. 16
Again, just trying to find and create a space that's desirable for someone living in it now, being Jeff and I, 17
as well as making it a space and a piece of property that will make future generations also want to 18
preserve it and keep this historic resource intact, as well as our development, which cohesively fits into 19
that. 20
So, how did we get here? Reaching the decision to request a modification for use really was a 21
journey for us. We have definitely not picked the easiest path. Actually, now that I'm on this side of 22
development and processing, I'm not sure why anybody ever goes through this. It is a lot of work. But 23
you can see that it was an iterative process for us. We didn't just land on wanting an enhanced carriage 24
home as our first option. We started, in our first thoughts, of just putting a duplex out there. Early 25
discussions, we realized that although that is possible, it's a process, and so we'd be sitting probably where 26
we are right now going down that road. Second, we kind of looked at what was allowed by Land Use 27
Code, and we found that we could actually put two smaller carriage homes on the property. That is still a 28
possibility; however, it is less desirable to us because it eats up some of that Nature in the City, open 29
space, green space, areas that we could do some urban agriculture. I'd like to have a farm…or not a 30
farm…but a salad garden in the backyard and grow some of our own vegetables and whatnot. And so you 31
can see where we've landed on this current enhanced carriage house, which it is larger than what by Code 32
and definitions of the City of Fort Collins a carriage house is, but it still is basically a carriage house. 33
And we do continue to explore options with the city. You can see over here, we have some sketches there 34
where we considered to go back and forth on this gable or dormer discussion, but tonight, for the 35
purposes of what we've requested for the modification of use, you can see the plan as it is. Next slide. 36
You know, again, it's not an easy decision to be here and go through this process. And it's funny, 37
because you don't go through this process unless you think you're unique, and of course everyone thinks 38
they're unique, everyone thinks their baby is the cutest, everyone thinks their puppy is the most adorable 39
and most well-behaved, and everybody probably coming to Planning and Zoning and going through this 40
process truly feels their project is unique because it's theirs, right? And so, you know, again, I don't want 41
to touch too much on what was included in the packet as to why we feel the justifications are there. The 42
hearing officer has seen the packet, staff and their response have seen our packet, and so we're happy, of 43
18.8
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
6
course, to respond to any questions you may have about how we feel our plan fits into the City Plan, the 1
Structure Plan, and the greater good for the city as a whole, but particularly this neighborhood area. 2
But mostly we want to focus on some other things that were brough up in the staff report tonight. 3
And, again, I think what we're looking at is addressing those questions that were concerned because, as 4
Clark mentioned, again, the technical stuff we're not going to mix the numbers and make the numbers 5
come up different from what our plan is, from what Land Use Code allows. So, we're trying to really set 6
that context as to why we fit those other things. 7
MR. PALOMO: Denise, just to give a little context to the neighborhood in the pictures here…you 8
have the upper two right pictures are all one unit connected by breezeways and extensions of…I mean 9
there's actually two carriage homes attached to this particular property. But this is what the NCB is 10
comprised of. There's a side of an apartment complex to the far right, on the bottom left is a home which 11
looks circa 1900 with a carriage house in the back with gabled roofs overlooking each neighbor's back as 12
well as a separate structure for a garage. 13
MS. WHITE: Thanks Jeff, and I think Jeff is right, so that helps set some of the context here. We 14
understand Code has changed since many of these structures were built, but we're also here to kind of say 15
that this has become the character of the neighborhood that we're in so what we're asking for fits the 16
character of the neighborhood, and we'll get a little more into that in a little bit here. 17
Again, one of the…you know…different experiences and perspectives really drive interpretation 18
and opinion on what is for the better good. This is a staff…a comment that came up in the staff report 19
which was that they felt that this option was a detriment to the public good, and you know, that is 20
something we actually take great exception to because we feel like we've put a lot of thought into what 21
serves this neighborhood and what serves this area, this zone, not just ourselves…obviously we have a 22
personal interest, but as we said, we appreciate historic resources. We also appreciate being in 23
that…closer to that commercial area, being closer to downtown. So, we really have thought about that 24
and I think, you know, as I mentioned earlier, you know…my background is I've had over 25 years in 25
actual…on the other side of government, being in public engagement and communications, and having 26
gone through planning processes. So, I know in a lot of times when I'm working with different points of 27
view, you know, you realize everybody wants the best solution, we're just differing on how we get there. 28
And so staff has expressed to us in previous meetings that, you know, they really have a job to stick to 29
Code as it's written, and we respect that. They've also shared with us though, and that's kind of what led 30
us with some guidance to start this modification of use process and hearing, is that applicants going 31
through this process and those developing on their property really have a little more wiggle room to 32
maybe contextualize and interpret what character means, what that Code means, even though staff kind of 33
have to stick to that technical definition. 34
So, what we were going to cover for the rest of the presentation really is tackling a couple of the 35
things that we felt staff brough up in their report that is why they really are recommending denial of our 36
application here, and key, we see, you know, that they say it's a departure from standards for a carriage 37
house in the NCB zone. Clearly when we look just by the numbers, that's true. I mean, we can't, as we 38
said, we can't make magic numbers work here. Our plan has the numbers it has, the Code has the number 39
it has. So, really what we're trying to do is bring forth what we feel is more, again, what staff brought up 40
again as being detrimental to public good or not providing an option that is equally well or better than one 41
that complies. So, again, we feel pretty strongly that this is the best option. There are others available to 42
18.8
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
7
us; we will share a couple of those and why we could consider those should we be forced down that road, 1
but that we don't think that those options really serve the better good here for the public. 2
MR. PALOMO: And, Denise, I'm going to segue into that…it truly was an iterative process. I 3
mean, we considered many possibilities and went back and forth with the architect. We spent a good deal 4
of time and money and truly feel that our proposal is…is the best solution for the neighborhood as well as 5
us. 6
MS. WHITE: As I said, from the neighborhood, trying to pull it's standards and it's character, as 7
well as for us personally trying to find and build that property that we want to call home and age 8
in…combining historic with that need for some more contemporary use space. So, I know, again, Clark 9
shared the zoning map originally so I've got a couple repeats here, but maybe we can share how we're 10
viewing them a little differently. So, site context…as Clark pointed out and staff have pointed out, we are 11
in that NCB zone. That's part of the zone district for those neighborhood buffers, and so this is kind of a 12
bigger shot of that. One of the things we want to address or look at through a different lens, because 13
when we put in our application initially, we didn't look closely at the Old Town Neighborhood Plans…we 14
looked at it, we just didn't feel it really covered us, so we want to show…or this piece of land, not 15
necessarily us personally, but this neighborhood and this land. So we are going to share, kind of, that 16
interpretation and set some of that context. And you can see right away, in 2017 right there in the Old 17
Town Neighborhood Plan which is pretty new, they clearly say that the Plan is a combined update of two 18
previous neighborhood plans developed in the '80's and that it provides a renewed vision and policy 19
guidance for two neighborhoods. Again, two neighborhoods…and I'm going to emphasize that because 20
when we go to the next slide, you're going to see we're not really those neighborhoods. So, we are a 21
conservation zone, and the Old Town Neighborhood Plan, I might refer to it as the OTNP because it gets 22
to be a mouthful, really was designed and how it's explained in the Plan, to create a lasting value, to 23
support a quality of life, and to help make neighborhoods a great place to live. So, for the neighborhoods, 24
that's awesome. For the buffer zones, that's who we are, we don't really get to have that same quality of 25
life attribute applied to us. Instead what we get is we get to become the neighborhood protectors, we get 26
to be that buffer zone, exactly what it's called, and our job in that zone living there is to make sure that 27
commercial doesn't get over into the neighborhoods so that they can protect their neighborhood character. 28
So, again we mentioned the two neighborhood plans that merged, and so that's the Westside 29
Neighborhood and the Eastside Neighborhood. You can see the lovely little blue arrow shows you 30
exactly where we're located in the Old Town Neighborhood Plans, and it is just on the inside of that NCB 31
zone. I think it's the Downtown District right next to it, and more than once Jeff and I have laughed about 32
how it might be easier if we had been in the Downtown District by half a block, and I think even City 33
staff have shared with us that, you know, when they looked at this part of the zone, that might have been 34
something that was considered, but it didn't happen, so we now in the NCB zone. Again, this is a block 35
that is designed to transition residential to the more intense commercial land uses. We are on the edges, 36
and so, you know, we kind of feel like we're fringe in this plan, and we'll go a little bit more into that. 37
And the Plan does include standards to really enhance compatibility between the neighborhoods and the 38
larger buildings or intenser [sic] land uses. And again, as we go through our options and what's already 39
existing in context and the character of the zone and into that buffering neighborhood, we feel that our 40
plan, even though it doesn't necessarily align technically with Land Use Code, fits the spirit of this Plan, 41
of the Old Town Neighborhood Plan, and it aligns nicely with what City Plan is looking to accomplish. 42
18.8
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
8
MR. PALOMO: So, and I point here Denise is, I mean we ponder the question, I mean, how do 1
you best preserve a mixed-use section zone. I mean, is that really fostering more residential preservation 2
and development, or is it really allowing for more multi-plex dwellings? So, segue into… 3
MS. WHITE: And, again, I will add to that, you add additional complexities, again, as I said, we 4
think we're unique and we do think we're unique, so you add to the additional complexities that we're not 5
really fitting into these neighborhoods, we're part of a buffer zone, and we have a historic resources as our 6
primary property. So there's extra context and sensitivities and design that need to be considered when 7
we're looking at anything we do to that property as long as that primary home stands. 8
MR. PALOMO: And one more point that, I mean, literally 25 feet away you have a quad-plex 9
that is nearly 10,000 square feet that was built in 2013. I mean it's 25 feet away from our home that is a 10
1910 build, and we've invested quite a bit of money in preserving that as a residential structure. That is 11
how eclectic that block is. 12
MS. WHITE: So, again, just kind of giving that big shot, and as I said, the quick overview in the 13
beginning also referenced it, but this is that Google Earth shot showing you what that zone looks like and 14
where we are located into it, and it gives you a little more of the landscape architecture around us: mixed 15
buildings, parking lots, apartment buildings, multiple structures on one piece of property due to either 16
duplexes, carriage homes, add-ons, or all of the above actually into it. And you can also see that we are 17
one of the few actual single resident homes still within this context of this NCB. We have two neighbors, 18
one is I believe in the public participation section for today, that's our neighbor to the north, and they have 19
a home similar to ours, also bought around the same time. Unique context, just a little fun fact, is these 20
three homes were actually owned by the same owner previously. He passed away and his family sold all 21
three of these. So, around the same time, we all became homeowners in the same area. As I said, we 22
know his son who lives next door to us in there as an owner-occupied. The property to the south is one 23
that we will bring up again and you also saw it in the packet. That is a home that we have seen a 24
proposed concept for where the current owner is going to demolish that property. So when we're looking 25
at maintaining character and context, we really are one of the few single residences looking to make our 26
space livable as still a single residence as we continue to protect those neighborhoods as part of our job in 27
the NCB zone. 28
And again, this is just a closer one, we won't stay on this too long. But again, to give you a little 29
context, a little closer, that's our home, those are our blocks…our block and immediate neighbors. So 30
again, as the staff report kind of deferred back to some of the Old Town Plan neighborhood character 31
areas, this just goes back to, again, saying that we are unique, we are not, you know, we are the odd duck, 32
we are the square peg, round hole here, because what you can see is that the Old Town Plan, even though 33
its public participation process encompassed a lot of this area and probably extensively more…I've been 34
part of public process engagement…what you're seeing here is that our NCB zone, which is where we're 35
located, and it's kind of that clear area versus all the colored areas, doesn’t even have it's own character 36
area defined for it in the Plan. Our job strictly is to be a buffer zone; we don't even get to have a 37
neighborhood character, which as I said, kind of hurts my feelings because I feel like we are in a 38
neighborhood. And I left the text from this image because this image came right out of the Old Town 39
Neighborhood Plans, because it talks about how the 2013 Eastside/Westside character study identified six 40
distinct character areas comprising the NCL and the NCM zone, but uh-oh, just like everything else, the 41
NCB is missing. I mean, it's not even referenced here. 42
18.8
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
9
MR. PALOMO: And, Denise, and hence my question before, again, what do you consider in a 1
proposal when there's no character, right? What are you trying to preserve? 2
MS. WHITE: So, again, yeah, in terms of location and the site, per this Plan, the surrounding 3
neighborhoods and their character and location are protected. It's really where our house is located in this 4
zone where we're solely there to protect the other neighborhoods and not necessarily be able to develop 5
our own character, which, based on photos and context you've seen, we do have a character. And, even 6
though we're considered a zone, I think we are a neighborhood. 7
Again, from the Old Town Neighborhood Plan, we have a timeline of these planning facts, and I 8
included this just to show how much time goes by before zoning changes. And I'm sure Jeff will pop in 9
here because he's done a little more research on this that I have. But, you can see that this 10
