HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/06/2009 - CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE D ITEM NUMBER: 6
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: January 6, 2009
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Wanda Krajicek
SUBJECT
Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the December 2 and December 16, 2008 Regular
Meetings and the November 25 and December 9, 2008 Adjourned Meetings.
November 25, 2008
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,November
25,2008,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: Hutchinson, Manvel Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell.
(Councilmember Brown has been excused from Council meetings from October 28, 2008 through
April 7, 2009, per Resolution 2008-104.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to go into executive
session,as permitted under Section 2-3 1(a)(1)(a)and Section 2-31(a)(2)of the City Code to continue
the review and discussion of the performance and proposed compensation and benefits of the City
Manager,City Attorney and Municipal Judge and for the purpose of meeting with the City Attorney
regarding litigation and potential litigation and to discuss related legal issues. Yeas: Hutchinson,
Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's note: The Council went into executive session at this point in the meeting.)
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
250
December 2, 2008
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, December 2,
2008, 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: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and
Troxell.
(Councilmember Brown excused from Council meetings from October 28, 2008 through April 7,
2009, authorized by Resolution 2008-104.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte Avenue, stated his opposition to the City's 2009 Legislative Policy
Agenda because it contains the City s intent to oppose carbon regulation or a carbon tax.
Ann Wilseck, 3200 Azalea Drive, supported Package A of the Colorado Department of
Transportation Draft Environmental Statement for North 1-25. Package A contains a commuter rail
component that would use existing rail lines along the 287 corridor.
Fred Kirsch,509 South Bryan,spoke in favor of utilizing trash districts throughout the city to lessen
air pollution, road damage and large truck traffic and noise.
Blaine Gallup, Fort Collins resident, reminded Council and the public that fund raising continues
for the Veterans' Plaza.
Liz Pruesssner, 712 Ponderosa Drive, stated trash districting is needed to implement several
strategies listed in the proposed Climate Plan. Achieving the goal of 50%diversion of solid waste
cannot be reached under the current trash hauling system and trash districting will be the most
effective way to meet the goal.
Gail Marie Kimmel, Fort Collins resident, co-director of Local Living Economy, thanked the City
of its support of the local businesses and she urged the public to use the`Be Local"coupon book to
shop locally.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset,stated people using wheelchairs are only allowed to use bike lanes
when a sidewalk is deemed unsuitable. She asked Council to reconsider allowing wheelchair use
in bike lanes.
251
December 2, 2008
Kelly Clifton, 910 West Oak, stated the Fort Collins Utilities is participating in the solar voltaic
portion of the Energy Program from the Governors Energy Office but it is not participating the solar
thermal portion of the Energy Program. Solar thermal is a proven technology that collects more
energy than solar voltaic. He asked the City apply for the solar thermal portion of the Energy
Program.
Mike Devereaux,2150 Maid Marian Court,stated his desire to be able to legally ride his power chair
in bike lanes because sidewalks are sometimes in disrepair,non-existent or are too rough. Bike lanes
are much smoother and make riding his wheelchair much easier.
Sarah Allman, 1200 East Stuart, shared her concerns with bus scheduling that makes it difficult for
riders to get around the city.
Joan Welsh, 316 Del Clair Road, supported trash districting as it will improve the city.
Katy Friedenfall,Director of Community Affairs,ASCSU, stated Council is currently scheduled to
to consider some amendments to the over-occupancy ordinance on January 20, 2009 and she
requested this item be moved to a later date to accommodate students who would like to participate.
Mary Smith, 1618 Sagewood Drive,supported trash districting because districting will reduce truck
traffic, street damage, fuel waste and greenhouse gases.
Leslie McCutchen, 3821 Rock Creek Drive, asked Council to postpone its consideration of
amendments to the over-occupancy ordinance to a later date from January 20,2009 to give students
an opportunity to attend.
Ellen Lawson, 519 East Plum, supported trash districting.
Yvonne Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce,requested Council consider allowing wheelchairs to travel in
bike lanes to give the same rights to physically challenged people as to those who are not.
Dan Palmer, Fort Collins resident, supported trash districting and asked for consideration of the
amendments to the over-occupancy ordinance at a later date.
Naomi Hoyer, 611 LaPorte, stated the current trash system is inefficient and she supported trash
districting.
Lindsay McKee, CSU student, asked Council to postpone its consideration of amendments to the
over-occupancy ordinance to a later date from January 20, 2009 to give students an opportunity to
attend.
Nick Hoyer, 611 LaPorte, supported trash districting to eliminate the number of trucks that go
through his neighborhood.
252
December 2, 2008
Terry Schlicting, 1400 West Elizabeth, stated cracks make it difficult to navigate the sidewalks in
his wheelchair and he requested that Council consider allowing wheelchairs to be used in the bike
lanes.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson asked that consideration of the over-occupancy ordinance amendments be
from January 20 to February 3, 2009. He requested a report and recommendation from staff
regarding the use of wheelchairs in bike lanes.
Councilmember Manvel stated the North I-25 draft EIS offers one alternative that focuses on rail
going through the cities and another alternative that focuses on bus rapid-transit along the interstate.
Council will discuss the draft EIS at its December 16 meeting.
Councilmember Poppaw encouraged citizens to use the"Buy Local"coupon book. She asked staff
to consult with citizens who are in wheelchairs to get their perspective on safety issues and riding
in the bike lanes.
Councilmember Troxell supported moving consideration of the over-occupancy ordinance
amendments to February 3 to allow for CSU student participation.
Councilmember Roy stated safety is the first concern and allowing wheelchairs in bike lanes should
be allowed only if they are not endangered by riding in bike lanes. He asked for staff to determine
if participating in the solar thermal portion of the Governor's Solar Program is possible.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Item#1 O ltems Pertaining to the Annexation and Zoning of the Eagle
View Natural Area and Item #24 Hearing and Resolution 2008-118 Approving the Programs and
Projects that Will Receive Funds,from the Federal Home Investment Partnership(HOME)Program
Grant and the City's Affordable Housing Fund are public hearings that citizens may remove from
the Consent Calendar if they wish to make comments. He recommended switching the agenda order
of Item #34 Consideration of the Appeal by Randy Whitman of the July 17, 2008 Determination of
the Planning and Zoning Board to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility—Request for a Modification
of Standard Set Forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use Code and #35 Consideration of the
Appeal by Randy Whitman ofthe October 16,2008 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board
to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use to consider the Appeal of the
Addition of Permitted Use first.
City Manager Atteberry stated the Legislative Review Committee recommends removing Item#26
Resolution 2008-120Adopting the City's 2009 Legislative PolieyAgenda from the Agenda and will
bring it back at a later date.
253
December 2, 2008
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Consideration and Approval of the Minutes of the September 16 October 7 October 21 and
November 18 Regular Meetings, the October 14 and November 12 2008 Special MeetinVss
and the October 14 and October 28, 2008 Adjourned Meetings.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2008, Appropriating Funds for the Harmony and
Ziegler Roads Improvements Project.
The Harmony Road and Ziegler Road improvements for the Front Range Village
Development Project are now complete, with the final pavement overlay completed this
spring on Harmony Road and completion of the roundabout at Horsetooth and Ziegler. The
financial closeout of the Project is underway. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First
Reading on October 21,2008,reconciles the various funds that contributed to the Project and
appropriates additional amounts to cover unanticipated expenses in the Project.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2008, Desi ng ating the Loomis-Jones House 401
Smith Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
Ordinance No. 136, 2008, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21, 2008,
designates the Loomis-Jones House, 401 Smith Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The
owners of the property, Ralph and Patricia Tvede, are initiating this request.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2008, Desi ngnating the Ricketts Farm, 2300 West
Mulberry, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 21,2008,designates the
Ricketts Farm, 2300 West Mulberry, as a Fort Collins Landmark. The owners of the
property, Richard and Teresa Ricketts, are initiating this request.
