HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/19/2013-RegularFebruary 19, 2013
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, February 19,
2013, 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: Horak, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell
and Weitkunat.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry noted the published postponement of Item No. 15, Second Reading of
Ordinance No. 023, 2013, Amending the City Code to Prohibit the Disposal of Cardboard in the
Community's Waste Stream and to Amend Requirements for Recycling Applicable Solid Waste
Collection.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland; 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Urban Renewal Authority is insolvent.
Stacy Lynne, 305 West Magnolia, alleged corruption with Larimer County courts.
Bill Mullaney, Fort Collins resident, alleged untruthfulness among Councilmembers.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, requested details regarding business assistance packages offered
by the City.
Virginia Farver, 1214 Belleview Drive, discussed cancer clusters relating to radiation from Smart
Meters.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain, announced a program at Poudre High School wherein students
are constructing sheds for victims of the High Park Fire.
Dick Thomas, 1901 Wallenberg Drive, questioned the portion of development fees paid by citizens
and stated too much advantage is given to developers in the city.
Ed Beers, 408 Jackson, asked about the status of Lieutenant Broderick.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, expressed concern regarding the rush of significant
items which come before Council just prior to elections.
333
February 19, 2013
Chris Eikenberg, 1245 East Lincoln, expressed concern regarding her housing situation and stated
she has been without a stove for months. She expressed concern regarding Building Department
officials.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Weitkunat thanked Mr. Gascoyne for announcing his Seeds to Shelter project.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she would advocate for Ms. Eikenberg and her housing situation.
City Manager Atteberry stated he would speak directly with Ms. Eikenberg regarding her concerns.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson refuted corruption allegations related to Council and City staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Intersection Improvements and
Traffic Signals Project for Timberline Road and Horsetooth Road Intersection
Improvements.
The City has received a federally funded grant through the North Front Range Metropolitan
Planning Organization, category Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, for operational and
safety improvements at the Timberline Road and Horsetooth Road intersection. This
Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, appropriates
unanticipated federal grant revenue into the City of Fort Collins Building on Basics
Intersection Improvements and Traffic Signals Fund for design, right-of-way acquisition and
construction of the dedicated right turn lane from southbound Timberline Road to westbound
Horsetooth Road.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding
Trees and Correcting a Cross -Referencing Error.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, amends the
Land Use Code to mitigate for additional tree species, amend the tree mitigation radius,
mitigate for cotton -bearing cottonwood trees and seed -bearing boxelder trees, and correct
a cross-referencing error in the Land Use Code.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2013 Authorizing the Extension of the Purchasing
Card Services Agreement with UMB Bank for an Additional Five Year Period.
In 2007, the City and Poudre School District did a cooperative request for proposal process
for Procurement Card (PCard) Services. The solicitation was for a five-year period with an
option to renew for an additional five years with the approval of City Council. This
cooperative bid was also open for participation of other governmental entities. Each entity
contracts separately with the selected bank but shares in the value of the combined spending
and services offered by the bank (UMB Bank). Participation in this cooperative contract has
grown from the original 2 to over 70 governmental agencies in Colorado. The participants
in the cooperative combine their volume of purchases which results in a higher rebate to
334
February 19, 2013
each participant based on their individual volume of purchases. The City's estimated 2013
rebate amount is over S 130,000. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on
February 5, 2013, authorizes the extension of the contract with UMB Bank until March
2017.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No 016,2013 Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property
at 6916 South College Avenue for up to Five Years.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, authorizes the
lease of this 17+ acre property, which is part of the Affordable Housing/Land Bank Program,
located at 6916 South College Avenue, as a ground lease for another five year period. This
lease is for land only and does not allow use of City -owned water on the property.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No 017, 2013 Designating the Zimmerman Property, 712
Dartmouth Trail, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 201.3, designates the
Zimmerman Property, 712 Dartmouth Trail, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The property
owners, Jason Franikowski and Jennifer Haussmann, are initiating this request.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Designating the Crose-Scott-Dickey House
and Attached Garage, 618 West Mountain Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, designates the
Crose-Scott-Dickey House and Attached Garage, 618 West Mountain Avenue, as a Fort
Collins Landmark. The property owners, William and Kathleen Whitley, are initiating this
request.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2013, Designatingthe Olyn and Ann Price Property,
1509 Westview Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Cif
Code.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013, designates the
Olyn and Ann Price Property, 1509 Westview Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The
property owner, Anne C. Colwell, is initiating this request.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2013, Amending Section 2-35 of the City Code with
Regard to the Removal of Persons from City Council Meetings
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted. on First Reading on February 5, 2013, amends City
Code to allow the presiding officer of a City Council meeting or City Council committee
meeting to order the removal of any person who significantly and intentionally disrupts such
meeting by failing to comply with the requirements of the presiding officer in maintaining
order during the meeting.
335
February 19, 2013
14. Items Relating to Animal Control.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2013, Amending Chapter 4, Article II and
Chapter 19, Article V of the City Code so as to Decriminalize Certain Offenses
Related to the Care and Keeping of Animals.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 4, Article II, of the City Code.
Ordinance No. 021, 2013 amends Chapter 4, Article II of the City Code to decriminalize all
offenses related to the care and keeping of animals, except for the vicious, dangerous, public
nuisance, and cruelty sections, to provide better, more responsive customer service. The
changes in the Animal Protection and Control (APC) protocol would ensure responsiveness
and flexibility to citizen concerns and complaints. City staff recommends transferring the
management of the APC contract from Police Services to Neighborhood Services. These
changes will enable the City to make progress in addressing the issues of barking dogs and
other animal nuisances in the community.
Ordinance No. 022, 2013, clarifies the licensing and rabies vaccinations requirements, and
adds a numerical distinction of 80 degrees Fahrenheit to indicate when it is illegal to confine
an animal within a parked vehicle. As requested by Council at First Reading, language has
been added to this Code section to provide clarity regarding when a violation exists. These
Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 5, 2013.
15. Postponement of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2013, Amending the City Code to
Prohibit the Disposal of Cardboard in the Community's Waste Stream and to Amend
Requirements for Recycling Applicable Solid Waste Collection to March 19, 2013.
Staff is requesting postponement of Second Reading of this Ordinance to March 19 to
develop an Implementation Plan, detailing how the Ordinance will be carried out during the
first twelve months.
16. Postponement of Items Relating to the Planned Development Overlav District Pilot to
February 26, 2013.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code by the
Addition of a Temporary Planned Development Overlay Zone District.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 025, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code to Add
or Clarify Certain "General Standards" and "Purpose" Statements Related to the
Planned Overlay Development District.
Staff is requesting postponement of Second Reading of these Ordinances to February 26,
2013 to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to consider the addition of properties into the
pilot boundaries.
336
February 19, 2013
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds for the Art in Public Places Program
In 2012, Article XII of Chapter 23 of the City Code relating to Art in Public Places (APP)
was amended by Ordinance No. 078, 2012. Part of those changes included an administrative
policy change to move APP art projects from lapsing to non -lapsing capital project accounts
to improve the accountability and transparency of APP projects. This Ordinance will
complete that process by moving all reserved APP funds as of December 31, 2012 to new
non -lapsing capital project accounts or to a lapsing administration and maintenance account.
18. Items Relating to the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in
Connection with the North College Improvements Project — Conifer to Willox.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of Parcels
of Real Property on North College Avenue to the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
The North College Improvements Project — Conifer to Willox is a multimodal improvement
project that extends from Conifer Street to Willox Lane. This project will construct
improvements in accordance with the City of Fort Collins North College Corridor Plan and
the US 287/SH 14 Access Management Report. The project is planned to begin construction
in 2014, addressing the remaining section of the North College Corridor. The project budget
consists of both federal and local funds. To construct these improvements, the City will
need to acquire certain lands adjacent to the project area. The acquisitions include both
rights -of -way and permanent and temporary easements. Timely acquisition of the property
is necessary to meet the anticipated construction schedule. This project is one of the highest
ranked roadway projects in the City's Capital Improvements Plan.
19. Items Relating to the Removal of Signs.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter
17, Article III, Section 17-42 of the City Code Regarding Signs in the Right -of -Way.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding
the Removal of Election Signs.
Ordinance No. 030, 2013, amends City Code Section 17-42 to eliminate the 24-hour
notification requirement that the City must provide before removing signs that are illegally
placed in the right-of-way. It also recommends providing notice to the business or entity
identified on the sign after its removal, and holding the sign for ten (10) days to allow the
owner the opportunity to retrieve the sign before disposal, unless the sign is insignificant in
value or it advertises or promotes an event or activity that has already occurred. Also
recommended is the ability for staff to immediately dispose of the sign if it is a repeat
337
February 19, 2013
violation within a 12-month period. This section applies to all signs placed in the right-of-
way.
Ordinance No. 031, 2013, amends Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the City's Land Use Code to extend
the length of time allowed to remove election signs from private property from four (4) days
after an election to five (5) days after an election. This section applies only to election signs
on private property.