Eastside/Westside character study and the Old Town Neighborhood Plans were developed out of these 11
plans that were again, in the '80's. But what wasn't mentioned necessarily in these plans is that 12
conservation zoning districts, the thing that we're part of, was developed in the 1990's, so 1991. Again, 13
the property we're talking about is a carriage home, and the carriage house standards were developed in 14
2004. So, I'm not a math major, I'm more in communications, so I don't even want to do that math on 15
that, but that's like sixteen, twenty some years ago. And so, yes, these neighborhoods were looked at, 16
public participation was brought into it to look at the neighborhoods, and so they developed new 17
standards for those, and yet it still feels like the conservation zoning districts were left out of the process 18
and left unrepresented. Or, again, at worst just didn't matter because we're not really supposed to be a 19
neighborhood, we're supposed to be a buffer zone. And, yes, we've looked through Code; there have been 20
changes to the conservation zoning district and to the carriage house standards in like, minor steps, 21
including what allows us to build a carriage home was a zone change or a change in the Land Use Code 22
last year I think it was that allows smaller properties to allow for a carriage home. We wouldn't have 23
qualified prior to that either. 24
MR. PALOMO: So, Denise, leave this up here. And on point to this, and I take exception to 25
staff's report on this forum not being appropriate to address zoning code. When do you do so, thirty years 26
from now when another deep dive is taken? I mean look at how much change we've experienced over the 27
last six months let alone thirty years. I mean, that's astounding, right? And to Denise's point, I mean 28
carriage house standards were developed sixteen years ago. I mean how did staff maintain nimbleness to 29
be in front of it as opposed to after it, right, after the fact, reactive where it's too late. 30
MS. WHITE: And we get that, we get that, because as I said I've worked in planning before, you 31
are reacting, you're hearing voices from the public or concerns and you're trying to react and then be 32
proactive by creating plans. But as we said, when we look at the timelines here, knowing Jeff and I want 33
to age in place here and make this a great property for future generations, we could be dead before the 34
next zoning change happens. So, you know, I'm not looking forward to that… 35
MR. PALOMO: But appreciating our asset and the character of our home individually, I mean 36
we've spent money and time in preserving it and we want to add value to it, and the amenities that anyone 37
would expect that has the means to purchase a new home and call it their forever home, right? And I 38
think our proposal actually adds that value and will go a long way in helping stabilize the preservation of 39
that primary home. 40
MS. WHITE: So I kind of talked a lot about what the character and compatibility and what the 41
goals were for the Old Town Neighborhood Plan, and again kind of showed that we were kind of 42
18.8
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
10
peripheral in that plan. As I said, we weren't living in that home at the time when the public planning 1
process went on leading to the Old Town Plan. It does show that, you know, there's appendices that show 2
how robust that outreach really was, and I know how hard it is to listen to the points of view to find 3
something that is kind of a compromise across the whole, but then when you compare the fact that 4
thousands of, or a little over a thousand, public participation and process and surveys for the Old Town 5
Neighborhood Plan, and then for tonight's meeting, for our zone, I think it was 107 notifications went out. 6
It just kind of shows contextually how kind of marginalized we can be because we live in a zone. And, 7
you know, we get it, we picked this house because we liked the vibrancy, we liked what we consider a 8
neighborhood, and we understand it's not a neighborhood, it's a zone, but we still would love some of the 9
opportunity to have it be a neighborhood and create a character in our property and in our development 10
that aligns with what is already there in the zone and what has…what actually matches that. 11
So, as I said, the Old Town Neighborhood Plan that has been referred to…we didn't heavily rely 12
on it in our initial application because we didn't feel like it super applied to us other than our house 13
happened to fall into it. So then you start to ask like, well, what are we really? Are we a place without 14
real placemaking? Have we been overlooked? And not just us, I mean the whole zone area. Or is it? 15
The City Plan actually calls our area, and gives a little more definition as to what the NCB should be, and 16
you can kind of see the big Structure Plan over here on the right and the close up on the left, but we are a 17
mixed neighborhood. And we're identified in the Land Use Code and in City Plan as being that mixed 18
neighborhood. And so, being in that mixed neighborhood, again, it's a mix of all sorts of things. That's 19
the character of that area. It's residential, it's commercial, it's retail, it's places of worship, it's multi-20
families, it's single-families, it's carriage homes, it's duplex. So, really when we look around at our 21
neighborhood and see what's there, like what we're proposing fits the context and the character of where 22
we're at. In addition to that, when we're looking back to that greater public good, because we interpret 23
looking at that public good as representing the larger audience of the Old Town Neighborhood Plan, 24
again, we think we, being tasked with being protectors of that, being in a buffer zone, this opportunity 25
exists to kind of create a great, cohesive development which, yes, it doesn't align numbers-wise, but 26
intent, and character, and compatibility, it really does. 27
MR. PALOMO: And point here that I want to make Denise is, you know, being a protector, what 28
are you protecting? I mean, being a buffer zone…I mean my perception is the Downtown district is 29
mostly commercial and pretty resilient right? I mean, you could plop anything in there and it's going to 30
be a downtown based upon what exists there now. I think a little more sensitive are the residential 31
neighborhoods, right? So we think in terms of protecting the residential neighborhood, and that being 32
what we're actually proposing. I mean, all of our efforts have been preserving that residential home by 33
adding the best proposal that we've considered of all we considered, and I think that will go a long way in 34
maintaining that preservation. 35
MS. WHITE: The next slide has a bit of graphics in it so it will take just a second to load. There 36
we go. So, again, as Jeff kind of said, how do we protect what's already happened? And so this is just a 37
slide, and I do want to say thank you to Clark because, you know, we do like history, and so another little 38
aside, we found this postcard from we believe the 1925 when we found the print mark on it that we found 39
when we were doing some tearing up old wallpaper in the house, and it's almost pristine. So, you know, 40
it's kind of cool that we have that. And Clark shared with us this map that he had and it was really cool to 41
get, but then we also realized it kind of laid out better than a Google map to show what we're trying to 42
show here. So, appreciate that support again in providing some materials to us. 43
18.8
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
11
But you can see here, this is kind of, again, that NCB block area and some of the character that is 1
developed in it, some of the compatibility that's developed in it. And granted, many of these were done 2
prior to Code change or they've found ways to get around it, and we'll talk a little bit more about that too. 3
But just trying to establish when we're talking that the proposal that we are putting out there is not for the 4
greater good or that it's not compatible, or that there's not something equal…or that it's not equal or better 5
than what we can do. These are some examples of things we can do…there's a process to each of them, 6
but these are all examples we can do. So, I'd love to call attention to the property at 629 South Sherman 7
[sic], that's the blue block right in the middle of the screen there, and that's like a block away from us. 8
That is a property that has a primary home, that’s the front picture you see, the one on the far left. It is 9
connected to that structure that is right in the middle picture you see…this is all one structure. And then, 10
in addition to that, it has a third unit on the back which you see on the right. You know, this is something 11
that already exists in that neighborhood, and I understand in the staff report they call out saying that's not 12
a good enough reason to change the Code, or give us an exclusion on the Code. But, at the same time, 13
what we're trying to say is, you know, the forest fire has already gone through here. You know, these are 14
things that already exist, and we have the ability to do…we'll show in a moment some of the things that 15
we have also considered that could be backup plans that fit into maybe this as character, but is that for the 16
better good of the public here? 17
MR. PALOMO: So, Denise, let me add a point here. I mean, the zones, the Code was established 18
and you know, they've been modified to some degree over the years, but they were established thirty 19
years ago, and I think even today we can try to add space and, you know, the aggregate space that we 20
want, by connecting to the existing historic home. But, we don't want to do that. We think that's an 21
inferior design, and we've actually considered that. And, you know, we could pursue that. That would be 22
the easier path to take. But, again, we're adamant that that is an inferior path. 23
MS. WHITE: As Jeff just said, there are actually a lot of easier paths to take if we didn't want to 24
really pursue what we feel is the best option for us and for the community, bot the NCB community and 25
the larger community. 26
So, just to touch on a couple other ones here because I know we did include a couple in the 27
application packet. You can see over here, closer to our home, as we talked about that one single 28
residence at 617, that's our neighbor. You know, staff also graciously provided us an image of what was 29
a proposed concept. Now, that may not be what the design is right now, but we have been old that this 30
concept could be allowed. It is permitted via Land Use Code. So, when you look at it, it really is just two 31
duplexes, but, it's connected by this patio and a roof over it which suddenly makes it a quad-plex. And 32
what we're saying is, you know, that's not such a bad design, but it also is very different when you're 33
putting that next to a historic resource. It's just showing that we could do something similar to that, but is 34
that really for the better good when we have a historic resource on the site. 35
MR. PALOMO: So, let me speak to this Denise. And again, from an investment standpoint, I 36
mean this is an investor that obviously owns this property and he wants a return off it. You know, that 37
might potentially be the easier path, right? You can…I don't know why two duplexes were not allowed 38
over a quad-plex. I don't know what differentiates them other than, you know, a few hundred dollars of 39
lumber and shingles connecting them…what the characteristic difference would be from an impact 40
standpoint. But, you can tell we're genuinely invested in that property to call it our forever home. I 41
mean, I think that proposed concept looks awesome, just not for a neighbor, a next door neighbor. I think 42
that contradiction is too substantial personally. 43
18.8
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
12
MS. WHITE: And that's permitted via the Land Use Code, so, again, these are things we can also 1
do. We are not taking the easy path, we are taking the one that we truly feel that…we wouldn't be going 2
down this hard of road if we didn't feel that this was the best option, again, that isn't detrimental to public 3
good. We feel those other options could be. And I'll let the other photos kind of speak for themselves 4
there, but these are all things that are in the neighborhood and help define, for lack of having our own 5
neighborhood character defined for us in the Old Town Neighborhood Plans, this is what's defining the 6
character of our little NCB zone. 7
MR. PALOMO: But Denise, one point…stay there if you can go back. I mean they're really 8
relevant here…I think they highlight the eclecticness [sic] of it. I mean, that center one to the left there, 9
the stucco duplex…I mean that was an add-on to a circa 1900 pretty charming home through a series of 10
breezeways. The one below…I mean it shows the…what appears to be a circa 1900 home in front, and to 11
the right is a duplex. And on the side that you can't see, I mean there's a gabled entranceway that 12
overlooks the one to the right there. But there's three pretty substantial duplexes right next to each other. 13
That is the zone we're in. 14
MS. WHITE: And again, we understand Code may have changed since these were built; 15
however, again, it's like that ship has sailed. This is the character of this neighborhood now…of this 16
zone. So again, just kind of quickly referring back to the Old Town Neighborhood Plans because we did 17
revisit it seeing it come up in the staff report again. What were we not paying attention to there? And the 18
more we read through it, the more we just realized it actually supports the fact that we really weren't 19
considered. And by we, I don't mean Jeff and I, I just mean those zone districts, in particular this NCB, 20
and perhaps because there's not a lot of owners there…or residents that live there…that they weren't as 21
vocal or didn't feel it impacted them as much, but you know, just because something happened in the past, 22
or just because it wasn't vocalized at the time doesn't mean it's not time to try to steer into a different 23
direction or right the course. 24
So, in that Plan, you know…or the design guidelines, sorry, this came out of the design 25
guidelines...you know, they looked through these level of context as they're looking at what a 26
development might fit or not fit into that neighborhood, how it's appropriate. And this is, again, aside 27
from Land Use Code, we can't argue the numbers, but you look there on the right and this is kind of the 28
layers it goes through, which is like looking at the neighborhood. In this case their example is a historic 29
neighborhood which can be good because we have a historic resource as our property…they go down to 30
the character study. Again, we don't have a character study in the Old Town Plan. We are a zone and we 31
weren't given a character study other than what we can find in the City Plan. 32
Next you go to that surrounding context in the block. We have shown you what's in that 33
surrounding context and block. And then the adjacent properties, and we've also talked about those. The 34
one that plans to demolish and build and then our neighbor to the right who I believe is here for public 35
comment, so we'll let him speak for himself, but he has provided us a letter of support saying that he 36
doesn't object to this project. 37
Also in that plan was this…and I know there's a lot of words and I hate putting a lot of 38
words…people start to read them…on a slide, but this was a vision structure that was shared in there. 39
And so going back to that public participation process and knowing that this Plan was vetted, a lot of that 40
that boiled down to and is shown in this plan is that there were four kind of key areas of concern, or 41
themes, that rose to the top here. And so those were neighborhood character and compatibility, land use 42
and transition areas, sustainability, and then circulation and mobility. Really, you know, those all kind of 43
18.8
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
13
broke down into what was in these other categories which are kind of like, what's unique, livable, 1
connected, sustainable. And again, Land Use Code aside, when you look at our proposed project and then 2
you compare it to these kind of categories which are in the Old Town Neighborhood Plan and in the 3
design guidelines, you know, unique…we were looking for unique here. A diversity of building styles, 4
historic context, compatible design, single-family character, landscaping and tree canopy. Like, our 5
