HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/17/2012-RegularJuly 17, 2012
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 17, 2012,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Kottwitz, ManveL Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat.
(Secretary's note: Councilmember Horak arrived at 6:08 p.m.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Harris, Roy.
Mayor Weitkunat recognized Kierra Vaughan from Fort Collins as the winner of the "If I were
Mayor..." essay contest held by the Colorado Municipal League.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Council has received a request from the applicant to postpone the
Second Reading of Item No. 9, Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning, to the
regular meeting on September 18, 2012.
Council has received a request from a citizen to have Item No. 16, Authorizing the Conveyance of
a Non -Exclusive Drainage and Landscaping Easement and an Access Easement on City Property
to Cornerstone Associates, LLC, removed from tonight's agenda pending a hearing on appeal of the
approval of a modification of standards for the Legacy Senior Residences. The appeal hearing is
scheduled for August 28, 2012, and Second Reading of this Ordinance could be considered after the
conclusion of the appeal hearing.
City Manager Atteberry noted a revised Resolution for Item No. 24, Resolution 2012-052 Finding
Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for the Forney Annexation,
amending the date of the public hearing and First Reading to occur September 4, 2012 rather than
August 21, 2012 has been provided.
Item No. 41, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land
Use Code will be considered prior to Item No. 40, Consideration of Two Appeals of the Hearing
Officer's May 7, 2012 Decision to Approve the District at Campus West Project Development Plan,
Hearing Oficer Decision Modified.
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew Item No. 32, Resolution 2012-060 Appointing Teresa Ablao as
Temporary Judge and Authorizing the Execution of an Employment Agreement, from the Consent
Calendar.
July 17, 2012
Councilmember Kottwitz withdrew Item No. 13, Items Relating to Implementation of the Outdoor
Vendor Study, from the Consent Calendar.
Citizen Participation
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, objected to the time limit placed on speakers during citizen
participation. Mayor Weitkunat replied the time would be limited given the large agenda and noted
the myriad ways in which citizens can contact Councilmembers, such as email and phone calls.
The following citizens supported Stacy Lynne and opposed the recent change in custody of her son:
George Meyer, Fort Collins resident
Maureen Patterson
Doug Patterson
Jean Heinz, 1206 Hawkeye Court
Betty Carroll, 282 Silverplume Drive
Chuck Churchill
Rosemary VanGorder, 3508 Shore Road
Jim Hartman
Russ Harvey
Bill Moreny
Stacy Lynne, 305 Magnolia
Larry Wallace, 7039 Sedgwick Drive
Cheryl Distaso, Fort Collins Community Action Network, supported the Fort Collins Corporation
Separation Movement and presented a revised resolution regarding the issue.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, continued the presentation of the Corporation Separation
resolution.
Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, supported the placement of a referendum regarding the on -
campus stadium on the November ballot.
Roger Dobbs supported the Corporation Separation resolution.
Kate Herrod, 3202 Town Center Court, expressed concern about the potential lifting of the oil
drilling moratorium.
Carl Wangsvick, 1509 Westview Avenue, supported the placement of a referendum regarding the
on -campus stadium on the November ballot.
Frank Johnson opposed the proposed on -campus stadium and supported the placement of a
referendum regarding the issue on the November ballot.
Gary Wallace, Fort Collins resident, opposed the handling of the Timothy Masters case and
discussed the Larimer County legal system.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
461
July 17, 2012
John Wyans opposed the handling of the Timothy Masters case.
Deane Lembits supported the Corporation Separation resolution.
John Metters, Loveland resident, supported Stacy Lynne and suggested corruption is occurring in
the Larimer County justice system.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Kottwitz commended Kierra Vaughan on her essay.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson expressed support for possibly placing a non -binding referendum regarding
the proposed on -campus stadium on the November ballot.
Councilmember Horak requested a response regarding the Stacy Lynne issue and allegations of
corruption, specifically among Fort Collins Police Services. City Manager Atteberry replied he has
had many conversations with Police Chief Hutto and Mayor Weitkunat and noted Ms. Lynne's
concerns have been taken seriously. He expressed support for Chief Hutto's stance on the issue.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the June 5 2012 Regular Meeting and the
June 26, 2012 Adjourned Meeting,
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Light & Power Fund and in the Water Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art
in Public Places Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, appropriates
$590,000 from the Art in Public Places (APP) Reserves in the Water Fund and Light &
Power Fund for APP artist Ned Kahn to create unique educational art experiences as part of
the exhibits at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery. The artist will begin working with
the project team to develop unique, inspiring educational displays using the themes of water,
sustainability and energy. $45,000 was previously appropriated in 2012 towards the design
phase of this project. When completed, the final design concepts will be brought to Council
for consideration and approval prior to fabrication and installation.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 050 2012 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Water and Wastewater Funds to Relocate Certain Utility Facilities to Accommodate
the Colorado Department of Transportation's Proposed Construction of a New Bridge over
the Poudre River at Mulberry Street.
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is working with the City of Fort
Collins Engineering Department to design and construct a new five or six lane bridge over
the Poudre River on Mulberry Street. At this time construction on the bridge is scheduled
to begin during the summer of 2013. As the bridge design progressed, it was discovered that
the Fort Collins Utilities Department has a 42-inch sanitary sewer and a 12-inch water main
that cross under the river parallel to and adjacent to the existing bridge. Both the sanitary
462
July 17, 2012
sewer and the water main are in conflict with the alignment of the new proposed bridge.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, appropriates funds
from existing water and sewer funds to relocate utility lines in conflict with the proposed
new CDOT Bridge over the Poudre River at Mulberry Street. CDOT will reimburse the
Utilities Department based on actual design, construction, and project management costs.
9. Items Relating to the Wood Street Annexation and Zoning.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 052, 2012, Annexing Property Known as the
Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort,Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 053, 2012, Amending the Zoning Map of the City
of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Wood Street Annexation to the City of Fort Collins.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, annex and zone
17.3443 acres located on the east side of Wood Street, approximately 1,320 feet east of
North Shields Street. The property is developed and is in the O - Open District in Larimer
County. The requested zoning for this annexation is UE — Urban Estate. The surrounding
properties are currently zoned O — Open in Larimer County to the south and west, as well
as E — Employment in the City to the west (City of Fort Collins Fleet Services Building), and
POL — Public Open Lands in the City (Lee Martinez Park and McMurry Natural Area) to the
east and north. This is a 100% voluntary annexation.
Staff is recommending that this property be included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign
District. A map amendment will be necessary as this property is not already in the District.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2012, Desi nating the Lorv/Coffin/Klender
Residence and Garage, 621 East Locust Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the Citv Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, designates the
Lory/Coffin/Klender Residence and Garage at 621 East Locust Street as a Fort Collins
Landmark. The owner of the property, Thomas Klender, is initiating this request.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property
at 1715 West Mountain Avenue to the Fort Collins Housing Authority.
The Housing Authority has leased the City -owned property at 1715 West Mountain Avenue
since January 1977. The Authority constructed its administrative headquarters on the
property 35 years ago and is currently in the process of remodeling its headquarters. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, authorizes a new lease
agreement which is necessary for the Housing Authority to secure permanent financing for
this project.
ErOM
July 17, 2012
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No 056 2012 Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property
at 425 1 Oth Street to the Museo de las Tres Colonias.
The property at 425 1 Oth Street was donated to the City in 2002 for a living history museum
recognizing and remembering the contributions of Hispanics, Latinos, and Mexicans in
Northern Colorado. Poudre Landmarks Foundation has leased the property since 2002 and
has completed its renovation of the house. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on June 5, 2012, authorizes a new lease agreement with the Museo de las Tres
Colonias and the Poudre Landmarks Foundation will relinquish all rights, title and interest
in the original Lease Agreement dated July 18, 2002.
13. Items Relating to Implementation of the Outdoor Vendor Study.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the
Land Use Code Relating to Outdoor Vendors.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2012, Amending Article XIV of Chapter 15
of the City Code Regarding Licensing of Outdoor Vendors.
Ordinance No. 057, 2012 amends the Land Use Code. A new section is added to Article 3,
Supplementary Regulations for Outdoor Vendors. Article 4 has been amended by adding
Outdoor Vendors as a permitted use in non -neighborhood zoning districts. Article 5 has
been amended to add a new definition for "Outdoor Vendor".
Ordinance No. 058, 2012 amends Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding licensing and
regulations for outdoor vendor businesses. The definition for outdoor vendors and
exemptions has been revised, new definitions for outdoor vendor types have been added, and
licensing requirements have been revised. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on
First Reading on June 5, 2012.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059 2012 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for the Police Radio Replacement Project.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 26, 2012, appropriates
$1,054,889 saved by Police Services in the General Fund Reserve to purchase Police radio
equipment to replace equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. The total cost to
replace the equipment is approximately $1,694,181. The use of reserves, combined with
funding in Police Services 2012 operating budget, will fund the purchase without having to
obtain additional financing. The equipment will be procured via City purchasing regulations
and procedures to ensure the City realizes all cost savings. Moving forward at this time with
the vendor incentive will save approximately $275,000.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No 060 2012 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Stormwater Fund from Larimer County for Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater
Improvements in the West Vine Basin.
The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County have agreed to supplement an existing
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that addresses stormwater improvements within the
July 17, 2012
West Vine Basin in northwest Fort Collins and portions of Larimer County. The
supplemental IGA will allow the City and County to collaborate on the funding and
construction of certain stormwater improvements in the West Vine basin. With the
supplemental IGA, the City and the County are proposing to equally share engineering costs
associated with the analysis and design of the West Vine Basin stormwater outfall channel
(Outfall Channel) and the Forney stormwater detention pond (Forney Pond). This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 26, 2012, appropriates
unanticipated revenue from Larimer County in the amount of $487,500 in the Stormwater
Fund for analysis and design of specific West Vine Basin stormwater improvements.
16. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non -
Exclusive Drainage and Landscaping Easement and an Access Easement on City Property
to Cornerstone Associates, LLC.
Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the "Developer") is planning a 1.97 acre affordable housing
project called the Legacy Senior Residences PDP (the "Development') located at 360
Linden Street. The Development requires off -site drainage and landscaping improvements
and access improvements on adjacent City -owned property which is maintained as the Old
Fort Collins Heritage Park, adjacent to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. This
Ordinance, adopted on First Reading on July 10, 2012 by a vote of 5-0 (Horak and Poppaw
absent), authorizes the conveyance of a 11,198 square foot non-exclusive drainage and
landscaping easement and 321 square foot non-exclusive access easement from the City on
the City property.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
This Ordinance appropriates $135,249 of Non -Profit Partner revenue, raised through
fundraising efforts, to be used to construct exhibit walls and the digital dome infrastructure
at the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No.063. 2012 Approving a Grant Proiect with the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of
Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating B, udget to the
Grant Project.
This Ordinance appropriates $11,525 that has been granted by Colorado Department of
Health and Environment. It would also transfer a matching amount of $11,525 from the 2012
General Fund and combine these in the Radon Program account. The Radon Program carries
out radon risk -reduction activities identified in the current City Budget.
19. Items Relating to the Purchase of Six 35-foot Compressed Natural Gas Buses by Transfort.
A. Resolution 2012-051 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental
Agreement Between the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation for
M
July 17, 2012
"FASTER" Grant Funding in the Amount of $384,000 to Serve as a Local Match
Portion of Funding for the Purchase of Buses.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit
Administration in the Transit Fund for the Purchase of Six Buses.
In 2011, the City of Fort Collins was awarded $1,920,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) capital funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the
period 2012 - 2015 to cover 80% of the total expense ($2.4 million) to purchase six
replacement Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses for Transfort's fixed route service. This
CMAQ grant award has been transferred to FTA for disbursement and management.
The City of Fort Collins was also awarded a Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) FASTER grant in the amount of $384,000 to cover 80% of the required 20%
($400,000) local match to purchase the above mentioned six 35-foot CNG buses. The City
of Fort Collins will contribute $96,000 from the Transit Fund to cover the remaining portion
of the required 20% local match of the total $2.4 million to purchase six 35-foot CNG buses.
