HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-06/04/2013-RegularJune 4, 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, June 4, 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: Campana, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and
Weitkunat
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Roy.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated there were no changes to the published agenda.
Citizen Participation
Chris Eikenberg, formerly of 1245 East Lincoln, discussed the fire at Buffalo Run Apartments and
expressed concern regarding management of the complex. She stated all apartments should be
required to have a fire extinguisher on -site and requested Council pass legislation related to "slum"
landlords.
Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, expressed concern regarding management at Bull Run
Apartments and expressed concern regarding upcoming changes to Dial -a -Ride services.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, questioned the affordability of the junk bonds for the
Foothills Mall project.
Matthew Martinez, Fort Collins resident, thanked staff and Council for work on the hydraulic
fracturing issue and stated Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins has set forth a proposal to place a
moratorium on tracking for five years.
Kelly Giddens, Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins campaign organizer, stated the citizens of Fort
Collins should be able to make a decision regarding tracking and suggested a five year moratorium
would allow time to garner information from health studies.
Cindy Peck, 212 West Myrtle owner, expressed concern regarding parking requirements for rental
properties.
125
June 4, 2013
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Poppaw requested additional information regarding the property management
company at Buffalo Run and Bull Run Apartments. City Manager Atteberry replied staff will meet
with Ms. Eikenberg and Ms. Armendariz.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the bond funding for the Foothills Mall project was the best possible
deal.
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the May 7, 2013 Regular Meetine and the
May 14, 2013 Adjourned Meeting.
+,
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069,2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves intheKeep
Fort Collins Great Fund to Support the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013.
U
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on'First Reading on May 21, 2013, is a request for
an appropriation of $33,000 to support the City's Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program
from prior years in the Keep Fort Collins Great Fund (KFCG). The Landmark Rehabilitation
Loan Program is a highly successful financial incentive program for encouraging the
sustainable revitalization of historic residential and commercial structures. The Program
was funded with Keep Fort Collins Great funds in the amount of$25,000 each year for 2013-
2014: However, this year alone, the popular program received over $65,000 in loan funding
requests from 12 applicants for 24 projects costing over $206,200 in materials and services.
Without Rehabilitation Loan Program funding, many of these projects could not proceed.
The request is for the use of KFCG Other Community Priority prior year reserves created
by the 2012 unspent Design Assistance Program (DAP) budget. Both the Loan Program and
the DAP were funded in 2012 from KFCG - Other Community Priorities. These two
incentive programs are closely linked sub -programs of the Historic Preservation Program,
and provide a continuum of financial support for qualified historic preservation projects.
Infraction to a Criminal Misdemeanor Offense.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May21, 2013, changes City Code
Section 4-196 from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor. On February 19, 2013,
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 021, 2013, amending Chapter 4 of the City Code
decriminalizing certain offenses related to the care and keeping of animals. This change was
intended to include all animal offenses that constitute neighborhood nuisances. After further
deliberation, Animal Control recommends keeping the section pertaining to interference with
an animal control officer as a criminal misdemeanor. Staff recommends changing this Code
section from a civil infraction to a criminal misdemeanor.
126
June 4, 2013
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code
Related to the Service of a Civil Citation.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is an effort to
correct an inadvertent change that occurred with a previous Code change. This amendment
will provide the ability for a civil citation to be issued immediately for repeated civil
infractions. This will apply to a second or subsequent violation within a twelve (12) month
period for the same violation. This process already applies for Land Use Code Section
3.8.16 pertaining to occupancy limits, so this change would make the process consistent for
civil infractions. Additionally, this Code change specifies that a civil citation may be issued
immediately for animal code violations.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the
City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees,
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, makes two minor
changes to the Code provisions relating to Municipal Court Referees. First, it removes the
residency requirement for such Referees from Section 19-36 so that the Assistant Municipal
Judge, who lives outside the City limits, can serve as a back-up Referee, especially on
animal infraction cases. Second, it revises Section 19-41 so that all Referees have the same
authority to reduce or waive penalties and assessments when appropriate. It removes the
previous distinction between the authority of the Parking Referee and the Civil Infraction
Referee, which was creating some confusion.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2013 Amending the City Code to Grant Revocable
Permits to Non -City Utilities in Annexed Areas and Correct Internal References.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, eliminates the
requirement that a non -City utility provider apply for a permit to continue providing electric
service to properties annexed into the city. A revocable permit would automatically be
granted at annexation and revoked upon transfer of service.
The second proposed Code change would allow the Utilities Executive Director to adopt
minor technical revisions that clarify an existing standard or improve conformity toward best
engineering practices.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize
Administrative Adoption of Minor Rule Revisions, Clarifications, and Interconnection
Project Standards.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, grants the Utilities
Executive Director authority to approve temporary exemptions or technical modifications
to the City's various electric utility regulations for the purpose of supporting City -managed
special pilot projects, equipment testing or research partnerships.
This authority will not be extended to allow exemptions of such regulations and standards
to ongoing operations or services provided to Utility customers not participating in testing
or research projects.
127
June 4, 2013
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line Relocation Project
Located on the Woodward Property,
Council approved the Woodward incentive package in April 2013. As a part of that
agreement, Woodward agreed to advance funds to support the relocation of the Platte River
Power Authority (PRPA) Transmission Line. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First
Reading on May 21, 2013, appropriates $1,297,080 from the General Fund Reserves for the
relocation of the PRPA transmission line. Immediate appropriation is needed to allow the
transmission line relocation to move forward so that Woodward's building site plans may
remain on schedule. Delay in authorizing the appropriation may necessitate the need for
PRPA to construct and remove a temporary transmission line as well as design and construct
the relocated permanent transmission line. This effort would require that PRPA incur
additional costs.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the Waste Innovation
Program.
This Ordinance shifts $135,560 that has accumulated in the Waste Innovation Program's
reserve account into the City's General Fund account so that the money can be used for the
purposes intended. Revenues are paid into the Waste Innovation Program by City
departments that "self haul" trash from municipal operations for disposal in the Latimer
County Landfill. The fund is designated to pay for projects that enhance these same
departments' ability to divert more waste away from the landfill. Unspent funds from
several previous years had been moved into a "reserve" account; this action moves the funds
back into the General Fund.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into
the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the
Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant Project
for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
The Stormwater Utility has received a grant from the State of Colorado totaling $17,881.
The grant funds will be used to enhance early flash flood warning capabilities due to the
increased risk of flooding caused by the High Park Fire. Existing appropriations will be used
for the match of $5,960.
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and the
Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotrolical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grant
Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The City will use a recent acquisition of 280 acres at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
(Soapstone Prairie) as match towards the grant, as well as management funds currently
obligated in the Natural Areas Department (NAD) budget. Using the funds already spent
as match towards this grant is a great secondary benefit for the City. The $200,000 grant will
expand upon Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory's (RMBO) research and monitoring work
to implement conservation strategies and management for 19 high priority grassland birds
128
June 4, 2013
that breed within the Laramie Foothills Mountains to Plains Project and 27 high priority
species at wintering sites in the Chihuahua Desert of Mexico.
.This will be the fifth such match authorized as the City, in partnership with RMBO, has been
successful on four previous grant applications. The previous partnership efforts have resulted
in a broader understanding of the grasslands bird species that nest on Soapstone Prairie and
the contiguous Meadow Springs Ranch, and has contributed to the conservation of these
species' winter ranges in Mexico.
17. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments
to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining
to the Land Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee -in -lieu of land dedication for both
Poudre School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential
developer to pay a school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land
to the District for development of future schools. The ability of the school districts to
require land dedication is authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and in 2011the Poudre School District reduced fee
amounts by 11 percent. This ordinance will increase the amount of the fees the district
receives by 6.9 percent. The school district is requesting an increase in the fees collected
because of an increase in land values and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed
and approved by the Poudre School Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will
not be adjusting fees in 2013.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Drvland Farm Leases to Han Sauer
on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area.
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm
Open Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel
within'Coyote Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners of Long View and Prairie Ridge
are Latimer County and the City of Loveland respectively. All three properties are leased
by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat production and have been since the time of purchase of
the properties by the Cities and County. Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency
has management authority and receives the lease revenues for each property. As current
leases expire on the properties, all three entities have worked collaboratively to create leases
with similar terms and have advertised the properties for lease via one Request for Proposals
process. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more contemporary language.
Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel will continue at the
same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native grasslands by the
end of the lease term of five years.
19. Resolution 2013-051 Authorizing the Initiation of Exclusion Proceedings of Annexed
Properties Within the Territory of the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District
This Resolution authorizes the City Attorney to file a petition in Latimer County District
Court to exclude properties annexed into the City in 2012 from the Poudre Valley Fire
129
June 4, 2013
Protection District (the "District") in accordance with state law. The properties will continue
to receive fire protection services from the Poudre Fire Authority.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 069, 2013, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Keep
Fort Collins Great Fund to Support the Landmark Rehabilitation Loan Program for 2013.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2013, Amending Section 4-196 of the City Code so
as to Change the Violation of Interference with Animal Control Officers from a Civil
Infraction to a Criminal Misdemeanor Offense.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 071, 2013, Amending Section 19-65 of the City Code
Related to the Service of a Civil Citation.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2013, Amending Sections 19-36 and 19-41 of the
City Code Pertaining to Municipal Court Referees.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2013 Amending the City Code to Grant Revocable
Permits to Non -City Utilities in Annexed Areas and Correct Internal References.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2013, Amending the City Code to Authorize
Administrative Adoption of Minor Rule Revisions, Clarifications, and Interconnection
Project Standards.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2013, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the
General Fund for the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line Relocation Project
Located on the Woodward Property.
24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2013, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter
into Standard Power Purchase Program Agreements with Solar Photovoltaic System Owners
for up to 20 Years.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Nelson.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2013 Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General
Fund for Waste Reduction and Diversion Projects Approved by the WasteInnovation
Program.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2013 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue into
the Stormwater Fund, and Authorizing the Transfer of Existing Appropriations from the
Flood Mapping/Stream Gaging Capital Project to the Post Fire Flood Warning Grant Project
for Early Flood Warning Capabilities.
130
June 4, 2013
16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2013, Authorizing the Use of the Noonan Tract and the
Bowes Homestead Tract as Match for a Neotropical Migratory. Bird Conservation Act Grant
Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
17. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments
to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and Poudre School District Pertaining
to the Land Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013 Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer
on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area.
26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 083, 2013, Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608
East Drake Road as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
28. First Reading of Ordinance No. 084, 2013 Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements,
a Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right -of -Way and
City -Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass -River District Block One
Mixed Use Development.
Councilmember Overbeck withdrew Item No. 18, First Reading of Ordinance No. 081, 2013
Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge
Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area, from the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Cunniff withdrew Item No. 17, Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No.
080, 2013, Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City and
Poudre School District Pertaining to the Land Dedication and In -Lieu Fee Requirements Contained
in Such Agreement, from the Consent Calendar.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items not
withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Campana, Poppaw, Horak, Troxell,
Overbeck and Cunnif£ Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
Rick Richter, City Engineer, discussed highlights of the Mason Street Corridor MAX project. He
noted the Prospect Road closure was not as long as expected and discussed the schedule for station
construction and upcoming closures.
Mark Jackson, Planning, Development, and Transportation Deputy Director, reported on a VIP
reception held on April 25th, that provided tours and updates regarding the MAX project.
Mayor Weitkunat asked about the frequency of east -west road closures. Richter replied the closures
along Mason are primarily at the railroad and arterial crossings and are related to utility installation.
The Harmony Road closure was not related to this project, but rather to some safety improvements
that were needed for the railroad crossing.
131
June 4, 2013
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the configuration of the railroad ballasts. Richter replied the
railroad's preference is to have the ballasts level with the ties, which will ultimately occur.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested a status report regarding the project's budget. Richter replied the
project is tracking very close to the budget.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak requested information regarding the bridge to Whole Foods. Richter replied
construction on that overpass will begin within a few weeks, with a bridge being set in September.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Pro Tern Horak reported on the strategic planning process at Poudre Fire Authority, which
will include planning regarding ambulance service. He also reported on the Platte River Power
Authority strategic planning process and stated preliminary estimates will place a rate increase in
2014 at less than 3%.
Ordinance No. 080, 2013
Authorizing Amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement Between
the City and Poudre School District Pertaining to.the Land Dedication
and In -Lieu Fee Requirements Contained in Such Agreement, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 1998, the City of Fort Collins has collected a fee -in -lieu of land dedication for both Poudre
School District and Thompson School District. These fees allow a residential developer to pay a
school site fee to the School Districts rather than dedicate a parcel of land to the District for
development of f tlure schools. The ability of the school districts to require land dedication is
authorized under Colorado Law.
Fees are reviewed every two years and in 2011 the Poudre School District reduced fee amounts by
I percent. This ordinance will increase the amount of the fees the district receives by 6.9 percent.
The school district is requesting an increase in the fees collected because of an increase in land
values and cost per acreage. This fee amount was reviewed and approved by the Poudre School
Board in February 2013. Thompson School District will not be adjusting fees in 2013.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
In April 1998, the City of Fort Collins and Thompson and Poudre School Districts entered into
Intergovernmental Agreements regarding land dedication for new developments, including a
provision for fees -in -lieu of land dedication. Poudre School District has asked that the amount of
the fees be increased to reflect the current cost of acquiring school sites. Thompson School District
has not requested a change.
The City's Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Poudre School District allows for periodic
updates to the fees and land dedication requirements. Since adoption of the IGA, fees have been
adjusted in 2001, 2006, and 2011.
132
June 4, 2013
Fees are based on a number offactors including school site size, student population projections,
enrollment capacities ofeach type ofschool (elementary, junior high and high schools), and the cost
ofdeveloped land within the school district. Site sizes and enrollment capacities are set by School
District policy.
School Districts in Colorado are allowed by State law to either require school site dedications from
residential developers or collect a fee -in -lieu of such land dedication. The calculation of this fee
must be closely tied to the cost of land to be dedicated, as well as the factors listed above.
This fee increase is at the request of PSD and is based on a land value analysis performed for the
District in late 2012 (Attachment 2).
The effect of the proposed change in per dwelling unit costs would be as follows:
Poudre School District
Fee per dwelling unit: Current FeeRevised Fee
1-4 attached dwelling units $1, 600 $1, 710
5 or more attached dwelling units $ 800 $ 855
The Intergovernmental Agreement requires that the City conduct a public hearing prior to any
changes in the fee or land requirement. The Poudre School District Board has reviewed its
methodology for this program and requested that the City Council approve this revision. The
detailed methodology for calculating the fees are provided in Exhibits A and B of the Ordinance.
FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed Ordinance will not have a financial impact on the City of Fort Collins because the
fees are collected on behalf of Poudre School District. Revenues from the fees will pass through
City accounts and will not affect City revenue limits under Article X, Section 20.
This Ordinance implements a fee increase requested by Poudre School District. The increased fee
will raise the cost of residential development in the community collected at the time of building
permit by $1 10per single family unit Multi family unit fees (over 5 units) are increased by $55 per
dwelling unit. This is a 6.9% increase.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This action was reviewed and approved at the February 26, 2013 Poudre School District Board
Meeting.