design hits all of these buttons. We aren't looking to create a diversity of building styles, we're not 6
looking to do the piecemeal mish-mash non-cohesive design that we've seen in that previous slide where 7
you see the add-on then the triplex added to it. We're looking to preserve that historic context and help 8
keep that integrity intact here in this neighborhood, and to protect the neighborhoods that that's our job to 9
protect. 10
Compatible design…it's a mish-mash of design, but we do feel like this is a compatible design, 11
both to, like, what the character of the NCB zone is already, as well as a compatible design to the existing 12
structure on the property which is a historic resource. Single-family character; we are one of the few 13
single-family homes left in that area, and we are trying to maintain that by respecting that property with 14
the best preferred option here. Landscaping and tree canopy, again, this option continues to give us some 15
of that urban nature in the city kind of space, a chance for some urban agriculture, as well as just that 16
green space that's between the two structures. Some of our other alternate options will eat into that, we'll 17
kind of give you a quick show of that. 18
MR. PALOMO: And point to that…I mean we feel righting the path would be best by nurturing 19
and fostering the preservation of some of these circa 1900 homes. But the contradiction in the Code just 20
makes it so challenging to do so. I mean, relative to accessory dwellings in the back, termed carriage 21
homes, a quad-plex has very little to zero constraints to build. There's not height restrictions, there's no 22
footprint restrictions, there's no floor whole square footage restrictions…it's insane. I mean, you could 23
essentially do whatever you want if you demolish that structure that exists on there, versus a carriage 24
home, versus our challenge. I mean, there are so many constraints that were developed sixteen years ago 25
for a carriage home. And mind you, the Code for our zones were established nearly thirty years ago, and 26
all those are, with minor modifications over the years, are still applicable and apply and restrict us from 27
really adding true value in righting the wrong. 28
MS. WHITE: So, again, just kind of looking at these, and as Jeff kind of said, we're trying to 29
show, again, we know Code…by Code…the numbers are what they are. But, here's where we feel like 30
we fit these other aspects that the City is asking of any property development that's happening within the 31
Old Town Neighborhood Plan or this Neighborhood Conservation Buffer. So, you know, again, livability 32
and sustainability. Connectibility [sic] I'm not going to touch on so much. We are right on a major 33
Transfort path right into the student union center, so we've got connectivity. We have made many 34
friends, even though we don't know all their names, of people who walk by when we're out in the yard, 35
you know, and so we were trying to get some of them to call in today to say, you know, because they're 36
always telling us they love what we're doing with the place, they looked at the development review 37
online. But you know, I don't believe, you know, it's like…they just…they are happy with what we're 38
doing with it, they like the plan, but they're not so opposed to it or whatever that they feel they need to 39
speak up to defend it. 40
So…sustainable. Again, sustainable here…we're talking from the green and open space in there, 41
but more in that sustainable and keeping in that historic context is the fact that this is a property we're 42
trying to maintain, historic preservation for the historic resource as well as into future generations and 43
18.8
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
14
future uses, because we're trying to create the best option that will make someone else invest and keep 1
this going on in perpetuity. 2
I'm going to kind of skip over this slide because I did share most of what we were going to speak 3
to on it in the last slide, but it's just to acknowledge that we have read through the Plan. We are also 4
trying to listen to the community just as the planners did when they went through that process. But again, 5
looking through that Plan, you know, it feel like focus was on those neighborhoods, less focus on the 6
conservation buffers, which really just have a job to do, and that's not to be a neighborhood, it's to be a 7
protector of the neighborhoods. And, again, pulling from that Plan, these pictures, and I know they're 8
kind of artistic so you can't quite see all of the details in them…these were pulled from that Plan and they 9
were all included in the Plan as good examples. And they go to the examples that Jeff and I have already 10
showed you…that it's a mixed bag. And so, if you're really trying to protect the neighborhoods in the 11
next zones over, that ship has sailed. And so, this really is the character of the neighborhood that we live 12
in now and it's the character of the neighborhood that is protecting those other neighborhoods. 13
So, let's get to that preferred option we keep referring to…just to refresh your memory of what 14
that looks like. We really are, in this modification request, looking to have what we're calling the 15
enhanced carriage house. So, it is a carriage house in its main purpose, but it's oversized. And the 16
oversize is because we are looking to not only have the carriage house, but to have extra living space for 17
the primary residence. And that's basically, again, to mix what we've been hearing from staff as well as 18
what you read in the Old Town Neighborhood Plans, is that this is really an area that is 50/50. Fifty 19
percent of them want nothing touched, they want to maintain the history, and fifty percent are really 20
looking for, like, development, and moving into the next century. And we feel like this is that best option 21
that fits those needs. It really is a 50/50 option. We maintain the historic residence and the integrity of it, 22
and then we build something very compatible to that property…or to that primary structure…that is also 23
compatible to the neighborhood and the neighborhood character. And it also brings the old back into the 24
new, because we get to keep that beautiful old structure, but we get to bring some of the new world uses 25
to it. By new world, I just mean things like art room, hobby space, fitness room, a garage, you know, we 26
don't have a garage. So, this is to accomplish that. You can see from the site plan, the basic kind of 27
layout, and you can see the space that weaves between the primary structure and the carriage home. Even 28
though it's an enhanced carriage home, we still have quite a bit of yard there, and so…again, those 29
common needs. So, yes, it is sounding oversized, but it's not all just people livable space…730 square 30
feet of this is for garage, which is a contemporary need and use. So, just kind of going through what the 31
existing plan is and why. We'll go through next what our other alternate options are and why we think 32
this is the best. 33
MR. PALOMO: Denise, let me speak to this a bit here. I mean, it's…you consider it stand-alone, 34
and, yeah, it exceeds the parameters of what a carriage home is, but truly this is a combination of 35
otherwise having this parsed out to accommodate not only the features for the front as well as the back. I 36
mean, garage, 730 square feet, in my opinion, that shouldn't go against allowable livable square feet. I 37
mean, that's housing two vehicles, a couple motorcycles, and lawn equipment. I mean, 730 square feet…I 38
mean, that alone, just for storage, chews up 1,000 square feet of what technically is allowable for a 39
carriage home. I mean, that's insane, that's not current…you know, that's not sustainable. I mean, code 40
needs to be addressed to accommodate the needs of today, not the needs sixteen to thirty years ago, right? 41
So, you know, we can parse all this out, and we've considered that possibility, but it is truly an inferior 42
design; it chews up all the green space in the yard and you get more of the same. Back to you Denise. 43
18.8
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
15
MS. WHITE: Thanks…and so, yeah, we've talked about those possible options, and Jeff just 1
referred to parsing it out, so, you know, of all the options we've looked at, we really truly believe that in 2
looking through the neighborhood plans, through the buffer zone definitions, through City Plan, and what 3
the City is trying to achieve, you know, this proposed enhanced carriage house really is equal or better 4
than our alternatives, and it really is in the best interest of the public good, so it's not detrimental to the 5
public good. 6
And so, we have four options on the table…there's actually five options; the fifth option would be 7
leave the structure just as it is and not do any development on it, but that doesn't meet our needs, so that is 8
off the table. The rest of these options we maintain, and we considered them, but they are back-up plans. 9
Really, we feel like we have presented the best option. So, some of these other options include adding to 10
the primary home, and remember that primary home is a historic resource. So, in talking with Maren, the 11
Senior Historic Preservation Planner with the City, you know, she's given us some parameters and some 12
information on how this could be done, and it is a process, and there are concerns with diminishing or 13
damaging that primary home which is the historic resource, and there's limitations into kind of how it can 14
be done. Like, one of these options is this hyphen, so that's kind of what we did there, which is like a jut 15
out connection between the back of the house to addition, the next construction. 16
MR. PALOMO: And, Denise, let me chime in here. I mean, and we've illustrated examples of 17
that, and that's actually predominant and proliferated throughout this zone in those few blocks, and you 18
know, I don't think anyone would agree that that is a great design. 19
MS. WHITE: And it doesn't feel compatible, if you're trying to protect those other 20
neighborhoods, it doesn't feel compatible to those other designs. But, it is an option…it is an option. 21
MR. PALOMO: And the option you spoke to before of doing nothing, I mean it still leaves that 22
historic home vulnerable to, you know, someone that, beyond us, that acknowledges it doesn't meet their, 23
you know, current livable standards from a space standpoint and a feature and amenities standpoint. So, 24
you know, there's a lot of yard there. So, so yeah, that's not an option. 25
MS. WHITE: Yeah; it also leaves that property vulnerable to not existing. Because, in addition 26
to…it's like looking at our neighbor to the south, you know, they bought that property to demolish that 27
home to build from scratch what they wanted to do, which is another one of our options. I'll jump ahead 28
to that. You know, I know in the staff report it says we cannot demolish existing structures; however, you 29
know, through email exchanges and clarification, we do believe we can. It does…it is a process just like 30
we're going through right now; it's a different type of process. But, we can, and it actually could be easier 31
than what we're doing right now because it doesn't trigger other codes or other surveys that have to go on. 32
And so, yeah, it is not…I think staff represented the resources as being historic landmark or designated 33
landmark, it is not, it is a historic resource. We, down the road, may consider trying to get it landmarked, 34
but we've also found through this process we have enough hurdles and hoops to get through that if we 35
added another hurdle or hoop for ourselves, we could actually hurt our process and our intent of trying to 36
maintain this main primary structure which is a historic resource, but it is an option on the table. 37
A couple of the other ones, and Jeff referred to them a little earlier, is we can add more structures 38
to the property. We can do two carriage homes, smaller in size. We could do a carriage home and an 39
accessory dwelling unit, or we could do a carriage home, an accessory dwelling unit, and a shed. So, you 40
know, code allows us to do a lot of things. Again, working through processes, but more allowable than 41
18.8
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
16
what we're trying to do right now. We are not taking the easy path; we are trying to do this, even though 1
it's hard, because we think it is the best option for everyone. 2
And finally, you've seen some of them; we could develop a duplex. That was actually one of the 3
first courses we went down and paths we went down. You know, and both that, as well as perhaps two 4
carriage homes, requires additional infrastructure, and so that's why we went back to one solo structure; 5
however, that is an avenue available to us. 6
So, just wanted to kind of give you a quick view of what one of those alternates might look like. 7
So, you saw our original plan which is one larger carriage home which doesn't eat up too much of the 8
yard space, which fits into kind of that 50/50 old/new kind of feel of the neighborhood and respects the 9
character and our neighbors on that. 10
This would be another alternate option; probably if we get denied on this first one, this could be 11
the path we go down next, and it's building two smaller carriage homes, which is not our intent, it's not 12
our desire because it does eat up a lot of space. But, it would serve our purposes better than just doing a 13
carriage home and a shed for garage stuff because, again, as I said, we have additional needs for fitness 14
and some art space and both of those require some plumbing, and if we have to put plumbing in, we have 15
to go through a different review process and have infrastructure put in, and if we're going to put all that 16
infrastructure in, rather than twenty years from now, or ten years from now, go, oh, let's try to turn that 17
into a carriage house and be caught by land code use then, we would probably look to our future and say, 18
let's get it done now and just make sure that we can have it even though we don't need it now, in case we 19
need it in the future or a future owner does. 20
MR. PALOMO: And, let me speak to this. And, it's sad, because, you know, we're being…one of 21
the issues is a gable to the side yards. We'd have to address that in this as well to a dormer configuration, 22
but pretty doable. But again, contrasting that to a quad-plex, or two duplexes connected by a breezeway, 23
or a few hundred dollars in lumber and shingles…they're not governed by that. It's a sad omission in the 24
Code. So, you know, staff's standing behind the position that, you know, this allows you to overlook the 25
neighbor's yard…it's not a consideration for multi-family units. 26
MS. WHITE: And, as I said, Jeff and I have talked about how we think that this is kind of crazy, 27
that something like this would be allowed. And I believe even staff have told us in one meeting that, you 28
know, it probably is something that was overlooked because when they were doing the Old Town 29
Neighborhood Plans, nobody thought about this scenario. And so, again, it just speaks to the point that 30
like, code, just by it's nature, is always a step behind, it's always a step behind. And so we're trying to 31
move forward, and as I said, marry that contemporary with the historic on this. So, you've kind of seen 32
what we think is a viable option should we not be able to move ahead with our preferred option, but this 33
also just feeds into more of that clutter, or what we feel like when the neighborhood plans groups, the Old 34
Town Neighborhood Plans groups, were giving their public feedback, this is probably more of what they 35
were concerned with than a single structure that might be a little oversized. 36
So, we'll go back to that one just so you can kind of see, again, what we're putting forth. And we 37
hope we've really made the case here that this option truly is equally good or better than other options that 38
would comply, and that it truly is in the best interest of everyone's good, the public good, our good, the 39
Neighborhood Conservation Buffer and doing our job, because we do think that of all the options 40
available to us…if our job in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer zone is to kind of protect those 41
neighborhoods on the other side, this one feels like it has the most character and compatibility to some of 42
18.8
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
17
those single family homes, or other options that we see in those neighborhoods. And I'll let Jeff talk for a 1