An appropriation in the amount of $1,250,000 is already in place for bus procurement and
staff requests an additional appropriation of $1,150,000 to equal the total project amount of
$2,400,000.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066 2012 Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held
in Conjunction with the November 6, 2012 Latimer County General Election
This Ordinance calls a Special Municipal Election to be held in conjunction with the
November 6, 2012 Latimer County General Election, and preserves the opportunity for
Council to place initiated or referred issues on the November ballot. If Council decides to
place any measures on the ballot it would need to do so no later than at its September 4
meeting. If Council does not take final action by ordinance or resolution before the statutory
deadline (September 7) to certify ballot language to Latimer County, the election will be
cancelled and the provisions of this Ordinance will be of no further force and effect.
This Ordinance does not submit a specific measure to the November 6, 2012 ballot.
However, a group of citizens recently circulated an initiative petition proposing to reverse
the ban on medical marijuana businesses, which was approved by the voters in November
2011. The certified petition is presented to Council this same date under Agenda Item #39.
21. Items Relating to the Historic Preservation Process.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2012, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter
14 of the City Code Pertaining to Landmarks.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2012, Amending Section 2-277 of the City
Code Regarding the Requirements for Membership on the Landmark Preservation
Commission.
July 17, 2012
These amendments to Chapters 2 and 14 of the City Code provide for an appeals process for
determinations of eligibility; provide for an independent professional review of eligibility
if a determination is appealed; give timely public notice to citizens early in the
demolition/alteration review process about historic eligibility status and major alterations;
and provide more specificity to board member experience requirements, ensuring
compliance of Landmark Preservation Commission member appointments with Certified
Local Government (CLG) standards.
22. Items Relating to Housing Leases for On -Site Housing Located on Natural Areas.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned
.Property at Gateway Natural Area.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned
Property at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned
Property at Reservoir Ridge Natural Area.
Natural Areas staff is recommending updates to four on -site housing leases, which must be
approved by City Council. Natural Areas owns four houses at three natural areas, including
Gateway Natural Area, Bobcat Ridge, and Reservoir Ridge. In all cases, employees provide
a range of "on call" duties, including site security, visitor assistance, maintenance, and other
duties outside of normal work hours without receiving "on call" pay. To compensate the
employees for their requirement to respond to these "on call" duties when necessary outside
of normal working hours the monthly rental rates are reduced by approximately 50% of fair
market value. The fair market rental rates were determined by Real Estate Services, based
upon recent rental comparisons. Similarly, the value of the employer -provided lodging is
excluded from the employee's income as the lodging is a condition of employment.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of allon-Exclusive
Waterline Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on City Property to the North
Weld County Water District and the East Larimer County Water District.
The North Weld County Water District and the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO)
have planned the North Weld — ELCO Water Transmission Pipeline (NEWT) Project to
install an underground pipeline to connect the Soldier Canyon Water Filter Plant to the
Districts' distribution systems. As part of this Project, the Districts are requesting a 40-foot
wide waterline easement and a temporary construction easement across the northern portion
of the City's Water Treatment Facility property located on Laporte Avenue. The City has
previously granted easements for this Project on other City properties.
24. Resolution 2012-052 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Fomev Annexation.
As the Owner and Applicant, Forney Industries has submitted a written petition requesting
the annexation of 22.82 acres located on the north side of LaPorte Avenue, approximately
1,280 feet east of North Taft Hill Road.
467
July 17, 2012
The parcels are located in the I — Industrial Zoning District in Latimer County. The
requested zoning for this annexation is the T — Transition Zone District. The Transition
District is "intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for
development. The only permitted uses are those existing on the date the property was placed
into this District." No new development is allowed in the Transition district and Forney
Industries has indicated that it has no intent to further develop at this time. The surrounding
properties are currently zoned Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) in the City
to the east and west; Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density (NCL) in the City to the
south and zoned I — Industrial in Larimer County to the north.
25. Resolution 2012-053 Findina Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Kechter Annexation No. 1.
As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition
requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 1
is the first Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations, which are as follows:
Kechter Annexation No. 1 0.130 acres
Kechter Annexation No. 2 0.505 acres
Kechter Annexation No. 3 18.644 acres
Total for Kechter Annexations 1, 2 and 3 19.279 acres
Kechter Annexation No. 1 is located approximately 945 feet east of the intersection of South
Timberline Road and Kechter Road. Annexation No. 1 is entirely within the limits of
Kechter Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins
Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are
existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 — Farming Zoning District in Larimer
County to the north, south, east and west.
26. Resolution 2012-054 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Kechter Annexation No. 2. '
As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition
requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 2
is the second Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations.
Kechter Annexation No. 2'is located approximately 925 feet east of the intersection of South
Timberline Road and Kechter Road. Annexation No. 2 is entirely within the limits of
Kechter Road. The requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District (L-M-N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins
Structure Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are
existing residential land uses currently zoned FA-1 — Fanning Zoning District in Larimer
County to the north, south, east and west.
W
July 17, 2012
27. Resolution 2012-055 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedituzs
for the Kechter Annexation No. 3.
As the Owner and Applicant, the City of Fort Collins has submitted a written petition
requesting the annexation of three sequential annexation tracts. Kechter Annexation No. 3
is the third Ordinance of this series of sequential annexations.
Kechter Annexation No. 3 is located approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of South
Timberline Road and Kechter Road. The Annexation No. 3 property contains one single-
family residence and is in the FA-1 — Farming Zoning District in Larimer County. The
requested zoning for this annexation is the Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood District
(L-M-N), which is in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan and the Fossil
Creek Reservoir Area Plan. The surrounding properties are existing residential land uses
currently zoned FA-1 — Farming Zoning District in Larimer County to the north, south, east
and west.
28. Resolution 2012-056 Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement
Between the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Cities of Fort Collins and
Loveland, the Town of Berthoud and Larimer County for the Funding of the Regional Study
Known as the North Front Range Transit Vision.
In 2011, the City of Fort Collins was awarded funding from a Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) 5304 Grant to fund a portion of the regional study known as the
North Front Range Transit Vision. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute an
intergovernmental agreement between CDOT, the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, the
Town of Berthoud and Larimer County.
The North Front Range Transit Vision is examining the feasibility of consolidation of
existing transit services in Colorado's North Front Range area. The goal of the project is to
provide cost-effective and efficient transit services in our broader service area, which is
currently served by three different entities: Transfort, City of Loveland Transit (COLT), and
Berthoud Area Transportation System (BATS); in addition, the North Front Range
Metropolitan Planning Organization operates a variety of vanpooling services (called
VanGO) in addition to carpooling and other transportation services. Potential benefits of
consolidation include: economies of scale/increased efficiency, equalization of resources and
knowledge, standardized regional service, increased level of service and increased ridership,
and reduced competition for federal funding. This Study will take place between now and
early 2013, and will ultimately provide a recommendation based on Steering Committee and
other stakeholder direction.
29. Resolution 2012-057 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort
Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This Resolution will adopt the
recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds.
July 17, 2012
30. Resolution 2012-058 Adoptingthe City of Fort Collins General Employees' Retirement Plan
as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2012.
The adoption of this Resolution will consolidate the eight amendments to the 2001 Restated
General Employees' Retirement Plan (the "Plan") into a newly restated Plan effective
January 1, 2012, make technical changes required by the federal Internal Revenue Service
(the "IRS") related to benefit limitations, and clarify that the Plan funds are held in trust by
the General Employees' Retirement Committee (the "Committee") so as to facilitate
compliance with federal law and the investment of the funds.
On May 15, 2012, the IRS issued -a favorable determination letter for the Plan, as amended,
subject to the adoption of technical changes into a newly restated Plan document. Federal
regulations require the adoption of the restated Plan within 90 days of issuance of the
determination letter (not later than August 12, 2012). This Resolution is intended to
accomplish this Plan restatement and also clarifies that the Plan funds are held in trust by the
Committee.
31. Resolution 2012-059 Amending Resolution 2012-035, Approving the Propyams and Projects
that Will Receive Funds from the Federal Communitv Development Block Grant Program
and the City's Human Services Program.
On May 15, 2012, City Council adopted several resolutions and ordinances, concerning
allocation of City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Human Services Program
(HSP)/Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG), and Home Investment Partnership (HOME)
Program financial resources. Staff has discovered an error in the name of a funded program
in Resolution 2012-035, under the 2012 Human Services Program KFCG Funds Section, in
the Table outlining funding allocations. The first line should read: $226 Catholic Chanties:
Senior Outreach. This Resolution corrects the error and restates the City Council's approved
funding allocations.
32. Resolution 2012-060 Appointing Teresa Ablao as Temporary Judge and Authorizing the
Execution of an Employment Agreement.
The City Charter provides for the appointment of a temporary judge (commonly referred to
as the Assistant Municipal Judge) to serve in the absence of the Municipal Judge. Gordon
Esplin, who has served as the City's Assistant Municipal Judge since 1989, is resigning.
After advertising the position, reviewing application materials, and conducting interviews,
Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane recommends that Teresa Ablao be appointed as the
Assistant Municipal Judge,
Ms. Ablao will be paid $75 per hour for her services, a rate comparable to what is paid by
other municipalities to their Assistant Municipal Judges.
33. Resolution 2012-061 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions.
This Resolution makes appointments to fill current vacancies on the Citizen Review Board,
Economic Advisory Commission, and the Landmark Preservation Commission.
Will
July 17, 2012
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 049, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Light & Power Fund and in the Water Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Art
in Public Places Project.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 050, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Water and Wastewater Funds to Relocate Certain Utility Facilities to Accommodate
the Colorado Department of Transportation's Proposed Construction of a New Bridge over
the Poudre River at Mulberry Street.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 054, 2012, Designating the Lory/Coffin/Klender
Residence and Garage, 621 East Locust Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the City Code.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 055, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property
at 1715 West Mountain Avenue to the Fort Collins Housing Authority.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 056, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -owned Property
at 425 1 Oth Street to the Museo de las Tres Colonias.
13. Items Relating to Implementation of the Outdoor Vendor Study.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the
Land Use Code Relating to Outdoor Vendors.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2012, Amending Article XIV of Chapter 15
of the City Code Regarding Licensing of Outdoor Vendors.
14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 059, 2012, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
General Fund for the Police Radio Replacement Project.
15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 060, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Stormwater Fund from Larimer County for Analysis and Design of Certain Stormwater
Improvements in the West Vine Basin.
41. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 051, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Interim City Clerk Harris.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
Capital Projects Fund for the Fort Collins Museum of Discovery Science Center Exhibits
Project.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No.063, 2012 Approving a Grant Project with the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
471
July 17, 2012
General Fund for the Natural Resources Radon Program and Authorizing the Transfer of
Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Natural Resources Operating Budget to the
Grant Project.
19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 064, 2012, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue from the
Colorado Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration in the Transit
Fund for the Purchase of Six Buses.
20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 066, 2012, Calling a Special Municipal Election to Be Held
in Conjunction with the November 6, 2012 Larimer County General Election.
21. Items Relating to the Historic Preservation Process.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 067, 2012, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter
14 of the City Code Pertaining to Landmarks.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 068, 2012, Amending Section 2-277 of the City
Code Regarding the Requirements for Membership on the Landmark Preservation
Commission.
22. Items Relating to Housing Leases for On -Site Housing Located on Natural Areas.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned
Property at Gateway Natural Area.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned
Property at Bobcat Ridge Natural Area.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2012, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned
Property at Reservoir Ridge Natural Area.
23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non -Exclusive
Waterline Easement and a Temporary Construction Easement on City Property to the North
Weld County Water District and the East Larimer County Water District.
38. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2012, Amending the City of Fort Collins
District -Precinct Map.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and
approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry introduced the new City Clerk, Wanda Nelson, and commended Interim
City Clerk Rita Harris for her service.
472
July 17, 2012
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Horak stated Platte River Power Authority is prepared to name a new General
Manager.