20. Resolution 2013-009 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.
21. Resolution 2013-010 Making an Appointment to the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
This Resolution fills a vacancy on the Natural Resources Advisory Board.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 013, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
into the Capital Projects Fund for the Building on Basics Intersection Improvements and
Traffic Signals Project for Timberline Road and Horsetooth Road Intersection
Improvements.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding
Trees and Correcting a Cross -Referencing Error.
8.Second Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2013 Authorizing the Extension of the Purchasing Card
Services Agreement with UMB Bank for an Additional Five Year Period.
9. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo. 0 16,2013, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property
at 6916 South College Avenue for up to Five Years.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2013, Designating the Zimmerman Property, 712
Dartmouth Trail, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2012, Designating the Crose-Scott-Dickey House
and Attached Garage, 618 West Mountain Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the City Code.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2013, Designating the Olyn and Ann Price Property,
1509 Westview Avenue, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City
Code.
338
February 19, 2013
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2013, Amending Section 2-35 ofthe City Code with
Regard to the Removal of Persons from City Council Meetings.
14. Items Relating to Animal Control.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2013, Amending Chapter 4, Article II and
Chapter 19, Article V of the City Code so as to Decriminalize Certain Offenses
Related to the Care and Keeping of Animals.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 022, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to
Chapter 4, Article 11, of the City Code.
29. Items Relating to the 2012 Streets and Stormwater Site Development Initiatives.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2012, Adopting an Update to Appendix C
of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards Pertaining to "Streetscape
Standards" for the City of Fort Collins.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2012, Amending Chapter 26 of the City
Code and the Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual to Incorporate Provisions
Implementing Low Impact Development Principles.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and
Unanticipated Revenue in Various City Funds and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated
Amounts Between Funds for the Art in Public Places Program.
18. Items Relating to the North College Improvements Project - Conifer Street to Willox Lane.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2013, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain
of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements in Connection with the North
College Improvements Project — Conifer to Willox.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance of Parcels of Real
Property on North College Avenue to the Colorado Department of Transportation.
19. Items Relating to the Removal of Signs.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter
17, Article III, Section 17-42 of the City Code Regarding Signs in the Right -of -Way.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding
the Removal of Election Signs.
26. First Reading Ordinance No. 032, 2013 Amendment to the City Code Which Would Impose
a Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing and Certain Storage of Waste within the City.
339
February 19, 2013
27. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2013, Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins
Land Use Code Pertaining to Implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods
Character Study (Option A or Option B).
Councilmember Troxell withdrew Item No. 19, Items Relating to the Removal of Signs, from the
Consent Calendar.
Chris Eikenberg withdrew Item No. 13, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2013, Amending
Section 2-35 of the City Code with Regard to the Removal ofPersons from City Council Meetings,
from the Consent Calendar.
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.
Items Relating to the Removal of Signs, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2013, Making Certain Amendments to Chapter 17,
Article III, Section 17-42 of the City Code Regarding Signs in the Right -of -Way.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2013, Amending the Land Use Code Regarding the
Removal of Election Signs.
Ordinance No. 030, 2613, amends City Code Section 17-42 to eliminate the 24-hour notification
requirement that the City mustprovide before removing signs that are illegally placed in the right-
of-way. It also recommends providing notice to the business or entity identified on the sign after
its removal, and holding the sign for ten (10) days to allow the owner the opportunity to retrieve the
sign before disposal, unless the sign is insignificant in value or it advertises or promotes an event
or activity that has already occurred. Also recommended is the abilityfor staff to immediately
dispose of the sign if it is a repeat violation within a 12-month period. This section applies to all
signs placed in the right-of-way.
Ordinance No. 031, 2013, amends Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the City's Land Use Code to extend the
length of time allowed to remove election signs front private property from four (4) days after an
I
lection to ftve,(5) days after an election. This section applies only to election signs on private
property.
340
February 19, 2013
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Signs in the Right -of -Way
In the summer 2012, Neighborhood Services took over the enforcement of Section 17-42 of the City
Code regulatingsignsplacedintheright-of-way. The EngineeringDepariment askedfor assistance
from Code Compliance in order to more quickly address items illegally placed in the right-of-way.
The Code Compliance Inspectors are in the neighborhoods morefrequently and could more quickly
and efficiently enforce this provision.
During October 2012, the month prior to the election, a seasonal code inspector worked full-time
specifically to address signs that were illegally placed in the right-of-way. This inspector was in
addition to the otherfour inspectors lookingfor illegally placed signs while outdoing their regular
patrols. Neighborhood Servicesprimarily usedproactive enforcement while giving highestpriority
to complaints. The Code currently requires the City to give 24-hour notice before removing any
signs placed in the right-of-way.
Staffnotified each campaign office early in October regarding legal sign placement. Neighborhood
Services also used press releases and social media to get the same information to the public. Staff
talked directly with any business that had a sign in the right -of --way adjacent to their business. For
a sign placed in the right-of-way directly in front of a residence (mostly in the parkway space
between the sidewalk and the curb), staff used door -hangers to let each resident know that they
needed to move their sign onto their private property. The majority of people did not recognize a
public right-of-way, and failed to realize that they placed their sign in an illegal location. The door
hangers helped prevent homeowners from thinking their signs had been stolen and helped them
understand where they could legally place their signs.
Between October I and November 6, staff inspected over 186 locations with illegally placed signs
(some locations had multiple signs). Of those, 131 were election signs and the remainder were
advertising, real estate, stadium, or other signs. (See Attachment 1 for more details)
Some of the trends noticed were:
Aside from election signs, real estate and advertising signs are most often illegally placed
in the right-of-way.
Most of the violations occur in the parkway strip between the sidewalk and the curb.
Some of the lessons learned and changes planned for the future are
• There were election signs placed in the right-of-way the weekend prior to the election — in
the future, staff will work this weekend in order to remove illegally placed signs.
• Additional outreach needs to be done with real estate agents and real estate companies.
• Door hangers were a good way to inform residents of sign placement requirements — most
complied once notified.
• Taking the time to talk to businesses was very well received and anothergood way to ensure
businesses were aware of the requirements — all complied once notified.
341
February 19, 2013 '
Land Use Code Removal Requirement for Election Signs on Private Property
Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the Land Use Code states that all election signs must be removed four days
after an election. After the four days, the City can notify property owners who still have election
signs on their private property that they must remove the signs. Unlike signs illegally placed in the
right-of-way, signs in violation of Section 3.8.7(L)(1) are on private property. City staff cannot go
onto private property and remove signs. Ifthe property owner does not remove the signs after being
notified, the City must issue a Municipal Court summons for the violation.
Elections normally occur on a Tuesday, which means the existing regulation requires that signs be
removed from private property by 12:01 a.m. on the Sunday after the election. However, staff
currently does not begin inspecting for remaining signs until the Monday after the election.
Notification to property owners to remove remaining signs also begins on the Monday after the
election. Amending the Code to extend the time limit for the removal of election signs to a normal
work day will bring the Code in line with actual practice and will alleviate the concern that staff
should be inspecting for violations on a Sunday.
RECOMMENDED CODE CHANGES.
Signs in the Right -of -Way
In an effort to more efficiently enforce Section 17-42 of the City Code that prohibits signs from being
placed in the right-of-way, staffrecommends removing the 24-hour notice requirement. This would
enable City staff to immediately remove signs that are illegally placed in the City's right-of-way.
Staffalso recommends providing notice to the person, business, or entity identified on the sign after
removal and holding the sign for ten (10) days to allow the owner the opportunity to retrieve the
sign, unless the sign is insignificant in value or it advertises or promotes an event or activity that
has already occurred. If the sign is not retrieved, staff may dispose of the sign. Staff recommends
immediate disposal ofsigns illegally placed in the right-of-way for a second (or more) occurrence
within a 12-month period.
Land Use Code — Election Signs on Private Property
Section 3.8.7(L)(1) of the Land Use Code (LUC) requires that all election signs must be removed
from private property within four days after an election, which means that the removal day is
normally Sunday. City staff does not work on Sundays, so enforcement of the regulation does not
begin until the Monday after the election. Staff recommends amending the Code to extend the time
limitfor the removal of election signs from four (4) days to five (5) days. This will make it a normal
work day which will bring the Code in line with actual practice, and alleviate the concern that staff
should be inspecting for violations on a Sunday.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDA TION
At its January 17, 2013 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board unanimously voted to recommend
approval of the LUC change as part of its Consent Agenda.
342
February 19, 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
An article explaining the recommended code changes and requesting feedback was in the January
Neighborhood News newsletter which has over 800 subscribers. One person provided feedback,
asking that proactive education still occur so people will know the regulations about the legal
placement ofsigns. "
Councilmember Troxell expressed concern there would be no enforcement of the removal of
election signs, given the proposed five day requirement, which would typically place the sign
removal requirement on a weekend. Peter Barnes, Zoning Supervisor,.replied the Tuesday election
day goes until the end of that day, therefore signs would currently need to be removed by Sunday.