10. Items Pertaining to the Annexation and Zoning of the Eagle View Natural Area
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139,2008 Amending the Zoning Map
of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
254
December 2, 2008
D. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2008, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
These Ordinances,unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 12,2008,annex and
zone approximately 86 acres of land solely owned by the City, known as the Eagle View
Natural Area and place the area into the POL — Public Open Lands Zone District. The
annexations are in conformance with the State of Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate
to annexations, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan, the Larimer County and City
of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement,the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, and
the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2008, Amending Ordinance No 067 2005 to
Clarify the Portion of Harmony Road that is Owned.Controlled and Maintained by the City.
In 2005,the City and the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)executed a series
of documents, including an intergovernmental agreement (the"IGA"), that transferred
ownership,administrative control,and maintenance of Harmony Road to Fort Collins. The
City and CDOT staff are recommending an amendment to the IGA to clarify the
jurisdictional limits of the two entities. In addition, the City has agreed with CDOT to
assume operation and maintenance responsibility for the traffic signal at the intersection of
Harmony Road and the Harmony Transit Center. This is easier and more efficient for Fort
Collins than for CDOT, and can be assumed under existing budgets. This Ordinance,
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 12,2008,amends Ordinance No. 067,
2005,to reflect the change in maintenance responsibilities and clarify the point at which the
City's jurisdiction ends and CDOT's begins.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No 143 2008 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Recreation Fund for General Operating Support of the Adaptive Recreation Opportunities
Passport Project Program.
The City was awarded an $88,81 I grant from the Department of Education via a sub-award
from Colorado State University. This Ordinance appropriates that grant money in the
Passport Project.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2008 Authorizingthe he Appropriation of 2009 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
The 2009 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $722,700, and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($85,000 from each city),and interest earnings. This Ordinance appropriates the City of Fort
Collins' contribution,which is a 50%share of the 2009 Airport budget and totals$361,350.
255
December 1, 2008
This Ordinance also appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 50% share of capital funds,
totaling $791,115 for the Airport from federal and state grants; passenger charges;
contributions from Fort Collins and Loveland; and the Airport General Fund. The 2009
Airport capital funds,totaling$1,582,230,will be used to pave the Echo taxiway,rehabilitate
portions of the aircraft taxiways in the hangar area and construct the security fencing and
gates. In addition,the airport will purchase training supplies for the aircraft rescue and fire
fighting services; and purchase airfield maintenance equipment.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No 145 2008 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
From the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Methamphetamine Initiative in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task
Force.
The City has received two grants for the Larimer County Drug Task Force. The first is from
the Office of National Drug Control Policy for January 1-December 31, 2009 in the amount
of $105,000. The second is from the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Methamphetamine Initiative in the amount of$133,280.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No 146 2008 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer ofAppropriated Amounts Between Accounts
and Projects for Police Services.
Police Services received federal funding to apply to the purchase an armored rescue vehicle
for the use of the Police Services SWAT Team. Additionally,$48,000 in seized assets from
the Larimer County Drug Task Force was applied to the purchase. The total cost of the
vehicle was$203,529.The purchase was made in February 2008,and the vehicle is currently
in use. After the initial grant award notifications were received, an additional $30,302 was
awarded from the 2005 State Homeland Security Program. This Ordinance appropriates the
unanticipated $30,302 for this purchase. The total amount of federal funding received for
this purchase is now $107,945.
16. Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147,2008,Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the
Aggregate Principal Amount of$10,488,043, for the Purpose of Financing Certain
Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the
Downtown Development Authority Area; Providing for the Pledge of Certain
Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of and Interest on the
Bonds; Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Action
Previously Taken and Appertaining Thereto.
256
December 2, 2008
B. First Reading of OrdinanceNo. 148,2008,Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance
of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, for the Purpose of
Making Certain Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects
Within the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations Between Funds and Appropriating Expenditures from the DDA Debt
Service Fund to Make the 2008 Payment on the Bonds.
The Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors (the "Board") has adopted
Resolution 2008-11 which recommended to the Council the issuance of$10,488,043 Tax
Increment Bonds and the appropriation of the proceeds of the issuance to be used for the
projects and programs identified.
The City of Fort Collins created the DDA to make desired improvements in the downtown
area. Through tax increment financing, the DDA has made significant contributions to the
redevelopment and improvement of the downtown area. These two Ordinances contemplate
additional improvements and initiate a green building TIE fagade/grant program and the 2009
funding for Beet Street.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2008, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
Article 11, Section 3 of the City Charter directs that the compensation of Councilmembers
shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer
Price Index. In 2008, Councilmembers were compensated $650 per month, and the Mayor
received $970 per month.
This Ordinance amends Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2009 compensation of
Councilmembers at$675 per month and the compensation of the Mayor at$1,005 per month,
as required by the City Charter.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2008, Authorizing a Revocable Permit to the Fort
Collins Fire Museum Foundation for Access to City-Owned Property at 330 North Howes
Street for up to Five Years.
The property at 330 North Howes Street (the "Car Barn") currently houses Poudre Fire
Authority("PFA")and City Museum antique fire fighting equipment. The Fort Collins Fire
Museum Foundation, a non-profit organization created by former Fire Chief Ed Yonker for
the purpose of restoring City and PFA historical fire equipment,desires continued access to
the restoration equipment stored in the Car Barn.
19. Items Relating to the Gateway First. Second and Third Annexations
A. Resolution 2008-1 1 1 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Gateway First Annexation.
257
December 2, 2008
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
D. Resolution 2008-112 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Gateway Second Annexation.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154,2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
G. Resolution 2008-113 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding
the Gateway Third Annexation.
H. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
I. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156,2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
The proposed Resolutions make findings that the voluntary petition for annexation for the
Gateway Annexation,containing a total of approximately 256.3 acres,substantially complies
with the Municipal Annexation Act, the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan (City
Plan),the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements,the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code,and the Harmony Corridor Plan. The Ordinances annex the
property into the City limits and place the property into the POL-Public Open Lands Zoning
District.
20. Resolution 2008-114 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings
for the Eagle View Third Annexation.
The proposed Resolution makes findings that the voluntary petition for the Eagle View Third
Annexation substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a
hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notices be given of
the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of second readings of the annexation and
zoning ordinances, scheduled for January 6, 2009. Not less than thirty days of prior notice
is required by State law. The annexation request is in conformance with the State of
Colorado Revised Statutes as they relate to annexations, the City of Fort Collins
258
December 2, 2008
Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), the Latimer County and City of Fort Collins
Intergovernmental Agreements, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, and the Harmony
Corridor Plan and the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan.
21. Resolution 2008-115 Authorizing the Lease of a Portion of City-owned Property at 300
North Howes Street to Friends of the Fort Collins Bike Program Inc for up to Two Years
as Part of the Recycled Bike Project.
On December 18, 2007, City Council approved leasing 222 LaPorte Avenue to the Friends
of the Fort Collins Bike Program, Inc. ("FFCBP"). This site is the former home of the
Poudre Valley Creamery("PVC"). The leased premises for the FFCBP include a garage at
the west end of the site, the stand-alone building at the south of the parking lot and an area
at the northeastern corner of the facility. The area at the northeastern corner of the building
has been used by FFCBP for bike storage only. They have been utilizing the garage and the
stand-alone building for the bike repair work.