Mayor Weitkunat announced the City's receipt of a check from Great Outdoors Colorado for $5.1
million for work on the Poudre River Trail.
Items Relating to Implementation of the
Outdoor Vendor Study, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 057, 2012, Making Various Amendments to the Land Use
Code Relating to Outdoor Vendors.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 058, 2012, Amending Article XIV of Chapter 15 of the
City Code Regarding Licensing of Outdoor Vendors.
Ordinance No. 057, 2012 amends the Land Use Code. A new section is added to Article 3,
Supplementary Regulations for Outdoor Vendors. Article 4 has been amended by adding Outdoor
Vendors as a permitted use in non -neighborhood zoning districts. Article 5 has been amended to
add a new definition for "Outdoor Vendor".
Ordinance No. 058, 2012 amends Chapter 15 of the City Code regarding licensing and regulations
for outdoor vendor businesses. The defnitionforoutdoor vendors and exemptions has been revised,
new definitions for outdoor vendor types have been added, and licensing requirements have been
revised. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012.
BAC%GROUND /DISCUSSION
Since First Reading, staff has continued to refine Ordinance No. 058, 2012, including minor test
edits. The following proposed revisions are described below:
A definition of restaurants is added for reference (page 4).
2. Special Vending License (Section 15-382, page 5). Staff added additional clarification for
determining if a special vending license will be issued by the Financial Officer.
3. Additional Requirements for Mobile Food Truck and Pushcart Vendors (page 11, 12, and
13). Vendors cannot stop to vend within 200 feet of the front entrance of any restaurant,
(when such restaurant is open to the public). This clarification will enable vendors to
operate on aprivate lot or on -street parallel parkingspace with. no separation ofrestaurants
if they are closed. An existing restaurant that is open to the public may agree to a food
vendor operating within the 200 foot separation.
473
July 17, 2012
4. A clause has been added to the definition of "outdoor vendor" in both Ordinance No. 058,
2012 and Ordinance No. 057, 2012, to clarify that an outdoor vendorgiving away goods and
services to the public is also within the scope of the definition.
During First Reading, Mayor Pro-Tem Ohlson requested staff assess implications of food truck
idling. A response from staff is provided in Attachment 2. In short, the proposed staff
recommendation is to administratively encourage mobile food truck operators, at time of issuance
of license, to park and vend after the vehicle motor is turned off. All existing food truck vendors
staff contacted confirmed they do not idle vehicles to operate vending. When parked, vendors use
a combination of pugged -in electrical power, batteries, gas generators, or propane for alternative
power and fuel inside the vehicle to operate. Information to further educate vendors on impacts of
excessive vehicle idling will be available at the Finance Office. "
Councilmember Kottwitz supported the elimination of the two hundred foot separation requirement
between a mobile food vendor and a brick and mortar restaurant.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance
No. 057, 2012, on Second Reading.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to amend the
Ordinance to eliminate the two hundred foot separation requirement.
Councilmember Manvel requested staff input regarding the separation requirement. Peter Barnes,
Zoning Administrator, clarified the separation requirement is actually part of the Ordinance
amending the City Code. As a result of this clarification, Councilmembers Kottwitz and Horak
withdrew their motion.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel'made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance
No. 058, 2012, on Second Reading.
City Attorney Roy noted the two hundred foot rule appears in several places in the Ordinance and
is applicable to restaurants as well as public and private schools. He asked if the scope of
Councilmember Kottwitz' amendment would be limited only to restaurants. Councilmember
Kottwitz replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kottwitz made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to amend the
Ordinance to eliminate the two hundred foot separation requirement from restaurants.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how the separation requirement remaining for schools would affect
the downtown area. Councilmember Kottwitz replied her intent is to allow the mobile vendors to
have greater access to the downtown area.
474
July 17, 2012
Councilmember Manvel requested staff input regarding the separation requirement. Pete Wray, City
Planner, replied the separation requirement was initially put in place as a result of other community
research, support of survey respondents for some degree of separation, and support of the Downtown
Business Association. He stated staff has identified and supports two proposed changes for Second
Reading: the allowance of vendors to locate within a parking lot or designated parking space if a
nearby restaurant is closed, and the allowance of vendors to locate near restaurants if that
establishment supports the location.
Councilmember Manvel asked if adoption of this Ordinance would prohibit existing food cart
vendors in the downtown area. Jessica Ping -Small, Sales Tax Manager, replied those carts are
operated under the concession agreement and have contracts to exist in those locations.
CouncilmemberTroxell asked if this Ordinance contains information regarding the concessionaires'
exemptions. City Attorney Roy replied the exemption is discussed on page three of the Ordinance,
under the definition of outdoor vendors.
Councilmember Manvel expressed concern regarding the late change and the fact that no notice was
given to restaurants. He asked if most other municipalities have some distance limit. Ping -Small
replied almost all of the Front Range cities have some type of limitation and noted that mobile
vendors are not allowed at all in downtown Denver or Boulder.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw,
Horak and Troxell. Nays: Manvel.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The vote on the motion to adopt the Ordinance, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Kottwitz, Horak,
Troxell, Poppaw, Manvel, Ohlson, Weitkunat. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2012-060
Appointing Teresa Ablao as Temporary Judge and Authorizing
the Execution of an Employment Agreement, Adopted
The following is staff's memorandum for this item.
Ii1�1'i�1111fJt11%�Y/lu'A�/INI
The City Charter provides for the appointment of a temporary judge (commonly referred to as the
Assistant Municipal Judge) to serve in the absence ofthe Municipal Judge. Gordon Esplin, who has
served as the City's Assistant Municipal Judge since 1989, is resigning. After advertising the
position, reviewing application materials, and conducting interviews, Municipal Judge Kathleen M.
Lane recommends that Teresa Ablao be appointed as the Assistant Municipal Judge,
Ms. Ablao will be paid $75 per hour for her services, a rate comparable to what is paid by other
municipalities to their Assistant Municipal Judges. "
475
July 17, 2012
Councilmember Poppaw thanked Judge Lane for her decision to appoint Teresa Ablao as Assistant
Municipal Judge and commended Ms. Ablao on her appointment.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2012-060. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 071, 2012,
Amendine the City of Fort Collins District -Precinct Map. Adopted on First Reading.
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance amends the City of Fort Collins District -Precinct Map in accordance with Article
II, Section 1(c) of the City Charter and Chapter 7, Article III, Division 3 of the City Code. The
District boundaries established in the amended map will be used for determining eligibilityfor City
Council district offices for the April 2013 election and determining eligibility for any interim
appointments to fill any City Council office vacancies which may occur after July 27, 2012.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
At the April 2011 election, voters approved a Charter amendment changing the way in which the
boundaries of the City's electoral districts are established by using the total population in each
district rather than the number of registered electors and calling for the Council to establish by
ordinance the process for adjusting the boundaries. Following voter approval of the Charter
amendment, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 063, 2011 amending the City Code to setforth the
process for adjusting boundaries. Those Code provisions were further amended on April 3, 2012
to adjust the time period (from 1 year to 18 months) within which to make boundary adjustments
following release of the decennial publication of the Census.
The purpose of reviewing district boundaries is to ensure that, to the extent reasonably possible,
there is no more than a 10% deviation between the most populous and the least populous district
and that the districts contain an equal number of inhabitants. In order to determine the deviation,
staff first determined the ideal district size (total population divided by six). Then, the total
population of each district was compared to the ideal district to determine the deviation between
the actual district population and the ideal district population. The absolute values ofthe deviation
for the district with the lowest population and the district with the highest population were then
added together to determine the maximum deviation between the most populous and the least
populous districts. Staff has determined that, as currently configured, the deviation between the
most and least populous districts is 10.29%, which indicates that adjustments are necessary.
Proposed District -Precinct Map
In addition to the population balance described above, staff also considers the following:
476
July 17, 2012
(1) Alignment of City and County precinct boundaries, as required by the City Code and
necessary in order to use voter registration records;
(2) Alignment of district boundaries to precinct boundaries; and
(3) The residence address ofeach Councilmember, so that no Councilmember is disenfranchised
from his or her district.
Five possible scenarios for boundary adjustments have been identified. Each Option is described
below and illustrated on the attached maps:
Option I
Achieves the smallest deviation: 2.65%
Moves sir precincts into different districts
Three precinct moves are positive (they elected a district representative in 2011 and
will elect a district representative in their new district in 2013)
Three precinct moves are negative (they last elected a district representative in 2009
and will not elect a representative in their new district until 2015)
Option 2
Achieves a moderate deviation: 7.22%
Moves two precincts into different districts; both moves are negative
Option 3
Achieves a moderate deviation: 6.03%
Moves six precincts into different districts (5 precincts are the same as those in Option 1)
Three precinct moves are positive
-T hree precinct moves are negative
Option 4
Achieves the highest acceptable deviation: 9.70%
Moves one precinct into a different district; a negative move
Option 5
Achieves the highest acceptable deviation (same as Option 4): 9.70%
Moves three precincts into different districts; two moves are negative, one is positive
ACTION NEEDED
The City Code requires that the City Clerk recommend district boundary changes to the Council no
later than 18 months after release of the decennial census data. According to the U.S. Census
website, the release date was the period between February 3 and March 24, 2011. Since the exact
date that Fort Collins data was made available is unknown, staffhas elected to use March 24, 2011
as the release date, making the deadline for the Clerk's recommendation September 24, 2012. The
477
July 17, 2012
Code also requires Council to establish district boundaries no less than 120 days before a regular
municipal election (December 3, 2012).
CITY CLERK RE COMAIENDA TION
Although all five options presented achieve a maximum deviation of less than 109yo, the Interim City
Clerk is recommending Council adopt Option 1, which achieves the lowest possible deviation and
which is closest to an equal number of inhabitants in each district.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
As required by Section 7-87 of the City Code, two notices of this hearing were published no less that
14 days and no less than 10 days prior to Council consideration on first reading. Publication of
those notices occurred on July I and July 4, 2012. In addition, notice was posted on the City's web
site. However, the notices published indicated Council would consider three options. Options 4 and
5 were not developed until July 9. No comments were received in the City Clerk's Office. "
Interim City Clerk Harris presented the five options available to Council regarding the District -
Precinct Map adoption. The options represent multiple deviations in the population between
districts, with the lowest option, Option 1, being 2.65% deviation between the smallest and largest
districts. Options 4 and 5 represent the highest deviation at 9.7% between the smallest and largest
districts. The threshold requirement is a deviation of less than 10%.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 073, 2012, Option 5, on First Reading.
Councilmember Manvel supported Option 5 as it limits changes to precincts and provides a better
balance between districts on the east and west sides of College Avenue.
Mayor Weitkunat stated the purpose of redistricting is to equalize the number of registered voters
in the six City Districts. She stated that, though Option 5 meets the 10% deviation requirement, it
really does not equalize the districts. She supported Option 1 as it holds the lowest deviation.
Councilmember Horak noted the new standard is population, rather than registered voters, and stated
the requirement is simply for the deviation to be under 10%. He expressed concern that voters
whose districts have changed may not have the opportunity to vote for a Councilmember for a
number of years.
Councilmember Manvel noted the upcoming large-scale housing developments total about 5% of
a District's population and stated Option 5 would prevent an additional change in the near future,
based on those new developments.
Mayor Weitkunat corrected her earlier statement and noted the goal of redistricting is to equalize
the population among districts.
Councilmember Kottwitz supported Options 1, 2, and 3 given the population in her district.
Councilmember Troxell commended staff for work on the item and supported Option 1.
478
July 17, 2012
Councilmember Manvel noted the forecasted population increase at CSU.
Councilmember Troxell stated redistricting would occur again at the next census.
Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kottwitz, to amend the
motion to adopt Option 1.
Councilmember Horak noted the standard is not to achieve a balance between districts, but rather
to meet a 10% deviation.
City Attorney Roy stated the Charter and the Code are worded somewhat differently, the Charter
states that each of the districts is to contain, to the extent reasonably possible, an equal number of
inhabitants. The Code does describe the maximum of a 10% deviation.
The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw, Manvel, Ohlson and Horak.