Extending the limit to five days would bring the Code in line with the actual practice of
enforcement.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the enforcement would be changing from only weekday hours and
asked about signs on public rights -of -way. Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager replied
signs are illegal in public rights -of -way and stated the seasonal inspector and regular inspectors will
be working at least part of the weekend prior to an election to remove those signs. Barnes replied
there are no additional plans to enforce after hours. Signs are generally removed by the first work
day after elections.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 030, 2013, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 031, 2013, on First Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to a Ban of Hydraulic Fracturing and
Certain Storage of Waste within the City, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. First Reading Ordinance No. 032, 2013 Amendment to the City Code Wlzich Would Impose
a Ban on HydraulicFracturing and Certain Storage of Waste within the City (Operator
Agreement in place).
.M
Resolution 2013-011 Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City a Proposed Amendment
to the City Code Which Would Impose a Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing and Certain Storage of
Waste Within the City (Operator Agreement in place).
343
February 19, 2013
AND
B. Resolution 2013-012 Requesting Statutory Power to Regulate Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production, Supporting the City of Longmont in its Litigation with the State of Colorado
Concerning the Regulation of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production and Authorizing
Negotiations with Lorimer County Regarding Oil and Gas Regulations in the City's Growth
Management Area.
Staff also requests Council direction regarding which option(s) to prepare for future Council
consideration regarding City -owned lands outside the city limits.
On February 5, 2013, City Council directed staff to prepare City Code changes prohibiting the use
ofhydraulicfracturing, and limiting the open pit storage ofwaste orflowbackcreated in connection
with the fracturing process in the city limits. Those changes are reflected in the proposed
Ordinance No. 032, 2013. If no action is taken on Ordinance No. 32, 2013, staff prepared an
optional resolution for Council to consider:
Resolution 2013-011 Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City a Proposed
Amendment to the City Code Which Would Impose a Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing and
Certain Storage of Waste With the City (Operator Agreement in place).
In addition to the options presented banning hydraulic fracturing, staffdeveloped Resolution 2013-
012.
requesting the Governor and Attorney General support the Colorado General Assembly in
enacting legislation that will explicitly grant power for home rule cities in the State of
Colorado to regulate oil and gas exploration and production within municipal boundaries
supporting the City ofLongmont in its litigation with the State of Colorado concerning the
power of home rule cities to regulate the exploration for and production of oil and gas
development
directing negotiation with the Board of Commissioners of Larimer County for the
establishment of County regulations on oil and gas exploration outside the City, but within
the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
In December 2012, City Council authorized a moratorium preventing any further drilling ofoil and
gas wells in the city limits or on City -owned lands until July 31, 2013. Since that time, citizens asked
the Council to consider banning hydraulic fracturing in the city. During the January 22, 2013 Work
Session, Council discussed the pros and cons related to banning hydraulic fracturing (Attachment
10). Following this discussion staff was directed to prepare a Resolution banning hydraulic
fracturing and storage of related waste materials for the February 19, 2013 regular Council
meeting.
Council also asked that the staff report include more information on local geology, scientific data
relative to hydraulic fracturing, the likelihood of local earthquakes due to fracturing, and the
financial impacts of a ban or an adverse incident if hydraulic fracturing were not banned.
344
February 19, 2013
Staff was further directed to pursue an operator agreement with Prospect Energy seeking
compliance with the strictest measures proposed for Land Use Code adoption prior to the
implementation of a moratorium. During a Council meeting on February 5, 2013, staff was asked
to prepare an Ordinance banning hydraulicfracturing and open pit storage except on existing well
or operatingpad sites, or if the pad site becomes the subject ofan operator agreement with the City.
Council also asked staff to develop options for regulating or banning hydraulic fracturing on City -
owned lands outside the city limits.
On February 11, 2013, the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission (COGCC) adopted rule changes
moving setbacks from well pads to 500 feet in most areas and 1000 feet from buildings that house
larger numbers of people. This change reduces the area that may be subject to oil and gas
development to Il % inside the City limits.
Geology
Staff was asked to review the geology beneath Fort Collins and adjacent lands to determine what
potential oil and gas resources may exist. Staff reviewed information provided by geologists at
Colorado State University (CSU), the Colorado State Geologist, and the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). Most ofthe academic and professional mapping and articles available on the North
Front Range focus on the Greater Wattenberg Area (GWA); very few mention Fort Collins or the
Fort Collins Field by name. Geologists cite the lack of information as an indication of a low
probability ofoil and gas production within the community. In 2009, the Natural Areas Department,
as part of the Energy by Design project, developed a map depicting potential oil and gas
development (Attachment 8). Mapping of oil and gas development potential indicates that the most
likely production area is expected in the northern part of Fort Collins, where the present field exists
(Attachment 9). Recent activity in Northern Colorado has focused on the Niobrara formation ; in
Fort Collins, the Niobrara development potential is estimated as "moderate" (Attachments 8 or 9).
Potential Fort Collins Oil and Gas Activity
To determine oil and gas potential, staffreviewed the historic record ofdrilling in Fort Collins, the
current operations, and the regional geological information.
• The historic record indicates that the Muddy "J" has been the only productive formation in
Fort Collins. Niobrara development has been the focus of the recent activity in the Greater
Wattenberg Area.
• Prospect Energy indicates that current operations have targeted the Niobrara formation but
those efforts have not proved economical.
• The geologic record indicates that the Niobrara is located near the surface in Fort Collins
and the Niobrara is not deep enough to yield quality gas or oil.
Fort Collins
The wells drilled within the Fort Collins Field were drilled with several target formations in mind.
Initially, wells drilled in 1925 sought to reach the Hygiene (Pierre Shale) or the Muddy "J"
sandstone. This is consistent with the discovery in 1923 of oil from the Muddy "J" in the Wellington
Field to the north ofFort Collins. The Wellington Field was the first set ofwells producing from the
Muddy "J" in the Denver Basin. Muddy "J" sandstone near Fort Collins exists at a depth of
345
February 19, 2013
approximately 4, 500 feet with an average thickness of 25 feet. Going east from Fort Collins, there
is greater depth beginning along Interstate 25. The shallow portions of the rock to the west of the
City are not likely to have marketable oil and gas supplies. Prospect Energy's operations in the Fort
Collins Field are in the Muddy "J "formation_ The company tested the Niobrara in the Fort Collins
Field but has not yet found a well that would be profitable. These results reflect the historical
development of oil and gas in Fort Collins where operators attempted to produce oil and gas from
the Lyons, Lakota, Dakota, Codell, Niobrara and the Hygiene formations. A detailed review of
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) records indicates the Muddy "J" is the
only formation that has ever profitably produced within Fort Collins. As hydraulic fracturing and
drilling technology advance it remains possible that other formations lying beneath Fort Collins
might produce oil and gas. For a more detailed analysis, see Attachment 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Air Quality
Several current studies pertinent to the Front Range or Rocky Mountain region were reviewed to
support the following conclusions (citations are provided in Attachment 2):
Measurable emissions ofseveral pollutants attributable to drilling, construction, material
storage and treatment, production, and transmission activities from oil and gas operations
have been detected, including the following:
0 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are ozone
precursors
o Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) including several carcinogens (primarily benzene
and formaldehyde) and other air toxics associated with chronic and sub -chronic
health effects (respiratory and neurologic disease and head, throat, and eye
irritation)
o Particulate matter including dust and aerosols
o Odors (hydrogen sulfide and odiferous hydrocarbons)
o Nitrogen and sulfur compounds that contribute to visibility impairment (haze) and
atmospheric deposition (acid rain)
o Methane, a potent greenhouse gas and ozone precursor.
Oil and gas development activities can emit raw (non-combusted) natural gas which has a
unique signature that can be differentiated from motor vehicle emissions and other industrial
or combustion sources. Elevated levels of volatile organic compounds associated with
natural gas operations (drilling and venting) were found in the Front Range area.
Hydrocarbons emitted from oil and gas activities along the Front Range (primarily propane
and other alkanes) comprise some ofthe highly reactive precursors important in the complex
atmospheric chemistry responsible for winter. ozone formation. Winter ozone formation is
a recently discovered phenomenon that has clearly been attributed to emissions from oil and
gas development and production activities in the Green River Basin (Wyoming) and Uintah
Basin (Utah).
Associated impacts to human health including excess cancer risk and chronic non -cancer
health impacts have been measured at locations within 0.5 miles of active well pad sites.
Additional studies, many of which are currently ongoing, will help to define the potential risk
to human health, effectiveness of air emission control strategies, and potential impacts to
air quality from oil and gas development activities.