moment, see if he has anything else to say in conclusion. 2
MR. PALOMO: Well, a couple other things…a concern from staff is the back structure should 3
appear subordinate to the primary. You know, from the front, even on the sidewalk, you truly cannot see 4
beyond the primary structure. This would be virtually non-visible from anyone walking down or driving 5
down the front. And for two, I mean this is a combination of value, not only into itself, but it adds value 6
to that front. I mean, again, these old homes which have plenty of character don't have amenities that are 7
expected by consumers today, and that is, you know, garage space, garage space…and again, to reiterate 8
that point, 730 square feet of this structure is garage, is for storage, is protecting vehicles from the 9
elements. And…I'm sorry? 10
MS. WHITE: Is that about it? 11
MR. PALOMO: Well, actually, one other point here. And one other thing I want to take 12
exception to in the staff report is, there's a statement in there that mentions, should we be successful in 13
getting approval for our application, that we've convinced you guys, and hopefully we do get approval on 14
this, but they reserve the right to reduce the square footage based upon design and concept. This is our 15
design, this is our concept. I mean, that would deem this meeting, this whole process, a complete charade 16
and irrelevant to that if they're permitted to reduce the size. I mean, we've reduced this, you know, in a 17
responsible, respectful way of the primary structure, and complete consideration into the neighborhood 18
and really establishing character that we think would bode best for encouraging preservation of other 19
circa 1900 homes in the neighborhood. And I think that is truly the bulk of them; I mean some of them 20
are in disrepair, but some of them have great bones and this might encourage a preservation perspective as 21
opposed to a tear down and putting up a quad-plex perspective. And, with that, I turn it over to Denise. 22
MS. WHITE: Yeah, I think that's it. That's all we've got to present in addition to what was 23
presented in the original packet. So, I will stop screen sharing now and go into mute. I think it goes to 24
staff, but, as I said, we weren't one hundred percent sure of the flow, so if you do have questions that 25
we're able to respond to now, we are open for those too, but I will stop sharing my screen now. 26
MS. STRAND: Thanks Denise. I actually jotted quite a few questions down, but I think that it 27
would be most effective and efficient for Clark to do his presentation, and then I will throw my questions 28
out there, because perhaps some will be answered, but thank you for that. 29
MR. MAPES: Alright, thank you for that presentation. I think everyone can see why staff, over 30
the last I'm not sure how many months, six or more months, has explored this so far in depth, and I 'll say 31
I think more in-depth examination of all those issues in the NCB zoning district than have ever come up 32
before. There's a lot of first-time topics that we've discussed with the applicants in this whole process, 33
one definite example being the idea of two carriage houses. It's true, that was just…there's nothing in the 34
zone that prohibits that, but it was never even contemplated as a possibility. That's just one example. 35
This would be kind of repetitive, I think, to what the applicants have presented, but this is…so, to 36
be clear, this is looking east over the rear yard of the property. You see the property outlined there…so 37
typically you might have the imagery with north to the top, but here it's looking east so that you can see 38
the property from the rear yard. And this shows you the whole block…doesn't go quite as far to the right 39
as where Laurel Street is, but Laurel Street fronts those large buildings that you see right there. And these 40
are properties where larger buildings have been built…either the houses removed or larger buildings built 41
18.8
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
18
in the rear yards of what formerly was the original, you know, modest houses on large lots. I think the 1
applicants have covered this whole idea pretty well, but that's available for us. And then here we are with 2
another view looking the opposite way, west, over the front yard. You see the property there. It's just to 3
give a sense of how this property and its yard, you know, fits in the context of the block. If there's any 4
detailed questions or discussions, we can come back to this and identify specific properties and so on. 5
And again, I understand that in the last few days we have received comments, or you know, 6
communications of support from the neighbors on both sides of this lot regarding, you know, the impacts 7
on the rear yards that could be introduced if this were to happen. 8
On the modification, the staff report explains the criteria that govern modifications. The decision 9
maker can grant the modification only if it finds that it not be detrimental to the public good and that it 10
meets one of these four criteria. I want to speak to the not detrimental to the public good. I want to be 11
candid here in saying that all through the discussions we've had over the months, staff has…and it's not 12
just me as the staff planner, I've discussed this with all of our planning staff…and we've been struggling 13
whether to find that this is in some way as good or better as a plan that would comply with the carriage 14
house standards, or maybe it be closer to the 1,000 square feet of floor area and so on, and the 600 square 15
foot footprint, and the thirteen foot eave height. In the staff report when I mentioned a finding that it 16
would be detrimental to the public good, that part of it has not had much thought. And I would retract 17
that part of it. I think staff's main finding involves that criterion one that, when you compare this carriage 18
house to a carriage house that complies with those much more limited size and height limits, staff just 19
simply was not able to make a finding that that was the case, that it was as good or better in that regard. 20
But, if I can do that here…never done this before, but there wasn't much thought, if any, given to…it was 21
kind of a rote aspect of finding that staff was going to recommend denial of the request…but, the 22
detrimental to the public good part, I would not have been able to explain a strong, or a clear, finding in 23
support of that. 24
So, with that…also…on the modification, you've seen enough of the… 25
MS. STRAND: I'm sorry, Clark, can I just interrupt real quick? You just said that you would 26
have difficulty finding support for a finding that it's not detrimental to the…there's a lot of cross negatives 27
so I just want to be clear. So, are you saying that you would have difficulty not finding that that criterion 28
was met? If you were to…it's staff's recommendation that this alternative that's being proposed is not 29
detrimental to the public good? I just want to be clear on what staff's finding is on that piece. 30
MR. MAPES: I would have difficulty finding that it would be detrimental to the public good, 31
which is what the staff report says. And I could explain why, you know, I didn't consider that very much. 32
Usually these things go together, whether it's in support or denial of a modification. Usually….that's 33
another first that I've ever seen…that I think there is a difference in this case between the detrimental to 34
the public good and then one of the criteria. To approve a modification, there has to be a finding for both, 35
that it not be detrimental to the public good and that it meets one of these criteria. And staff's entire 36
review has been really based on the criterion one, and really not on any discussion of whether and how it 37
would be detrimental to the public good. So, the finding would be the same, that staff does not find that it 38
is…that it meets criterion one, even though I would retract the finding in the staff report that says that it 39
would be detrimental to the public good. 40
MS. STRAND: Okay, thanks for the clarification. Go on. 41
18.8
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
19
MR. MAPES: Yeah…I don't think it would be detrimental to the public good because of the…for 1
a whole number of reasons. So…I think you've seen enough of the plans for the modification. This 2
shows the size, the footprint, you know…larger than the existing home and so forth, as explained in the 3
staff report. It's that magnitude of exceeding the written stated standards that staff has struggled with as 4
far as finding support. Here, the lower elevation here shows you the wall height exceeding 13 feet, in 5
fact, you know, by quite a bit, where the left gable is just a wall, a straight up wall that far exceeds 13 6
feet. The right gable you see here would be a dormered feature that occupies more than 25% of the wall 7
length. So those are size limits that would require modifications. And this is just the other side, looking 8
at the top elevation here, the north elevation where, again, there is wall height in excess of 13 feet, as 9
specifically intended to not occur under the limits, and then a dormer feature…this is actually recessed 10
back but, it would be considered a dormer feature and that would be limited to no more than 25% of the 11
wall length, and it would exceed that. So, those are, again, it's just the numbers that we've talked about. 12
Staff's findings, as stated in the staff report, again, this detrimental to the public good…that was 13
kind of a rote statement that I put in there without giving it much thought, because typically, as I said, that 14
normally goes hand in hand with whatever finding is made on these other criteria. 15
I don't know…I guess I can read through these. I'll try to summarize a little bit, but the point is, 16
with staff's finding, that the limits that are in the Code are very specific, limiting total size and the height 17
of side walls. It's been acknowledged that those are based on extensive public processes; they represent 18
compromise. There are people throughout the Old Town neighborhoods who even feel that the standards 19
that exist are too lenient, but you know, these represent a compromise. But among those who feel that the 20
standards are too lenient, there's some strong sentiment that the least the City can do is follow our own 21
zoning standards. I have been involved in a lot of those past processes and they do involve other parts of 22
the Old Town neighborhoods, mostly…the vast majority of the concerns and issues are in other parts of 23
the Old Town neighborhoods that are more intact with their original historic patter of modest houses, or 24
even small houses, with yards around them and so on. So, staff agrees that this is a unique situation. This 25
area of NCB zoning next to CSU is unique, and it's unique among the Old Town neighborhoods in 26
general, the larger Old Town neighborhoods. 27
But that first finding there that the scale and those walls would introduce visual and privacy 28
impacts that are specifically intended to be avoided. The impacts would be on the neighbors on either 29
side, and again, you've got information, comments, from those neighbors on both sides that we've gotten 30
today, and I think yesterday or Friday. And we appreciate hearing from that, but…so that could be a 31
consideration. The standards that are in the Code have a general overall part of their vision, I guess, 32
behind them, that they would be subordinate to the original houses, kind of more like the pattern that was 33
the original historic pattern in the neighborhoods that people are concerned is threatened by 34
redevelopment and larger construction in the rear yards. Again, that really is more pertinent in other parts 35
of these Old Town neighborhoods. 36
Staff's finding is based on comparing the proposal not to the other things that could be done on 37
the property, such as removing the house and building an apartment building, but comparing it to the 38
purpose of the standard and comparing it to a plan that would have a carriage house, again, of the size that 39
complies with the standard. And also, just acknowledging that also comparing it to past development isn't 40
something that staff can really base a finding on, because in fact some of the…well, the zoning in these 41
neighborhoods and the carriage house standards were done in response to some of that past development, 42
so it's not a reason to find that we could continue to do those things. Again, all of those provisions in the 43
zone and regarding carriage houses were done more with other areas in mind. 44
18.8
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
20
Staff…okay…this is my last slide. Staff acknowledges the points in the application. The original 1
context…in fact the original development of this block and this whole area has changed dramatically over 2
the years. And we understand the applicants' contention that the larger carriage house would be as good 3
or better than some of the other kinds of development that could be done here, but again, that's not the 4
way staff ended up…didn't base our recommendation on that, based more on comparing it to, as I said, to 5
a carriage house that does meet the standards. 6
I mentioned this is the first time that staff has encountered, at least at this level, some of the 7
contradictions in the zoning. Staff, I can tell you, is thinking that we do need to revisit this NCB zoning. 8
There's a number of issues that you've heard some of tonight, that I don't think…it's not just me, again, 9
the Planning staff, is seeing that the standards and the limits and so forth may not be consistent with the 10
purpose of the zoning or neighborhood character conservation. 11
So, with that, that's my presentation. Oh, there were a few points, kind of some specific points, to 12
respond to the applicants' presentation. One, as far as the property being a landmark, my understanding is 13
that it's been found to be eligible as designation as a historic landmark, but staff has not ever said that it is 14
a historic landmark. But the fact that it's eligible for designation makes it a historic resource and subject 15
to Land Use Code limits for that. Very, very semantic point, but staff's…the staff report says that the 16
ability to demolish an eligible historic resource like that is limited. The staff report didn't say that it's 17
prohibited, but it's pretty strictly limited, and the process to do that is a difficult one…just semantics 18
really. 19
There is the idea of a duplex, I think, a duplex in the rear yard, which was the first conceptual 20
proposal, and that actually is something that's just directly not permitted in the list of permitted uses in the 21
zoning. Again, a minor point, but to the extent that if the applicants feel that one of their options is to go 22
back to the idea of a duplex in the rear yard, that's not permitted. One of the things that staff has realized, 23
I think here for the first time, is the contradiction in the fact that a duplex could be put in the rear yard 24
behind the street-facing house if it was connected by a roof. So, again, that's something that we just 25
hadn't seen prior to the conceptual review for the property next door, and that's an obvious contradiction 26
that doesn't make sense in the zoning. 27
And then, finally, if the modifications were to be approved here, the staff report just wanted to 28
make sure that everyone understands that that doesn't represent approval of a development plan to build 29
the carriage house. If the modifications are approved here, then the applicants can submit a development 30
plan, and they can submit those very plans that we're looking at, but they would go through the 31
development review process, and the particular difference there, from the review that's been done 32
regarding the modification so far, is that it would go before the Landmark Preservation Commission 33
which would be looking at the design compatibility of the proposal. And the staff report just kind of has 34
a, sort of, caveat, or warning in there that if the LPC, or staff, in our review were to find that it's violating 35
other provisions of the Code for design compatibility, this approval of this modification wouldn't just 36
override any further review and enable that to be built as it is. So, with those points, I will stop sharing 37
and see how we want to move on next. Thank you. 38
MS. STRAND: Thank you…a lot of information. It sounds like there's some text amendments 39