THE MOTION FAILED TO PASS
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson supported Option 5.
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 073, 2012, Option 5, on First Reading, was as
follows: Yeas: Poppaw, Manvel, Ohlson and Horak. Nays: Weitkunat, Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Possible Repeal of the Voter -approved Ban on Medical
Marijuana Businesses and the Establishment of New Licensing
Provisions for Such Businesses and Related Regulations, Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Presentation of a Petition for a Citizen -Initiated Ordinance that Would Reverse the Ban on
Medical Marijuana Businesses and Strictly Regulate, Control and Permit a Limited Number
of State -authorized Medical Marijuana Businesses Within the City of Fort Collins and
Establish Reasonable Restrictions on the Signage and Advertising of These Businesses to
Match Community Needs. (No Action Needed)
B. Resolution 2012-062 Submitting a Citizen -initiated Ordinance Dealing with Medical
Marijuana Businesses to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City at a Special Municipal
Election to Be Held on November 6, 2012, in Conjunction with the Larimer County General
Election.
The City Clerk's Office received an initiative petition on June 19, 2012, which has been determined
to contain a sufficient number of signatures to place an initiated measure before the registered
electors of the City at a special election. Pursuant to the City Charter, upon presentation of an
HU
July 17, 2012
initiative petition certified as sufficient by the City Clerk, the Council must either (1) adopt the
proposed ordinance without alteration within 30 days; or (2) submit such proposed measure, in the
form petitioned for, to the registered electors ofthe city. Pursuant to ArticleX,, Section 4 ofthe City
Charter, an initiated measure proposed by the registered electors ofthe City cannot be repealed or
amended except by a subsequent electoral vote. Therefore, in this instance, Council cannot exercise
the option to adopt the proposed ordinance because, in part, it repeals the measure approved by the
voters in November 2011.
BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION
The City Clerk's Office has certified a sufficient number of signatures on an initiative petition
received on June 19, 2012. Under Article X of the City Charter, 4,214 signatures of registered
electors (at least 1 S% ofthe total ballots cast in the last regular City election) are required to place
an initiative on a special election ballot. Upon presentation of an initiative petition certified as to
sufficiency by the City Clerk, the Council must either adopt the proposed ordinance without
alteration or submit the proposed measure in the form petitioned for, to the registered electors of
the city. An ordinance calling a special election for November 6, 2012, to be held in conjunction
with the Larimer County General Election, is being considered by the Council this same date under
Agenda Item #20.
The purpose of the initiated measure is to strictly regulate, control and permit a limited number of
state -authorized medical marijuana businesses within the city of Fort Collins and establish
reasonable restrictions on the signage and advertising of these businesses to match community
needs. The text of the proposed ordinance is as follows:
AN LUIT1AI VE TO STRICTLY REGULATE, CONTROL AND PERMIT A LIMITED
NUMBER OF STATE -AUTHORIZED MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES WITHIN
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE
SIGNAGE AND ADVERTISING OF THESE BUSINESSES TO MATCH COMMUNITY NEEDS
WHEREAS, Amendment 20 ofthe Colorado State Constitution (codified as § 14 to ArticleXVIII) was approved
by Colorado voters in 2000 to enable sickpatients with HIV, Aids, cancer, cachexia, seizures, severe nausea
and other debilitating medical conditions to access medical maryuana pursuant to their Doctor's
recommendation; _
WHEREAS the Colorado Legislature in 2010 enacted the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code permitting
municipalities to license and regulate medical maryuana businesses in order to provide medicine to patients
in a safe, professional and quality -controlled manner;
WHEREAS, qualifyingpatients in Fort Collins deserve to have access theirdoctor-recommended medicinefrom
professional, regulated and taxed stores, not from alleyways or parks.
WHEREAS, it is the intent and desire ofthe citizens ofthe City of Fort Collins that the City Council ofthe City
of Fort Collins, Colorado, adopt ANMTL4TIVETOSTRICTLYREGULATE, CONTROL AND PERWIITA
LIMITED NUMBER OF STATE -AUTHORIZED MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY
OF FORT COLLINS AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SIGNAGE AND
ADVERTISING OF THESE BUSINESSES TO MATCH COMMUNITY NEEDS or, if the within Initiated
Ordinance is not adopted by the City Council in theform presented herein, that the within Initiated Ordinance
be referred in the form presented herein to the registered electors of the municipality at a special election,
specifically the November 2012 coordinated election as provided by law.
N06V, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
COLORADO OR THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS:
M'1
July 17, 2012
Section 1. That Sections 15-450 through 15-493 of ArticleXP7, Chapter 15 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins are hereby repealed and the following sections are reenacted to read as follows:
ARTICLE XVI
MEDICAL BL4RIJUANA
DIVISION 1. TiV GENERAL
Sec.15-450. Purpose
The purpose of this Article is to implement the provisions of Article 43.3 of Title 12, C.R.S., known as the
Colorado Medical Maryuana Code.
Sec. 15-451. Incorporation of state law.
The provisions of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, and any rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder, are incorporated herein by reference except to the extent that more restrictive or additional
regulations are set forth in this Article.
Sec. 15-452. Definitions.
(a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in this Section:
Applicant shall mean any person or entity who has submitted an application for a license or renewal of
a license issued pursuant to this Article. If the applicant is an entity and not a natural Person, applicant
shall include all persons who are the members, managers, officers, directors and shareholders of such
entity
Colorado Medical Marijuana Code shall mean Title 12, Article 43.3 ofthe Colorado Revised Statutes and
any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder.
Cultivation or cultivate shall mean the process by which a person grows a marijuana plant.
Financial interest shall mean any ownership interest, including, without limitation, a membership,
directorship or ownership; or any creditor interest, whether or not such interest is evidenced by any
written document.
License shall mean a document issued by the City officially authorizing an applicant to operate a medical
marijuana business pursuant to this Article.
Licensee shall mean the person to whom a license has been issued pursuant to this Article.
Medical marijuana business or business shall mean a medical marijuana center, optional premises
cultivation operation, or medical maryttana-infused products manufacturer as defined in the Colorado
Medical Maryuana Code.
Medical marijuana paraphernalia orparaphernalia shall mean devices, contrivances, instruments and
paraphernalia for inhaling or otherwise consuming medical marijuana, including, but not limited to,
rolling papers, related tools, water pipes and vaporizers.
Minor patient shall mean a patient less than eighteen (18) years of age.
Place of worship or religions assembly shall mean a building containing a hall, auditorium or other
suitable room used for the purpose ofconducting religious services or meetings ofthe occupants ofsttch
structure.
481
July 17, 2012
(b) In addition to the definitions contained in Subsection (a) of this Section, other terms used in this Article
shall have the meaning ascribed to them in Article XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution or the
Colorado Medical Marijuana Code, and such definitions are hereby incorporated into this Article by this
reference.
Secs. 15-453-15-460. Reserved.
DIVISION 2. MEDICAL MARIJUANA LICENSING AUTHORITY
Sec.15-461. Creation.
There shall be and is hereby created a Medical Mar Juana Licensing Authority, hereafter referred to in this
Article as the Authority".
Sec. 15-462. Composition.
The Authority shall be a person appointed by the City Manager.
Sec. 15-463. Functions.
(a) The Authority shall have the duty and authority pursuant to the Colorado Medical Marjuana Code and
this Article to grantor refuselicenses; to grantor refuse transfers ofownership or location ofthe license; and
levy penalties against licensees in the manner provided by law.
(b) The Authority shall have all thepowers ofa Local LicensingAuthority as setforth in the Colorado Medical
Maryuana Code.
(c) The Authority shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the procedures for
hearings before the Authority.
(d) TheAuthoricy shall have thepower to require any applicant or licensee tofurnish any relevant information
required by the Authority.
(e) The Authority shall have the power to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to require the presence of
persons and the production ofpapers, books and records at any hearing which the Authority is authorized to
conduct. Any such subpoena shall be served in the same manner as a subpoena issued by the District Court
of the State.
Secs. 15-464-15-470. Reserved.
DIVISION3. LICENSES, FEES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES
Sec. 15-471. License required
It shall be unlawful for any person to establish or operate a medical marijuana business in the City without first
having obtained from the City and the State a license for each facility to be operated in connection with such
business. Such license shall be kept current at all times, and the failure to maintain a current license shall
constitute a violation of this Section.
Sec. 15-472. Requirements of application for license; payment of application fee; denial of license.
(a) A person seeking a license pursuant to the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and the provisions of this
Article shall submit an application to the City on forms provided by the State and City. At the time of
application, each applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application fee to defray the costs incurred by the City
for background investigations and inspection of the proposed premises, as well as any other costs associated
with the processing ofthe application. In addition, the applicant shall present a suitable form ofidentification.
MIN
July 17, 2012
The applicant shall also provide the following information on a form approved by, or acceptable to, the
Authority, which information may be required for the applicant, the proposed manager of the medical
maryuana business, and all persons having a financial interest in the medical marijuana business that is the
subject of the application or, if the applicant is an entity, having a financial interest in the entity:
(1) name, address, date of birth;
(2) an acknowledgment and consent that the City may conduct a background investigation, including a
criminal history check and that the City will be entitled to full and complete disclosure of all financial
records ofthe medical maryuana business, including records ofdeposit, withdrawals, balances and loans;
(3) ifthe applicant is a business entity, information regarding the entity, including, without limitation, the
name and address of the entity, its legal status, and proof of registration with, or a certificate of good
standingfrom, the Colorado Secretary of State, as applicable;
(4) if the applicant is not the owner of the proposed licensed premises, a notarized statement from the
owner of such property authorizing the use of the propertyfor a medical marijuana business;
(5) a copy ofany deed reflecting the applicant's ownership of or lease reflecting the right ofthe applicant
to possess, the proposed licensed premises;
(6) evidence of a valid City and state sales tax license for the business;
(7) a "to scale" diagram of the proposed licensed premises, no larger than 11 "x 17", showing, without
limitation, building layout, all entry ways and exits to theproposed licensed premises, loading zones and
all areas in which medical maryuana will be stored, grown, manufactured or dispensed,
(8) a comprehensive business operation plan for the medical marijuana business which shall contain, at
a minimum, the following:
a. a security plan meeting the requirements of,¢ 15, 479 of this Article,
b. a description of all products to be sold,
c! a planforexteriorsignage that is in compliance with all applicable requirements ofthis Code and
the Land Use Code, including photographs and/or illustrations of proposed signage; and
(9) any additional information that the City Manager reasonably determines to be necessary in connection
with the investigation and review of the application.
(b) All medical marijuana businesses shall obtain other required permits oflicenses related to the operation
of the medical marijuana business, including, without limitation, any development approvals or building
permits required by this Code and the Land Use Code.
(c) Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Manager may circulate the application to all affected
service areas and departments of the City to determine whether the application is in full compliance with all
applicable laws, rules and regulations.
(d) The City may, prior to issuance of the license, perform an inspection of the proposed licensed premises
to determine compliance with any applicable requirements of this Article or other provisions of this Code or
the Land Use Code.
Sec. 15473. Denial of application.
The Authority may deny any application that does not meet the requirements of the Colorado Medical
Marijuana Code or this Article. The Authority may deny any application that contains any false, misleading
or incomplete information.
BRI
July 17, 2012
Sec. 15-474. Persons prohibited as licensees.
No license shall be issued to, held by, or renewed by any of the following:
(1) any natural person who has been released within the ten (10) years immediately preceding the
application from anyform of incarceration or court -ordered supervision, including a deferred sentence,
resulting from a conviction of any felony or any crime which under the laws ofthe State would be a felony;
or any crime ofwhich fraud or intent to defraud was an element, whether in the State or elsewhere; or any
felonious crime of violence, whether in the State or elsewhere;
(2) any entity whose directors, shareholders, members, partners or any other person with a financial
interest in the entity, have been convicted of any of the offenses set forth in Paragraph (1) above;
(3) any applicant who has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement, or who has intentionally
omitted pertinent information, on his or her application for a license;
Sec. 15475. Location and Selection Criteria.