Councilmember Cunniff expressed concern regarding the methodology used by Poudre School
District and asked whether any further consideration has been given to asking the state legislature
for additional enabling legislation to allow for brick and mortar to be covered with development fees
as well. Ed Holder, Poudre School District, replied the rates are based on three factors, which
include student yield, school site size, and the residential land values. Those values have been
133
June 4, 2013
reassessed every two years based on Larimer County's assessments and the school site size has
dropped.
Councilmember Cunniffasked about legislation for building construction. Mr. Holder replied there
is a potential for marijuana tax funding of school construction, but he is unaware of any other
proposals.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, suggested these fees should be prorated to allow for true
infill and redevelopment.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Conniff, to adopt Ordinance
No. 080, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if Poudre School District currently has a level fee structure across
the district. Mr. Holder replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Campana agreed with Mr. Sutherland that impact fees should be evaluated for infill
projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak asked if there is a City—Poudre School District committee. Mr. Holder
replied in the affirmative. Mayor Pro Tem Horak suggested this item be discussed annually at that
committee.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Troxell,
Poppaw, Campana and Conniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 081, 2013
Authorizing Dryland Farm Leases to Harry Sauer on Long View Farm Open Space,
Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and Coyote Ridge Natural Area, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Department is a minority owner in Long View Farm Open
Space and Prairie Ridge Natural Area, and is the sole owner of the McKee parcel within Coyote
Ridge Natural Area. The majority owners ofLong View and Prairie Ridge are Larimer County and
the City ofLoveland respectively. All three properties are leased by Harry Sauer for dryland wheat
production and have been since the time of purchase of the properties by the Cities and County.
Intergovernmental Agreements state which agency has management authority and receives the
lease revenues for each property: As current leases expire on the properties, all three entities have
worked collaboratively to create leases with similar terms and have advertised the properties for
lease via one Request for Proposals process. The new leases have a higher lease rate and more
contemporary language. Restoration of the dryland wheat to native grasses on the McKee parcel
will continue at the same pace as in the past and it will nearly be completely restored to native
grasslands by the end of the lease term offive years.
134
June 4, 2013
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
In 1997, the 479-acre Long View Farm Open Space was purchased by Larimer County, the City of
Fort Collins and the City ofLoveland, with an ownership split of50%, 33%, and 17%, respectively.
At the time of acquisition, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) was also drafted. Per the terms
of the IGA, the County manages the property and administers the agricultural lease, and receives
all rental income from the property.
In 2000, the 785-acre Prairie Ridge Natural Area was acquired from Harry Sauer by Loveland
(75% ownership) and Fort Collins (25%"ownership). Per the terms of the IGA, Loveland manages
the property and the agricultural lease, and receives all rental 'income from the property.
In 1997, Fort Collins acquired the 973-acre McKee Farm parcel of Coyote Ridge Natural Area.
Fort Collins owns and manages the property entirely with no shared ownership or management with
other entities.
Mr. Sauer farmed all three properties prior to City and County ownership, and has continued
farming under the existing leases that are set to expire in 2013.
RFP Process
In the fall of 2011, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was conducted by Fort Collins for dryland farming
leases on all three properties. Mr. Sauer's proposal was selected. The new agricultural lease
reflects the terms and conditions outlined in the proposal. Fort Collins, Loveland, and Lorimer
County worked together to draft leases for each Property that are nearly identical in terms with
several minor exceptions. The lease rate and the large majority of terms for all three leases are the
same. These consistent lease terms will allow consistency and ease ofmanagement across the three
adjacent properties and provide Mr. Sauer with essentially one set of lease terms to adhere to.
Lease Terms
Mr. Sauer will lease Long View, Prairie Ridge, and McKee for a period offive (5) years beginning
August 1, 2013 and expiring no later than July 31, 2018.
The lease rate will be S20/acre offarmed land annually for each property. Mr. Sauer will receive
100% of the Crop Flexibility payments from the Farm Service Agency, and is responsible for any
and all costs associated with crop production, insect control and noxious weed control. In addition,
the lease terms have been updated to a more contemporary format with more preferable terms.
Restoration
Over the past five years, Fort Collins has restored approximately 50 acres offarmland annually to
native grasslands on McKee. Currently, Fort Collins plans to continue restoration efforts on McKee
at the same pace; approximately 50 acres of farmable acreage will remain on the property by the
end of this lease term, which will be restored the following year. The McKee lease details this
restoration and Mr. Sauer will work cooperatively with Fort Collins reform the remaining portion
of the property.
135
June 4, 2013
FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The rent payments from Long View and Prairie Ridge will be retained by Larimer County and
Loveland, respectively, per the respective IGAs. The McKee lease rate is roughly double the
previous rate, and Mr. Sauer will be responsible for all management on the lease area of the
property. The City will receive all rental income from the McKee property.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
There are no significant environmental impacts to Fort Collins. The properties' land use will not
change and existing farming practices and restoration efforts will continue unchanged.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its May 8, 2013 meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted unanimously to
recommend that City Council approve three leases with Harry Sauer to farm dryland winter wheat
on portions ofLong View Farm Open Space, Prairie Ridge NaturalArea and Coyote Ridge Natural
Area. "
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the price per acre figure for the lease and requested
information regarding a GMO policy, the contemporary lease terms and the mineral rights owner.
Daylan Figgs, Natural Areas Senior Environmental Planner, replied the lease price was decided
based on a request for proposal, and Mr. Sauer was the high bid in this case. Additionally, the rates
are in line with typical custom rates for dryland farms in Colorado and this lease places the cost of
weed control solely on Mr. Sauer. He stated there is currently no GMO policy as there are no wheat
crops which are pesticide -resistant. Figgs replied oil and gas rights are held by the City and no
surface entry is allowed for any ore collection.
Councilmember Cunniff asked about the restoration schedule for the properties. Figgs replied
restoration began about five years ago and approximately 50 acres per year are converted from
cropland to native grass. Larimer County and Loveland are not restoring their properties at this
time.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance
No. 081, 2013, on First Reading.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak asked if the Legislative Committee has discussed GMO information provided
by Food and Water Watch. Councilmember Troxell replied it has not been discussed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Poppaw, Campana,'Horak, Cunniff,
Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
136
June 4, 2013
Ordinance No. 075, 2013,
Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into Standard Power
Purchase Program. Agreements with Solar Photovoltaic
System Owners for up to 20 Years, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fort Collins Utilities' Solar Power Purchase Program (FCSP3) encourages the installation of new
local solar systems on behalf of all Utilities customers in support of Fort Collins renewable energy
commitments under the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES). The basis of the FCSP3 is a
fixed price, 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Fort Collins Utilities and
photovoltaic system owners for solar energy generation. Program funding was approved through
the budget process. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 21, 2013, is
necessary to authorize the required long-term (20 year) purchase power agreements. "
John Phelan, Energy Services Manager, provided a brief description of the program and stated
citizen comments were addressed via a Service Area Request following First Reading.
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated there is a Charter provision which prohibits paying for
experimentation with rate payer dollars without a vote of Council. He supported this Ordinance.
Councilmember Poppaw requested information as to what occurs at the end of the 20-year
agreement. Norm Weaver, Senior Energy Services Engineer, replied several close-out options are
available, including contract extensions and a switch to net metering by the solar client. He stated
there is a notion that renewable energy credits (RECs) do retire after a certain amount of time.
Phelan replied the RECs are generated as the energy is generated and delivered on an annual basis.