Due to structural deterioration in the northeast portion of the building, the City has been
advised not to allow use in this area. As a result, staff has worked with the City's Bicycle
Coordinator and the FFCBP to identify another area that could be used as bicycle storage.
One block to the north is a City building,located at 300 North Howes,that is currently being
used as storage but has room available for bikes. Since the building is only one block from
the current site,this building became the optimum choice. The property at 300 North Howes
is part of the Option Agreement with Penny Flats for its residential/commercial plans for this
block. Staff has talked with Penny Flats about the possibility of leasing a portion of this site
until it is ready to move forward with the option that contains the property at 300 North
Howes Street. Penny Flats has agreed to allow the City to lease the property.
Staff requests that Council approve a lease for the eastern bay,containing 1,306 square feet,
of the building at 300 North Howes Street for the FFCBP. FFCBP will continue its use of
the remainder of the leased premises at the PVC site.
22. Resolution 2008-116 Authorizing a Two-Year Extension of the Grazing Lease with Folsom
Grazine Association on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area.
Soapstone Prairie Natural Area is currently leased to the Folsom Grazing Association for
livestock grazing;the existing lease will expire in December 2008. The lease extension will
continue grazing on the property through 2010 with modifications to the current lease. The
lease modifications were made in order to manage for the conservation targets identified in
the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area Management Plan (adopted September 2007).
Modifications include essentially limiting grazing to the eastern portion of the property,
combining all cattle into a single herd, and reducing the allowed number of animal unit
months(AUMs)from 3,600 to 2,500(2,500 AUMs is approximately equivalent to 500 cows
with calves grazing over a 5-month period). Grazing management will utilize high intensity,
short duration grazing to more closely mimic historic grazing patterns of native ungulates
(e.g., elk, deer, pronghorn antelope and bison).
259
December 2, 2008
23. Resolution 2008-117 Approving the Exemption to the Use of Competitive Process for the
Purchase of a 15KV Electrical Switchgear Power Control Center.
Fort Collins Utilities will be purchasing one new 15KV electrical power control center for
installation at the new Portner Substation, located on Trilby, between South College and
South Lemay Avenue. The Portner Substation will supply power to southeast Fort Collins
and allow for load transfer from the Harmony Substation. It is scheduled to be energized Fall
2009. The switchgear will be purchased directly from the manufacturer, Powell Electrical
Manufacturing Company for a total price of$2,129,015.
24. Hearing and Resolution 2008-118 Approving the Programs and Projects that Will Receive
Funds from the Federal Home Investment Partnership(HOME)Program Grant and the City's
Affordable Housing Fund.
The Resolution will complete the fall cycle of the competitive process for allocating City
financial resources to affordable housing programs/projects.
25. Resolution 2008-119 Adopting a Revenue Allocation Formula to Define the City of Fort
Collins' Contribution to the Poudre Fire Authority udget for the Year 2009 for Operations
and Maintenance.
This Resolution establishes a Revenue Allocation Formula between the City of Fort Collins
and the Poudre Fire Authority to contribute funding for maintenance and operating costs of
Poudre Fire Authority.
26. Resolution 2008-120 Adopting the City's 2009 Legislative Policy Agenda.
Each year the Legislative Review Committee(LRC) develops a legislative agenda to assist
in the analysis of pending legislation. The Legislative Policy Agenda is used as a guide by
Council members and staff to determine positions on pending legislation and as a general
reference for state legislators and congressional delegation.
27. Resolution 2008-121 Adopting an Updated Policy Concerningthe he City's Investments
The 2008 Updated Investment Policy includes the following significant changes:
1. Allow for Interfund Borrowings by entities that cannot access the market at viable
levels to sustain their existence. Cap this type of activity at no more than 25%of the
overall governmental share of the portfolio. Based on current investment holdings,
this would limit the amount available in the program to $47.5 million. The utilities
investment portfolio would not be available for this program unless a recognized
nexus existed.
2. Extend the average duration of the overall portfolio from a current limit of 2 years
up to 3 years. This change would allow the City the flexibility to take advantage of
260
December 2, 2008
a steepening yield curve while still maintaining it focus on the short-term liquidity
needs of the organization.
3. Add Certificate of Deposits Account Registry (CDARs) to the list of eligible
investments. In the past,the City has not utilized certificates of deposit as it was too
cumbersome due to the $100,000 FDIC limit per account per entity. CDARs is an
investment vehicle created during the past year that networks certificates of deposits
at several banks and as a result provides up to $50 million of Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) coverage to a single accountholder. This will allow
the City to have the safety of FDIC backing and the ability to invest millions with a
single bank based on a competitive bid versus only$100,000 in the past at whatever
rate the bank was offering.
28. Routine Easement.
A. Quit claim deed from Everitt Enterprises, Inc., for a stormwater detention pond
dedication, located at South Timberline Road in Timberline Village P.U.D.
Monetary consideration: $0.
***END CONSENT***
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2008, Appropriating Funds for the Harmony and
Ziegler Roads Improvements Project.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 136, 2008, Designating the Loomis-Jones House, 401
Smith Street, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 137, 2008, Designating the Ricketts Farm, 2300 West
Mulberry, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code.
10. Items Pertaining to the Annexation and Zoning of the Eagle View Natural Area.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 138, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
B. Hearingand Second Reading of Ordinance No. 139,2008 Amending the Zoning Map
ofthe City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included
in the Eagle View Natural Area First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins,
Colorado.
C. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 140, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
261
December 2, 2008
D. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 141, 2008, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Eagle View Natural Area Second Annexation to the City of Fort
Collins, Colorado.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 142, 2008, Amending Ordinance No. 067, 2005, to
Clarify the Portion of Harmony Road that is Owned,Controlled and Maintained by the City.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the Recreation Fund for General Operating Support of the Adaptive Recreation Opportunities
Passport Project Program.
13. First Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2008, Authorizing the Appropriation of 2009 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
From the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Methamphetamine Initiative in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task
Force.
15. First Reading of Ordinance No. 146 , 2008,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in
the General Fund and Authorizingthe Transferof Appropriated Amounts Between Accounts
and Projects for Police Services.
16. Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2008, Authorizing the Issuance of City of Fort
Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the
Aggregate Principal Amount of$10,488,043, for the Purpose of Financing Certain
Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the
Downtown Development Authority Area; Providing for the Pledge of Certain
Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of and Interest on the
Bonds; Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Action
Previously Taken and Appertaining Thereto.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 148,2008,Appropriating Proceeds from the Issuance
of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority Taxable
Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, for the Purpose of
Making Certain Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects
Within the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of
262
December 2, 2008
Appropriations Between Funds and Appropriating Expenditures from the DDA Debt
Service Fund to Make the 2008 Payment on the Bonds.
17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2008, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2008, Authorizing a Revocable Permit to the Fort
Collins Fire Museum Foundation for Access to City-Owned Property at 330 North Howes
Street for up to Five Years.
19. Items Relating to the Gateway First, Second and Third Annexations.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 152,2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
E. First Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
F. First Reading of Ordinance No. 154,2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
H. First Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2008, Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
1. First Reading of Ordinance No. 156,2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
36. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2008, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
37. First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2008, Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
38. First Reading of Ordinance 159,2008,Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Manager.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,Poppaw,
Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
263
December 2, 2008
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Ohlson stated Item#16 authorizes issuance of Downtown Development Authority
bonds for projects such as a year-round community market,improving alleys in the downtown area,
purchase of the Elks Building and continuing the Beet Street Program. Item#21 allows the Friends
of Fort Collins Bike Program to use a downtown City building for its program. He asked if heated
space has been found for the volunteers who repair the bicycles for the Fort Collins Bike Library.