(a) No medical marijuana center shall be issued a license if, at the time ofapplication for such license, the
proposed location is:
(1) within one thousand(], OOO)feet ofanyprivate orpublicpreschool, elementary, secondary, vocational
or trade school, college or university;
(2) within one thousand (l,000) feet of any public playground;
(3) within five hundred (500) feet of.
a. any child care center,
b. anyplace of worship or religious assembly,
c. any public park, pool, or recreation facility,
e. any juvenile or adult halfway house, correctional facility or substance abuse rehabilitation or
treatment center, or
(4) within the boundaries ofany R-U-L, U-E, R-F, R-L, L-M-N, AI--M-N, N-C-L, N-C-M, N-C-Borth-M-N
residential zone district;
(5) in a residential unit, except as permitted under Section 3.8.3 of the Land Use Code.
(b) The location criteria contained in subsection (a) ofthis Section shall apply to all proposed changes in the
location of an existing license.
(c) The distances described in Subsection (a) above shall be computed by direct measurement in a straight
line from the nearest property line of the land used for the purposes stated in Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and
(a)(3) above to the nearest portion of the building or unit in which the medical marijuana center is located.
(d) No medical maryuana center shall be issued a license if, at the time of application forsuch license, there
is more than one Fort Collins Medical Maryuana Center License per 500 registered medical marijuana
patients in Larimer county according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. This
subsection (d) shall not affect renewals.
(e) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a business that received a Fort Collins MedicalMarijuana CenterLicense
prior to November 1st, 2011, if the business is proposed to be located on the same parcel they were licensed
to operate on prior to November 1st, 2011, and the business applies for a license pursuant to this Code within
90 days of the application being made publicly available. The intent of this subsection (e) is to permit
EM
July 17, 2012
previously licensed medical marijuana centers to apply for and receive a license regardless of the location
criteria of this Section.
(0 Subsection (d) shall not apply to a business that received a Fort Collins MedicalMaryinina CenterLicense
prior to November I st, 2011, if the business applies for a license pursuant to this Code within 90 days of the
application being made publicly available. The intent of this subsection () is to permit previously licensed
medical marijuana centers to apply for and receive a license regardless of the number of medical marijuana
center licenses then issued by the City.
Sec. 15-476. Inspection fee.
(a) Upon issuance of a license, and upon renewal thereafter, the licensee shall pay to the City a fee in an
amount determined by the City Manager to be sufficient to cover the cost of inspections conducted pursuant
to this Article.
(b) The inspection fee required under Subsection (a) ofthis Section shall be due and payable prior to or upon
issuance of each license and upon the renewal of any such license and shall not be refundable.
Sec. 15-477. Signage and advertising.
All signage and advertising for a medical maryuana center shall comply with all applicable provisions ofthis
Code and the Land Use Code.
(a) In addition, it shall be unlawful for any licensee to:
a. Use signage or advertising with the word "marijuana" or "cannabis" or any other word, phrase or
symbol commonly understood to refer to marijuana unless such word, phrase or symbol is immediately
preceded by the word "medical" in type and font that is at least as readily discernible as all other words,
phrases or symbols;
b. Use advertising materials that is misleading, deceptive, or false or that, as evidenced by the content
of the advertising material or by the medium or the manner in which the advertising material is
disseminated, is designed to appeal to minors;
c. Advertise in a manner that is inconsistent with the medicinal use of medical marijuana or use
advertisements that promotes medical marijuana for recreational or any use other than for medicinal
purposes;
To advertise with sign -waivers or other natural persons standing in public within one thousand (1,000) feet
of the license premise;
To advertise any medical marijuana or medical marijuana product in a publicly visible location within one
thousand (1,000) feet of any public park or recreation center or any school.
(b) The prohibition set forth in subsection (e) shall not apply to:
a. Any sign located upon the building in which a licensed medical marijuana center is located which
exists solely for the purpose of identifying the business and which otherwise complies with the Land Use
Code and this Article; or
b. Any advertising contained solely within a newspaper magazine, or other periodical or publication
distributed through news rack, newsstand or similar ftxed location.
(c) Theprohibition's setforth in this Section shall not apply to political speech or any signage advocating the
passage or defeat of a city or state ballot measure.
(d) Violation ofthis Section shall result in a $100 fine per day per violation. Such fine shall be levied on the
licensee by the Authority upon the Authorityfinding by a preponderance of the evidence a violation of this
485
July 17, 2012
Section. Repeated and continuous failure to comply with the requirements ofthis Section shall be considered
by the Authority in any action relating to the issuance, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of a license.
Sec. 15478. Warning signs.
The Authority may require any reasonable warning signs to be posted in a conspicuous location in each
medical marijuana center.
Sec. 15-479. Security requirements.
Security measures at all licensed premises shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Medical
Marijuana Code and all applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Sec. 15-480. Report of disturbances and unlawful activity.
(a) All licensees and any agent, manager or employee thereof, shall immediately report to Police Services any
disorderly act, conduct or disturbance and any unlawful activity committed in or on the licensed premises,
including, but not limited to, any unlawful resale ofinedical marjuana, and shall also immediately report any
such activity in the immediate vicinity of the business.
(b) Each licensee shall post and keep at all times visible to the public in a conspicuous place on the premises,
a sign with a minimum height offourteen (14) inches and a minimum width of eleven (11) inches with each
letter to be a minimum of one-half ('/:) inch in height, which shall read as follows:
WARNING:
Fort Collins Police Services must be notified of
all disorderly acts, conduct or disturbances and
all unlawful activities which occur on or within
thepremises ofthis licensed establishment.
(c) It shall not be a defense to a prosecution of a licensee under this Section that the licensee was not
personally present on the premises at the time such unlawful activity, disorderly act, conduct or disturbance
was committed; however, no agent, servant or employee of the licensee shall be personally responsible for
failing to report any disorderly act, conduct or disturbance and any unlawful activity hereunder ifsuch agent,
servant or employee was absent from the premises at the time such activity was committed.
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements ofthis Section shall be considered by the Authority in any action
relating to the issuance, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal of a license.
Sec. 15-482. Labeling.
All medical marUuana sold or otherwise distributed by the licensee shall be labeled in a manner that complies
with the requirements of the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and all applicable rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder.
Sec. 15483. Prohibited acts.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any licensee to permit the consumption of alcohol beverages, as defined in the
Colorado Liquor Code, on the licensed premises.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensee holding a medical marjuana center licensed, or for any agent,
manager or employee thereof, to:
(1) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute medical mar Juana or medical marijuana paraphernalia
from any outdoor location;
�'.
July 17, 2012
(2) sell, give, dispense or otherwise distribute to any patient or primary caregiver who is not a licensee
more than two (2) ounces ofany usableform ofinedical marijuana (excluding medical maryuana-infused
products) within any seven-day period of time; ,
(c) It shall be unlawful for any optional premises cultivation operation to post or allow to be posted signs or
other advertising materials identifying the premises as being associated with the cultivation or use ofinedical
marijuana.
(d) Itshall be unlawfulfor any medical marijuana-infusedproducts manufacturer topost or allow to beposted
signs or other advertising materials identifying the premises as being associated with the production or use
of medical marijuana;
Sec. 15-484. Visibility of activities; control of emissions.
(a) All activities of medical marjuana businesses, including, without limitation, cultivating, growing,
processing, displaying, manufacturing, selling and storage, shall be conducted out ofpublic view.
(b) No medical maryuana or paraphernalia shall be displayed or kept in a business so as to be visible from
outside the licensed premises.
(c) Sufficient measures and means ofpreventing smoke, odors, debris, dust, fluids and other substancesfrom
exiting a medical maryuana business must be provided at all times. In the event that any odors, debris, dust,
fluids or othersubstances exit a medical marjuana business, the owner ofthe subjectpremises and the licensee
shall be jointly and severally liable for such conditions and shall be responsible for immediate, full clean-up
and correction of such condition. The licensee shall properly dispose of all such materials, items and other
substances in a safe, sanitary and secure manner and in accordance with all applicablefederal, state and local
laws and regulations.
Sec. 15-485. Sales tax
Each medical maryuana business shall collect and remit City sales and use tax on all medical marUuana,
paraphernalia and other tangible personal property used or sold at the licensed premises.
Sec. 15-487. Inspection of licensed premises.
During all business hours and other times of apparent activity, all licensed premises shall be subject to
inspection by Police Services and all other City departments designated by the City Manager for the purpose
of investigating and determining compliance with the provisions of this Article and any other applicable state
and local laws or regulations.
Sec. 15-488. Nonrenewal, suspension or revocation of license.
(a) The Authority may, after notice and hearing, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a license for any of the
following reasons:
(1) the applicant or licensee, or his or her agent, manager or employee, has violated, does not meet, or
has failed to comply with, any ofthe terms, requirements, conditions or provisions of this Article or with
any applicable State or local law or regulation;
(2) the applicant or licensee, or his or her agent, manager or employee, have failed to comply with any
special terms or conditions of its license pursuant to an order of the State or local licensing authority,
including those terms and conditions that were established at the time ofissuance ofthe license and those
imposed as a result ofany disciplinaryproceedings held subsequent to the date ofissuance ofthe license;
or
(3) the medical maryuana business has been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public
health, safety or welfare.
487
July 17, 2012
(b) Evidence to support a finding under Subsection (a) of this Section may include, without limitation, a
continuing pattern of disorderly conduct, a continuing pattern of drug -related criminal conduct within the
premises ofthe medical maryuana business or in the immediate area surrounding such business, a continuing
pattern ofcriminal conduct directly related to or arising from the operation ofthe medical marijuana business,
or an ongoing nuisance condition emanating from or caused by the medical marijuana business. Criminal
conduct shall be limited to the violation of a state or city law or regulation.
(c) The Authority shall conduct a review of all licenses at least annually and in addition to examining the
factors enumerated in this subsection, may hold a hearing on each license at which the general public shall
be invited to appear and provide testimony as to the effects of the license on the surrounding community and
the city at large and the Authority may take such views into consideration when deciding whether to continue
or renew such license.
Sec. 15489. Violations and penalties.
In addition to the possible denial, suspension, revocation or nonrenewal of a license under the provisions of
this Article, any person, including, but not limited to, any licensee, manager or employee of a medical
maryuana business, or any customer ofsuch business, who violates any ofthe provisions ofthis Article, shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable in accordance with ,¢ 1-15 of this Code, unless a different penalty is
provided herein.
Sec. 15-490. No City liability, indemnification.
(a) By accepting a license issuedpursuant to this Article, the licensee waives and releases the City, its officers,
elected officials, employees, attorneys and agents from any liabilityfor injuries, damages or liabilities ofany
kind that resultfrom any arrest orprosecution ofbusiness owners, operators, employees, clients or customers
for a violation of State or federal laws, rules or regulations.
(b) By accepting a license issued pursuant to this Article, all licensees, jointly and severally ifmore than one
(1), agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, attorneys,
agents, insurers and self-insurancepool against all liability, claims and demands on account ofany injury, loss
or damage, including, without limitation, claims arisingfrom bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease,
death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever arising out of or in any manner
connected with the operation of the medical marijuana business that is the subject of the license.
Sec. 15-491. Other laws remain applicable.
(a) To the extent the State adopts in the future any additional or stricter law or regulation governing the sale
or distribution of medical marijuana, the additional or stricter regulation shall control the establishment or
operation of any medical marijuana business in the City. Compliance with any applicable state law or
regulation shall be deemed an additional requirementfor issuance or denial ofany license under this Article,
and noncompliance with any applicable state law or regulation shall begroundsfor revocation or suspension
ofany license issued hereunder.
(b) Ifthe State prohibits the sale or other distribution of marijuana through medical marijuana centers, any
license issued hereunder shall be deemed immediately revoked by operation of law.
Sec. 15-492. Severability
If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision of this Article is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections,
sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Article or the validity of this Article as an
entirety, it being the legislative intent that this Article shall stand, notwithstanding the invalidity ofany section,
sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision.