The 20-year term is standard in the industry to create a clear financial structure to enable the initial
capitalization of the projects.
Councilmember Cunniff made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Ordinance
No. 075, 2013, on Second Reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak supported the Ordinance.
Councilmember Troxell supported distributed generation.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Poppaw, Campana, Horak, Cunniff,
Overbeck and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
137
June 4, 2013
Resolution 2013-052
A' Iaking'Findings of Fact and Conclusions Regarding the Appeal
of the March 21, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Approval of the
Carriage House Apartments Project Development Plan, Adopted
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and approved the application for
the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development Plan. On April 4, 2013, a Notice ofAppeal
was filed by Joel Rovnak seeking to remand the decision back to the Planning and Zoning Board.
On May 21, 2013, City Council voted 5 - O'(Poppaw absent, Campana withdrawn) upholding the
decision of the Planning and Zoning Board, concluding that the evidence presented did not indicate
the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing by considering evidence relevant.to its findings which was
substantially false or grossly misleading.
In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, Council is required to adopt a Resolution
makingfindings offact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION
The Appellant's Notice ofAppeal was based on allegations that the Planning and Zoning Board
failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence contained in the Traffic Impact Study
which was substantially false and grossly misleading.
At the May 21, 2013 appeal hearing, Council considered the testimony of the Appellant, Applicant
and City staff. After consideration of the record and discussion, Council determined that Planning
and Zoning Board conducted a fair hearing. Accordingly, the Council upheld the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board, approving the Carriage House Apartments, Project Development
Plan. "
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Councilmember Poppaw withdrew from the discussion of this item as she did not participate in the
appeal hearing.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, to adopt Resolution
2013-052. Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Horak, Overbeck and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 083, 2013,
Designating the Johnson Farm Property, 2608 East Drake Road as a Fort Collins
Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code, Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
138
June 4, 2013
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner of the property, Gino Campana ofJohnson Farm LLC, is initiating this request for Fort
Collins Landmark designation for the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 East Drake Road.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
The property is eligible for designation as a Fort Collins Landmark under Designation Standards
1, 2, and 3 for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its
architectural significance to Fort Collins.
The Johnson Farm is significant under Standard One (1) for its association with agricultural
contexts in Fort Collins since the late nineteenth century, including the open range cattle industry,
farming and ranching, and sheep raising.
The property is additionally significant under Standard Two (2) for its association with several
prominent Fort Collins citizens, including Charles Evans and the Johnson brothers: Elmer, Wesley,
Edwin, and Harvey. The Johnson first moved to Fort Collins in 1902 where they established
multiple farms in the area. Throughout the twentieth century, the Johnson thrived informing and
stock raising. One Johnson brother in particular, Harvey, exerted significant political influence in
the city as President of the Water Supply and Storage Company and Mayor from 1963 to 1967.
Furthermore, the property also holds significance under Standard Three (3). Its two farmhouses,
built in the 1910s by Elmer Johnson, are excellent examples ofvernacular agricultural architecture.
Also, the Johnson barn, built around 1918, represents one of the city's few remaining examples of
a bank barn. It is built into the side of the land's natural grade to provide livestock easier access
to forage stored in the barn.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Recognition of the Johnson Farm Property at 2608 Ent Drake Road as a'Fort Collins Landmark
enables its owner to qualify for federal, state and local financial incentive programs available only
to designated properties. Additionally, based upon research conducted by Clarion Associates, the
property would see an increase in value following designation. Clarion Associates attributed this
increase to the fact that future owners also qualify for the financial incentives; the perception that
designated properties are better maintained; the appeal ofowning a recognized historic landmark;
and the assurance of predictability that design review offers. "
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At a public hearing held on April 10, 2013, the Landmark Preservation Commission voted
unanimously 8-0 to recommend designation of this property under Designation Standards 1, 2, and
3 for its association with significant historical events and persons, and also for its architectural
significance to Fort Collins. "
Councilmember Campana withdrew from the discussion of this item due to a conflict of interest.
Josh Weinberg, Historic Preservation Planner, showed slides of the property.
139
June 4, 2013
Mayor Pro Tern Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 083, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Troxell commended the written history of the property.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Troxell, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw and
Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board's
April 18, 2013 Decision to Approve the Max Flats, Project Development Plan,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld, With Modifications
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 18, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board considered and unanimously approved the
application for the Max Flats, Project Development Plan. The application consisted of a request to
demolish the existing King's Auto building at 203 West Mulberry Street and construct a 63,900
square foot, 5-story, mixed -use building consisting of 64 dwelling units and 1,439 square -feet of
ground level retail. The site is on the MAX bus rapid transit (BRT) line at the Mulberry Station in
the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone and the Community Commercial (CC) Zone
District. The project requested four modifications of standards, as follows: (a) a reduction in
parking lot landscaping; (b) the ability to provide off -site bike parking; (c) a reduction for parking
lot setback from five feet to four feet two inches; and (d) an increased percentage of compact
parking spaces.
On May 2, 2013, Bruce Froseth (Appellant) filed a Notice ofappeal alleging that the Planning and
Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Land Use Code,
failed to'conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered evidence that was substantially false
andgrossly misleading, and substantially ignored its previously established rules ofprocedure when
approving the Project Development Plan application.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Under the appeals procedure contained in the Municipal Code, the appeal is required to be
considered upon the record on appeal, the relevant provisions ofthe Code and Charter, the grounds
for appeal cited in the notice ofappeal and the arguments made by parties -in -interest at the hearing
on the appeal, provided the arguments raised by parties -in -interest were raised in the notice of
appeal.
The Municipal Code allows for new evidence to be considered when offered by City staff or parties -
in -interest in response to questions presented by Councilmembers at the hearing. Staff is prepared
to answer questions regarding the allegations on appeal if asked by Councilmembers.
140
June 4, 2013
A CTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
After testimonyfrom the Applicant, affected property owners, the public and staff, the Planning and
Zoning Board voted 4 — 0 to approve the Max Flats Project Development Plan application.
In support ofits motion to approve theMax Flats Project Development Plan, the Board adopted the
findings of fact and conclusions as contained on page 9 of the staff report.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly considered
evidence that was substantially false and grossly misleading?
ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL
1. `It was an error that staff did not inform the applicant that this project was required to he
reviewed as a type 2. "
The Appellant states, " staffprovided information to the board concerning imhy the.hearirvg was held
so soon after- the required neighborhood meeting. Staff responded that this project was, 'caught in
the middle', of a change in the L. U.C. This is not correct. This project in fact, was required to go
through a type 2 review process from the beginning of the development submittal. "
During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, "This was one of the projects thatgot
caught in the middle ofthe transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan
and then the transition ofsome Land Use Code... where you might remember as a Board, you made
a -recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, instead of Type I hearing
review, a Type Il hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the developer applied the fact
that they were in a mixed... they were having a mixed -use development and the discussion that we
had around the threshold was about multi -family development. So, Seth and the developerproceeded
ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a
definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on
the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we
discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The
developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on
the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the
time of the neighborhood meeting to the time ofhearing could be held. " (Page 15, Line 30 through
Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who
participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we've been changing all sorts of
things about our process lately, and we're trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught
sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job. " (Page
16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, I think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process
question where we had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two
different systems really, and I think that's unfortunate and it doesn't feel good, but I think it's been
141
June 4, 2013
explained well as to why it happened and goingforward the improvement for the community is that
a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater outreach, and so that's the
right direction. " (Page 21, Line 19 — 23'of Verbatim Transcript)
Staffhas prepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change
and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
2. At the hearing "elevations in their entirety were not shown."
The Appellant states, "Only sections or portions of elevations were shown. A limited visual image
in the form of a tree -framed perspective depicting a foreshortened view of the major fagade was
featured and left on the screen. The true representation of mass and scale of the project remains
elusive. The presentation appeared to be misleading and avoided depiction of the reality of the
project. "
The neighborhood meeting was held on April•10, 2013. The Applicant submitted a revised version
of the building elevations prior to the public hearing on April 16, 2013, as shown in the Power Point
presentation to Planning and Zoning Board (Attachment 4: Materials submitted to Planning and
Zoning Board at the Hearing). The revised plans show a fifth floor setback on the west side and a
change in material from metal panel to brick.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the manner in which images were presented.