346
February 19, 2013
Water Quality Environmental and Health Concerns
• While there is no scientific consensus and studies are few, there is some indication of a
potential link between high-pressure underground injection (i.e., underground injection
wells for wastewater) and gas migration near the well (movement of methane into
groundwater) The associated risk to humans is that methane that isfound in drinking water
sources could potentially build up in confined spaces and cause explosions. Methane gas is
not considered toxic if consumed in drinking water and is not regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA).
a A USCS study by Ellsworth near wastewater wells (Class H Underground Injection
Control (UIC) wells) in Menlo Park, CA suggests the high pressure injection might
make well cement cracks more likely. Findings by other researchers suggest a
similar finding, but conclude further research is needed. Although this may have
implications for high pressure injection techniques used in hydraulic fracturing,
there is no scientific consensus on the probability of its occurrence or the
mechanisms involved. Local wells classified as UICs are actually injecting at sub -
fracturing pressures; see more below under earthquakes.
• Most shallow water contamination resultingfrom hydraulic fracturing and conventional oil
and gas production has been linked to surface activities resulting in releases of wastewater
due to accidents, poor management ofwastewater storage and disposal, and illicit dumping.
• Most aquifer contamination (i. e., potential drinking water resources) from conventional oil
and gas production has been linked to well casingfailures. There is not enough research for
hydraulic fracturing operations to show a similar link.
In response to public concern and industry growth, the US House of Representatives requested in
2009 that the US EPA conduct scientific research to examine the relationship between hydraulic
fracturing and drinking water resources. The project planning phase involved agency consultation
with other federal agencies, state and interstate regulatory agencies, industry, non -governmental
organizations, and others in the private and public sector to determine the focus of the study
regarding potential impacts on human health and the environment. The primary research focused
on investigating impacts to drinking water resources. The first progress report on the results of this
research was published by the EPA, December 2012, Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic
Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources, Progress Report, EPA 6011,R-121011, Office of Research
and Development.
The research consists of 18 research projects and is organized around five stages of the hydraulic
fracturing water cycle:
1. Water acquisition: What are the possible impacts of large volume water withdrawals from
ground and surface waters on water resources?
2. Chemical mixing: What are the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturingfuid surface spills
on or near well pads on water resources?
3. Well injection: What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on
water resources?
4. Flowback and produced water: What are the possible impacts of both types of wastewater
surface spills on or near well pads on water resources?
S. Wastewater treatment and waste disposal: What are the possible impacts of inadequate
treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewater on water. resources?
347
February 19, 2013
The results from the study, which are not expected until 2014, are intended to inform the public and
provide policymakers at all levels with high -quality scientific knowledge that can be used in
decision -making. The research involves collection and analysis ofexisting data from 24,925 wells
that have been hydraulically fractured, complex modeling conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, toxicity assessments of1,858 chemicals associated with hydraulic fracturing,
and case studies. The EPA also manages the two most comprehensive databases on toxicological
data that are used for risk assessments nationally and internationally.
The literature reviews for this study are subject to a separate quality review that assesses the
soundness, applicability and utility, clarity and completeness, uncertainty and variability, and
evaluation and review of the data and information before inclusion in the research. Attachment 3
includes references accepted for inclusion in the EPA report that are organized by research topic
related to water quality. This list is a subset of references reviewed to date that cover the most
relevant research topics being investigated; for a complete list refer to the 2012 EPA report cited
above. The EPA has compiled and continues to search for literature relevant to the research
questions posed in this report including a recent Federal Register notice requesting peer -reviewed
data and publications relevant to this study. There has not been any preliminary data released from
this effort.
Waste and Wastewater Environmental Concerns
• Hydraulic fracturing produces higher volumes of wastewater that surface as flowback in a
shorter period of time than conventional drilling techniques. This creates more challenges
for capture, storage, and disposal of wastewater and associated emissions than for
conventional drilling operations (e.g., more VOCemissions ifnot captured adequately, more
potential for accidental spills).
• Wastewater management and disposal may be the single most important issue associated
with environmental and human health protection. The Bureau of Land Management has
proposed new requirements for submission of wastewater management plans prior to
drilling. Deep injections of wastes in Class 11 U1C wells, not fracturing operations, have
been linked to earthquakes to date.
Earthquake Potential in Fort Collins
Water disposal in the oil field involves injecting wastewater into a deep disposal well. This process
usually increases pressure in the rock above the native state (pre -water disposal) of the rock.
Usually there is not any fluid removed from the rock, only fluid (wastewater) added, thereby
increasing reservoir pressure. Many other industries and the Federal government also use water
disposal wells. There have been noted cases of water disposal wells causing seismic activity.
National Academies of Science concluded a study in 2012 and listed three major findings:
1. "the process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shalegas recovery
does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events; "
2. "injection for disposal of wastewater derived from energy technologies into the subsurface
does pose some riskfor induced seismicity, but veryfew events have been documented over
the past several decades relative to the large number of disposal wells in operation "; and
3. "Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) due to the large net volumes of injected fluids, may
have potential for inducing larger seismic. "
February 19, 2013
The factor that appears to have the most direct consequence in regard to induced seismicity is the
net fluid balance.
The Bureau of Reclamation stated it has not done any independent studies regarding hydraulic
fracturing or deep injection wells. However, it did state that the work done between 1999 and 2004
on all the Horsetooth Dams was performed as mitigationfor majorseismicity that it defines as much
greater than what research reveals is a risk due to deep injection wells. Locally, a process called
waterflooding is used and, in general, operators are required to maintain pressures that are below
fracture gradient and even f rrther lower, based on the last mechanical integrity test, according to
COGCC regulations. In other words, at the Fort Collins Field waterflooding (recycled water), the
Muddy formation maintains pressures near or slightly below original reservoir pressures.
Waterflooding started in the Fort Collins Field as a smaller pilot test in September 1979 after
obtaining COGCC approval. Upon success of the pilot, COGCC approved expansion and the
expanded project started in July 1985. According to the current operator, "We've been injecting
water for a long time at fairly steady rates without any recorded seismic events. "
Habitat Fragmentation Resulting From Oil and Gas Development
Several current studies pertinent to the Front Range or Rocky Mountain region were briefly
reviewed to support thefollowing conclusions (Forfurther information and citations see Attachment
4):
Wildlife impacts and habitat fragmentation from oil and gas activities have been
documented, largely for the Greater Yellowstone and Western Wyoming regions. Species
studied include mule deer, pronghorn, andgreatersage-grouse. The studieslargelyfocused
on how migration patterns and winter habitat use could.be or have been affected by oil and
gas development.
0 Mule deer migration patterns changed in the initial year of oil and gas development.
Migration patterns did not appear to acclimate three years after well establishment.
Instead, mule deer migration patterns continued to drift further from the well pad
development areas. High value habitat areas prior to the study shifted to low habitat
values throughout the study.
o A further study found that mule deer abundance for the herds in the same area had
declined by 23% during 2001-2010, where the oil and gas development had
expanded.
o One recent study has also examined the impact, of oil and gas development on
sagebrush -dependent songbirds (Gilbert and Chalfoun 2012). Some species, which
are generally more tolerant to disturbance, such as the Horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris) did not respond to increases in well densities. However other species, such
as the Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli)
which are dependent on sagebrush communities, had significant population
decreases as oil and gas well density increased, suggesting there may be significant
impacts to sagebrush -obligate species. A comprehensive synthesis of oil and gas
impacts was recently compiled by The Wildlife Society in 2012. In addition to the
issues addressed above, the report also identifies increased noxious weed invasions,
impacts to waterfowl from wetland impacts, and the potential for increased
competition between deer and elk as highly valued habitat is used for oil and gas
349
February 19, 2013
development. The report also highlights that the cumulative effects of habitat
fragmentation, overall loss, and degradation may prove to have the most impact on
wildlife.
Horizontal drilling may reduce the overall impacts of habitat fragmentation, as multiple
areas of Land can be accessed from a single well pad. However, it is difficult to know the
extent of this reduction without further study.
Based on the studies available, habitat fragmentation effects from oil and gas development
appear to be better understood at the landscape level, e.g., how oil and gas development
affects pronghorn and mule deer migration patterns. Thus, the findings from these studies
may be best applied at the regional scale, e.g., Lorimer County and the Rocky Mountain
Foothills.
Staffdid notftnd any research that compared the habitatfragmentation effects ofoil and gas
development in rural or open undeveloped lands with those in more traditional urban
development. .
FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
A true triple bottom line analysis includes an assessment of environmental, social, and economic
impacts. Staff analysis to --date has focused on potential and possible environmental impacts if
hydraulic fracturing is allowed. Staff however, was unable to conclusively determine financial
impacts ofany health and safety hazard related to hydraulic fracturing due to the significant number
of variables that relate to the hydraulic fracturing process, transportation of material and waste
produced, and removal ofwaste materials. A social impact analysis has not yet been undertaken for
this discussion. It is assumed that social impacts of hydraulic fracturing are discussed and
addressed in terms of concerns about health impacts, impacts to property and housing values, and
quality of life.