that may be needed at some point in the near future. But, I do have a number of questions, and they're 40
going to be scattered. And I think…so I apologize if they seem to jump around, but I'd like to have staff 41
answer them first and then the applicant can respond and provide their take on it. So, I may have to pause 42
a couple times as I try to read my scribbles. 43
18.8
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
21
The first thing I want to understand, and both presentations have spoken to this, but I’m not 1
entirely clear on it, is a clear understanding of what the alternatives are. And I'm focused on the standards 2
that I have to make a decision by. And both staff and the applicant have focused on one of the four, kind 3
of, alternatives, for the granting of a modification, and that's the equally or better. So, you know, that 4
language says the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the 5
modification is requested. So, there are one, two, three, four, five, different modifications that are being 6
requested…equally well or better than a plan which complies with those standards. So, I know that that's 7
more narrow probably than what folks would like, but I do feel I am somewhat constrained to that 8
criterion in what I am able to move within. 9
So, what I want to understand is that, assuming the 1910 home stays, what can, or can't be 10
allowed in the rear, and what is the kind of comparative analysis of those massing components. Because 11
these standards that we're seeking a modification to are really building footprint, floor area, height of the 12
eave, dormers…they all kind of go to that massing and, you know, whether or not there is a kind of 13
privacy issue with adjacent properties. So, we talked about a duplex. So, a duplex in the rear yard, from 14
what you just said, is not permitted, but perhaps would be permitted if it was connected in some way. So, 15
can you just go through, Clark, if we keep the 1910 house, these are the options. And I like a kind of 16
massing comparison because of that standard. 17
MR. MAPES: So, there could be…if you find the point going from front to back in the lot where 18
you find the rear half of the lot…within the rear half of the lot, there could be 1,583 square feet divided 19
up among carriage houses that are limited to 1,000 square feet, other accessory buildings, think garage or 20
shed, limited to 600 square feet. So, any combination of carriage houses and other garages or sheds, with 21
carriage houses not exceeding 1,000 and sheds not exceeding 600. So like one carriage house and one 22
shed, you'd have 1,600 square feet… 23
MS. STRAND: Minus seventeen, because it's 1,583. 24
MR. MAPES: So, 1,000 and 600…so there's 1,600…so just in the rear half, that would exceed 25
the 1,583, but that's pretty close. 26
MS. STRAND: Right. 27
MR. MAPES: If it was possible for part of the carriage house or one of the sheds to overlap into 28
the front half, then, you know, there could be additional square footage permitted. 29
MS. STRAND: So, in what context would it be allowed to cross over that middle mark? 30
MR. MAPES: Okay…there's nothing that requires that these things be built in the rear half… 31
MS. STRAND: Oh, I see. 32
MR. MAPES: And so, the lot itself also would have a total square footage allowance. I don't 33
have that total in front of me…you know that actually has never come up, but I could easily find it if we 34
want. But the lot itself, the overall lot, also has a total square footage limit. So, as long as they're within 35
the total square footage limit for the lot, whatever it is, and 1,583 square feet in the rear half of the lot, 36
then they could do an addition to the house, they can have a combination of additions to the house and 37
those other accessory buildings I mentioned, the carriage house, garages and sheds…so that's what they 38
18.8
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
22
could do. They could add on to the house and build these other buildings within those overall floor area 1
limits, and with the accessory buildings, carriage house and other accessory buildings limited to those 2
sizes. 3
MS. STRAND: So, I guess… 4
MR. MAPES: Now, to the extent that there is a possible way for this owner or some future owner 5
to demolish that historic resource, then one of the alternatives would be a multi-family building…it 6
wouldn’t even have to be limited to a four-plex, a multi-family building with its parking lot, as long as it 7
complied with these floor area limits. The total for the lot, whatever it is, and then the 1,583 in the rear 8
half. The building that is two door down, the four-plex that you saw some photos of… 9
MS. STRAND: That's proposed, that is in concept plan? 10
MR. MAPES: No, two doors down is a four-plex that is built where a house was removed. And 11
there is a four-plex…largest building in this row of little houses. The…next door to the south is the 12
image you saw with essentially two duplexes connected by a roof. And in fact, that's a bit ironic that this 13
applicant started requested a duplex in the rear yard, was told the Code doesn't permit that…and that was 14
around the time that this conceptual review came in for the property next door in which they would scrape 15
the house, remove the house, build two duplexes, one behind the other, but have it be permitted by 16
connecting them with a roof that forms kind of a little courtyard between them. So, that's one of the, sort 17
of contradictions that you've heard about. So, that's next door…two doors down is the four-plex. That 18
four-plex, if it was possible to fit the floor area and the parking, that four-plex could have been probably 19
more. The limit there is 24 units per acre, so I don't know what the density per acre is on that four-plex, 20
but if it's possible to get more than four units, multi-family buildings are permitted. 21
MS. STRAND: For the house where there is the four-plex, was it a…eligible for designation? 22
MR. MAPES: No. 23
MS. STRAND: No; so they are distinguishable in that regard. 24
MR. MAPES: And likewise, the house next door that came to conceptual review, which 25
was…you know, is being proposed…that owner does indeed intend to remove it and build the two 26
duplexes. Whether they come in with that very contemporary, modern design that you saw would have to 27
be, you know, that would have to go through the design review process, and it doesn't look likely that that 28
could come in just the way they designed it, but I don't know yet. That would have to… 29
MS. STRAND: For the concept one, I think I missed it, is that eligible for designation? 30
MR. MAPES: That was my point, no, that one is not. 31
MS. STRAND: Neither of them are? Okay. 32
MR. MAPES: None of these…you know, we're not seeing any proposals for demolishing eligible 33
houses. 34
MS. STRAND: Okay. So, you know, to my initial question, you know, I guess the point of my 35
question is that when you talk about what can go in the rear yard, is there a contradiction with respect to, 36
18.8
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
23
we're keeping the 1910 home, but if we were to do a duplex in the rear yard, it could have greater 1
massing. And the answer, it sounds like, no, that's not the case. Am I summarizing correctly? 2
MR. MAPES: The only way a duplex could be put in the rear…well, behind the street-facing 3
house, is if it was connected to the… 4
MS. STRAND: Right, and so let's assume it's connected, let's assume it's allowed…because, 5
again, these standards go to…mostly go to massing and height. So, you couldn't have something bigger 6
that would be allowed than what's allowed for a carriage house because these rear lot requirements apply 7
regardless of if it's a carriage house, and accessory building… 8
MR. MAPES: I see… 9
MS. STRAND: That's my question. 10
MR. MAPES: Actually, no, the total floor area limits would be the same, but the wall height, side 11
wall height, would not. So, that's the main thing. But, a duplex attached to the main house that was going 12
to maximize its floor area could be any mass, subject to design review, but any mass that doesn't violate 13
the total floor area limits for the whole lot or for the rear half. 14
MS. STRAND: Right. 15
MR. MAPES: So, there's a kind of a fine, almost a semantic point in the Code…the duplex that's 16
not permitted in the rear yard, it's not permitted to be behind the street-facing house. So, that's a little 17
different than the floor area limits on the rear fifty percent of the lot…it's all related, it all overlaps, but… 18
MS. STRAND: Go ahead Jeff… 19
MR. PALOMO: I'm sorry; I just want to see if you see my hand raised? 20
MS. STRAND: I saw you light up, so… 21
MR. PALOMO: Okay…so, that was the initial concept submitted and included in the documents 22
that Clark submitted to you, or remitted to you, were the staff findings on that initial concept, so he 23
speaks to it there…there's written review. And, to my understanding, Clark, it's not permitted by Code, 24
but there's a process to, much like this, to go through an approval for it. 25
MR. MAPES: The addition of a permitted use…right. So, a duplex behind the street-facing 26
house is not a permitted use, but like everything in the Code, there is a procedure for that, and that would 27
be…another process called the addition of a permitted use…so that is true. There'd even be a way to 28
propose a duplex behind the street-facing house, that's correct. Thank you. 29
MR. PALOMO: Yep, and a couple other points here. And, to answer some of your questions, 30
and my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong Clark, but, both Denise and I have spent a lot of time 31
going through Code, and my understanding is, and this is illustrated on some of the pictures that we've 32
also provided Lori, that if you connect a back structure with a breezeway, you're not governed by the 33
constraints that govern a carriage house…it's part of the primary structure. Now… 34
MR. MAPES: Correct. 35
18.8
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
24
MR. PALOMO: Yeah…so all the concerns on eave height, on total height of the structure, on 1
square footage…I mean, you're governed by the primary, and, relative to the size of the lot. And, you 2
know, we see illustration there, and we provided a couple and spoke to it…I mean, I think the most 3
flagrant one that…is the one…I think it's 617 Sherwood. But, they've added a couple breezeways…and 4
all these homes appear to be circa 1900 homes. Nothing looks new other than that quad-plex. And I don't 5
know if back then, Code dictated that they actually had to have a landmark study done. And Clark, you 6
would know more so that I, but just from a design and a conceptual compatibility standpoint, I mean you 7
have a pretty much square block of stucco connected by breezeway to a circa 1900 home, and I think the 8
total square footage excluding basement is over 3,300 square feet, and I think that lot size is the same. In 9
fact, I think on this whole NCB, all of them are 9,500 square feet. 10
MR. MAPES: Yeah, it's correct; your essential point is correct. Carriage houses have these 11
specific, special size limits that don't pertain to the other things that are permitted in the zone and 12
that…staff finds…and I don't even think anyone could disagree, that that needs to be revisited. The 13
carriage house standards make a lot more sense in the intact, other character areas that the Plan…you 14
know, the Old Town Neighborhoods Plan, identifies, where there really is that original pattern more 15
intact. So, the intention for those…even the original intention for those could be revisited for a number of 16
other reasons, so your points about the Code needing some attention, staff agrees with. And, you're right, 17
carriage houses have limits that don't pertain to other kinds of things that could be done. That's in the 18
zoning…for historic resources, there's still design standards, design compatibility standards, that would 19
affect just jumping straight ahead to, you know, maximizing all the numbers. 20
MR. PALOMO: Yeah, and to that point, Lori, and we spoke to it, I mean this isn't the easiest of 21
all the paths we could have chosen, but, you know, our argument is it is the best path and there's a lot of 22
added value not only to us, but to preservation of that front property, as well as, you know, fostering, you 23
know, some like development in the neighborhood as opposed to the idea of scraping and erecting 24
multiplexes, right? So, yeah…we certainly chose the harder path, but it is genuinely, in our opinion, and 25
we hope we've convinced you, that it is the best. 26
MS. STRAND: Well, I have some more questions, and we still have a lone member of the public, 27
so, I'm going to try to go through them a little more quickly. But, you know, preservation of the front 28
property seems to be, you know, a big grounds for why this is equally well or better. So, I'd like Maren to 29
just quickly confirm what's been said, that this property is eligible, and so were a request for demolition to 30
be submitted, you know, what's the process? And you know, is this saving this property? I mean, it 31
sounds like it's a difficult process, but maybe you can just speak a little bit to what's been said. 32
MS. MAREN BZDEK: Yeah, the process for demolition of a historic resource that meets our 33
Code requirements for significance and integrity is different under the Land Use Code versus replacing an 34
existing single-family building with another single-family use. So, that would be the only reasonably 35
easy route forward. It still includes… 36
MS. STRAND: Single-family to single-family? 37
MS. BZDEK: Single-family to single-family. There is an exception to that process; we do have a 38
demolition posting process and members of the public could potentially come forward and propose a non-39
consensual landmark designation and if Council were approve that, that would prevent demolition in that 40
circumstance, but that's the only thing that would prevent it other than not having plans that would meet 41
building permit requirements for a new single-family structure. 42
18.8
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
25
MS. STRAND: So, if they wanted to propose a new single-family structure or a duplex, because 1
we're talking about razing the whole lot, what's the process in that context? 2
MS. BZDEK: The duplex would happen as a change of use under the Land Use Code, and that 3
would be reviewed just as this proposal is. And so, the Code is much stricter in that regard. Any change 4
of use requires essentially adaptive reuse of the historic resource because simply, the way the Code is 5
written is, that identified historic resource on the development site, any treatment of it has to meet the 6
Secretary of Interior standards, and demolition, in and of itself, doesn't meet those standards. 7
The other thing that I think is important to understand for any change of use considerations is 8
carriage house versus addition…you know it's been said that, you know, in some ways a carriage house 9
would be…or can, and should be, easier…and certainly in the regard of the Secretary of Interior 10
standards, it is, because once you start putting an addition on to a historic resource, you're following, 11
under our Code, the Secretary of Interior standards for changing that historic resource, which is a more 12
rigorous, you know, examination, than adding new construction to the site. There are similarities there, 13
but you're not impacting the structure itself with the new construction as you are with an addition. So, 14
you know, the other example that was given of the property on Sherwood, yes, was done before the 15
adaptive reuse requirement was in place that required the identification of historic resources on the 16
development site, and their retention were they to be established. The other thing that would have 17
happened, if that were to come through today, is that those…that additional square footage added on to 18
those existing homes, presuming they were in that particular case considered a historic resource, would 19
have to meet the Secretary of Interior standards, which that particular project would be unlikely to be able 20
to prove. 21
MS. STRAND: Okay, so that just pre-exists these standards, so, again, okay. Alright, thank you. 22
I may need you again. 23
Okay, I'm going to look again, quickly, through my notes. Alright, I have lots of scribbles so I'm 24
going to read them… 25
So, one question I have…again, the struggle I have is I think the same struggle that staff has 26
already communicated, that I think there's an acknowledgement that there are issues here, but whether this 27