Sec. 15-493. Administrative regulations, Action by Council,
EM
July 17, 2012
(a) The City Manager is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to effectuate
the implementation, administration and enforcement of this Article.
(b) The City Council shall be permitted to lessen any restriction contained in this Article.
Section 2. Should the Citv Council refer this Initiated Ordinance Repeal to the registered electors ofthe City
at a regular or special municipal election, this Initiated Ordinance Repeal shall take effect immediately upon
certification by the designated election official that a majority of registered electors voted in favor of this
Repeal at such regular or special election.
Section 3. Ifany section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or otherprovision of this Ordinance isfor any reason
held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, words or other provisions of this Ordinance or the validity of this
Ordinance as an entirety, it being the legislative intent that this Article shall stand, notwithstanding the
invalidity of any section, sentence, clause, phrase, word or other provision. "
Interim City Clerk Harris stated this item presents to Council a citizen initiative which seeks to
overturn the voter -approved ban on medical marijuana businesses. The Resolution before Council
would place this item on the November ballot.
Mary Hesterman, 502 Huntington Hills Drive, opposed the reinstatement of medical marijuana
businesses.
Steve Ackerman, Fort Collins resident, supported the citizen initiative and stated regulation of
businesses is better than no regulation.
Kurt Scramstead, Fort Collins resident, supported the citizen initiative
Adam Titelbaum, 1508 West Lake, supported the citizen initiative
Councilmember Troxell asked about the stipulations of the existing ban. City Attorney Roy replied
the ban is only on medical marijuana businesses; patients and caregivers are still free to possess, use
and grow, within certain limits, medical marijuana.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the citizen initiative's provisions which would allow for the
grandfathering of previously existing businesses as well as the increase in the number of businesses
based on the number of patients. City Attorney Roy replied that is the correct interpretation of the
initiative.
Councilmember Troxell opposed the initiative's wording involving strict regulations, stating the
initiative does not appear to be strict.
City Attorney Roy noted Council has no choice but to place the initiative on the ballot; if it is
adopted, staff would provide a comparative analysis of the provisions of this Ordinance and previous
regulations.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2012-062.
Councilmember Horak noted voters will now be charged with adoption or failing of the Ordinance.
July 17, 2012
Councilmember Kottwitz noted placement on the ballot is the right thing to do given the fact that
the Ordinance is citizen -initiated.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Ordinance No. 051, 2012,
Making Various Amendments to the Land Use Code. Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on June 5, 2012, makes a variety of
proposed changes, additions and clarifications in the 2012 annual update of the Land Use Code. "
Mayor Weitkunat noted the Land Use Code amendment relating to bicycle facilities and bicycle
parking space requirements is the primary issue to be discussed.
Ted Shepard, Chief Planner, introduced the staff members working on the item.
Aaron Iverson, Transportation Planner, stated this Land Use Code update would change how bicycle
parking requirements are calculated and the type of bicycle parking required. The current Code
requirements are out of date as they are currently calculated based on a percentage of vehicle
parking spaces. The proposed update would tie required bicycle parking to the type of land use and
would require enclosed bicycle parking in some instances. The Ordinance provides flexibility to
provide various types of enclosed bicycle parking. For multi -family housing, staff is proposing 80%
enclosed and 20% fixed bicycle parking.
Mayor Weitkunat expressed concern that the proposed requirement for enclosed parking is too high,
particularly for certain areas of town.
Councilmember Manvel asked if a shed -type structure with a roof would be considered enclosed
parking. Iverson replied in the affirmative, noting security is also required.
Councilmember Manvel noted the positive influence of the bicycle culture on Fort Collins; however,
reiterated Mayor Weitkunat's concern regarding the potential burden of this new requirement on
developers.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if this change applies to renovations as well as new structures.
Shepard replied a building can be renovated without necessarily having to come through the
development process for approval; some renovations can be done through the building permit
process. This change would apply to new projects coming through, major amendments, or minor
.m
July 17, 2012
amendments. Renovations that do not rise to the level of having the Land Use Code apply to them
would not be required to meet the new standard.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson cited an example of a King Soopers which underwent major renovations;
however, the Land Use Code did not apply to that project.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if other options are available for this proposed standard. Shepard
replied staff has worked extensively with the Planning and Zoning Board to draft the alternative
compliance section of the proposed changes. The alternative compliance would allow a
development to not meet the strict numeric metric of the Code, but meet the requirement in another
way without having to go through the modification procedure.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if alternative compliance could be granted based on the end user of
the development. Shepard replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the remainder of the Land Use Code changes could be passed with
this issue to be examined at a later date. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative.
Shepard suggested changing the 80% requirement to 60%.
Councilmember Kottwitz appreciated staff work on the item, but expressed concern that the
proposed change would be costly and difficult for developers to meet.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the definition of long-term storage. Iverson replied some
communities define long-term as more than eight hours.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the definition of secured. Iverson replied the location should
be visible and secured in some way, either inside a building or a parking structure, or enclosed in
some fashion, and may or may not have limited access.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson expressed concern about potentially delaying this item and stated a 60%
requirement is the lowest he would be willing to support.
Councilmember Kottwitz expressed concern there is no factual basis for the 60% requirement.
City Manager Atteberry clarified the 80% requirement is staff s recommendation; however, the
spirit of suggestion to require 60% recognizes that Council may not be comfortable with the 80%
requirement. The peer cities utilized are identified as gold or platinum certified and Fort Collins has
a goal of being a platinum certified city with regard to bike planning.
Councilmember Horak requested staff input as to the basis of the 80% requirement. Iverson replied
it was a conservative approach to the question when looking at peer cities.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 051, 2012, on Second Reading, amending 80% enclosed bicycle parking to 60% throughout the
Ordinance.
491
July 17, 2012
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern regarding the lack of a definition of long-term storage
in terms of security and safety.
Councilmember Horak stated he would like to see data regarding Fort Collins' residents' behavior
with regard to this issue.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would have preferred an 80% requirement but stated he would
support the motion, given that it is an improvement over the existing regulations.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson expressed concern regarding a lack of the City organization's tracking of
what is learned from changes such as this.
City Manager Atteberry disagreed and cited the City's annual modification process for the Land Use
Code which is specifically intended to redesign or fix errors, and proactively try to address
opportunities.
Iverson noted the Planning and Zoning Board was also concerned about the potential impacts of
such a large change. The Board requested that staff complete a one-year review of the impact and
the effect of the Ordinance on development.
Councilmember Horak stated he would like to see additional information regarding actual behavior.
Shepard replied recent developments have come in with voluntary 49%, 28%, and 80% enclosed
bicycle parking ratios.
Councilmember Kottwitz noted safety concerns with enclosed bicycle parking areas.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: Kottwitz.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of Two Appeals of the Hearing Officer's May 7, 2012 Decision to Approve
the District at Campus West Project Development Plan, Hearing Officer Decision Modified
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2012, Fort Collins Student Housing, LLC, submitted a Project Development Plan for
multi family dwellings in the C-C, Community Commercial zone district. As proposed, the project
consists of the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation of two public streets on the north
side of West Plum Street for the purpose of constructing three new buildings, including a parking
structure, containing 193 dwelling units on 3.34 acres. The parcel is between Aster Street on the
east and City Park Avenue on the west. .
On April S, 2012 and on April 23, 2012, the Hearing Officer conducted public hearings in
consideration of The District at Campus West P.D.P. On May 7, 2012, after testimony from the
July 17, 2012
applicant, the public and staff, the Hearing Officer issued a written decision approving the P.D.P.
with one condition ensuring proper vacation of public streets.
On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal.
On May 19, Robert M. Meyer f led a Notice ofAppeal, which was superceded by an Amended Notice
of Appeal, filed May 29. Both appeals seek redress of the Hearing Officer's decision.
The ZTA appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant
provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(A) and 3.5.1.
The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply
relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B,CD and G).
BAC%GROUND /DISCUSSION
The PDP represents the redevelopment of 16 existing houses and vacation oftwo public streets. The
site is located within the Campus West Study Area. The proposed land use, multi family, is
permitted in the C-C zone. district subject to Administrative Review.
The dwelling units would be distributed among three buildings and include a mix of two, three and
four -bedroom units, and would be divided in the following manner: 28.two-bedroom (14%); 42
three -bedroom (22%) and 123 four -bedroom (64%).
There would be a total of 674 bedrooms each of which would be leased individually. There would
be 495 off-street parking spaces and located within a parking garage with five levels. In addition,
332 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. Two dead-end streets, Columbine and Daisy, would be
vacated. Bluebell Street would connect north to Baystone Drive. The project includes a clubhouse,
pool, fitness center and computer lab. A Modification ofStandard to Section 3.5.2(D)(2) regarding
setbacks from public streets for Building Three was granted for being in compliance with Section
2.8.2(H)(1) and is not at issue for either appeal.
The Community Commercial zone district allows a maximum height offive stories. Moving along
Plum Street from west to east, Building One would be five stories and would step down to four
stories on the north side. Building Two would be a five level parking structure featuring a three-
story residential component facing Plum Street. Building Three would be a five story building.
ACTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER
The Hearing Officer conducted two public hearings. The first hearing on April 5, 2012 was
continued to April 23, 2012. At both hearings, the Hearing Officer considered the testimony of the
applicant, affectedproperty owners, thepublicand staff. The Administrative Reviewprocess allows
the Hearing Officer ten working days to render a written decision. On May 7, 2012, the Hearing
Officer provided a decision approving the P.D.P. with the one condition as recommended by staff
that the vacation of two public streets follows proper procedures.
THE QUESTION COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
493
July 17, 2012
Did the Hearing Officer fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use
Code?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On May 21, the Zeta Tau Alpha (ZTA) Fraternity Housing Corporation filed a Notice of Appeal.
On May 29, Robert M. Meyer filed an amended Notice of Appeal. The ZTA appeal alleges that the
Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code,
specifically Sections 3.2.3(A,D) and 3.5.1. The Meyer appeal also alleges that the Hearing Officer
failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code, specifically
Sections 3.2.3(D) and 3.5.1(B, C,D and G).
A.ZTA: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.3 of the Land Use Code.
ZTA states, "In accordance with Section 3.2.3(A), `a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan
elements does not excessively shade adjacent properties, creating a significant adverse impact upon
adjacent property owners. ' This standard was ignored by the Hearing Officer. "
ZTA maintains that instead, the Hearing Officer only took Section 3.2.3(D) into consideration and
only to find that Section 3.2.3(D) "shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial
district. " While the Appellant does not disagree that Section 3.2.3(D) does not apply to the
proposed development, the remainder of Section 3.2.3 does apply and the stated goal found in
Section 3.2.3(A) must be a consideration for approval of the proposed development. It was an error
to discount the shading studies conducted by the public and Appellant on the grounds that the
Hearing Officer "has not authority to impose the shading standard. " ZTA contends that the
Hearing Officer has the authority to impose requirements to prevent adverse impacts from shading
and that such authority is found in the purpose statement per Section 3.2.3(A).
Section 3.2.3(A) Access, Orientation, Shading -
(A) Purpose. It is the City's intent to encourage the use of both active and passive solar
energy systems for heating air and water in homes and businesses, as long as natural
topography, soil or other subsurface conditions or other natural conditions peculiar to the
site arepreserved. While the use ofsolar energy systems is optional, the right to solar access
is protected. Solar collectors require access to available sunshine during the entire year,
including between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm, MST, on December 21, when the
longest shadows occur. Additionally, a goal of this Section is to ensure that site plan
elements do not excessively shade adjacentproperties, creating a significant adverse impact
upon adjacent property owners. Thus, standards are set forth to evaluate the potential
impact of shade caused by buildings, structures and trees.
Section 3.2.3(D)
(D) Shading. (1) The physical elements of the development plan shall be, to the maximum
extentfeasible, located and designed so as not to cast a shadow onto structures on adjacent
property greater than the shadow which would be cast by a twenty -five-foot hypothetical
wall located along the property lines of the project between the hours of 9: 00 am and 3: 00
r=
July 17, 2012
pm, MST, on December 21. This provision shall not apply to structures within the following
high -density zone districts: Downtown, Community Commercial.