Should hydraulic fracturing be banned, the City would likely need to prepare for the costs
associated with a lawsuit since similar ballot measures have resulted in lawsuits being filed. The
City of Longmont is being sued by the State of Colorado for its regulation of drilling, and by the
industry (Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA)) for its citizen -approved ban on hydraulic
fracturing.
Ifthe City bans hydraulic fracturing, this action would prohibit any use of this treatment in the Fort
Collins Field. Whether the local operator, Prospect Energy, would be able to present a claim for
damages is unknown. There are other fracturing technologies that have seen limited use and for
which there may be limited equipment available for field use (See Attachment 5).
There could be a loss of local revenues generated from oil and gas development within the city
limits. Revenues for the last two years average $215,460 annually. This revenue is based on state
formulas that include well sites, jobs, roads and other measures to determine the revenues sent to
individual communities. It is difficult to estimate what impact the loss of future wells or reduced
production would have on this amount received by the City.
STATUS OF OPERATOR AGREEMENT
Prospect Energy and City staff have discussed possible terms ofan agreement but no formal option
is ready for Council review at this time.
350
February 19, 2013
OPTIONS FOR RESTRICTING HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ON CITY -OWNED LANDS
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS
1. Include restrictions on City -owned lands outside of the city limits in the ban on hydraulic
fracturing.
2. Include these restrictions in any Land Use Code requirements following the moratorium.
3. Extend the moratorium on City -owned lands and apply for Designated Outside Activity
Areas status through the COGCC. .
4. Utilize the Energy by Design Process for mineral rights owned by the State Land Board
(SLB) and extend those requirements to other mineral owners through the adoption of
surface use agreements.
5. Utilize the Energy by Design Process for mineral rights owned by the SLB and develop
surface use agreementsfor other mineral interests that reflect bestpractice or meet the Land
Use Code during the time the mineral right is extracted rather than committing to the
Energy by Design process at this time.
Natural Areas staff was consulted about the potential,for a hydraulic fracturing or drilling ban on
lands owned by the City that are outside the city limits, including Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
and other natural areas. Natural Areas staff recommends against a ban. The recommendation is
based on a variety of factors, but in particular relates to Soapstone and Meadow Springs Ranch (a
Utilities property) for the following reasons:
Staff learned that, in the absence ofhorizontal hydraulicfracturing, there is a some likelihood that
smaller companies will lease minerals and drill vertically. Vertical wellheads could be placed on
the ground at densities of one well per 20 to 35 acres. That density of activity would be very
destructive to the surface of Soapstone and Meadow Springs. Hydraulic fracturing densities
potentially could be kept to perhaps one five to ten acre well pad (with multiple wellheads) per
section (640 acres), or perhaps even less. This would be far better for the natural, cultural, and
scenic resources the City is trying to protect.
The City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Land Board (SLB)
regarding a cooperative effort to undertake an Energy by Design (EBD) process The attached
memo (Attachment 7) describes that effort. The final EBD report was presented to the public in
September, and is to be reviewed by the SLB commissioners this month. The SLB took an
unprecedented and major step forward by engaging in the EBD process, partly in response to the
strong urging of the City ofFort Collins. Implementation of Energy by Design would place strict
limits on mining activities, far stricter than any regulation or practice that staff is aware of in the
State of Colorado in a similar environment.
Staff is concerned about the implications of an effort by the City to ban drilling or hydraulic
fracturing on these lands and the negative impact that would have on the collaborative relationship
the City has built with the SLB, as well as on the Energy by Design approach that has been
developed and is being reviewed. It is difficult to predict how the SLB would approach leasing of
minerals on the City's property in this event, but the collaborative approach developed through the
EBD process would be put in jeopardy. Under the terms outlined in the EBD, mineral owners and
/or lessees will be required to enter into an Operator Agreement or Surface Use Agreement with the
City prior to any surface disturbance associated with exploration or production. This agreement
will contain requirements much stricter than current State regulations and will implement the
351
February 19, 2013
avoidance and mitigation strategies outlined in Energy by Design. The State Land Board is a
partner in the planning process and will recognize and support the use of EBD. Further, Council
approval is required for the City to enter into the Operator Agreement or Surface Use Agreement.
In summary, Natural Areas negotiated with the SLB to create a potentially much better on -the -
ground situation. Further, Natural Areas believes that patient planning, negotiations, and the use
of multiple strategies will obtain the best possible long-term results. While there are substantial
risks associated with this approach, staff believes they are far less than those posed by a hydraulic
fracturing or drilling ban.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
There has not been any additional board or commission review since the moratorium was
authorized in December 2012.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
There has not been any additional public outreach specific to the Ordinance and Resolutions
proposed. "
Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director, stated the first
Ordinance amends the City Code to ban hydraulic fracturing. The second item for consideration is
a Resolution which would also ban hydraulic fracturing in the city and place the item on the April
ballot. Council also requested preparation of Resolution expressing Council's concern and opinion
regarding oil and gas regulation and supporting local authority over oil and gas regulation. This
Resolution would also allow for negotiation to occur with Larimer County for development o1
regulations or conditions for development outside of city limits. Kadrich reviewed additional
options for Council consideration regarding City -owned lands outside of city limits. Kadrich
showed slides illustrating active wells in and around City limits.
Dan Weinheimer, Policy and Project Manager, discussed modeling of potential oil and gas
development in the area.
Kadrich discussed some of the reasons citizens are concerned about tracking, including air and water
quality, water and wastewater concerns, storage and disposal issues with the hydraulic fracturing
flowback water, and habitat fragmentation. The new Colorado oil and gas regulations relating to
setbacks have been passed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission and will go into effect August
1, 2013. At that time, a little less than 11 % of the geographic area for the Fort Collins City limits
would be subject to oil and gas development. Kadrich stated negotiations have been ongoing with
Prospect Energy.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Kevin Cross, Fort Collins Sustainability Group, opposed hydraulic fracturing and stated the
Ordinance banning fracking should apply to all City -owned lands.
Johnny Roos, Colorado State University Young Republicans, opposed fracking and supported aban.
352
February 19, 2013
Julius Lisi, 3402 West Prospect, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban
Mary Duran, 1829 Manchester, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban or the opportunity
to vote on a ban.
Danny Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, thanked Council for its attention to citizens regarding this issue and
cautioned against providing an exception to the ban for Prospect Energy.
Steve Yurash, 4021 Yellowstone Circle, urged Council to make data -driven decisions regarding this
matter and cautioned against a complete ban at this time.
Mayah.Hesser, 2133 Ford Lane, stated pollution interferes with liberty, which should be protected
by our government. She opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Devin Himing, 2214 Fossil Creek Parkway, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported the
placement of the item on the April ballot.
Janice Lynne, 218 South Washington, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Estrelia Segura, 4327 Gemstone Lane, presented, petitions signed in support of responsible
regulation and partnership with the oil and gas industry and the State of Colorado. She opposed a
ban.
Tom Hoehn, 218 South Washington, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Ed Haynes, 1302 Patterson Place, opposed a ban.
Stan Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Gloria Beldon, Windsor resident, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Rose Lew, 2014 Westview Road, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Claire Mechtly, 400 Smih Street, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Matthew Fredricey, Loveland resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Kristin Stephens, 1911 Enfield Court, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Mike Pruznick, 636 Castle Ridge Court, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all
City -owned property.
Karen Snider, 1000 East Laurel, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Judith Friend, 1202 Niagara Drive, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Rudy Zitti, 1626 Fantail, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing and supported sensible energy
policies.
353
February 19, 2013
Beth Dickson, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Stan Dempsey, Colorado Petroleum Association, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing and opposed
the placement of a possible ban on the April ballot.
Melanie Schure, 2613 Adobe Drive, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Dian Sparling, 324 Jackson Avenue, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Elizabeth Hudetz, 1407 Ticonderoga, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant Avenue, Clean Water Action, opposed hydraulic fracturing and
supported a ban. He listed several organizations with the same views. He requested that any
operator agreement between Prospect Energy and the City be subject to Council approval.
Sarah Brooks, 1522 Whedbee, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Erin Lamb, 1476 Edgewood Court, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing and supported responsible
energy development.
Ward Gilmer, Prospect Energy, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Scott Hall, Prospect Energy, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Hunter Harms, Fort Collins resident, supported oil in Colorado but opposed the placement of wells
near homes.
Nancy Rumfelt, Loveland resident, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
David Bell, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all City -
owned land.
Bob Sutton, 4032 Bracadale Place, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Abigail Homeburg, Colorado State University student, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
John Gascoyne, 718 West Mountain, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban including
all City -owned property.
Matt Martinez, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
James Sack, 2945 Bassick, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Johnnie Westrock, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Dawn Otsen, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
354
February 19, 2013
Chris Gibbar, 6321 Treestead, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Sam Schabacker, Food and Water Watch, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Ruthie Rogers, 5225 White Willow Drive, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Evelyn King, Larimer County resident, stated a ban on hydraulic fracturing is premature.