meets the standard that I'm obligated to apply in making a decision is frankly what I'm struggling with, so 28
I just have a question which really doesn't go to my decision, but it is in terms of, has this been 29
considered. You are a couple blocks from the Downtown zone district, and I think that I read in the 30
applicants' materials that there is this redevelopment that's gone on, and there are these changed 31
circumstances. I mean, these are all the terms and plan-based, you know, changes that tend to support a 32
rezoning. And, obviously, you're in the middle. You've got, you know, properties to the east of you, but 33
only a block to the east of you. I mean, would this be allowed in the Downtown zone district I guess is a 34
question I have. And, if this…this has even been explored, and maybe it's more my curiosity, but it 35
sounds like there's a bunch of planning-type folks that are both on the applicants' side and the staff side, 36
so, what do you think Clark? 37
MR. MAPES: The Downtown zone permits…I will say almost anything. Not industrial uses, not 38
truck stops, but any kind of residential, commercial…possibly with the exception of listing single-family 39
detached dwellings. I can look real quick and check and see. 40
MS. STRAND: I mean, it doesn't…yeah… 41
18.8
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
26
MR. MAPES: If the Downtown zone does not list single-family detached dwellings as a use, it 1
would only be because it would have been considered moot for development in the downtown. But, the 2
downtown is very permissive of all kinds of commercial, residential, mixed-use kinds of uses. To your 3
question…like, whether this could or should have been included in the Downtown zone, I don't think so. 4
The Downtown zone, and it has various sub-districts, this would be in the Campus North subdistrict, but 5
they list the permitted uses, and like I said, it's all kinds of commercial uses. But, I have come to realize 6
over the last six or more months that at least this particular bit of NCB zoning needs some kind of tailored 7
character area-based examination to address the fact that, for an investor, there is kind of an incentive to 8
demolish the existing little houses along the street in order to get your square footage as opposed to 9
keeping the small original houses along the street and getting your additional square footage in the rear 10
yard, which changes the character of the neighborhood much less than demolishing the little houses does. 11
So, anyway, Downtown zone wouldn't be right just because of all the permitted uses that are 12
listed, but if this was in the Downtown zone, I would think it would be permitted unless it's just not 13
listed… 14
MS. STRAND: I did have a use question too. So…and I know we're not reviewing the plans 15
tonight specifically, but…so, the front property is a single-family detached, the rear property is detached 16
and is clearly another dwelling unit, but it's attached to an additional accessory use with habitable space 17
that's accessory to the primary…the principal structure up front. Is there a use issue? Because you 18
have…I mean, is this really a mixed-use dwelling because there's two uses in the structure? 19
MR. MAPES: The carriage house? 20
MS. STRAND: Yeah. 21
MR. MAPES: No, the carriage house is a single-family detached dwelling behind the street-22
facing single-family detached dwelling. 23
MS. STRAND: But looking at the plans, the accessory use space that has the art, the hobby, the 24
garage…it's not…they can't access one another. So, there's two different uses in the one structure. And 25
Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that the hobby, or the two-car garage, or the basement space 26
that I think is intended for the 1910 space owners to use is accessible to the actual dwelling unit space, so 27
it's… 28
MR. PALOMO: So, Lori, the reason we pursued a carriage home is because we truly want an 29
accessory building that is part of the primary structure, and our intended use is for not only the stand-30
alone dwelling for family, friends, and potentially income in the future, but those hobby rooms and art 31
rooms are intended for use for the primary…and that's one of the reasons we didn't pursue a duplex. I 32
mean, it's a similar hearing to this, but we know that was an option, but our intent is not to get return on 33
our investment purely on that, and we don't want it really separated, autonomous from that primary 34
structure. The intent is to call that the forever home with the amenities that we could otherwise afford in 35
a new home somewhere else, but you know, we love that neighborhood and walkability to everything that 36
we cherish is there, so that's why we're making the investment. 37
MR. MAPES: I think I should chime in here. So, there's kind of some land use planning 38
semantics here. When we think about the use and the classification of the use is based on that building 39
being a single-family detached dwelling, and whether those rooms are used by the owner or a tenant or 40
18.8
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
27
anything else, you know, what goes on inside of that dwelling we…it doesn't affect the use of it as a 1
single-family detached dwelling. And, they did provide floorplans, but the wall that kind of divides parts 2
of this dwelling doesn't change the land use classification of it as simply a single-family detached 3
dwelling. It's one building, and that building is a single-family detached dwelling. And, to the extent that 4
the dwelling has rooms, sort of accessory to the dwelling, that would be used by the front house and not 5
the rear…that kind of stuff we just don't even get into, we don't even know…we being the City. The City 6
doesn't even know, really, what goes on in those rooms. Art, hobbies, carpentry… 7
MS. STRAND: Yeah, it was an unusual layout… 8
MR. MAPES: It is…that's part of…there are a number of unprecedented aspects to this and, you 9
know, it's got…what makes it one dwelling unit is the fact that it has one kitchen. 10
MS. STRAND: Right. 11
MR. MAPES: We happen to get floorplans; I see three bathrooms, something like an art room, 12
hobby room, knitting room, carpentry room…but we just don't… 13
MS. STRAND: It's a unique layout where it's two different…spaces… 14
MR. PALOMO: Can I speak to that? 15
MR. MAPES: But we just don't…there just isn't anything… 16
MS. STRAND: Jeff, I don't think…like I said…I don't think it's necessary; I just wanted to hear if 17
it was a use issue, and I'm hearing that there's not a use issue. 18
MR. PALOMO: I mean, we considered; we'd probably comply with one carriage house in the 19
back other than, you know, maybe garage storage for the front, and that unique layout in the front of that, 20
I mean, we can propose at attachment to the primary structure, but we want to keep that primary structure 21
intact. 22
MS. STRAND: Like I said, it sounds like Clark said there isn't a use issue, so that was my 23
question. 24
MR. MAPES: To thoroughly answer your question, it crossed my mind whether staff would 25
somehow insist that there be a doorway between what appears to be the dwelling unit and the other parts, 26
but we just don't have anything that gets to that level of detail. 27
MS. STRAND: Fair enough…okay, I'm just going down my questions. Okay, I do think that 28
those are my questions right now. I'm going to let…open up public comment, and then we'll go back with 29
more questions if I scan through my notes and see that there's more there. So, it's 7:32 PM; I'm going to 30
open up the public comment period and ask Leslie, are there any hands raised? I don't see any, but it may 31
just be I don't see it. 32
MS. SPENCER: No; I don't see any hands raised at this point. 33
MS. STRAND: So, the only attendee in the audience is Mr. and Mrs. Christensen, so if you do 34
want to speak, now is the time. Raise your hand, I'll give you a second. If not, then thanks for joining 35
18.8
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
28
and listening in. Okay, with that, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing at 7:33 PM, there 1
being no public comments. 2
So, this is the part of the hearing where the staff, or the applicant, would respond to public 3
testimony, but there wasn't any. So, I just want to…I just want to ask, you know, kind of, one narrow 4
question again, and I really want Jeff or Denise to kind of focus on the question because I do feel 5
constrained by the standard itself. So, the standard that I'm obligated to apply is: the granting of the 6
modification would not be detrimental to the public good. I think you've spoken a lot to that, I think that 7
Clark has spoken a lot to that at the start of his presentation, but, you know, in focusing on the second 8
component, the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard, and that specifically, 9
the footprint standard, the floor area standard, the eave height and the dormer width…that modifying 10
those standards will equally or better…will serve the purposes of those standards which is, you know, to 11
not have a big footprint, to not invade on the neighboring property owners, better than a plan that would 12
comply with those five standards. So, if you could speak…just take a couple minutes…to speak to that 13
question, I think it would be really helpful. Because you've spoken a lot to the public detriment, and I 14
appreciate that, but the other piece I think is…where I need help. 15
MR. PALOMO: Sure…let me start and if Denise wants to chime in…absolutely. So, that was the 16
first thing we…well, it was actually the second avenue we considered. Initially, it was the inquire on the 17
duplex…kind of abandoned that; we didn't want that, you know, entity separation. And, secondly, which 18
is our plan B, is something that would comply. Granted, we'd have to address the dormers, but it 19
just…parsing the utility out across the entire backyard just chews it up and doesn't do the primary home 20
justice, nor utility. And Denise spoke to it, it creates space that could be a concern from a safety 21
standpoint. It chews up, you know, any aggregated green space, it just…it provides more eclectic and 22
mish-mosh that we've illustrated is what's proliferated through the neighborhood. And that, we feel, is, 23
you know…genuinely the intent of staff, to really try and prevent that and get some direction that is in the 24
best interest of not only the neighborhood, but the community, right? And we feel by consolidating that 25
space, it is aesthetically more appealing, and it accomplishes…it achieves that goal based upon anything 26
that would comply with Code at this juncture. And, you know, we spoke to Code, it's fourteen to thirty 27
years old. 28
MS. STRAND: So the alternative that you're speaking to is this duplex with attachment to get 29
around that issue. 30
MR. PALOMO: No, the two stand-along carriage homes. 31
MS. STRAND: The two stand-alone…okay the two stand-alone… 32
MR. PALOMO: With a storage. 33
MS. STRAND: And then, if you actually built one stand-alone, it doesn't serve your personal 34
purposes in having that space that allows you to age in place and to, you know, have more of those 35
modern amenities that you see in homes. 36
MR. PALOMO: Lori, I have $10,000 in damage done by hail on my vehicle. I mean, 730 square 37
feet of garage would leave, what 270 square feet left for actual living space? I mean, a consideration for 38
staff on any Code changes would be to eliminate garage as technically livable space. I mean, we better be 39
able to achieve and work within the confines of Code. But again, I mean part of…look at the changes that 40
18.8
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
29
have taken place in the world here over the last six months, and look at historically the Code 1
changes…it's just completely reactive. Process needs to improve to be in front of it, right, and 2
accommodate, you know, current needs. 3
MS. STRAND: Denise, did you want to add something? 4
MS. WHITE: No, I think as you were talking to that historic, because I think you were also going 5
to check with Maren on this one or something…I think when we look at what we feel is in the best intent 6
of the equally or better structures as to really honoring that primary structure, when you do start to clutter 7
that backyard up, I think it does, in my opinion, and I don't have the Code background, but it does start to 8
clutter up that backyard which detracts more from, we feel, that historic primary resource. Because you 9
see that. I mean, even if you hide it from the street and they are smaller structures, you walk around the 10
side, you walk down the alley, you loose that primary structure and the appeal of it because it suddenly 11
becomes some of those other pictures we saw, which is kind of a puzzle put together on a piece of 12
property. 13
And, so, yeah, as I said, things we didn't share is, you know, Jeff had restored a historic building 14
in Breckenridge, I restored a home I lived in that was built in 1890, so, like, we do love the history of this 15
piece of property. And so, you know, it's personal opinion, maybe, over Code, but with our love and our 16
past history on this, we feel this best honors that piece of property and the primary structure that we really 17
were drawn to and have put a lot of work into to date. 18
MS. STRAND: Thank you, Denise. So that was my last question. I think this has been really 19
useful. I appreciate everybody's time and effort and discussion, Jeff, Denise, and Clark. And thank you 20
Maren. So, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. It is 7:40 PM. If Mr. and Mrs. 21
Christensen would like a copy of the decision, I would like to just remind them to email Leslie Spencer, 22
so if we could put Leslie's email address back up on the screen, that would be great. I'll be making my 23
decision in the next ten business days I believe it is, but it will be sooner than that. And that's all; thanks 24
for everybody's time tonight. I appreciate the time spent. 25
18.8
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Verbatim Transcript (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
ATTACHMENT 9
Hearing Officer Decision,
July 15, 2020
18.9
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
1
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
TYPE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
FINDINGS AND DECISION
HEARING DATE: July 1, 2020
PROJECT NAME: 613 S. Meldrum Street Modifications of Standards
CASE NUMBER: MOD 200001
APPLICANT/OWNER: Jeff Palomo
613 S. Meldrum Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
HEARING OFFICER: Lori Strand
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a standalone request for five (5) modifications of standards set
forth in Division 4.9 of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (“LUC”) governing size limits on
carriage houses in the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B) zone district.
The request has been submitted in advance of a development plan application.
The subject property is located at 613 S. Meldrum Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521 (the “Subject
Property”). The Subject Property contains a brick classic cottage constructed circa 1910.
The Applicant is requesting the modifications of standards to facilitate development in the rear of
the Subject Property of one structure that combines a single dwelling unit with 1-car garage and an
additional habitable living space with a hobby/knitting room, a carpentry/utility room, art room, and
a 2-car garage (collectively referred to herein as the “Enhanced Carriage House”).
BACKGROUND:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are set forth below:
North South East West
Zoning Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(N-C-B)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(N-C-B)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(N-C-B)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(N-C-B)
18.9
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
2
Land
Use
Single-family houses
and a rear yard duplex
Single-family houses
and apartment buildings
CSU parking lot and
single-family houses
Rear yards and parking
for single-family houses
and a rear yard duplex
across the alley
The Applicant requests the following five (5) modifications of standards set forth in Division 4.9 of
the LUC (collectively, the “Modifications of Standards”):
1. LUC Section 4.9(D)(2) limits the total floor area for carriage houses as follows:
“Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting
principal building shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor
area.”