• With regard to Section 3.2.3(D), the Hearing Officer states on page 12 of the decision:
"The provision shall not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district. Because
this provision does not apply to structures within the Community Commercial district, the Hearing
Officer has no authority to impose the shading standard. "
B. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.2.3(D) Shading versus Section
3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2 Shadowing
Meyer states, "Page 8 of the Hearing Officer's report discusses Section 3.2.3(D) of the Code and
argues that provisions for mitigation ofshading do not apply to any development located in zones
determined to be Community Commercial. And, on page 19 the Hearing Officer concludes that
'Staff correctly noted that Section 3.2.3(D)(1) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that
exceed 40 feet in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2
duplicates Section3.2.3(D).
Meyer contests this conclusion. While Meyer acknowledges the provision stated in Section 3.2.3(D),
his opinion is that the project buildings still must comply with Section 3.5.1(G), and that they are
not "duplicates. "
Section 3.5. 1 (G)(1)(a)2.
2. Light and Shadow. Buildings orstructures greater than forty (40) feet in height shall
be designed so as not to have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of
natural and artificial light on adjacent public and private property. Adverse impacts
include, but are not limited to, casting shadows on adjacent property sufficient to
preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as
reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of
snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and shading of windows or
gardensfor more than three (3) months oftheyear. Techniques to reduce the shadow
impacts ofa building may include, but are not limited to, repositioning ofa structure
on the lot, increasing the setbacks, reducing building or structure mass or
redesigning a building or structure's shape.
Pages 9-10 of the Staff Report contain an analysis of the portions of Section 3.5.1(G) that
pertain to light and shadow. The complete quote from the Staff Report is as follows:
"As noted, Section 3.2.3(D) specifically exempts buildings in the C-C zone that exceed 40 feet
in height from having to comply with shading standards. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)2. duplicates
Section 3.2.3(D). Nevertheless, it may be important to evaluate compliance with this standard
since shadowing was identified as a concern by citizens attending the neighborhood information
meetings. "
Based on this concern, the Staff Report goes on to state:
495
July 17, 2012
"The applicant has provided a shadow analysis. Section 3.5.1(G(1)(a)2. states that adverse
impacts include, 'but are not limited to, the casting of shadows on adjacent property sufficient
to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting
sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation ofsnow and ice during
the winter on adjacent property, and the shading of window or gardens for more than three
months of the years.
The shadow analysis indicates that there is shadowing on the garden level units of Sunstone
Condos on December 23rd under present conditions due to existing trees along the shared
property line with The District. With the addition of Buildings One, Two and Three, on
December 22nd, this shadowing impacts the second level ofSunstone Condos. On the 22nd of
November and January, the shadows cast by The District are reduced back down to impacting
the only the garden level.
Staffconcludes that even if Section 3.5. 1 (G)(1)(a)2. was not exempted by 3.2.3(D), that shadows
cast by Buildings One, Two and Three would not have a substantial adverse impact on the
distribution ofnatural and artificial light on adjacentpublic and private property for more than
three months over and above that which is the present condition. "
While the Hearing Officer elected to consider the provisions of Section 3.5. 1 (G)(1)(a)2. to be
inclusive ofthe "shading standards "as contained in Section 3.2.3(D) and thus not applicable to the
C-C zone district, Staff provided an analysis based on the evidence presented in both public
hearings. This analysis led staff to find that shadowing occurs on the adjoining buildings daring
the three month timeframe specified in the standard. This shadowing, however, is not found to
constitute a substantial adverse impact.
C. ZTA: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(B) —Architectural Character -of
the Land Use Code.
ZTA states, "The Hearing Officer made no finding that the proposed mass and scale of the proposed
development `set an enhanced standard ofquality "for the area. Rather, the Hearing Officer simply
found that the `area has no predominant architectural character. ' Despite the considerable
testimony from the public regarding the fact that the mass and scale of the proposed building were
not compatible with the existing area, the Hearing Ofcerfailed to establish the standards set forth
in Section 3.5.1(B). "
Section 3.5.1(B)
(B) Architectural Character. New developments in or adjacent to existing developed areas
shall be compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a
design that is complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not
definitively established, or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the
architecture of new development shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future
projects or redevelopment in the area. Compatibility shall be achieved through techniques
such as the repetition of roof lines, the use of similar proportions in building mass and
outdoorspaces, similar relationships to the street, similar window and doorpatterns, and/or
the use of building materials that have color shades and textures similar to those existing
.M
July 17, 2012
in the immediate area of the proposed infill development. Brick and stonemasonry shall be
considered compatible with wood framing and other materials.
• Page 8 of the Staff Report addresses Section 3.5.1(B):
"(1) Architectural Character
As documented in the Campus West Area Study, there is no predominant architectural character in
the area. Consequently, the standard requires that new development shall establish an enhanced
standard of qualityfor future projects in the area.
This P.D.P. sets an enhanced standard with a high level of articulation and mix of quality exterior
materials. Balconies add interest to the facade and the flat roofs are mitigated with cornices and
overhangs. Although Building One is long, its length is mitigated by recesses and projections that
create well-defined shadow lines. The pedestrian scale of Building One is highlighted by the
common area and courtyard being placed directly behind the sidewalk. This area features a one-
story component bringing the height and mass down to a pedestrian scale. All buildings contain
sufficient architectural features, such as overhangs, entryfeatures and seat walls so that there is
both horizontal and vertical relief.
(2.) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale
The three proposed buildings are larger than existing buildings in the surrounding area. As
mitigation, the buildings are sub -divided into modules defined by their projecting and recessed
components. The flat roofs help lowering the overall height. There are no large, massive, blank
walls. "
The Hearing Officer considered the testimony of all parties. Page 14 of the Hearing Officer's
Decision addressed Section 3.5.1 —Architectural Character:
"It is clear that the area has no predominant architectural character. The mixture of
condominiums, sorority and apartments in the area are of different ages and architecture. The
finding of the Campus West Area Study underscores the lack of a predominant architectural
character. The proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by
the standards. "
D. Meyer: Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(D) Building and Project
Compatibility — Privacy Considerations
Meyer states, "Privacy was a major concern voiced by residents of the sorority located directly
north of the proposed project's 5 story, Building 3. In our view, the Hearing Officer discounted the
concern by suggesting that residents in both facilities will need to pull their window shades down
and be responsible for their own conduct which hardly addresses suggestions for mitigation as
provided in this section of the code. Issues of safety and securityfor the women residents of the
sorority will be created.
497
July 17, 2012
Section 3.5.1(D)
(D) Privacy Considerations. Elements of the development plan shall be arranged to
maeimize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of the project and minimize
infringement on the privacy ofadjoining land uses. Additionally, the developmentplan shall
create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or
security. (See Figure 8.)
• On page 16 of the Hearing Officer's decision, the Hearing Officer states:
"The security and privacy of the sorority area different issue. Privacy is a concern anytime two
buildings are constructed within visual distancefrom one another. Both buildings will undoubtedly
contain windows facing each other. Privacy for the sorority cannot be guaranteed nor can the
privacy for the residents of the proposed development be guaranteed. The best control ofprivacy
is with each individual. The individual can control the windows and shades oftheir respective room
as well as their own conduct. "
E. Meyer. Failure to Properly Interpret and Apply Section 3.5.1(G) Building and Project
Compatibility — Views
Meyerstates, "This section of the Code provides forstructures which will not substantially alter the
opportunity for and quality of desirable views. During the hearing process, we provided film
footage of the 'in your face' view that residents in our properties will experience when they walk
out of their units and view the parking garage being proposed. "
Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)1.
Views. A building or structure shall not substantially alter the opportunityfor, and quality
of, desirable views from public places, streets and parks within the community. Desirable
views are views by the community of the foothills, mountains and/or significant local
landmarks (i.e., Long's Peak, Horsetooth Mountain). Techniques to preserve views may
include, but are not limited to, reducing building or structure mass, changing the orientation
of buildings and increasing open space setbacks.
• The Hearing Officer states on page 18 of the decision:
"The C-C zone, and the TOD clearly envision this area for high density development. The
surrounding buildings included the Sunstone Condo, apartments and the sorority are higher density
developments, but not as dense as the C-C zone and TOD permit. The transition from the existing
singlefamily homes to high density development will be accomplished, in part, by this development.
The neighborhood scale will also change as envisioned by the Land Use Code. The P.D.P. meets
this standard. "
SUMMARY
The Staff Report provided the following conclusion:
WN
July 17, 2012
"The P.D.P. is located within the Campus West Study Area (not a Subarea Plan) which calls
attention to the redevelopmentpotential ofthis mature neighborhood adjacent to the Colorado State
University campus. Such redevelopment wouldfulfi11 the vision ofthe Community Commercial zone
as an urbanizing and walkable district.
In evaluating the overall impacts of the P.D.P., staff finds that The District at Campus West
complies with the applicable standards related to compatibility. Staffacknowledges that the overall
scope of the P.D.P. represents a significant change when compared with the existing development
pattern of the immediate surrounding area. It has been the common experience of most
neighborhoods that re -development in fidfillment of the adopted vision of City Plan is
uncomfortable. Despite these growing pains, this is how all cities evolve over time in response to
changing social and economic conditions. The development reviewprocess has allowedfor a robust
citizen participation process that has resulted in plan revisions thatfurther promote neighborhood
compatibility. "
Mayor Weitkunat requested a brief explanation of the appeal process, given recent changes made
by Council. City Attorney Roy replied the City Code sets forth a procedure for hearing appeals from
certain boards and commissions and hearing officers. Two appeals have been filed on this Hearing
Officer's decision, both of which will be heard together tonight. New evidence is not permitted at
an appeal hearing, except in certain situations in which there is an allegation of a denial of a fair
hearing, and in two other circumstances: if the new evidence is provided in response to a
Councilmember's question, or if the new evidence is in response to information gained by a
Councilmember on a site visit. Once the Council has heard all the presentations of the parties -in -
interest, Council has the ability to overturn, uphold, or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer.
Council could also remand the item back to the Hearing Officer if it believes certain issues need to
be more fully explored by the Hearing Officer.
Councilmember Troxell stated he received an email from a citizen regarding this project and stopped
reading it as soon as he realized the topic of the email was this appeal.
Ted Shepard, ChiefPlanner, provided photos of the proposed project site and discussed the proposal,
which includes 193 dwelling units in three buildings on 0.34 acres. Sixteen existing single-family
homes would be demolished and two public streets would be vacated. The project would contain
674 bedrooms, each leased individually, and 495 off-street parking spaces. The site is in the CC
zone, which allows a maximum of five stories per building. Shepard briefly discussed the
allegations in the two appeals.
Mayor Weitkunat requested that Councilmembers Manvel, Troxell, and Ohlson discuss any relevant
observations made or conversations held during their site visit on July 10.
Councilmember Manvel stated the site visit allowed him to examine the site and view neighboring
properties with regard to shading concerns.
Councilmember Troxell discussed the maturity of the trees on site and the relationship of the project
site to other structures in the neighborhood.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted the existing homes have been allowed to fall into disrepair and stated
code enforcement should occur regardless of whether or not a property is slated for redevelopment.
ELM
July 17, 2012
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Bob Meyer, Sunstone Condominiums Homeowners Association President, stated this appeal was
filed on behalf of all the residents and owners in the Sunstone Condominiums. He stated their
appeal is related primarily to the following three issues: the size, mass, bulk, and scale of the
project, which is not in context with the neighborhood, a lack of desirable.views created by the
project's buildings, including a large parking structure, and the undesirable effects of prolonged
shadowing that will occur on the Sunstone property.