City Atteberry stated the request has been received but no heated space has been located yet.
Councilmember Ohlson noted Item#22 authorizing a grazing lease at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area
that improves grazing practices. The City is considering the addition of a bison herd to the
Soapstone Prairie at some point in the future. John Stokes, Natural Resources Director, stated
putting a bison herd on the Soapstone property is a very complicated issue and is being examined
by staff.
Staff Reports
City Manager Atteberry stated Sprig Toys,a local company,was highlighted on Channel 9 News and
is committed to making eco-friendly toys that are creative and employ smart design. It is part of the
Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative, a business incubation program supported by the City.
Christina Vincent, City Planner, reported the tenants in the nine dwelling units on Grape Street are
now allowed to access the $2000 allotted for relocation expenses without the original categories of
limitations. The seven tenants on the Barber property have until February 1 to utilize the relocation
program and the two tenants on the Jones property have a longer period of time since they have not
yet been given notice to relocate. Six of the seven tenants have moved from the Barber property and
the one remaining tenant will be removed by the sheriff as ordered by the court. Four of the seven
tenants have utilized the relocation funds to its fullest extent. The North College Business
Association donated hats, boots and gloves to the six children who lived on Grape Street. The
developer has purchased $200 grocery store gift cards to assist the families during the relocation
process.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Poppaw attended an event recognizing World AIDS Day at the Museum of
Contemporary Art.
264
December 2, 2008
Resolution 2008-122
Adopting the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan Adopted Option B
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adopting the Resolution incurs no financial impact. However, the Resolution directs the City
Manager to consider greenhouse gas reducing activities in budget and staffworkplan development.
Council must take additional actions to implement many of the items in the Plan. Council can
determine the timing and magnitude of the financial impacts (costs and savings) in the overall
context of evolving City budget and policy priorities, and developing carbon markets. Many of the
strategies identified in the Plan will come before Council to fulfill other City goals and objectives
but are included in the Plan because of their important role in greenhouse gas reduction.
Comprehensive costlbenefit analyses will be developed for individual strategies using up-to-date
information as Council considers the individual strategies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In May 2008, City Council adopted Resolution 2008-051, setting new goals to reduce Fort Collins
greenhouse gas emissions 20%by 2020 and 80%by 2050, both when compared to 2005 emissions
levels, and states the "intent" to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by the end of
2012 to a level not to exceed 2,466,000 tons CO2e. A Climate Action Plan has been developed that
identified actions that will help the community meet these reduction objectives. The Plan is based
largely on the recommendations of the Fort Collins Climate Task Force who worked for over a year
to seek public input, evaluate and f ltered ideas, and consider cost-effectiveness. The Plan is based
on existing successes,focuses on actions within local control, engages all sectors of the community
and addresses all emission sources. Actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions result in multiple
other benef is for the community and support other priority policy objectives for the City of Fort
Collins. The Resolution would accept the proposed Plan as a blueprint for achieving the 2020
reduction goal, without committing budget resources to any specific action at this time.
Two versions of the Resolution are presented: Option A approves the Plan as presented at the
October City Council work session with the incorporation of additional measures as described in
an Addendum prepared by staff in response to the work session discussion; Option B approves the
Plan as presented at the October work session, without the additional measures prepared by staff
in response to the work session discussion.
BACKGROUND
By adopting the Resolution, Council would:
• Acknowledge the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
265
December 2, 2008
• Accept the Plan as a blueprint for achieving the 2020 reduction goal, without committing
budget resources to any specific action at this time.
• Grant the City Manager flexibility to select specific actions from the Plan, to be advanced
in budget recommendations and staff work plans.
• Require the City Manager to prepare an annual emissions inventory and progress report.
Require the City Manager to prepare a biennial progress report, in advance of City budget
preparation, evaluating progress and recommending future climate protection actions.
Require the City Manager to examine evolving best practices and cost-effective strategies
to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals for inclusion in the biennial progress reports.
L Fort Collins Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals
Resolution 2008-051 adopted by City Council in May 2008 establishes two greenhouse gas goals
for the Fort Collins community and one near-term "intent"to reduce emissions. The two goals are
identical to statewide goals set for Colorado.
Goals
• Reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020
• Reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 2005 levels by 2050.
2012 Intent
• Reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2012 to a level not to
exceed 2,466,000 tons CO2e.
The Fort Collins community could realize significant ancillary economic, environmental and social
benefits by undertaking responsible steps to combat climate change, including:
• Support local businesses and stimulate economic development.
• Provide economic stimulation of research and development activities.
• Reduce home and business energy costs for heating, cooling and lighting.
• Reduce home and business motor vehicle fuel costs.
• Reduce dependence on foreign fuel sources.
• Reduce vulnerability to energy price increases and volatility.
• Reduce peak energy demand and improve utilization of the electricity system.
• Diversify energy supply and reduce loads on transmission system.
• Reduce air pollution emissions including ozone precursors and fine particles.
• Improve public health.
• Improve local visibility.
• Reduce waste and increase landfill diversion rates.
• Reduce vehicle miles of travel and road congestion.
• Reduce water consumption in the community.
• Increase Fort Collins'ability to adapt to a changing climate.
• Provide opportunities for regional, state and national leadership and recognition.
266
December 2, 2008
There are numerous reasons to take action to reduce emissions. The cost of inaction may exceed
the cost of taking action by an order of magnitude. Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the UK Government
Economic Service and former Chief Economist of the World Bank, stated in October 2006:
There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take action now... If
we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at
least 5%of global GDP per year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts
is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.... In
contrast, the cost of action--reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts
of climate change—can be limited to around 1% of GDP per year.
An increasing number ofstudies show that, in addition to being less costly overall, taking action to
avert global warming can be immediately profitable. Urban regions can thrive while also reducing
greenhouse gases, as demonstrated by Portland/Multnomah County. While net greenhouse gas
emissions in Multnomah County are about at 1990 levels, and per capita CO2 emissions have
dropped over 1291o, the inflation-adjusted payroll has increased 29%and employment has increased
about 12%. To demonstrate local benefits we need look no further than Fort Collins'own Climate
Wise Program. In 2007 Climate Wise reported a cumulative cost savings ofover$12 million from
projects completed by partners through 2007, the same year the partners collectively reduced over
82,000 tons C01e.
Local governments have strong financial incentives to address climate change. Reducing local
carbon emissions means pursuing a variety ofprograms and practices that are energy prudent, and
thus ultimately fiscally responsible.
H. Development of the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan
In 1999, Fort Collins was among the first communities in the nation to adopt a community-wide
greenhouse gas reduction goal and a plan to meet it. Good progress has been made over the past
several years but Fort Collins was not on track to meet the 2010 goal. In 2007, the Fort Collins
Climate Task Force was convened to develop an updated plan and recommend a future direction
for climate protection. After a year of evaluating strategies and considering cost-effectiveness, the
Climate Task Force completed its recommendations in June 2008. (See http:lfcgov.com/Ctf) Ciry
staff then evaluated the strategies, updated the assumptions and made adjustments to incorporate
subsequent council and citizen input. The result is the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan (the
Plan) and Proposed Addendum.
III. 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan
The 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan builds upon existing successes and encompasses a range
of strategies such as expanding the successful Climate Wise Program, increasing residential and
business recycling, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and providing various incentives for reducing
CO2 and increasing energy efficiency. The majoriry of actions that reduce emissions also support
other local community goals and contribute to sustaining Fort Collins as a vibrant, world class
community.