The request is for 2,190 square feet.
2. LUC Section 4.9(D)(2) limits the building footprint for carriage houses as follows:
“The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600)
square feet.”
The request is for 1,570 square feet.
3. LUC Section 4.9(D)(5) limits building floor area in the rear half of lots:
“The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent
of the area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot.”
The rear half of the Subject Property is 4,750 square feet; 33 percent of that is 1,583 square
feet. The request is for 2,190 square feet.
4. LUC Section 4.9(E)(2) limits side wall eave height in the rear yard:
“The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet
from grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with
habitable space.”
The request is for a gabled eave 23 feet high.
5. LUC Section 4.9(E)(2) limits dormers, related to the issue of side wall eave height:
“An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set
back two (2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the
wall length.”
18.9
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
3
The request includes a dormer feature that is 43% of the wall length. It is set back
approximately 15 feet.
Additional project background is detailed in the Development Review Staff Report prepared for this
application, a copy of which is attached to this decision as ATTACHMENT A (the “Staff Report”)
and is incorporated herein by reference.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Denied.
ZONE DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (N-C-B)
HEARING: The Hearing Officer opened the remote hearing at approximately 5:35 p.m. on
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 .
EVIDENCE: Prior to or at the hearing, the Hearing Officer accepted the following documents as
part of the record of this proceeding:
1. Development Review Staff Report prepared for 613 S. Meldrum St. (MOD
#200001), attached to this decision as ATTACHMENT A.
2. Applicant’s written Request & Justification.
3. Copy of written notice of hearing mailed on June 17, 2020.
4. Copy and confirmation of purchase from Fort Collins Coloradoan Ad#0004247864,
and Affidavit of Publication, evidencing proof of publication of Notice of Hearing
in the Fort Collins Coloradoan on June 21, 2020.
5. Copy of PowerPoint presentation presented during the hearing by Clark Mapes,
AICP, City Planner.
6. Copy of PowerPoint presentation presented during the hearing by Denise White and
Jeff Palomo.
7. Proposed Carriage House Plans.
8. Written comment from Rayne Martin, Rainbird Design, dated June 26, 2020
9. Written comment from Colin Christensen, dated June 29, 2020.
10. Written comment from Caroline and Nick Tuttle, dated June 25, 2020.
11. Written correspondence between Maren Bzdek, Clark Mapes, and Jeff Palomo.
12. Rules of Conduct for Administrative Hearings.
13. Administrative (Type 1) Hearing: Order of Proceedings.
18.9
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
4
14. The City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Old Town Neighborhoods subarea plan, the
Land Use Code, and the formally promulgated ordinances and polices of the City are
all considered part of the record considered by the Hearing Officer.
TESTIMONY: The following persons testified at the hearing:
From the City: Clark Mapes, AICP, City Planner
Maren Bzdek, Senior Historic Preservation Planner
From the Applicant/Owner: Jeff Palomo
Denise White (Owner’s partner and part-time resident)
From the Public: None.
FINDINGS
1. Testimony of Mr. Mapes, City Planner, and evidence presented to the Hearing Officer
establish the fact that notice of the remote public hearing was properly posted, mailed, and
published.
2. As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, the Hearing Officer, in consultation with
City staff, determined that it was desirable to conduct the hearing by remote technology so
as to provide reasonably available participation by parties-in-interest and by the public,
consistent with the requirements of Ordinance 079, because meeting in person would not be
prudent for some or all persons due to a public health emergency.
3. Based on testimony of Maren Bzdek and the Staff Report, the existing single-family
structure on the Subject Property, constructed circa 1910, is eligible for local landmark
designation, which eligibility requires an heightened review process prior to demolition of
the structure and requires any new construction on the Subject Property to meet design
compatibility and historic resource treatment standards.
4. The Hearing Officer evaluated the request based on the standards set forth in Section
2.8.2(H) of the LUC governing decisions on modifications of standards. Per Section
2.8.2(H), the Hearing Officer may grant a modification of standard only if the granting of
the modification would not be detrimental to the public good and that one of four other
criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(1) through (4) is met.
5. The Applicant’s written Request & Justification and presentation focused on the Enhanced
Carriage House not being detrimental to the public good and the criterion set forth in Section
2.8.2(H)(1). The criterion in Section 2.8.2(H)(1) requires the Hearing Officer to find that
“the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the
modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the
standard for which a modification is requested.” (Emphasis added.)
18.9
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
5
6. Mr. Mapes provided clarification during the hearing that, notwithstanding the Staff Report,
City staff’s analysis focused on the criterion in Section 2.8.2(H)(1) and not on whether or
not the Modifications of Standards would be detrimental to the public good. Mr. Mapes
testified that he did not think the Modifications of Standards would be detrimental to the
public good.
7. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing and a review of the materials in the record
of this case, the Hearing Officer concludes as follows:
A. The application complies with the applicable procedural and administrative
requirements of Article 2 of the Land Use Code.
B. The Modifications of Standards do not meet the applicable requirements of Section
2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code. The Hearing Officer specifically finds:
i. Granting of the standalone Modifications of Standards would not be
detrimental to the public good. The area of the N-C-B zone district where
the Subject Property is located is comprised of a variety of uses (including
single-family, duplex, quadplex, and multi-family uses, a fraternity house,
a commercial parking lot, and a church) with a range of different floor
areas, building footprints, and heights. The Modifications of Standards
would facilitate the development of an enlarged carriage house that is
generally compatible with the floor areas, building footprints, and heights
of existing and planned development in the area surrounding the Subject
Property, the purposes of the N-C-B zone district, and the density and
eclectic character of this area of the N-C-B zone district. This finding is
limited to the standalone Modifications of Standards and does not extend
to the proposed design and development plan for the Enhanced Carriage
House, which have not been fully reviewed by the City or the Hearing
Officer.
ii. While the Applicant presented testimony that their proposed Enhanced
Carriage House would provide a transition between residential and
commercial areas consistent with the purpose of the N-C-B zone district,
the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Modifications of Standards will
promote the general purposes of the standards set forth in LUC Sections
4.9(D)(2) (as to total floor area and building footprint), 4.9(D)(5) (as to
building floor area in the rear half of lots), and 4.9(E)(2) (as to side wall
eave heights and dormers) equally or better than a project that complies
with the subject standards (including, for example, a compliant carriage
house). These purposes include, without limitation, protecting the privacy
18.9
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
6
of and views from adjacent properties and ensuring that carriage houses are
subordinate in massing to primary dwelling units.
iii. The Applicant presented testimony that the subject standards (i.e., LUC §§
4.9(D)(2), 4.9(D)(5), and 4.9(E)(2)) are no longer appropriate for the area
of the N-C-B zone district where the Subject Property is located, suggesting
that the standards are outdated and misaligned with the changed conditions
and demographics of the area. The Applicant more broadly testified that
the N-C-B zone district does not reflect the existing and changing
conditions of the area of the N-C-B zone district where the Subject Property
is located and that a City planning effort specific to this area of the N-C-B
zone district is needed.
iv. It is not the role of the Hearing Officer to determine whether changed
conditions and demographics of an area warrant revisions to legislatively-
adopted standards in the LUC and, if so, what new standards may be
appropriate. Such determinations are the purview of City Council after
appropriate public outreach and input.
v. The Hearing Officer lacks the authority under LUC §2.8.2(H) to grant the
Modifications of Standards on the basis that the subject standards (i.e.,
LUC §§ 4.9(D)(2), 4.9(D)(5), and 4.9(E)(2)) might be outdated or that the
Modifications of Standards might facilitate development that is compatible
with the surrounding area.
vi. The Applicant did not present evidence to support the granting of the
Modifications of Standards under the other criteria set forth in Sections
2.8.2(H)(2) through (4) and, therefore, the Hearing Officer finds that none
of these criteria are met.
(a) With regard to Section 2.8.2(H)(2), the Applicant expressed
their desire to maintain the existing single-family dwelling,
which is an historic resource, in furtherance of several City
policies related to historic preservation, but the record fails to
demonstrate that strict application of LUC §§ 4.9(D)(2),
4.9(D)(5), and 4.9(E)(2) will render the project practically
infeasible. The Applicant testified that the Enhanced Carriage
House is their preferred option from a design, functionality,
and financial perspective, but they acknowledged there
remain other alternatives that would not require demolition of
the historic resource (e.g., two carriage houses or rear
expansion of the existing structure).
18.9
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
7
(b) With regard to Section 2.8.2(H)(3), no evidence was
presented that there exist exceptional physical conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to the
Subject Property, that warrant granting the Modifications of
Standards.
(c) Finally, with regard to Section 2.8.2(H)(4), the Modifications
of Standards diverge substantially from the subject standards
(i.e., LUC §§ 4.9(D)(2), 4.9(D)(5), and 4.9(E)(2)).
DECISION
Based on the findings set forth above, the Hearing Officer hereby denies the 613 S. Meldrum Street
Modifications of Standards (MOD 200001).
DATED this 15th day of July, 2020.
___________________________________
Lori Strand
Hearing Officer
18.9
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
8
ATTACHMENT A
Staff Report
613 S. Meldrum Street Modifications of Standards, MOD 200001
18.9
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 1
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 www.fcgov.com
Administrative Hearing: July 1, 2020
613 South Meldrum Street Modifications of Standards, MOD 200001
Summary of Request
This is a stand-alone request for five Modifications of Standards in
the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC) governing size limits
on carriage houses in the Neighborhood Conservation Buffer (NCB)
zone district.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
If approved by the Hearing Officer, the applicant would be eligible to
submit a development plan application for a carriage house with the
modified size limits within the next 12 months. This application for
building size modifications is separate from subsequent review of an
actual development plan and must not be construed as an implied
approval of a development plan. If the modifications are approved,
they would represent modified maximum size limits for building
footprint and floor area. A development plan process could possibly
involve design and compatibility findings that could result in reduced
final dimensions.
Site Location
613 S. Meldrum Street, located on the first block
north of the Colorado State University (CSU)
main campus.
Zoning
Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer District
(NCB)
Property Owner
Jeff Palomo
613 S. Meldrum St.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Applicant/Representative
Same as above
Staff
Clark Mapes, City Planner
Contents
1. Project Introduction .................................... 2
2. Public Outreach ......................................... 4
3. Article 2 – Applicable Standards ................ 4
4. Article 3 - Applicable Standards ................. 5
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion ...................... 7
6. Recommendation ....................................... 8
7. Attachments ............................................... 8
Staff Recommendation
Denial of the Modification Requests.
18.9
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 2 of 8
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (NCB) Zoning District contains detailed standards that limit the size
of carriage houses in rear yards of residential lots. This stand-alone request consists of the following five
Modifications of Standards:
Subject Zoning Standard Modified Request
Building Footprint 600 sq. ft.(max) 1,570 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area 1,000 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.
Floor Area in Rear Half of Lot 1,583 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.
Eave Height Along Side Lot Line 13 feet (max) 23 feet
Width of Dormers Along Side Lot Line 25% of side wall length (max) 43% of side wall length
1. Development Status and Background
Historic Resource. The subject property contains a brick Classic Cottage constructed circa 1910 and found
eligible for local landmark designation in 2018, based on its original architectural integrity. This eligibility limits
any ability to remove and replace the principal building on the lot and requires that any new construction on
the site meets design compatibility and historic resource treatment standards. Compatibility requirements
would be applied when a future development plan is submitted.
Old Town Neighborhoods Plan and NCB zoning. The subject property is in the Old Town Neighborhoods
subarea plan area of Fort Collins. The neighborhoods encompass many of the earliest residential blocks in
Fort Collins and are characterized by the classical grid street pattern of short blocks, historic home styles, and
mature trees.
An ongoing neighborhood concern has long been how best to preserve, protect and enhance neighborhood
character while still allowing opportunities to adapt to evolving community and social changes.
A continuum of community planning has produced subarea plans, character studies, zoning standards, and
design guidelines in open and highly engaged public processes since at least the 1980’s. The NCB zoning
district, and carriage house standards specifically, result from some of these processes.
The adopted Old Town Neighborhoods Plan recognizes the NCB area around south Meldrum as catering
primarily to college student rental housing, including many apartment buildings. NCB zoning allows two-family
and multifamily residential development, and within the past 10 years, several larger apartment projects have
been constructed along Laurel Street, across from the CSU campus and located within the same zone district
as this proposal.
The Modification of Standard requests are based largely on apparent contradictions in the NCB zoning – i.e.,
that it allows for removal of original houses, if they are not historic landmark-eligible, for replacement by much
larger apartment buildings and parking lots; while it limits new construction to a greater degree when an
existing house is preserved and a detached carriage house is proposed. The applicant suggests that the
latter approach is the most compatible approach to new construction.