Building elevations were displayed during staff presentation and provided in the staff report
(Attachment I — PDP Plan Set).
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to conduct a fair hearing because it allegedly substantially
ignored its previously established rules ofprocedure when approving the Project Development Plan
application?
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
"The neighbors did not have a reasonable period of time to get comments to the board and
indeed were unaware and'uninformed bystaffthatthe worksession was planned to review
this project at all or specifically was taking place the next day. "
The Appellant states, "Neighborhood comments should have been delivered to the P & Z Board at
that work session where the developer was present and had the opportunity to observe.
Subsequently, the P & Z meeting was held on Thursday, April 18, 2013. This timeline was
inadequate for comprehensive neighborhood feedback, as well as counter to proper expected
procedure. "
During the Planning and Zoning Board hearing staff stated, "This was one of the projects, that got
caught in the middle of the transition due to all of the discussion on the Student Housing Action Plan
and then the transition ofsome Land Use Code... where you might remember as a Board, you made
a recommendation for a certain threshold to apply and then require, instead of Type I hearing
review, a Type II hearing review. As part of that definition, Seth and the developer applied the fact
142
June 4, 2013
that they were. in a mixed... they were having a mixed -use development and the discussion that we
bad around the threshold was about multi family development. So, Seth and the developerproceeded
ahead as if it would still be a Type I review. When the Code was actually adopted, it included a
definition that said, any residential, in whole or in part. And this was a last-minute change made on
the Second Reading of the Ordinance. And, so, very late in the process for this developer, we,
discovered that because of the Code change, they were required to do a Type II review. The
developer and staff immediately organized a neighborhood meeting and then tried to get back on
the timeline that they had been set for a Type I hearing. And, there is no time requirement from the
time of the neighborhood meeting to the time of hearing could be held. " (Page 15, Line 30 through
Page 16, Line 4 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, "I just wanted to maybe say, for the citizens who
participated that your late neighborhood meeting was because we've been changing all sorts of
things about our process lately, and we're trying to improve it, and unfortunately you got caught
sort of in the middle of it, and we hope that in the future, we collectively will do a better job. " (Page
16, Line 14 - 17 of Verbatim Transcript)
The Planning and Zoning Board stated, '7 think one thing that stuck out was clearly the process
question where we had some neighborhood meetings, some outreach that got stuck in between two
different systems really, and 1 think that's unfortunate and it doesn't feel good, but I think it's been
explained well as to why it happened and goingforward, the improvement for the community is that
a project like this will come before this Board and there will be greater outreach, and so that's the
right direction. " (Page 21, Line 19 — 23 of Verbatim Transcript)
Staffhasprepared information regarding the project timeline and the recent Land Use Code change
and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Did the Planning and Zoning Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the
Land Use Code?
ALLEGATIONS ONAPPEAL
1. "This project fails to meet compatibility standards."
LUC Sec. 3.5.3(C)(1) states: horizontal masses shall not exceed a height. -width ratio of 1:3 without
substantial variation in massing that includes a change in height and projecting or recessed
elements.
The Appellant states, "The proposed 5 story 56 foot high building at 240 feet in length along the
major axis has a ratio of over 1:4 with no change in height or step backs on the featured block
frontage "and the "proposed step in the building height on the North elevation did fully depict how
it relates in scale and mass to the overall building due to lack of a West elevation. There is little or
no visual effect f om the later proposed North minimal stepping at the fifth floor to the major East
or West elevations. "
143
June 4, 2013
The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page
5 and 6 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
Staff has prepared information regarding die project compatibilityand variation in massing and is
able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
2. . "Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood."
LUC Sec. 3.5.3(D)(2)(a)(3) states: all sides of the building shall include material and design
characteristics consistent with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side
or rear.facades shall be prohibited.
The Appellant states, "Lesser quality materials are used on the facades facing the neighborhood.
No substantial projecting elements or substantial recessed elements ofconsequence occur to break
up the block -like composition leading to the lack of architectural quality, (please see elevations).
There are no decks, balconies, horizontal/shading elements brick and minimal enhanced features
proposed as shown on the principal elevation. -
The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the design characteristics on the side, facing the
neighborhood.
Staff has prepared information regarding the design characteristics on the side of the building
,facing the neighborhood and is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by
Council.
3. "The project detracts from the character by setting up a physical and visual barrier in its
block -type form. "
LUC Sec. 3.5.1(B) states: New developments it? or adjacent to existing developed areas shall be
compatible with the established architectural character of such areas by using a design that is
complementary. In areas where the existing architectural character is not definitively established,
or is not consistent with the purposes of this Land Use Code, the architecture of new development
shall set an enhanced standard of quality for future projects or redevelopment in the area.
The Appellant states, "The burden is upon this project to set an enhanced standard. It fails to do so
as it ignores how sensitive mass and form promote compatibility. "
The Applicant's narrative, attached to the staff report, discusses and illustrates the existing
neighborhood character. The Planning and Zoning Board stated, "I like what the applicant's team
has done to design a good project and to continually upgrade it. This is a nice way to extend the
downtown toward the campus. It makes the, you know, the Mason Corridor come to life and be
functional, and] think this sets a tone to start movingsouth along Mason, and even across the street,
to be able to do this type of urban project. It is good design and there is very eclectic architecture
in that neighborhood ... very eclectic. - (Page 21, Line 24 — 28 of Verbatim Transcript).
Staffhas prepared information regarding the neighborhood character and project compatibility and
is able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
144
June 4, 2013
4. "This building's architectural character has taken on an overall vocabulary of repetitive
elements, lacking in detailing superimposed upon an overwhehning scale and building
in ass. "
LUC Sec. 3.5.1(C) states: Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be
articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other
structures, if any, on the same block face, opposing block face or cater -corner block face at the
nearest intersection.
The Appellant states: "It [the proposed building] does not relate to street and neighborhood. "
The staff report discusses building and project compatibility and the variation in massing on page
5 and 6 respectively. The Planning and Zoning Board did not discuss the variation in massing.
Staff has prepared information regarding the project compatibility and variation in massing and is
able to answer questions regarding this allegation if asked by Council.
COUNCIL A CTION REQ UES TED
Review the record and determine if the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to approve the
Max Flats Project Development Plan should be upheld, overturned, modified, or remanded to the
Board for further consideration. "
City Attorney Roy reviewed the City's appeal process.
Seth Lorson, City Planner, reviewed the proposed project and location and stated the Planning and
Zoning Board approved the project, with four modifications of standard. Additionally, Lorson
reviewed the Notice of Appeal and its allegations.
Councilmember Conniff stated he attended the site visit in order to obtain a visual aspect of the
property.
Mayor Pro Tem Horak stated he attended the site visit for the same reasons.
Councilmember Troxell noted his comments with respect to the properties to the west and solar
shading issues:
Councilmember Overbeck stated he inspected the property individually.
Councilmember Campana stated he attended the site visit in orderto better understand the property's
physical attributes.