267
December 2, 2008
The draft 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan contains several quantified strategies and sixteen
qualitative strategies to put Fort Collins on a path towards the 2020 reduction goal. The Plan
presents a medium level of detail for the proposed strategies.
Table 1 provides the list of quantified reduction strategies in the Climate Action Plan.
Table 1.Quantified Measures Climate Action Plan
Measure Name 2012 Estimated 2020 Estimated
Benefit Benefit
(Tons CO2e) (Tons CO2e)
Existing Measures 104,000 104,000
NEW MEASURES
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
Expand Climate Wise 73,000-94,000 143,000
Government Organizations set GHG Goals 42,000 217,000
Community-wide Climate Challenge 28,000 34,000
Colorado Carbon Fund 5,000 8,000
Community Leadership Subtotal 148,000-169,000 402,000
RECYCLING-Push toward 50%Diversion Goal
Ban cardboard from waste stream 46,000-58,000 93,000
Private paper/glass drop-off 5,000-6,000 8,000
Increase residential education 4,000-5,000 15,000
Larger residential recycling containers 3,000-4,000 5,000
Require haulers to provide residential yard waste 1,000 1,000
collection for added cost
Enhance residential PAYT(2nd can costs more) 11,000-17,000 21,000
Commercial recycling co-ops 1,000-7,000 8,000
Residential yard waste drop-off and ban yard waste 0-4,000 5,000
Construction and demolition (C&D) drop-off 0-34,000 39,000
C&D contract preferences for City contracts 1,000 1,000
268
December 2, 2008
Measure Name 2012 Estimated 2020 Estimated
Benefit Benefit
(Tons CO2e) (Tons CO2e)
Commercial recycling fee embedded in rates 81,000
(additional benefit above cardboard ban)
Recycling Subtotal 73,000-137,000 253,000
ENERGY
2008 Energy Policy 20,000-30,000 214,000
Efficiency programs
SmartGrid,Advanced metering infrastructure, 10,000-20,000 246,000
pricing, conservation
Renewable energy (Colorado Renewable 0 190,000
Portfolio Standard and voluntary programs)
Natural Gas Energy Conservation 5,000-10,000 52,000
Energy Subtotal 35,000-60,000 703,000
GREEN BUILDING
Update Residential Building Code 1,000 4,000
TRANSPORTATION
Reduce vehicle miles of travel 2,000-12,000 14,000
Modern roundabouts 1,000 2,000
Transportation Subtotal 3,000-13,000 16,000
TOTAL (after double-counting removed*) 268,000-378,000 1,212,000
Ifall strategies in the plan were implemented, they would achieve between 268,000—378,000 tons
CO2e avoided by 2012(approximately 55 to 80%ofthe 2012 stated reduction intent)and 1,212,000
tons CO2e avoided by 2020 (approximately 90%of the 2020 reduction goal).
Cost estimates of quantified measures are provided in Attachment 1.
Fort Collins'2020 goal allows the opportunity to embrace strategies that have a long-term benefit
yet take more time to develop and implement. The Climate Action Plan also includes measures that
have not been quantified but that can play an important role in making progress towards the 2020
goal. These strategies are listed in Table 2 below and described in the draft Climate Action Plan.
Table 2. Summary ofNon-Quantified Measures
269
December 2, 2008
Community Engagement
• City of Fort Collins Government Leadership
Transportation
• Seek adequate funding to implement transportation plans, with funding for transit
as a priority to achieve best practices.
• Develop partnerships to reduce vehicle travel
• Parking management.
Land Use
• Implement Land Use Code changes that support greenhouse gas emissions
reductions.
• Promote and pursue infill and refill development.
• Promote transit-oriented development
• Consider requirements for new developments to have less travel demand than
comparable existing developments.
Green Building
• Regular updates of Building Energy Codes.
• Continued support for above Code green building initiatives.
• Time of sale Energy Conservation Ordinance
• Require Green Building as a prerequisite for public financing
• Explore Net Zero Ready homes.
• Explore LEED for neighborhoods.
Urban Forestry
• Promote tree planting.
Support state and federal climate protection actions.
IV. Proposed Addendum
At the October 28, 2008 work session Council reviewed the draft Climate Action Plan,provided a
number of comments and asked staffto prepare an alternate plan that would fully meet the 2012 and
2020 greenhouse gas reduction objectives adopted in May 2008. The Proposed Addendum attached
to the Resolution (Option A) as Exhibit B was prepared in response to Council comments and it
provides additional strategies to meet the 2012 and 2020 reduction objectives.
The greenhouse gas reduction measures contained in the original draft plan,plus the additional
strategies in the Proposed Addendum, iffully implemented, would meet the 2012 and 2020 reduction
objectives. If the Proposed Addendum is adopted, it will be incorporated into the draft Climate
Action Plan in the manner described in the Addendum, in order to create the final Fort Collins
Climate Action Plan.
270
December 2, 2008
A. Proposed New Quantified Strategies
The following quantified strategies are recommended as an addendum to the 2008 Climate Action
Plan in order to close the gap to meet the 2012 and 2020 reduction objectives, without being over-
reaching. They are discussed in more detail in the Addendum and summarized in Table 3 below.
• Purchase certified carbon of
• Construction and Demolition Debris Deposit
• Long-term VMT Reduction
• Increase Per Capita Reduction Goal in the Community Climate Challenge
• Increase participation goals in Colorado Carbon Fund
Table 3. Quantified Strategies in the Proposed Addendum
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT of Potential Additional 2012 2020
Strategies Tons CO2e Tons CO2e
Purchase Carbon Offsets 77,000 81,000
Additional VMTReduction by 2020 28,000
Add recycling strategy— Construction and Demolition 20,000 44,000
Deposit
Increase participation targets.for Community Climate 3,000 3,000
Challenge
Increase participation targets Colorado Carbon Fund 7,000 7,000
Subtotal ofAdditional Strategies 107,000 163,000
Measures in Climate Action Plan 268,000- 1,212,000
378,000
TOTAL measures in Climate Action Plan plus 375,000- 1,375,000
Addendum (After double-counting) 485,000
Reductions Needed to meet Objectives 485,000 1,375,000
Cost estimates are provided in Attachment ].
B. Proposed Changes to Qualitative long-term strategies
• Replace: "Time of Sale Energy Ordinance" with "Explore Additional Opportunities to
Increase Efficiency of Existing Buildings"
Instead ofcallingfor long-term consideration ofa Time of Sale Energy Conservation ordinance, the
Plan now identif es a range of incentive-based and regulatory approaches that could be considered
271
December 2, 2008
to increase the efficiency of existing buildings after other strategies in the Plan have been
implemented.
• Add: Integrated Waste Optimization
The strategy incorporates whole systems-thinking by recognizing that there is embodied energy in
"waste' materials that are buried in the landfill that could be put to a higher use. A new, non-
quantified long-term strategy has been proposed that would reduce the direct methane emissions of
the landfill by converting the embodied energy in the residual waste stream (materials not already
divertedfor reuse or recycling) into useable energy through non-combustion clean "conversion
technologies".
• Modify: City of Fort Collins Leadership to add promotion of Fort Collins as a "Green"
Community
Further progress on carbon reduction activities will provide additional opportunities for Fort
Collins to promote itself as a "Green" community. This strategy was recommended by the
Economic Advisory Commission.
• Expand: Promote Action at State, Regional, and Federal Levels
In addition to recognizing the importance of supporting state and_federal programs aimed at
reducing emissions, it adds text estimating the GHG benefit Fort Collins would receive if Colorado
adopts clean fuel requirements and the California Clean Car emissions standards.
C. Other Proposed Modifications to Climate Action Plan
• Add brief discussion of climate change science to the Climate Action Plan.