Rico Moore, 721 West Myrtle, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all City -owned
property.
Glen Colton, 625 Hinsdale Drive, supported a ban on hydraulic fracturing and stated society is
hooked on growth.
Mark Easter, 2820 Cherry Lane, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all City -
owned property.
Dezie Shaw, Fort Collins resident, supported hydraulic fracturing.
Bob Osmundson, 1413 Cactus Court, supported hydraulic fracturing.
Chris Kelly, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Fred Kirsch, Community for Sustainable Energy, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
He also supported the exemption for Prospect Energy.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban on all City -owned
property.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Kurt Kastein, 3325 Silver Oak Place, urged Council to not take up arms against the State, which has
already accepted fracking as safe.
Gerry Gerber, Fort Collins resident, opposed hydraulic fracturing and supported a ban.
Bob Morain, 4206 Monmouth Court, stated a ban on hydraulic fracturing is not needed.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, opposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing and requested Council
give State regulations time to go into effect.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Horak asked about the inclusion of language terminating the moratorium should
the Ordinance go into effect. Kadrich replied staff would need to prepare a separate Ordinance in
355
February 19, 2013
order to terminate the moratorium, which was enacted by Ordinance. City Attorney Roy replied
Council could add a section terminating the moratorium to the Ordinance imposing the ban.
Councilmember Troxell asked how long the current moratorium could be extended. City Attorney
Roy replied it is currently set until the end of July and could be extended as long as reasonably
necessary to do what needs to be done to get regulations in place.
Councilmember Troxell stated it would be prudent to wait until the end of the State legislative
session before local rule -making takes place. City Attorney Roy replied local rule -making can be
worked on concurrently with the legislative session and regulations can be refined based on the
legislature regulations.
Councilmember Troxell requested a description of the local designee process with the Oil and Gas
Commission. Weinheimer replied the local designee program for cities is an information source
regarding permitting. Deputy City Attorney Eckman clarified the program is a line of
communication between cities and the Commission and is not meant to be a tool to grant cities
regulatory powers. The local control Fort Collins has now is embodied in one paragraph of the Land
Use Code, which states that, to the extent the City is not preempted, the entire Land Use Code
applies to oil and gas operations.
Councilmember Troxell asked what jurisdiction the City has over tracking operations. Deputy City
Attorney Eckman replied Council has received a confidential memorandum regarding that issue.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if tracking and/or drilling is only allowed in about 11 % of the City
limits. Kadrich replied approximately 11 % of the city limits could have oil and gas activity given
the new State setback regulations.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the setback criteria for schools. Kadrich replied the new
setback requirements will increase setbacks to 1,000 feet from schools.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about permit requests and the possibility of exploration in the
Soapstone Natural Area. Kadrich replied there have been no permit requests in the city limits.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked how either of these bans would affect the operators who are
currently fracking in the City limits. Kadrich replied they would still be able to use the process if
they negotiated an operator agreement to Council's satisfaction.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if anyone within the City has spoken with the Board of Public
Health. Kadrich replied in the negative but stated staff has met with the Air and Water Quality
Boards. Councilmember Kottwitz requested that staff look into the matter prior to a Second
Reading.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about annexing area which may have drilling or tracking operations,
should a ban go into effect. Kadrich replied a ban would not affect areas outside the city limits, but
within the City's Growth Management Area (GMA). Much of the GMA is exempt from oil and gas
development due to the setback criteria.
RXI
February 19, 2013
Councilmember Manvel asked about the possible exemption for an existing operator with an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and the operator. Kadrich replied staff
recommends that an agreement be considered by City Council. Councilmember Manvel requested
the development of language inserting Council as the decision maker on the operator agreement
rather than the City Manager.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked about possible oil and gas operations in Soapstone Natural Area,
noting the City did not buy the gas and mineral rights when the property was purchased. John
Stokes, Natural Resources Director, replied the mineral rights were not for sale when the land
purchase was made. A geologist examined the property and stated there was negligible risk of the
land being appropriate for drilling at that time. That has since changed with horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing. The City had initial discussions with the mineral rights owner about
purchasing those rights several years ago and is hoping to renew that conversation. Stokes stated
there is a possibility of putting off any potential leasing by the State for ten or fifteen years.
Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson thanked the citizens who spoke regarding this issue and stated that staffs
opinion regarding protection of the natural attributes of City -owned Natural Areas outside the City
limits is to not include them in the ban, but continue with the existing process. Stokes confirmed
that opinion.
Councilmember Horak requested additional details. Stokes replied the staff is fiercely protective
of the City's Natural Areas and the opinion is that it will be very difficult to fend off potential
exploration and production activities on some portions of Meadow Springs Ranch and Soapstone.
Therefore, the City has engaged in a novel planning strategy with the State of Colorado, which owns
about 1 /3 of the minerals on the property. The State Land Board decided to engage in the `Energy
by Design" process with the City, Larimer County, and several conservation organizations. The
plan requires stringent provisions for reclamation and minimized surface disturbance on the
properties. The hope is that once the State sets the precedent, the other mineral rights owners will
follow suit.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 032, 2013, on First Reading, replacing the reference to City Manager with a reference to City
Council in Section 12-136.
Councilmember Horak proposed an amendment to change all references to hydraulic fracturing with
"oil and gas exploration and production, including hydraulic fracturing." Councilmembers Manvel
and Poppaw accepted the amendment.
Councilmember Horak proposed an amendment to insert language stating "when Ordinance No.
032, 2013 goes into effect, Ordinance No. 145, 2012, the moratorium Ordinance, is repealed."
City Attorney Roy stated each Ordinance must contain only a single subject. He stated he would
either include it in this Ordinance orbring forth a separate Ordinance repealing the moratorium prior
to Second Reading.
Councilmember Horak asked if the existing operator would be able to operate with the moratorium
in effect if the City approves an agreement with the operator. City Attorney Roy replied staff will
357
February 19, 2013
review the moratorium Ordinance, and if the intent is to allow the operator to proceed with
operations that have been put on hold, clarification can occur in this Ordinance.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the moratorium includes open space. City Attorney Roy replied
in the affirmative. Councilmember Poppaw stated the moratorium should be continued if the ban
does not include open space.
Councilmember Kottwitz thanked staff for work on the item and noted staff is not recommending
any of these actions for adoption. She expressed concern the City will face lawsuits from the State
should it adopt a ban.
Councilmember Troxell stated the moratorium could be extended if necessary. He noted Fort
Collins has had no permit requests for drilling inside city limits and stated the geology of Fort
Collins does not support drilling and fracking.
Councilmember Horak noted all other industrial activities can be located with the control of
municipalities. He disagreed with the idea that the City will immediately be provided with a lawsuit
by the State.
Mayor Weitkunat thanked the citizens who spoke on the issue for their courtesy. She stated Fort
Collins should have the ability.to be a home -rule city, and some of its most important decisions deal
with the health and safety of residents. Additionally, the existing operator was annexed into the City
and should be respected.
The vote on the motion, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw
and Horak. Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2013-012.
Mayor Weitkunat noted the importance of requesting that home -rule cities be granted regulatory
powers over oil and gas exploration.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the expected costs to the City of supporting Longmont in its
litigation with the State. City Attorney Roy replied the Resolution was written solely to express
support, not to extend resources.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated she supports the ability of home -rule cities to have control;
however, she does not support the other sections of the Resolution.
The vote on the motion, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw
and Horak. Nays: Kottwitz and Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
358
February 19, 2013
Ordinance No. 033, 2013,
Making Amendments to the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code Pertaining to
Implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study
(Option A or Option B), Discussion Continued to February 26, 2013
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study represents an assessment of
neighborhood compatibility issues related to impacts of larger new construction projects. In
comparison to the previous 201012011 Study, which focused on building size impacts, this Study
takes a broader look at the character and context of the neighborhoods including building size and
design compatibility.
Staff has prepared two options for Council to consider for the proposed package ofpotential Land
Use Code (LUC) amendments to be included in the Ordinance at First Reading.
Option A reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments implementingfive recommended
strategy options as well as a revision of existing FAR standards using a new formula.
Option B reflects a package ofLand Use Code amendments implementingfive recommended
strategy options, but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Staffinitiated the Study in June 2011, after receiving direction from City Council to take a new and
broader look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the core area neighborhoods
near downtown. The Study is in response to continued concerns with potential impacts of larger
additions and new construction in the city's oldest neighborhoods.
A similarstudy was conducted in 2010for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods with a resulting
Ordinance approved by City Council that was later repealed in response to a citizen petition. While
the previous effort led to a primaryfocus on building size aspects, the current study emphasizes a
broader perspective to understand the character, larger context ofcompatibility, and threshold for
change in these neighborhoods.
The initial direction for the new study began with a goal developed by a Council Ad Hoc Committee
to:
Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as
they continue to change with renovations, additions, and new housing
construction, with a well -supported and effective public process resulting in
appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions.