APPELLANT PRESENTATION
Susan Kruel-Froseth, Appellant, stated the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret
and apply relevant provisions of the City Code, Land Use Code, and Charter and cited specific
provisions relating to size, mass, and scale and design elements as well as compatibility. She argued
the Board failed to adequately address compatibility and the related Land Use Code provisions.
145
June 4, 2013
Bruce Froseth, Appellant, argued the neighborhood meeting for the project was held too close to the
Planning and Zoning Board work session and hearing.
OPPONENT PRESENTATION
Kevin Brinkman, Brinkman Partners, stated this project is supported by City staff, the Planning and
Zoning Board, the Downtown Development Authority, the Chamber of Commerce, and owners of
neighboring properties. He discussed the project location and cited examples of neighborhood
compatibility.
Eduardo Manes, Oz Architects, detailed the architectural components of the proposed project.
Jeff Johnson, Counsel for the Developer, discussed the eclectic nature of the neighborhood and
stated this project establishes an excellent precedent for further redevelopment. He argued a fair
hearing was conducted.
APPELLANT REBUTTAL
Ms. Kruel-Froseth stated the first time she heard of the project was in January when the sign was
first posted on the property and argued the neighborhood was not made aware of the project until
that time. She stated this project is one of high visibility and questioned whether this was the type
of tone the City wants to set for the Mason Street Corridor.
OPPONENT REBUTTAL
Mr. Brinkman stated he has met four times with the appellant and has offered enhancements to
materials and detailing.
Mr. Johnson stated this project demonstrates its compliance with the Land Use Code and will be a
project appropriate for the future.
Mr. Illanes discussed the articulation and materials of the proposed building.
(Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Cindy Peck, 212 West Myrtle owner, expressed concern regarding the neighborhood notification
process and opposed the parking situation in the neighborhood.
Mr. Brinkman stated the parking situation should not impact neighbors and opposed a remand to the
Planning and Zoning Board.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION
Councilmember Cunniff requested the height to width ratio along the north -south axis ;and asked if
the floodplain requirements actually prohibit residential development on the ground floor, or if those
units must simply be raised above floodplain level. Lorson replied any residential. units must be one
or two feet above the floodplain elevation'
146
June 4. 2013
Councilmember Cunniff asked when the effective date for the Ordinance requiring a Planning and
Zoning Board hearing for projects greater than fifty units occurred. Lorson replied the effective date
for that Ordinance was November 30, 2012 and the application date for this project was December
12, 2012.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the City had erred by not placing this project into the Type lI
review process at that point. Laurie Kadrich, Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Director, replied staff was engaged in updating multi -family Land Use Code regulations to better
address some of the community concerns through last fall. A process began last fall requiring multi-
family unit developments over a certain unit size to be required to have a Type II hearing. Prior to
that, projects of that size in certain zones were allowed to have a Type I hearing.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if Mr. Brinkman would still be willing to discuss landscape buffering
and other issues with the appellant. Mr. Brinkman replied the 10-inch landscape modification
allowed a parking aisle and added he would be willing to work with the appellant on any
landscaping issues. He discussed some concessions he has made to compromise with the appellants
and mentioned additional items he is willing to change.
Councilmember Poppaw requested additional detail regarding the project transitions mentioned by
Mr. Brinkman. Mr. Brinkman replied he has incorporated a step -back on the fifth floor and has
changed materials per neighbor requests.
Councilmember Troxell requested information regarding the Downtown Development Authority
(DDA) funding and the differences between the east and west sides of the building. Mr. Brinkman
replied the funding went to public improvements in the right-of-way, not to the building facade.
Councilmember Troxell requested a west side rendering showing the Juliet balconies. Mr.
Brinkman described the proposed Juliet balconies on the west facade and stated he would be willing
to include those per neighborhood requests.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the involvement of the City's Neighborhood Advocate in this
project. Lorson replied the Neighborhood Advocate was present at the neighborhood meeting and
was available as neighbors expressed concerns.
Councilmember Troxell asked about the multi -family versus mixed -use definition. Lorson replied
the new language for the threshold references any residential use consisting in whole or in part.
Kadrich replied the Planning and Zoning Board is discussing this issue as part of its policy
development and stated there is not currently a requirement within the mixed -use definition that
would tie or limit any kind of the mixed -use.
Councilmember Troxell requested a staff comment regarding the benefit, or lack thereof, of
remanding the item to the Planning and Zoning Board. Kadrich replied an earlier neighborhood
meeting would have allowed for earlier consideration of neighborhood opinions.
Councilmember Overbeck asked about the neighbor reference to parking. Lorson replied this
project is in the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone (TOD) in which there is no minimum
parking requirement. He stated the parking provided by this project provides about one parking
space per unit, which adequately meets the Land Use Code.
147
June 4, 2013
Councilmember Campana stated the intention of the Ordinance mentioned was to allow more
transparency and citizen input on projects, therefore increasing the threshold for requiring a
neighborhood meeting. He discussed the confusion which could have occurred relating to multi-
family versus mixed -use. He asked if the appellants had a dialogue with the developer or submitted
written materials at the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Kruel-Froseth replied in the affirmative and
cited the transcript from the meeting.
Councilmember Campana discussed the massing and articulation aspects of the Land Use Code and
requested an interpretation of the one -to -three ratio, which he noted could be interpreted in different
ways. Lorson replied the Land Use Code section states "horizontal masses shall not exceed a
height -width ratio of one -to -three, without substantial variation in massing that includes a, change
in height or projecting or recessed elements." He stated staff s opinion is that the project provides
substantial variation in massing and meets this section of the Code.
Councilmember Poppaw discussed the lack of articulation on the west side of the building in
comparison to the east side and asked if the developer is willing to make changes to the west side
of the building in order to add articulation and visual interest.
Councilmember Campana stated he would have difficulty requiring additional articulation on the
west elevation based on the Land Use Code. Councilmember Poppaw disagreed and stated the Land
Use Code specifically calls out for the additional articulation.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, that the Planning
and Zoning Board did not fail to conduct a fair hearing in its consideration of the MAX Flats Project
Development Plan #120034.
Councilmember Conniff stated it could be argued the Board was presented with false information
due to the process flaw and therefore may not have given as much consideration to the neighborhood
concerns as it could have.
Councilmember Troxell argued the absence of information is not false information.
Councilmember Cunniff stated the project was submitted two weeks after the Ordinance which
would have required the project to go through a Type 11 review was in place; therefore, the statement
that the project was caught in the middle of the transition is false.
Councilmember Campana argued the intent of the neighborhood meeting was met.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak argued the Board conducted a fair hearing regardless of the process prior to
the hearing.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Campana, Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell and Poppaw.
Nays: Cunniff and Overbeck.
Councilmember Campana asked if there was a requirement for increased landscaping to compensate
for the modification for the parking aisle. Lorson replied the Planning and Zoning Board discussed
the issue but there is no tool in the Land Use Code to require.that type of mitigation.
148
June 4, 2013
Mayor Pro Tern Horak requested that Mr. Brinkman discuss the modifications he would be'willing
to make. Mr. Brinkman replied he is willing to provide five additional trees, of the appellants'
choice, in the landscape buffer.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would like to see as many trees as possible in the landscape
buffer area.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the caliper of the trees had been discussed. Mr. Brinkman replied
there is a utility easement in the area which will partially dictate tree location.
Councilmember Poppaw stated the other modifications mentioned were with respect to enhanced
materials and massing compatibility. Mr. Brinkman replied he would be willing to add the Juliet
balconies, though they are not required, and he would be willing to add a tower element in the
middle of the west elevation to aid in concerns regarding massing; however, other neighbors have
opposed the tower element due to the increase in height.