18.9
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 3 of 8
Back to Top
2. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
North South East West
Zoning Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer (NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(NCB)
Neighborhood
Conservation, Buffer
(NCB)
Land
Use
Single family houses and a
rear yard duplex
Single family houses and
apartment buildings
CSU parking lot and
single family houses
Rear yards and parking
for single family houses
and a rear yard duplex
across the alley
B. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS IN STAFF REVIEW
Staff engaged in extensive consideration and exploration of potential support for the requested Modifications
of Standards, due to the context on this particular block and adjoining blocks. The original historic pattern of
modest houses with generous rear yards and small garages has been altered by 1) re-subdivision of corner
lots, resulting in additional houses in formerly rear yard areas; 2) assembly of lots and removal of houses,
replaced by larger apartment buildings, an office building, and parking lots in the southern portion of the block;
and 3) construction of duplexes in rear yards. A large carriage house in the rear yard of a preserved and
renovated historic landmark could arguably represent one of the more compatible changes that has occurred
and will occur on the block.
Staff review has included extensive discussion with the applicants to reach mutual understanding of both the
NCB standards and the specific proposal. The proposal has evolved in pre-submittal discussions and
throughout the review process. For example, the original Conceptual Review meeting in January 2020 was
for a proposed duplex in the rear yard (which is not a permitted use), followed by extensive exploration of the
idea of two carriage houses, leading to this proposal for a large carriage house requiring modifications to all
size limit standards.
Discussion has highlighted nuances and apparent contradictions in the NCB zone, which have been part of
the applicant’s justifications.
Staff considered the possibility of findings based on modifications serving the purpose of the standards
equally well or better than less-conservation-oriented plans that would meet NCB standards, e.g., demolition
of houses and construction of larger multifamily buildings .
However, historic landmark eligibility would prevent such a plan on the subject property; and this perspective,
i.e., that a more intense plan could meet the standards, has come up in the past but has not been used for
staff findings.
Essentially, the proposed justification is that NCB zoning is not appropriate for its purposes. To the extent
that may be the case, it is not a criterion on which staff can base findings on the carriage house standards.
A Potential Subsequent Development Plan. The consideration of modifications of size limits is separate
from subsequent review of an actual development plan if the modifications are approved. They would
represent maximum size limits; however it is important to be clear that review of the development plan could
involve staff findings regarding design and compatibility that could require reduced building size in order for
staff to recommend approval of the actual development plans.
18.9
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 4 of 8
Back to Top
2. Public Outreach
A. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
A neighborhood meeting was not required for this land use, which requires ‘Administrative Review’ and for
which neighborhood meeting requirements are not applicable.
B. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public comment has been received to-date. Any comments received prior to the hearing will be forwarded
to the hearing officer for consideration.
3. Land Use Code Article 2 – Procedural Requirements
A. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
1. Conceptual Review – CDR200005
A conceptual review meeting for the property was held on January 23, 2020.
2. First Submittal – PDP200002
The first submittal of this modification request was completed on May 22, 2020.
3. Neighborhood Meeting
Not required and not held as noted above.
4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted Sign: June 1, 2020, Sign #546
Written Hearing Notice: June 17, 2020, 107 addresses mailed.
Published Hearing Notice: June 2, 2020 in the Coloradoan newspaper
Hearing notification area (blue shading)
Laurel St. Meldrum St. SITE
18.9
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 5 of 8
Back to Top
4. Land Use Code Article 2 - Staff Analysis of Modifications of Standards
A. STANDARDS SUMMARY
The applicant requests modifications of five standards in Division 4.9, the Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer
zone district, in order to enable construction of a carriage house that would be larger than would otherwise be
permitted by the standards. The standards address building footprint, total floor area, floor area in the rear
half of a lot, side wall eave height, and extent of dormers along side walls .
Staff analysis of the request discusses the modification requests together as a single unified request because
they are all inseparable aspects of the larger building construction sought by the applicant.
B. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW OF MODIFICATIONS
Modifications are governed by Section 2.8.2(H) and are provided here for reference:
“The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification
would not be detrimental to the public good, and that:
(1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification
is requested; or
(2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent
and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city -
wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project
would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in
the city's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the
strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or
(3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to
such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness
or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the
strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical
difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties
or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or
(4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this
Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the
entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in
Section 1.2.2.
Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings
showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or
(4).”
18.9
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 6 of 8
Back to Top
C. MODIFICATION REQUESTS AND APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION
The specific request comprises five standards as follows:
1. Code Section 4.9(D)(2) limits the total floor area for carriage houses as follows:
“Any new single-family dwelling that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal
building shall contain a maximum of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor area.”
The request is for 2,190 square feet.
2. Code Section 4.9(D)(2) also limits the building footprint:
“The building footprint for such single-family dwelling shall not exceed six hundred (600) square
feet.”
The request is for 1,570 square feet.
3. Code Section 4.9(D)(5) limits building floor area in the rear half of lots:
“The allowable floor area on the rear half of a lot shall not exceed thirty-three (33) percent of the
area of the rear fifty (50) percent of the lot.” The rear half of the lot is 4,750 square feet; 33
percent of that is 1,583 square feet.
The request is for 2,190 square feet.
4. Code Section 4.9(E)(2) limits side wall eave height in the rear yard:
“The exterior eave height of an eave along a side lot line shall not exceed thirteen (13) feet from
grade for a dwelling unit located at the rear of the lot or an accessory building with habitable
space.”
The request is for a gabled eave 23 feet high.
5. Code Section 4.9(E)(2) limits dormers, related to the issue of side wall eave height:
“An eave of a dormer or similar architectural feature may exceed thirteen (13) feet if set back two
(2) feet from the wall below and does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the wall length.”
The request includes a dormer feature that is 43% of the wall length. It is set back approximately 15
feet.
Applicant’s Justification. The applicant’s justification is attached. Staff’s interpretation is that the request is
based upon the modification criteria in subparagraph 2.8.2(H)(1) above -- “as good or better.”
Staff’s interpretation of the applicant’s key points in the request is summarized as follows:
• The zoning does not fit well with the character of this particular NCB area as it exists and is evolving .
Much of the original neighborhood context has been lost due to redevelopment and infill that alters the
character of this block, as well as adjacent blocks in this NCB area.
• Relatedly, the historic neighborhood context continues to be lost because more of the original houses can
be removed for multifamily development – i.e.,, those houses that are not eligible for landmark designation.
• The proposed approach to infill -- preserving the house and adding floor area in the rear yard – is “as good
or better” than other changes that have occurred and will continue to occur under NCB zoning, for
purposes of the NCB zoning.
• The applicant has noted that the zoning does not prohibit construction of two carriage houses, and the
justification suggests that the requested floor area allowance is similar to two carriage houses.
18.9
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 7 of 8
Back to Top
The application highlights nearby examples of the bullet points above. For example, a recent example is two
doors to the south, 621 S. Meldrum, where the original house was removed and replaced with a new large
multifamily building, which overlooks the subject property as well as the intervening lot, and has a parking lot
in its rear yard. Other examples are noted on the block and adjoining blocks. The request includes photos of
these examples.
Also, on the intervening lot between the 621 S. Meldrum example and the subject property, the owner has
had a Conceptual Review meeting for a proposal to remove the existing house and construct two duplexes,
one behind the other. The second duplex would not be permitted behind the street-facing one under NCB
zoning, and so the proposal connects the two duplexes with a roof over an intervening patio, which changes
the classification to a fourplex, which is permitted. That conceptual proposal for the lot next door is shown on
the last page of the request. No plan has been submitted following the Conceptual Review, but it is an
example of what the NCB zoning permits.
As part of the overall block context, the applicant notes that two other rear yard duplexes exist on the block –
one two doors to the north, and one across the alley , built before the NCB zoning standards were adopted.
The one to the north is a garden level two-story building that faces the neighboring rear yard and has similar
floor area to the proposed floor area.
D. STAFF FINDINGS
Staff finds that the Modifications of Standards would be detrimental to the public good and are not justified
under subparagraph 2.8.2(H)(1) because:
1) The carriage house size and height standards specifically limit the scale of construction in rear yards, with
limits on total size and side walls facing and overlooking neighboring rear yards. The standards result from
thorough public processes and represent an adopted compromise among varied interests. The overall
scale of proposed building as well as the high side walls would introduce construction of a scale that
exceeds the specific limits to a degree that would introduce significant visual and privacy impacts that are
intended to be avoided under the standards.
2) The standards require a scale of construction that is typically subordinate to the original houses which
define the historic character that is intended to be reflected in development projects. The proposed
modifications would allow a building with similar or greater mass than the original houses along the fronts
of lots in the area.
3) To the extent that the proposal may represent compatibility with neighborhood character to a greater
degree than zoning allows for other proposals on other properties, the larger question of whether the NCB
zone standards are appropriate is beyond the scope of review of an individual development pursuant to
the standards as adopted.
4) To the extent that the proposal may represent compatibility with neighborhood character that is equal or
better in comparison to past development prior to the current zoning, it would not be a reason to support
the modifications because the current standards may reflect a community response to past development.
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
18.9
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Administrative Hearing
MOD200001 | 613 S. Meldrum St. Modifications of Standards
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 | Page 8 of 8
Back to Top
In evaluating the request for the 613 South Meldrum Street Modifications of Standards, MOD200001, staff
makes the following findings of fact:
• The modification requests comply with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration.
• The proposed modifications do not comply with standards in Section 2.8.2(H) and would be
detrimental to the public good due to the extent of departure from the adopted carriage house size
limit standards.
• The extent of the proposed increased size limits does not meet the purposes of the carriage house
size limits standards equally well or better than a compliant plan, regardless of design mitigation of
the size.
6. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer deny MOD200001 based on the analysis and Findings of
Fact/Conclusion in this Staff Report.
7. Attachments
1. Applicants’ Narrative
18.9
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Hearing Officer Decision - July 15, 2020 (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
YouTube link to the video of Administrative Hearing for the 613 South
Meldrum Street request for Modifications of Standards.
https://youtu.be/Gy36ik4xqb4
ATTACHMENT 10 18.10
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Appeal Video Link (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
ATTACHMENT 11
Staff Powerpoint Presentation
to Council
October 6, 2020
18.11
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
1City Council Hearing October 6, 2020Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Decision18.11Packet Pg. 446Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Existing Zoning218.11Packet Pg. 447Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
CSUS. Sherwood St.Looking EAST Over the Rear Yard18.11Packet Pg. 448Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Overview and Timeline4• Project Overview• Location: 613 S. Meldrum Street• Zoning: Neighborhood Conservation, Buffer (NCB)• Project Summary: 5 Modification Requests to allow a carriage house larger than permitted by Land Use Code• Key Dates• July 1: Administrative Hearing• July 15: Decision – denial of requested modifications• July 28: Notice of Appeal filed by Applicant18.11Packet Pg. 449Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
5 Carriage House Modifications5Subject Zoning Standard Modified Request4.9(D)(2) Building Footprint600 sq. ft.(max) 1,570 sq. ft.4.9(D)(2) Total Floor Area1,000 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.4.9(D)(5) Floor Area in Rear Half of Lot1,583 sq. ft. (max) 2,190 sq. ft.4.9(E)(2) Eave Height Along Side Lot Line13 feet (max) 23 feet4.9(E)(2) Width of Dormers Along Side Lot Line25% of side wall length (max)43% of side wall length18.11Packet Pg. 450Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Modification: Required Findings“The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that the modification: (1) is “as good or better” in achieving the general purpose of the standard than a plan which complies; or(2) “alleviate a defined community need”(3) “unusual or exceptional physical hardship”; or(4) “the plan will not diverge from the standards except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2.18.11Packet Pg. 451Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Main Consideration of the Hearing:• for the purpose of the standardvs.• for the purpose of the NCB zoning district18.11Packet Pg. 452Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
• Modifications must promote the general purposeof the standard• Staff recommended denial of the modifications because the proposalwould not promote the general purpose of the standards “equally wellor better than” a project that complies• Applicant contends that the proposed plan promotes the purpose of the NCB zone districtbetter than plans for other types of redevelopment that are permitted in the zone (i.e. apartments).• NCB zone purpose: provide a transition from commercial to residential areas.8Main Consideration18.11Packet Pg. 453Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
Hearing Officer concluded that the proposed plan would not be detrimentaltothe public good (Hearing Officer Decision p. 5) however,Hearing Officer concluded that she was obligated to make a decision basedon the purpose of the standards to specifically to limit the extent and massofconstruction in rear yards, and that the much larger construction would notpromote that general purpose as well as a plan which complies.Modifications were deniedHearing and Findings18.11Packet Pg. 454Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
10• Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code:• Section 4.9(D)(2); Section 4.9(D)(5); Section 4.9(E)(2)• Primary objection to the Hearing Officer’s finding that she lacks the authority to grant the modifications for reasons other than the wording of the “equal or better” criterion in the Land Use Code, and that the contradiction between her findings about that criterion and the “detriment to the public good” criterion demonstrates a failure to interpret the Land Use Code.Summary of Allegation18.11Packet Pg. 455Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)
1118.11Packet Pg. 456Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (9529 : Appeal of 613 S. Meldrum Hearing)