The Study is summarized in a highly illustrated Strategy Report with information on the character
and context of the neighborhoods, community engagement, issues, and strategy options for City
Council consideration(www.fceoi,.com/eastwestneizhborhoods).
359
February 19, 2013
The Study identified and clarified a number of key issues with ongoing changes that affect existing
residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. These issues led to the
strategy options. Key issues include:
• New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context
• Building walls that appear to loom; over neighbors
• Reduced solar access/shading issues
• Incompatible design features
• Loss of older/more affordable houses that make the neighborhoods unique
• Loss of green space and mature trees
The Study process included extensive public outreach that included identification of neighborhood
objectives and issues, and defining. The Study process and findings are summarized in a final
Strategy Report. This report also includes staffrecommendations to implementfive strategy options
that were presented to Ciry Council at the Work Session on November 27, 2012. The staff
recommendations at that time did not include revising existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards,
because the team concluded the proposed design standard sufficiently addressed neighborhood
compatibility issues, and revising the FAR did not reflect a mutually agreeable solution from the
public. City Council subsequently directed staff to proceed with implementation of those strategy
options, including development of the formula to revise the existing maximum FAR standard.
Some of these strategies involve Land Use Code changes that are the subject of the Ordinance, and
others are administrative or involve future actions as follows:
• Promote the Ciry's existing Design Assistance Program. This involves ongoing
administrative actions, including such measures as a marketing brochure, newsletter,
neighborhood mailings, and posting program information online.
• Expand neighborhood notification of variance requests.
• Create voluntary design handbooks/guidelines to provide specialized information for
interested owners and builders on compatible development in unique character areas throughout
the neighborhoods. These products would be developed as part offuture planning efforts that
will need to be budgeted and incorporated into the staf/ work program. Staff is
recommending implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan updates
for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014.
• Adjust existing height -at -setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods in the
Land Use Code for the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts
• Address building mass and solar access, including revisions to existing FAR standards, and
new design standards to address mass and solar impacts.
• Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction.
A series ofpublic meetings were held in January 2013 to present a draft potential package of Land
Use Code amendments to implement the strategy options. Staffreceived a mix ofopinions from the
public on the proposed standards, especially relating to revisions to the Far standards. An
additional Council work session was held on February 12, 2013 to discuss options for FAR
standards, which included direction for staff to describe these options for Council to consider on
First Reading.
360
February 19, 2013
I. DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION A (WITH NEW FAR FORMULA)
This option reflects a package of Land Use Code (LUC) amendments that implements the five
recommended strategy options, as well as a revision to existing FAR standards using newformula.
More specifically, it includes clarifying Code terminology -and formatting, expanded notice for
variance requests, revising the existing FAR standard using a newformula, adding new adjustments
to the FAR measurement method for calculating building square footage, and incorporating new
design and solar access standards. Following is a brief summary of potential Land Use Code
changes contained in the proposed Ordinance (Option A).
1. Expand notification area for variance requests.
This LUC change would add a new standard regarding neighborhood notification for Zoning Board
ofAppeals (ZBA) variance requests exceeding a certain project size threshold. Staff recommends
that the notice area for ZBA hearings be extended from 150 feet to 500 feet for variance requests
for certain size construction and other thresholds (Attachment 3).
2. Address building massing and scale (Revised FAR Standard).
The staff recommendation outlined in the strategy report did not include a revision to the existing
FAR standards because other recommended tools were seen to sufficiently address the identified
objectives and issues, and because many residents and other stakeholders feel that FAR is an overly
restrictive tool that limits flexibility for expansion. However, FAR reductions were presented as a
possible alternative tool for addressing identified issues with overly large new construction and loss
of green space.
Based on Council direction, the staff and consultant team evaluated potential revisions to the
maximum permitted FAR, including modeling of a variety of reduced FARs on projects that have
been identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context. The proposed FAR formula
was selected because it:
Addresses projects identified as appearing overly large in relation to their context while
allowing flexibilityfor new construction and home expansion;
• Promotes the scale of new construction that was most often identified as compatible in
community workshops and the online visual survey;
• Works in concert with other recommended tools such as reduced wall heights for solar
access and additional building design standards to address front and side fagade character;
and
• More directly targets identified issues than the FAR revisions included in the repealed 2011
ordinance.
Overall, the new formula provides greater flexibility through less substantial FAR reductions
because it works in combination with other tools that also address identified issues with new
construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context, building walls that appear to
loom over neighbors and reduced solar access.
361
February 19, 2013
New FAR Formula
Thefirst proposed FAR change revises the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area
to the total poor area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This would
apply new or adjusted design standards to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new
construction and additions. The potential revised standard would reduce the maximum FAR from
the currently permitted 0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.50 in the N-C-M district according to a
sliding scale as summarized in the table below.
N-C-L
N-C-NI
Lot<5,000 sf = 0.40 1 Lot<4,000 sf = 0.50
Lot>_5,000 sf and<10,000 sf = 0.20 + 1,000 sf Lot2A,000 sf and<10,000 sf = 0.25 + 1,000 sf
Lot>_ 10,000 sf = 0.30 1 Lot>_ 10,000 sf = 0.35
For example, the formula above would limit floor area on a 7,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M
district to 2,750 square feet ((7,000x0.25)+1,000=2,750) with an additional allowance for 250
square feet in a detached rear accessory (acc.) structure on a lot of 6, 000 square feet or more, for
a total of 3, 000 square feet. The sliding scale would generally result in reductions of allowed floor
area for larger lots in both districts.
New FAR Measurement Method
This change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area, as
recommended in the Strategy Report. These proposed measurement method adjustments address
the issues of high volume spaces not being counted as floor area (which created the potential for
single -story homes being twice as large as a two-story home). This includes basement floor area in
calculation where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a certain threshold,
and provides some allowance for accessory structures to promote separate building masses.
Option A further addresses building mass and scale impacts by combining a reduction in overall
building size (reduced FAR), with new design standards to shape buildingfacade features.
3. Adjust measurement methodfor building wall height and reduced heightfor solar access.
The firstpart of this Code change adjusts the method for measuring building height at the minimum
side yard setback to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade. Staff recommends
implementation ofa revised measurement method for maximum height (18feet) at the minimum side
yard to better account for potential looming impacts related to grade changes on a property. The
building side wall height is proposed to be measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot
line adjacent to the wall, rather than at the improved grade.
A second new standard is proposed to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses
or additions on neighboring property to the north. The staff and consultant team decided not to
develop a complicated "solar ordinance" limiting shading on neighboring lots. Instead a simple
solar standard is proposed for building wall height to promote solar access. The side wall height
362
February 19, 2013
would be reduced to 14 feet from the currently allowed 18 feet and the side wall height could
increase by one foot for each foot of additional setback.
4. Add new standards far building facades over certain size thresholds.
Facade design standards are proposed to provide a menu ofoptions to shape the character affront
and side building facades.for compatibility. At least one facade feature from a design menu would
be required to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character ofthe structures
on the blockface.
The front facade options would promote pedestrian orientation and the appearance of compatible
mass and scale as viewed from the street by using one-story elements, front porches, etc. The
proposed options for side building facades are intended to reduce potential looming and privacy
impacts on adjacent lots.
IL DESCRIPTION OF ORDINANCE OPTION B (RETAINEXISTING FAR FORMULA)
Option B reflects a package of Land Use Code amendments that implements the five recommended
strategy options but does not include a revision to existing FAR standards. It includes clarifying
Code terminology and formatting, expanded notice for variance requests, retaining the existing FAR
standard formula, adding new adjustments to FAR measurement method for calculating building
square footage, and incorporating new design and solar access standards. Ordinance Option B
contains the same standards as Option A, except for the FAR formula.
Option B reflects the staff recommendation described in the Strategy Report, and presented to
Council at the November 27, 2012 Work Session. The staff and consultant team concluded in the
report that the proposed package of new design standards, without a reduction in FAR, would
address most identified mass andscale issues with larger new construction while allowingflexibility
for home expansion.
New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context was often cited by
residents as a key issue in the neighborhoods. Many residents also felt that FAR reductions would
be the most effective tool for addressing this issue. However, when presented with alternative
design scenarios in community workshops and surveys, many participants selected alternatives that
incorporate design elements other than floor area reductions. This indicates that design elements
apart from overall size contribute significantly to neighborhood compatibility. The recommended
design standards within Ordinance Option B address these key design elements while allowing
flexibilityfor home expansion.