Councilmember Cunniff requested input regarding the tower design from the appellants. Ms.Kruel-
Froseth replied this is the first time she has heard about the tower and stated there have been no
specific discussions relating to the landscape buffer. She stated she would like to see all sides of the
building contain materials and design characteristics consistent with the front of the building.
Councilmember Cunniff supported varying the height of the building in order to provide interest.
Councilmember Campana expressed concern regarding re -designing the project at this point.
Councilmember Poppaw stated she would like to see a compromise reached between the parties and
asked if the materials to be used on the back side of the building are of lesser quality than those on
the Mason Street side. Mr. Brinkman replied the materials are the same from the second floor up.
The pedestrian level is mostly brick on the front and side; however, those elements are not there on
the back side of the building as there is no pedestrian element. .
Mayor Pro Tern, Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to modify the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board approving the MAX Flats Project Development Plan #120034 by
adding the following conditions: five trees will be added to the landscape buffer along the west side,
Juliet balconies will be added, the tower element will be added, and consistent materials will be used
around the entire building. Yeas: Cunniff, Horak, Weiikunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 084, 2013
Authorizing the Conveyance of Four Easements, a
Temporary Construction Easement and a Revocable Permit on City Right -of -Way
and City -Owned Property to Linden Bridges LLC for the Encompass -River
District Block One Mixed Use Development. Adopted on First Reading
The following is the staff memorandum for this item.
149
June 4, 2013
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Encompass — River District Block One Mixed Use Development ("Encompass') is a mixed use
development at 418 Linden Street consisting ofoffice space, residential space and a restaurant. The
property is owned by Linden Bridges LLC ("LB LLC'). Several easements are required for this
project. These easement interests are needed for improvements in the right-of-way, bank
stabilization and river enhancement, drainage and landscape areas.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION
Encompass is a mixed use development at 418 Linden consisting of one building with two floors of
office space, two floors ofapartments'(12 units) and a restaurant. The first floor of this building has
a walk -way to the rear of the lot. The O'Neil family is developing the property. Their software
company, Encompass Technologies will occupy the second floor. The property is held in the name
of Linden Bridges LLC.
Encompass looked at plans to relocate to a larger space and instead chose to develop'a new office
as part of a mixed -use development as a long-term investment in downtown Fort Collins. The site
at 418 Linden provides a great opportunity for Encompass to create a vibrant mixed -use
development that connects downtown Fort Collins to the Cache la Poudre River.
This project embodies the character and vision of the City Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan, the
2001 Poudre River Master Plan, and the R-D-R zone district for high quality redevelopment in
downtown with river interface that is envisioned for the Downtown River Redevelopment District.
Easements Requested by Encompass: .
The properties affected by these requests include the property between the development site and the
Poudre River. The City owns the top of the bank,. which was acquired 30 years ago for a
recreational trail, the river bank and the land under the river. In the end, the trail was constructed
on the other side of the River and the City will not utilize this site as a trail in the future. The City
property has not been maintained for years. All easement requests are shown on the Easement
Exhibit, Attachment 2.
Permanent Non -Exclusive Encroachment Easement (shown in green on Easement Exhibit):
This easement would be made up of several easement areas located in the right of way. Since
permanent improvements are being constructed in the right -of --way, it is appropriate to grant a
permanent easement instead of a revocable permit. Encompass will have a permanent right to use
these improvements in perpetuity. The City cannot cancel or terminate this easement; only
Encompass could request to have this easement vacated. If the City determined it needed the land
under the improvements, it would need to enter into negotiations with the owner to purchase this
easement interest. In the Easement Agreement, Encompass will be required to carry property and
liability insurance and will need to have the City added as additional insured.
There is a significant change in grade along Linden Street. This creates the need for an upper and
lower sidewalk similar to properties downtown. Thus some of the permanent features requiring
easements are a ramp, stairs and a planter box. In addition, Encompass has requested an outdoor
deck along Linden Street for the restaurant. The restaurant will also have two decks on their
property with a river view. Having the deck along Linden Street is a key urban design element.
150
June 4, 2013
Permanent Non -Exclusive Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement (shown in yellow
on Easement Exhibit):
This easement abuts the development site and includes a strip ofland from the top of the river bank
to the water's edge. The river bank 'needs to be stabilized and this project plans include
reconstruction approximately 160 feet of the river bank to meet the design criteria for a 100 year
flood event. Included with the bank stabilization are two decorative retaining walls.
Additional improvements are being completed by Encompass along the bank as per the City's
Poudre River Enhancement Plan. This work is a benefit to both the development and the City by
providing additional stabilization ofthe banks and improved scour protection for the Linden Street
bridge. Encompass will complete all the construction. When the work is complete and approved
by Stormwater Utilities, the City will repay Encompass for river enhancement work that benefits the
Cityfrom a combination of Stormwater Funds and Bridge Engineering Funds.
Asper the Land Use Code, the project is required to provide a continuous buffer and a walking path
along the top of the bank It is planned to build the buffer and path on the development site and the
City -owned property. The easement grants Encompass access for the path and its users.
Encompass will maintain all improvements located in this easement area, with the exception of the
bridge protection. After acceptance of the work by the City, the City will maintain the bridge
protection. The City will not perform maintenance on the trail in the easement area. The City's
public trail is on the other side of the River.
Perm anent Non -Exclusive Drainage Easement (shown in yellow and outlined in red on Easement
Exhibit);
Encompass is requesting a permanent 20-foot wide drainage easement to carry their development
flows, as well as the flows from the property to the south, from their water quality pond, in an
eighteen-inchpipe under the City's property to the Poudre River. This easement location is in part
of the Permanent Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement, but we requested a separate
legal description.for this use.
Temporary Construction Easement (shown on Temporary Easement Exhibit):
The above easement gives Encompass the right to do their bank stabilization work, however, they
need to be able to access the bankfrom the Poudre River. In order to complete work in the River,
a Floodplain Use Permit is required. Encompass has met with the FloodplainAdministrator on site
and an access area has been identified. The preferred access point goes through the Encompass
site and goes through a break in trees on the City property to access the River. This area is shown
on the Temporary Easement Exhibit, Attachment 3. There will be very minimal disturbance in the
river bed. The banks will only be disturbed in the areas of the Construction, Access and
Maintenance Easement. All disturbed areas along construction accessfrorn top ofbankto the River
shall be revegetated per approved landscape plans.
The area of the Temporary Construction Easement extends upriver under the bridge and adjacent
to the Northside Aztlan Community Center site. Encompass will construct a temporary upstream
and downstream coffer dam and pump in the Temporary Construction Easement area. Downstream
there is an area where the river is separated by a stretch of land. The temporary coffer dam will
divert the River to the eastern side of the land and they will also install a pump in low point
discharge on other side of island.
151
June 4, 2013
The duration of the requested Temporary Construction Easement will start when our Easement
Agreement is signed and will continue to December 31, 2014. The work is planned to be in intervals
and this is not a consecutive time period. While the Temporary Construction Easement does give
them permission to enter our property, they will also need a current Floodplain Use Permit to
access the Temporary Construction Easement area. At the meeting held in May with Stormwater
staff, it was determined that work in the River cannot commence until the end of September q 2013
due to the high river conditions this year.
Permanent Non -Exclusive Landscape Easement (shown in orange on the Easement Exhibit):
Encompass has requested a Non -Exclusive Permanent Landscape Easement to landscape a 2,206
square foot area adjacent to their property to improve the view for their project. The strip of land
is southeast of the Construction, Access, and Maintenance Easement area and goes to the current
top of bank This area is currently not maintained and does not contain much vegetation.