• Expand the Acknowledgments section to include an explicit recognition of the Climate Task
Force members, boards and commissions and the Fort Collins Sustainabi lily Group for their
roles in advancing this plan.
V. Public Input
Public comment was gathered on the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan from stakeholder
groups, interested citizens via the Web, and at a public Open House on November 12, 2008. This
outreach included:
Stakeholder Groups
Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce—November 14, 2008
Fort Collins Board of Realtors—November 20, 2008
272
December 2, 2008
The Public
Comments were invited via the on-line Web comment form
City Council Advisory Boards
Air Quality Advisory Board—October 20 and November 17, 2008
Economic Advisory Commission — October 23, 2008
Electric Board— October 15 and November 19, 2008
Natural Resources Advisory Board— October 15 and November 19, 2008
Transportation Board— October 15, 2008
All written comments received by the Natural Resources Department on the Plan since October 2008
are provided in Attachment 2.
VI. Implementation Schedule
The 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan and ProposedAddendum provide a list ofstrategies that,
if fully implemented, would achieve the 2012 reduction intent and the 2020 reduction goal. Table
4 below outlines the anticipated first steps in implementing the Climate Action Plan.
Table 4. Anticipated Climate Action Plan Implementation Schedule for 2009
Action Timing Council
Action
Required?
Budget request to expand Climate Wise resources 2009 exceptions Yes
request or request in
201012011 BFO
Community Climate Challenge Pilot challenge in No
2009
Colorado Carbon Fund Formalize No
relationship via small
outreach grant
Council work session to review alternative trash December 9, 2008 No
services strategies
273
December 2, 2008
Action Timing Council
Action
Required?
Potential trash services strategies to be implemented: 2009 Yes
• Increase education and outreach
• Larger recycling containers
Revise the Pay-as-you-throw Ordinance
Curbside yard waste/compost options
• Ban cardboard from waste stream
Develop Implementation Plan for 2008 Energy Policy First Quarter 2009 Council
review
Begin implementing strategies in Energy Policy 2009 No
Implementation Plan
Update Residential Building Code 2009 Yes
Transit Strategic Plan 2009 Yes
BFO Requests to implement action in Climate Action November 2009 Yes
Plan i.e., consideration of Natural Gas Franchise Fee
to be effective in 2010, resources to monitor and track
progress, etc.
VI. Reporting Process
Annual progress reports and the biennial reviewprocess called for by City Council Resolution 2008-
051 will provide a critical opportunity to maintain accountability to the goals and to update and
adjust the Plan in the future. Details on the reporting schedule for 2009, 2010 and 2011 are
identified in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Climate Action Plan Reporting Schedule for 2009 - 2011
Action Timeline
2009
Review Community Emissions Inventory Protocol and update as First quarter 2009
needed
Climate Wise partner reporting for 2008 By April 2009
Energy Policy Report for 2008 By May 2009
274
December 2, 2008
Action Timeline
Community Emissions Status Report for 2008 (including inventory, By June 2009
quantified reductions, and progress towards goals for the community
and municipal government
Develop and submit BFO budget recommendations associated with May or June 2009
Climate Action Plan
2010
Community Emissions Status Report for 2009 (including inventory, By June 2010
quantified reductions and progress towards goals for the community
and municipal government)
2011
Community Emissions Status Report for 2010 (including inventory, By April 15, 2011
quantified reductions and progress towards goal for the community
and the municipal government
Involved relevant Council advisory boards in process to review April and May 2011
progress and develop recommended climate protection actions for
201212013
Develop and submit BFO budget recommendations May 2011"
City Manager Atteberry stated in 1999,Fort Collins was one of the first cities in the nation to adopt
a greenhouse gas reduction goal and plan. New emission reduction goals were set this year that align
with the goals established for Colorado. The proposed Policy sets a framework for making progress
on these goals. Adoption of the Plan does not commit the Council to funding or use of resources or
create any new laws at this time. The Plan has a menu of many options that Council will consider
in the future. Adoption of the Resolution approves the list of strategies contained in the Plan for
future consideration and allows for other strategies to be added in the future. Only a few new
strategies in the Plan could be implemented without additional Council action because they can be
done with existing resources. Adoption of the Plan does not increase utility rates or adopt tiered
electric rates because increasing rates or changing the rate structure can only be done by Council
action. The Community Climate Challenge is one program that can be implemented with existing
resources, relying on existing staff and incentive programs already in place. Establishing
requirements that address construction demolition debris in City contracts can also be put in place.
Current programs such as ClimateWise will continue. Many strategies listed in the Plan support
other City goals such as waste diversion and increased mobility. The Plan requires that staff present
an annual report to Council of the progress made toward reaching the goals.
Lucinda Smith, Senior Environmental Planner, stated the Plan will help Fort Collins meet its
greenhouse gas reduction goals. To meet those goals, a reduction of485,000 tons of COze by 2012
is necessary. By 2020, 1.75 million tons of COze must be reduced. One feature of the Climate
275
December 2, 2008
Action Plan is a focus on local action and making changes that are within local control. The Plan
has a range of approaches, including education incentives and some regulations. It attempts to
engage all stakeholders and address all sources of emissions, which include electricity,natural gas,
transportation and waste generation. It builds on existing successes,contains cost effective strategies
that can support the economy and provide many other benefits to the community. The ClimateWise
Program has been successful in reducing carbon emissions and saving businesses over$12 million
in energy efficiencies and the recommendation is to enhance that program. Another recommended
strategy is to participate in the Colorado Carbon Fund by encouraging citizens and businesses to
voluntarily purchase carbon offsets from the Fund. Those purchases will support the City's economy
since purchasing offsets from the Fund keeps the revenue in the state and a portion of the revenue
invested from Fort Collins will be redirected to the community for new projects. Expansion in the
area of energy efficiency and green building offers the opportunity for job growth. Most of the
strategies proposed in the Plan must undergo Council consideration before they can be implemented.
Many of the proposed actions would come before Council even if they were not included in the
Climate Action Plan because they support other City goals.
If the strategies in the proposed Plan are implemented, the City will still fall short of the reduction
goals. At the request of Council at a work session on October 28,staff has developed an alternative
Plan that would fully meet the reduction goals. The proposed addendum to the Plan has been
prepared as a supplement to the Plan and, if the addendum and the Plan are fully implemented, the
reduction goals would be achieved. The first strategy in the addendum is to purchase or acquire
carbon offsets which are acquired by investing in carbon reduction projects that are occurring
elsewhere. This strategy is recommended to be implemented only after all the other direct reduction
measures are implemented in the community. The second strategy calls for establishing a deposit
system for construction and demolition debris where projects of a certain size would make a deposit,
and, if it was shown the project recycled materials, the deposit would be returned. Another strategy
calls for more reducing more vehicle miles traveled in the long term. The addendum contains two
modifications of strategies contained in the Plan. One increases the participation targets of the
Community Climate Challenge and another increases the voluntary participation in the Colorado
Carbon Fund.
Concerns have been expressed about the use of a time of sale energy conservation ordinance and the
addendum removes that ordinance as a specific, isolated strategy to consider in the long term and
replaces it with a list of strategies that could be explored to increase the efficiency of existing
buildings after other strategies included in the Energy Policy are implemented. Another qualitative
strategy proposed in the addendum would optimize the waste stream to the landfill by utilizing new
technologies to use the energy contained with the landfill to create useful energy through non-
combustible processes.