Mr. Meyer stated the proposed project does not complement the existing neighborhood in terms of
size, height, bulk, mass, and scale. He disagreed with the Hearing Officer's finding that the project
meets standards involving mass and neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Meyer stated Section 3.5. l (G)
of the Land Use Code provides for structures which will not substantially alter the opportunity for,
and quality of, desirable views. He stated the project would eliminate any desirable views for
residents of the Sunstone Condominiums. Mr. Meyer requested that Council find the Hearing
Officer failed to properly interpret and apply specific conditions of the Land Use Code, and deny
the project.
Tim Dudley, Sunstone Condominium owner, discussed the mass and minimum setback of the
proposed project.
Tim Erickson, Sunstone Condominium resident, stated the proposed project violates the Land Use
Code and puts the safety and welfare of Fort Collins residents at risk due to the icy and hazardous
conditions that will be caused by the shadowing of the Sunstone parking lot. Mr. Erickson provided
data from his shadow analysis which illustrated a shadowing lasting longer than three months of the
year.
Torben Welch, attorney representing Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity Corporation, owner and operator
of the Zeta Tau Alpha Sorority House; discussed the concerns of the sorority relating to the proposed
development and stated their appeal alleges that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret and
apply certain Land Use Code provisions. He discussed the grounds for this appeal relating to
shading, mass and scale, and neighborhood compatibility.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Linda Ripley, Ripley Design, Inc., representing Residential Housing Development, discussed a
previously approved project on the site in question, which was similar in design, mass, and size to
the proposed project. Building One of the proposed District project is a mixed -use building with
a clubhouse and has five stories in the front, four stories in the back. The applicant offered to pitch
the roof on this building, making the back side lower. Building Two is a parking structure with
townhome units that face the street sides. The parking garage is four stories, with five levels of
parking, and the townhome units are three stories. The applicant offered to slope the back side of
the garage down to three stories, in an east -west direction. Building Three is proposed as a five -
story residential building. Ms. Ripley discussed the location of the property, current conditions in
the area, and improvements slated for Plum Street as part of the project.
Ms. Ripley stated the project's location in the Transit Overlay District (TOD) eliminates the
requirement for parking; however, if the project were not in the TOD, it would be required to
500
July 17, 2012
provide 441 spaces. This project provides 495 parking spaces. Any student who has a car is
required to purchase a parking permit and use the garage. In addition, 296 bicycle parking spaces
are provided, though students are allowed to keep bicycles in bedrooms.
Ms. Ripley noted this area is located in the targeted infill and redevelopment area defined in the
2011 City Plan update, and is specifically targeted as an activity center; therefore, the City
encourages high -density redevelopment in this area to aid in revitalization.
The applicant intends to achieve silver LEED status for this project and the project encourages
bicycle use by providing adequate parking in a secure, covered location. A transit stop is also
provided in the project, and an enhanced streetscape makes walking safer and more pleasant.
Lucia Liley, attorney for the applicant, discussed the specific appeal allegations, starting with
architectural character. She stated the Code clearly states a standard of quality is required for infill
projects in areas with no clear architectural character. The Meyer appeal questions whether this
standard is met on the back side of the project, though the variety in building materials has been
discussed. The Code does not set forth a requirement that the decision maker specifically state each
applicable Land Use Code requirement that is met; however, the Hearing Officer did specifically
state that the proposed architectural character contains the elements and treatments sought by the
standards.
Ms. Liley stated the second appeal assertion concerns building size, height, mass, and scale. She
noted the building is required to be articulated and subdivided into massing that becomes
proportional to the area. The goal of this zone district is to create a new standard and a different
kind of development that supports mass transit and density goals. ,
The sorority appeal has a shadowing allegation which suggests that the Hearing Officer was
incorrect in not applying Section 3.2.3(A), which is the Purpose section; however, the standards
provision states it does not apply to the high -density zone districts of Downtown and Community
Commercial. The Code section which does apply to this project involves buildings over 40 feet in
height, and states that a development cannot have substantial adverse impacts on light on adjacent
property. Additionally, this section of the Code only addresses windows and gardens, not parking
lots, and allows shading to occur during the shortest three-month time period of the year. The Code
does not define substantial adverse impact; therefore the issue must be looked at contextually. Ms.
Liley discussed the shadow analysis completed by the applicant.
Ms. Liley stated there were no objections from the sorority throughout the bulk of this process,
including two neighborhood meetings and the original hearing, nor were there any appeals or
objections relating to the previously approved project. The original hearing was continued in order
to refine the shadow analysis and work with representatives from Sunstone Condominiums relating
to their concerns. A representative of the sorority discussed objections only at the continued
hearing. At this point, the applicant is willing to slope Building Three down to four stories in the
rear and pitch the roof.
501
Judy 17, 2012
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Mr. Meyer disagreed that the north side of the project is visually appealing. He cited Land Use
Code Section 3.5.1(C) which states the project needs to be subdivided into massing proportional to
the mass and scale of other structures. He stated the Code should apply to all sides of the project.
Mr. Dudley noted the project was originally presented with the courtyards facing the north, but was
then redesigned to allow residents of the proposed project to take advantage of the south -facing
courtyards.
Mr. Erickson stated the developer did not note the methodology used for its shadow analysis. He
disagreed with the applicant's shadow analysis and stated a substantial adverse impact does exist
from the shadowing.
Mr. Welch stated Section 3.5.1(B) states that the architecture of new developments shall set an
enhanced standard of quality for future projects, not existing projects. He questioned whether or not
the urban quality of this development is the goal for the future. Mr. Welch disagreed as to which
Code sections relating to shadowing apply to this project and stated the sorority was ignored in the
shadow study submitted by the applicant. He stated the applicant's willingness to change the
building height would necessitate remanding the issue back to the Hearing Officer in order to allow
evaluation of those new plans.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Ms. Liley stated the shadow analysis presented at the continued hearing did show the impact on the
sorority. She stated the visual impact and shadowing impact will be improved by lowering the
height of building three and noted that change could be conditioned by Council and does not require
a remand.
Ms. Liley noted that a project's shadowing contributing to snow and ice accumulation is an adverse
impact; however, the question is to whether or not it is substantial. Additionally, there is existing
shading from trees on both the Sunstone property and the sorority property. The zone district
promotes density, multi -stories, and smaller setbacks to allow for an urban streetscape.
Ms. Ripley stated the plans presented at conceptual review did show courtyards facing north;
however, that was changed at the request of City staff due to the Colorado climate. The backs of
the buildings are not void of detail and meet City standards in terms of materials and articulation.
Ms. Ripley encouraged an examination of the shadowing standards given the complexity of the
issue. She also noted shading does not eliminate light, just direct sun.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mayor Weitkunat stated the appeal allegations involve whether or not the Hearing Officer failed to
property interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code relating to shading, building
compatibility, and height, size, mass and scale, as well as privacy concerns.
Councilmember Manvel requested a view of the back of the buildings and asked if articulation is
required on the back of buildings, given the Code requirement that articulation match the buildings
502
July 17, 2012
on the block face. Ms. Ripley replied the back of the buildings will have articulation similar to the
fronts of the buildings, with slightly deeper recesses. Balconies and patios also exist, as well as a
variety of building materials.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the landscape plan and buffering. Ms.
Ripley replied there are existing mature trees on both the Sunstone and District properties which will
provide buffering. The eight and a half foot wide space between the District buildings and property
line, four different species of columnar trees will be planted. The applicant will also be building a
new metal or wrought iron fence.
Councilmember Troxell noted the existing trees do shade the Sunstone parking lot to some extent.
Ms. Ripley agreed.
Mr. Dudley responded that the trees allow sunlight to be interspersed throughout the parking lot; the
buildings will not allow any sun at all. Mr. Erickson and Mr. Welch responded similarly.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if more than one window exist in each Sunstone unit. Mr. Erickson
replied there are windows on at least three sides of each unit.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if the shading requirements for a forty -foot tall building apply, based
on the zone district, and if there is any room for dispute as to whether or not the Hearing Officer
misinterpreted the Code as it relates to shading and building height. Shepard replied his staff report
does provide analysis relating to Section 3.5.1, Shadowing; the Hearing Officer did not cite that
Section and relied only on Section 3.2.3(D).
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson requested a legal opinion regarding which approach is correct. City
Attorney Roy replied Section 3.2.3(D) does not apply because of the zone district in which the
project exists. There is no language in the other Section exempting this project from the application
of that Section for any reason. He stated Section 3.5.1 should apply.
City Attorney Roy asked if the administrative interpretation is different. Shepard replied staff did
not want to ignore Section 3.5.1. There is not a great deal of administrative history regarding the
application of both of the standards together.
City Attorney Roy suggested that if Council should conclude that Section 3.5.1 applies, the decision
need not be overturned; however, Council could opt to make additional findings and modify the
Hearing Officer's decision.
Ms. Liley replied her interpretation of the Code is that Section 3.5.1 applies. She stated that
standard was addressed at the hearing by the applicant; however, the Hearing Officer citied a
different Section in his decision.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if Council could change the tree caliper standards for the north side
of project. Shepard replied staff is comfortable with Council's direction on that issue; however, the
maximum caliper would likely be 6 inches for deciduous trees, and a maximum height of 10 to 12
feet for evergreens.
61IN
July 17, 2012
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested a review of the stormwater proposal for the site. Shepard replied
roof drainage and parking structure drainage is captured in a well in the parking structure itself; the
well holds the water until it is pumped into an outfall that goes into the City storm system. The
exterior planters also retain water for a certain amount of time and that water is then pumped into
an outfall.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if more than one person can occupy a bedroom in the development.
Shepard replied the applicant has stated there is a management -lease provision that would prohibit
that and it would be grounds for eviction.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked how many recycling enclosures are planned to be part of the
development. Ms. Ripley replied there are two trash and recycling areas in the development. She
stated there are trash compactors and separate shoots for recycling materials, making it more
convenient for students to recycle.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson requested a rendering of facade for Building Three. Shepard replied the
information in Council's packet was derived from the record of the public hearing. The elevations
were not shown at the public hearing, but would be similar to Buildings One and Two.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the goal of silver LEED status. Ms. Liley replied the developer
will commit to attaining silver LEED status should Council wish to condition its approval.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the difference between Type I and Type II projects. Shepard
replied, in this case, the hearing type is derived from the fundamental basis of what the CC zone is
trying to promote, and multi -family projects were given the process incentive in 1997 to be Type
I permitted uses.
Councilmember Manvel stated the developer is making concessions to reduce the substantial impact
of shadowing, as referenced in Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(2) and requested further detail. Ms. Liley
replied the garage slope will be east to west and stated pitching the roof on building one and sloping
the garage were offered as conditions at the hearing; however, the Hearing Officer did not condition
the approval on those items. They do still remain as offered conditions, as well as pitching the roof
of building three and stepping the building down to four stories in the rear.
Councilmember Manvel stated he would like to see conditions on reducing the shadow situation,
ensuring LEED certification, and additional tree requirements.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to modifythe decision
of the Hearing Officer on the grounds that he failed to properly interpret and apply the Land Use
Code regarding the approval of the District at Campus West PDP, #120003, such that the following
conditions are necessary: silver LEED certification, Building One shall have a pitched roof, the
garage shall be built with a sloped roof, Building Three shall have one less story in the back and
have a pitched roof, the mitigation trees along the north side of the buildings shall have calipers
exceeding the standards required in Section 3.2.1(F), and that Section 3.5. 1 (G)(1)(a)(2) does apply,
and with the architectural conditions, those standards are met.
504
July 17, 2012
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she disagreed that the Hearing Officer failed to properly interpret
and apply the Land Use Code, but stated she would support the motion as the conditions were
agreeable to the developer.
Councilmember Troxell agreed with Councilmember Kottwitz.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas:, Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Extension of the Meetinn
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson, to extend the meeting
past 10:30 p.m. Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz, Horak, Manvel and Ohlson. Nays: Poppaw and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to cancel the August
7, 2012 regular Council meeting, as permitted under Section 2-28(A) of the City Code, so that
Councilmembers can attend the various local neighborhood night out activities to be held that same
night. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson; Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to July
24, 2012, so that Council may consider any additional business that may come before the Council,
including a possible executive session. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:56 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
OF —FT
�. CU
Ir
G;•' �
•cn
505