Encompass submitted a landscape plan during the approval process of the development. This
landscape plan was approved and determined to meet the criteria of the Land Use Code 4.17—River
Landscape Buffers.
Revocable Permit (shown in purple on the Easement Exhibit):
Encompass has requested the right to come into the large purple shaded area on the Easement
Exhibit to trim the existing trees. The trees are not well maintained and contain numerous dead
branches. Encompass wants to trim these trees to improve the view o/ the river to users of the
development. The requested Revocable Permit is for twenty (20) years unless revoked sooner, and
will allow trimming of trees, but not tree removal.
Along with the Revocable Permit, Encompass must meet with the Forestry Department to agree on
which trees can be trimmed. Once Encompass gets the official permission from Forestry, the tree
company doing the trimming will need to obtain a permitfrom Forestry to do the actual trimming.
In addition, since this is in a floodplain, Encompass will be required to obtain a Floodplain Use
Permit for each time they do any trimming activities.
FINANCIAL I •ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Encroachment Easements. These easements are located in the right ofway. Currently the City does
not have an adequate policy in place on how to processor value permanent easements in the public
right of way. Encroachment Permits are charged $10/year and permanent easements on City -
owned properties are compensated at fair market value. Staff will be bringing an Ordinance to
Council in the nextfew months with a recommendation on how to process and value easements in
the right of way. Until a policy is established, compensation will be based on fair market value.
Staff has set a value for the encroachment easements requested. Values on Linden Street have
increased dramatically over the last two years. The price per square foot assigned for these
easements is an average of the last two properties sold. That value is $19.50 per square foot.
The encroachment easements for the stairs with handrails and the ramp will typically be used not
only for occupants or customers of Encompass, but could also be used by the general public. For
this reason, the easement percentage of value is 50% and the easement value for these areas is
$5, 099.00.
152
June 4, 2013
The easement percentage ofvaluefor the encroachment easement for the outdoorpatio deck is 75%.
That is because the general public will not have any use in this area unless they are customers of
the restaurant. The easement value for the patio deck is $8, 350.00, or $13, 449.00 for both areas.
Developer will be charged $13,449.00 for the Encroachment Easement, however, if the City
Council, on or before December 31, 2013, adopts a policy for granting of easements in the City's
rights of way, including charges therefor, Encompass will instead pay" compensation for the
Encroachment Easement based on the requirements of such policy, but not to exceed $13,449.00.
Compensation for the Encroachment Easement is not due until the new policy is adopted or
December 31, 2013.
Other Easements: The City's practice is to charge for easements on estimated market value.
Market values for properties are estimated on a wide range of criteria including, the zoning,
topography, physical constraints and overall use of the property. After considering the above
criteria and consulting with area appraisers, staffset the market valuefor the Cityparcels at $5, 000
per acre. It is difficult to set a value for properties within floodplains because there are not many
comparable sales. These properties are usually purchased by government entities.for preservation.
The appraisers compared these properties to highly restricted conservation easement properties.
The values recommended by the appraisers range from $3,500 to $5, 000/acre. The exception is in
the Construction, Access and Maintenance Easement. Approximately halfofits area is in the FEMA
Moderate Risk Floodplain. Generally there is not a deduction for the developable value because
it is relatively inexpensive to cure. This small area would not be developable on its own, however,
since this area is being used to enhance the development of the adjacent property, the value of this
area would be about 50% of developable market value, or $10 per square foot.
Using this data, staff has determined a value of $17,675.00 for the Construction, Access,
Maintenance Easement and the Drainage Easement, the Landscape Easement, the Temporary
Construction Easement, and the Revocable Permit. It is staff's recommendation that we do not
charge Encompassfor these easements because the enhanced riverbank improvements, landscaping
improvements and tree trimming provide benefits to the City that exceed the value of the
easements. "
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, discussed the development proposal for 418 Linden
Street and stated the street encroachment easement would allow for an improved urban design
setting and the river easement would provide the opportunity to enhance the river edge.
Helen Matson, Real Estate Service Manager, detailed the easements and their locations.
Hendee discussed the emergence of the Downtown River District area and new proposed
developments in the area, including an enhanced streetscape.
Councilmember Cunniff asked if the Natural Areas staff or other ornithologists will be involved in
the tree trimming process. Hendee replied in the affirmative and stated the City Forester and
Planning and Natural Areas staff will be involved.
Councilmember Cunniff noted the City is going to reimburse the developer for improvements in the
former natural area and requested an estimate of that amount. Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering
Field Operations Manager, replied some of the planned work along the river bank includes long term
plans from the Poudre River Enhancement Plan and is being treated like a developer re -pay
153
June 4, 2013
estimated at around $100,000, or 40% of the total cost. The amount will be shared between Bridge,
Engineering, and Stormwater.
Councilmember Conniff requested information regarding the slope of the area to be reinforced by
the retaining walls. Haukaas replied the slope is currently quite steep and the reinforcement through
retaining walls involves anchoring at the base and landscaping which will ultimately cover most of
the wall.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Campana, to adopt Ordinance
No. 084, 2013, on First Reading.
Councilmember Conniff stated this property is valuable due to its proximity to the River corridor
and its riparian habitat and expressed concern that the City does not charge for this portion of the
easement. He suggested a fee for this portion of the easement be developed prior to Second
Reading. -
Councilmember Campana asked about the value of the property. Matson replied the value of the
property is based on market value and the current use of the property; it does not currently have a
great deal of monetary value.
Councilmember Conniff expressed concern that this would set a precedent that the City does not
charge for this land. Matson replied the principle used to determine market value would be used on
another easement; however, it would be up to staff and Council to determine whether or not the
benefits would outweigh the need to charge.
Councilmember. Troxell stated this project enhances the Poudre River and the community's access
to the River.
Mayor Pro Tern Horak stated Council needs to hold a work session regarding the River area and
stated the valuation of land should be examined in values other than monetary.
Councilmember Cunniffmade a motion to amend, seconded by Councilmember Overbeck, for staff
to create two options for Second Reading, one as written and one including a fee for the land to be
purchased by the project.
Councilmember Troxell argued the City is gaining a public benefit.
Mayor Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion to amend and argued no precedent would
be set.
Councilmember Poppaw supported bringing forth both options.
Councilmembers Cunniff and Overbeck withdrew the motion to amend.
Mayor Weitkunat supported the Ordinance and commended staff work and the presentation
regarding the item.
154
June 4, M3
The vote on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 084, 2013, on First Reading, was as follows: Yeas:
Horak, Weitkunat, Troxell, Overbeck, Poppaw, Campana and Cunniff. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED
Councilmember Cunniff received support from additional Councilmembers to request that staff
bring forth a second option regarding charging for the land on Second Reading.
Other Business
Mayor Pro Tem Horak requested an update regarding discounted Transfort passes at various social
agencies. Karen Cumbo, Planning, Development, and Transportation Director, replied Transfort
does sell passes to social agencies at a discounted rate and is contacting agencies to determine what
they need.
Councilmember Poppaw supported a work session on the topic, given the potential negative effect
of these purchases on agency budgets. '
Adjournment
Mayor Pro Tem Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Cunniff, to adjourn to June I I,
2013 so that the Council may consider any additional business that may come before the Council,
including a possible Executive Session to conduct the mid -year reviews of the three direct report
employees of the Council. Yeas: Weitkunat, Cunniff, Horak, Overbeck, Poppaw, Troxell and
Campana. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
�pRT Cp�
4.
i
• i /
...•...• :•A�O/
155