There are costs associated with the implementation of the Plan. Staff does not have cost estimates
on all the proposed strategies at this time, but the cost estimates will be fully developed before
Council considers the individual actions. Significant savings can result from these strategies. Staff
will present an annual report to Council on the progress made towards reaching the goals that have
been established and will recommend future strategies every other year. Council has two options
to consider. Option A would adopt both the Climate Action Plan and the addendum,which together
276
December 2, 2008
would meet the 2012 and 2020 milestones. Option B would adopt only the Climate Action Plan,but
not the proposed addendum. These strategies would meet 55-80% of the 2012 reduction goal and
90%of the 2020 goal. Adoption of the Plan sets the Plan as the blueprint for achieving the goals but
does not commit budget resources or take action to implement any of the specific strategies at this
time.
John Stokes,Natural Resources Director,stated many concerns have been raised about the net costs
of the Plan. One example of net savings of costs is the ClimateWise Program, which is a leading
strategy in the Plan. The City has spent$300,000 in the past year on this Program. During that time,
businesses have implemented many new projects to reduce energy consumption,water consumption
and divert more trash and have saved $440,000,which greatly outweighs the costs of the Program.
The businesses have also reduced their carbon footprint by 50,000 tons of CO2. Energy efficiencies
will help the City achieve its carbon reduction goal. Many of the strategies in the Plan do contain
up front costs,but the paybacks associated with the investments will outweigh those costs.
City Manager Atteberry stated the Climate Task Force and staff have devoted a large amount of time
in developing this Plan and the City's Executive Team is committed to helping the City reach the
goals set by Council.
The following citizens spoke in support of adoption of the Climate Action Plan:
Sue Radford, Fort Collins resident
Fred Kirsch, 509 South Bryan
Alan Apt, 520 North Sherwood
John Anderson, Fort Collins resident
Sue McFaddin, 6021 Wild View Drive
Carl Brunning, Fort Collins resident
Richard Karmarsh, Fort Collins resident
Kevin Cross, 300 Peterson
Jeff Schneider, Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado
Phil Friedman, 201 South Grant
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset
Jessica Ive, CSU student
Eric Levine, 514 North Shields
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte Avenue
Dan Bihn, 421 South Howes
Liz Pruessner, 712 Ponderosa Drive
Katie Hoffner, Fort Collins resident
Will Walters, 1701 Tanglewood Drive
Rick Coen, 412 Garfield
Scott Mason, Fort Collins resident
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb
277
December 2, 2008
The following citizens opposed adoption of the Climate Action Plan:
Carrie Gillis, 2213 Timber Creek Drive
Dr. William Gray, 110 Fishback Avenue
Ralph Waldo, 1115 Parkwood Drive
Mike Bello, 2309 Sunstone Drive
Chris Guillan, Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Michelle Jacobs, Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Joe Rowan, 621 Gilgalad Way
Debbie Tamlin, President of Fort Collins Board of Realtors
Clint Skutchan, 719 Great Plains Court, Executive Vice President Fort Collins Board of Realtors
David May,225 South Meldrum, Chamber of Commerce President, stated the Chamber supported
the ClimateWise Program but did not support all strategies in the Plan. Transparency concerning
the costs of the strategies will be essential as each strategy is brought forward for Council
consideration.
("Secretary's note: The Council recessed at 8:10 pm and returned at 8:25 p.m.)
Councilmember Poppaw asked how many groups received a presentation of the Plan from staff.
Smith stated presentations were made to various boards and commissions, the Chamber of
Commerce's Legislative Committee, the Board of Realtors Governance Committee and a public
open house was held.
Councilmember Roy asked why a commercial pay-as-you-throw regulation was not included in the
Plan and how much money could be saved with the implementation of such a program. Smith stated
adding commercial recycling rates to commercial trash fees is included as a long-tern strategy for
2020. A simpler and more efficient way to achieve about half the reduction of a full commercial
recycling program would occur if disposal of cardboard is banned from the wastestream. The
cardboard ban would achieve 58,000 tons of carbon reduction. If a full commercial recycling
program were implemented and achieved the model 2015 level of benefit, 139,000 tons of carbon
reduction could be realized, which would lower the need for purchasing carbon offsets by 81,000
tons.
Councilmember Manvel noted it will be difficult to add a commercial pay-as-you-throw program
as different types of businesses will create very different amounts of trash and recycling and it is
difficult to develop a billing system for such disparate groups. He asked if it is feasible to build
commercial recycling into trash rates or if there was another way to achieve commercial recycling.
Councilmember Troxell stated the community has placed a great value on sustainability and many
businesses are on the leading edge of the renewable energy market. The community must accept
many of the strategies voluntarily for any change to be realized. The addendum in Option A
mandates many short-term strategies and would not build voluntary community support.
278
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated he did not support adoption of the addendum because the process has
not allowed enough time for public input and Council consideration. He also requested removal of
any mandates of upgrades at time of sale of properties from the Plan.
Councilmember Roy stated he did not support mandating efficiencies at the time of sale of property
but he did support development of an energy star rating that people could use that would reflect
energy efficiencies added to a property.
Councilmember Manvel stated newer vehicles produce less CO2 emissions and many more new
vehicles are now on the roads. He asked if the projections of reduction of CO2 took into account
the fact that fewer older vehicles will be driven as time goes by. Smith stated the projections did not
include any data on newer vehicles. The"business as usual'scenario examines the current fleet mix
and projects out from current data. Any new air quality control requirements placed on new vehicles
at the state level will have a positive impact on the reduction of emissions.
Councilmember Manvel stated the Light and Power Utility has incentives for people to replace
appliances with newer,more efficient models and he asked if any consideration was given to offering
incentives for Fort Collins residents to drive cleaner vehicles.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt Resolution
2008-122, Option B.
City Attorney Roy asked if the intent of the motion was to adopt Option B with the exception of the
references in the Plan to the"time of sale"energy conservation measures. If so, language should be
added to the resolution in Section 1 to read"that the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan is hereby
approved and adopted with the exception of any references therein to the Time of Sale Energy
Conservation Ordinance and such Plan shall supercede the 1999 local action plan to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions."
Councilmembers Ohlson and Troxell accepted the amended language to the motion.
Councilmember Poppaw did not support the purchase of offsets because they are not a local
investment. Smith stated the Plan does list participation in the Colorado Carbon Fund which
involves voluntary participation by citizens and businesses who are currently buying offsets from
other places. The Plan does not encourage the purchase of offsets for projects not located in
Colorado.
Poppaw expressed her support for the Plan because it is good for the community, the environment
and the economy. Efforts should be made to achieve the 2012 goal.
Councilmember Manvel supported the Plan and encouraged staff to continue to work towards
achieving the 2012 goal and to develop local conservation and efficiency measures. He noted most
strategies listed in the Plan will be brought back to Council for consideration before those strategies
can be put into place.
279
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Roy stated the Plan is an investment in the future for Fort Collins and is a first step
towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He did not support the use of carbon offsets to reach
the goals. He wanted more options to help Fort Collins reach the 2012 goal.
Councilmember Troxell stated the costs need to be clearly outlined on each strategy that comes
before Council so the decision can be made on a cost benefit basis. Affordable housing and the cost
of doing business in Fort Collins need to be considered when each strategy is brought forward.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for frequent reports on progress made towards reaching the 2012 and
2020 goals and for new strategies that will help Fort Collins meet the 2012 goals. City Manager
Atteberry stated the list of strategies is not all-inclusive and new strategies will be brought forward
as they are developed.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the price of inaction can be greater than the costs of implementing
any strategies and needs to be considered when weighing whether to implement any strategy.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the strategies of energy efficiencies offer great savings and will encourage
citizens to participate. The Plan contains many efficiencies that will be cost effective. The impact
of costs to residents and businesses needs to be considered.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Atteberry recommended the Urban Renewal Authority meeting be postponed to a later
date as Council has several matters yet to consider that will take quite a bit of time. Council agreed
to postpone the Urban Renewal Authority meeting.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that consideration of Item #33 Resolution 2008-123 Approving and
Adopting an Updated Energy Policy be postponed.