• Comparison of 2011 Ordinance and proposed 2013 Ordinance
At the November 27, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to develop the proposed 2013
Ordinance. Staffprovided a comparison of the previous 2011 Ordinance that was repealed, with
the proposed 2013 Ordinance (Attachment 4). Staff believes the proposed 2013 Ordinance, as a
package of proposed changes, is noticeably different from the previous 2011 Ordinance. The key
changes include:
363
February 19, 2013
• No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance
requests
• New expanded notification area for some variance requests
• New thresholds for applying all new standards in both districts
• Different formula for calculating maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs)
• FARs applied separately to the N-C-L and N-C-Mdistricts
• FARs. applied on a sliding scale, based on lot size
• More generous FAR allowance in the N-C-M district; and
• New standards for solar access and building front and side facade design.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Urban Advisors was contracted as a sub -consultant to analyze the economic impacts ofrevising the
existing FAR standards as described in Option A. The analysis and findings are included in a report
(Attachment 6). The summarized conclusions from the report include:
• While overall values increase with house size, the value per square foot tends to decline,
especially for houses with more than 2, 000 square feet of floor area or FARs above 0.30.
• Based on existing property values, and the potential sales prices ofnew or expanded homes,
most redevelopment is likely to occur on small to average sized lots (4, 000 to 10, 000 square
feet) in the N-C-M zone district (115 to 125 such properties present prime redevelopment
opportunities under current market conditions).
• The proposed reduction in maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) would not
significantly affect redevelopment opportunities in the neighborhoods because the most
profitable opportunities tend to be at FARs lower than the proposed limits.
• The proposed reduction in the maximum permitted FAR (Ordinance Option A) is not likely
to have a significantly positive or negative impact on the affordability of housing in the
neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Staff finds no direct or definable impact on environmental resources with any of these
implementation items.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Al its regular meeting on February 9, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to recommend
adoption of Ordinance No. 33, 2013, Option B.
The Landmark Preservation Commission is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 13, 2013.
Minutes from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for a regular meeting on February 14, 2013. Minutes
from this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
The Building Review Board is scheduledfor a regular meeting on February 28, 2013. Minutesfrom
this meeting will be forwarded to Council prior to Second Reading on March 5.
9
February 19, 2013
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The following activities were included in the public process used for this study:
Phase I — Understand the character and context of the neighborhoods (May —July 2012)
• Email notice for meetings, post card mailing for work shops
• Posted project information on web page
• Initial working group meetings (June)
• 2 public work shop meetings (July 10112)
• Online questionnaire
• Updates to boards and commissions
City Council work session (July 24)
Phase 2 — Develop a Strategy (August — November 2012)
• Series of working group meetings (August/September)
On-line survey
• Public work shop meeting (November 5)
• Updates to boards and commissions
City Council work session (November 27)
Phase 3 — Implementation of Strategy Options (December 2012 — February 2013)
• Series of working group meetings (January 16, 2013)
• Public Open House meeting (January 30)
• Updates to boards and commissions '
• Planning and Zoning Board Hearing — Recommendation (February 7)
• City Council Work Session (February 12)
• Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing Recommendation (February 13)
• Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing - Recommendation (February 14)
• City Council First Reading of Ordinance (February 19)
• Building Review Board Hearing— Recommendation (February 28)
• City Council Second Reading of Ordinance (March 5) "
Pete Wray, Senior City Planner, discussed the Ordinance, which would adopt strategy options to
implement the Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. Wray reviewed the public
outreach process which included presentations to boards and commissions. Option A of the
Ordinance includes an adjustment to the existing floor area ratio standard formula and Option B
would leave the existing floor area ratio formula as it currently exists in the LUC.
Wray reviewed minor changes made since the February 12th work session, including a clarification
regarding how basements are measured and a staff recommendation for extending the enactment of
the Ordinance for two months. Wray detailed the strategies found in both Options: the expansion
of the notice area for Zoning Board of Appeals variance requests from 150 feet to 500 feet, a
revision to the existing floor area ratio standards based on a sliding scale according to lot size and
an adjustment to the measurement method for calculating large -volume spaces and elevated
basements, an adjustment to the measurement method for building side wall height, an adjustment
365
February 19, 2013
of side wall height for projects that have a side wall on a neighboring property to the north based
on a threshold for project size, to provide additional solar access, and a menu of options for front
and side facades to address building mass and scale.
Wray discussed case studies illustrating the application of the existing standards versus' the
application of the proposed standards.
Councilmember Horak noted a question was raised as to whether he should participate in this
discussion, given the location of his home in the Westside neighborhood. He stated he is part of the
general public in the area.
Councilmember Manvel noted he lives is in the Eastside neighborhood and has the same opinion.
Councilmember Troxell noted the Council Ethics Review Board found the Mayor needed to recuse
herself from the discussions relating to the mall redevelopment.
City Attorney Roy stated any Councilmember could refer the issue to the Ethics Review Board for
an advisory opinion; however, the ultimate decision would be up to the Councilmembers in question.
He stated he would review the issue during citizen participation.
Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, stated different zoning regulations do make sense for this part of
town. He expressed concern regarding solar access.
Meg Dunn, 720 West Oak, supported Option A.
Kate Forgadge, South Whitcomb Street, supported Option A.
Bill Jenkins, 710 Mathews, supported Option A.
Lynne Hull, 510 Whedbee Street, supported Option A.
Gina Curler, 217 South Sherwood, supported the ability of property owners to build on their
property. She expressed concern regarding the premise of the character study and noted citizens
repealed similar regulations in 2011.
Harry Rose, 504 Edwards, supported Option A.
Tami Agne, 518 North Whitcomb, supported Option A.
Bob Sutton, 4032 Bracadale Place, supported Option B.
Kevin Murray, Westside neighborhood resident, supported Option A.
Greg Rimer, Fort Collins resident, supported Option B.
John White, 1220 West Mountain, supported the ability of property owners to build on their property
and opposed the adoption of any Ordinance which would limit that ability.
February 19, 2013
Judy Lovass, Fort Collins resident, supported Option A.
Angie Spangler, Westside resident, supported Option B.
Bob Overbeck, 302 Parker, supported Option A.
Carole Hossan, 504 Edwards, supported Option A.
Sean Dougherty, 1344 Catalpa, supported Option B.
Susan Kruel-Froseth, 524 Spring Canyon Court, expressed concern that this issue has returned
despite the repeal in 2011.
Francie Martinez, 2220 Dolan, opposed the revision of the floor area ratio given the repeal of the
prior regulations. She expressed concern Council rushes decisions.
Bob Bailey, 1306 West Mountain, supported Option A.
Baron Woxman, 628 Laporte, supported Option B, though he felt neither option was necessary.
Ian Shuff, 715 West Mountain, supported Option B.
Gina Jannet, 730 West Oak, supported Option A.
Robert Kirkpatrick, 1510 Whedbee, supported Option B.
Jeff Schneider, 755 Peregrine Run, expressed concern Council is not dealing with the issues at hand
and suggested the item be tabled.
Jill Kuch, 709 Stover, opposed both Options.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported Option A.
Jim Wurz, 425 North Sherwood, supported Option A.
Jeffrey Martin, Fort Collins Board of Realtors Chairman, supported Option B.
Cathy Conan, Old Town resident, supported the diversity of Old Town and opposed regulations.
Myrne Watrous, 723 West Olive, supported Option A.
Clint Skutchan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, supported Option B.
Margit Hentachel, 216 Wood Street, supported Option A.
Anita Rehner, 520 Sycamore, supported Option A.
367
February 19, 2013
Executive Session Authorized
City Attorney Roy suggested Council go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing legal
matters, as pennitted under the City Code. He noted Council would need to decide, by vote, that
it would be detrimental to the public good to delay the Executive Session. Council could also opt
to waive its attomey-client privilege and be given counsel's advice publically.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to go into Executive
Session as permitted by Section 2-31(a)(2) of the City Code for the purpose of conferring for
attorneys for the City regarding legal matters.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would vote to go into Executive Session but viewed the subject
as bogus as the two Councilmembers in question are not affected in any greater fashion than one-
third of the city.
Mayor Pro Teen Ohlson asked if any Councilmember would claim abuse of the conflict of interr st—
policies. If not, there is no need for the Executive Session. \
Councilmember-Troxell stated the discussion is warranted, given the recent issues regarding the mall
redevelopment and the necessity of the Mayor to recuse herself from those discussions.
Councilmember Manvel asked how the item would be brought before the Ethics Review Board.
City Attorney Roy replied an inquiry brought by a single Councilmember or a complaint filed by
.any person could bring the item before the Ethics Review Board. Councilmember Manvel noted
neither of those instances has occurred.
The vote on the motion to go into Executive Session was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Kottwitz,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Manvel.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, that delaying the
Executive Session would be detrimental to the public interest. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Secretary's Note: The Council went into Executive Session at this point in the meeting.)
Adjournment
.At the conclusion of the Executive Session, Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson made a motion, seconded by
Councilmember Poppaw, that Council adjourn to 6:00 p.m. on February 26, 2013, to consider all
pending items, including Ordinance No. 033, 2013.
Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted citizen participation regarding Ordinance No. 033, 2013 has already
been completed and will not occur again.
368
February 19, 2013
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak
and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
��OF FORT �'p
Sty AL
Mlyor
369