Council agreed to hear public comment on Resolution 2008-123.
Jim Welch, owner of a solar company, supported the use of wind energy and use of Smart Grid,
combined with on-site renewable and distributive energy which would reduce the need for off-site
coal plants. He did not think the proposed Energy Policy made a bold leadership statement in the
use of clean energy.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to postpone
consideration of Item#33 Resolution 2008-123 Approving and Adopting an Updated Energy Policy
to January 6, 2009. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
280
December 2, 2008
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Consideration of the Appeal by Randy Whitman
of the October 16, 2008 Determination of the
Planning and Zoning Board to Deny the Whitman Storage
Facility—Addition of Permitted Use, Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On October 16, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use. The request was to add Recreational Vehicle,
Boat and Truck Storage in the C, Commercial portion of the property. The Board considered
testimony from the applicant, the public and Staff. The request was denied. Randy Whitman, the
applicant for the request, has appealed the Board's decision.
The Appellant's allegations are that the Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and
apply relevant portions of the City Land Use Code and Charter.
BACKGROUND
This is a request to add Recreational Vehicle, Boat and Truck Storage as an Addition of Permitted
Use in the Commercial zone district, specifically for a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway
Drive. The property is partially developed. The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins
as part of Phase I of the Southwest Enclave Annexation in November, 2006 and zoned UE, Urban
Estate. Theproperty was rezoned to C, commercial(west 213)and RL,Low Density Residential(east
113) in January, 2008 by City Council. The parcel to be used for the aforementioned recreational
vehicle, boat and truck storage is a portion ofLot 3 in the south '/1 ofthe Whitman Storage Facility
subdivision plat_ It is approximately one acre in size and zoned C, Commercial. Section 1.3.4
Addition of Permitted Uses of the Land Use Code provides criteria for Required Findings,
Certification of New Use, and Conditions that may be imposed on approval ofsuch use.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At the October 16, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board considered
the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staffand voted 4—2 to deny the request
for an Addition of Permitted Use on a portion of the property at 209 East Skyway Drive.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On November 5, 2008, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from Randy
Whitman, 209 E. Skyway Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.
The Appellant alleges that:
281
December 2, 2008
1. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the
City Land Use Code and Charter, including, without limitation, the following:
• "Article 1, Division 1.3.4
1. Failure to give due weight to Timothy Wilder's statements that the two adjacent south
lots are going to be rezoned CL in the foreseeable future as part of the City's new plan,for the
area. The decision exalts form over substance and is in derogation of the intent and spirit of the
code.
2. Failure to properly interpret "site specific" as a basis for a decision. "
• "Article 2, Division 2.8
1. Both appellant and staff spent many hours coming to an agreement of higher
standards by both parties that sufficiently protect the City and its residents.
2. The progression ofgrowth along the South College Corridor is coming and the need
for ultimate resolution has come. The appellant has complied with innumerable requirements
of the City, and the proposed use was disclosed and discussed when appellant received his
rezoning last year from City Council on a 7-0 vote.
3. The appellant needs the income in order to continue to stay in business.
4. If the proposed outdoor-stored vehicles were for sale, they would be permitted as a
use by right. The denial was irrational."
• "Charter Section IV.7
1. Board member Gino Campana has a financial interest and personal interest in the
hearing's outcome, he was very vocal in urging the outcome that was favorable to his said
interests, and he voted accordingly to the detriment ofthe appellant.He ought to have refrained
from attempting to influence the result and from voting."
• "Article 3, Division 3.5.3(C)(1)
1. TheBoardatMr. Campana's instigation, introduced newfindings,specificationsand
requirements that had never been an issue prior to coming into the October 16, 2008 meeting.
This caught everyone offguard including the staff who stated that it was not an issue. "
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the
City Land Use Code and Charter?
STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Article 1. Division 1.3.4
Appellant's Statement: Failure to give due weight to Timothy Wilder's statements that the
two adjacent south lots are going to be rezoned CL in the foreseeable
future as part of the City's new plan for the area. The decision exalts
form over substance and is in derogation of the intent and spirit of
the code.
282
December 2, 2008
Staffs Response: Staff's comment to the Planning and Zoning Board, after conferring with
Timothy Wilder, the Advance Planning Department's project manager for the South College
Corridor Plan, was that Mr. Wilder had stated that two properties south ofand adjacent to Mr.
Whitman's property, currently zoned UE, Urban Estate, were probably going to be
recommended to bezoned CL,Limited Commercial on the South College Corridor Framework
Plan, when adopted. However, the Planning and Zoning Board correctly used the existing
adopted data to make its decision.
Appellant's Statement: Failure to properly interpret "site specific"as a basis for a decision.
Staffs Response: Thereferenceto "site specific"was made by City staffduring its presentation
to the Planning and Zoning Board.Staffsaid that theproposed Addition ofPermitted Use would
be specific to this particular site, being the property at 209 East Skyway Drive zoned C,
Commercial, and would not be added to the CDistrict City-wide. Staff believes that the Board
understood the distinction.
Article 2, Division 2.8
Appellant's Statement: Both appellant and staff spent many hours coming to an agreement
of higher standards by both parties that sufficiently protect the City
and its residents.
Staffs Response: The Appellant and City staff did spend a signif cant amount of time working
together to come to agreement on an appropriate Addition of Permitted Use to be proposed on
a portion of his property. The Planning and Zoning Board, after receiving additional
information during the public hearing, did not find that the standards were met.
Appellant's Statement: The progression of growth along the South College Corridor is
coming and the needfor ultimate resolution has come. The appellant
has complied with innumerable requirements of the City, and the
proposed use was disclosed and discussed when appellant received
his rezoning last year from City Council on a 7-0 vote.
Staff's Response: Based on the action taken by City Council in January, 2008 to place the west
portion of Mr. Whitman's property in the C, Commercial zone district, the proposed use
(Recreational Vehicle,Boat and Truck Storage)was just a point of discussion but did not factor
into thef nal decision by Council and is notgermane to this finding.Recreational Vehicle, Boat
and Truck Storage is not permitted in the C zone, so Council's action in January, 2008 to
rezone to C did not authorize the use at the time of the rezoning. The "Addition ofa Permitted
Use"process Land Use Code amendment had not been adopted at the time of the Whitman
property rezoning.
Appellant's Statement: The appellant needs the income in order to continue to stay in
business.
283
December 2, 2008
Staffs Response: The Planning and Zoning Board does not consider an applicant's income
when making a land use decision.
Appellant's Statement: Iftheproposed outdoor-stored vehicles wereforsale, they would be
permitted as a use by right. The denial was irrational.
Staffs Response: During City staffpresentation to the Planning and Zoning Board it was stated
that Vehicle and boat sales and leasing with outdoor storage is a permitted use in the C,
Commercial District.
Charter Section IV.7
Appellant's Statement: Board member Gino Campana has a financial interest and personal
interest in the hearing's outcome, he was very vocal in urging the
outcome that was favorable to his said interests, and he voted
accordingly to the detriment of the appellant. He ought to have
refrained from attempting to influence the result and from voting.
Staffs Response: The City Code specifies, in Section 2-48(b), the grounds upon which a
decision maybe appealed to the City Council. While there are otherprovisions in the Code that
deal with alleged conflicts of interest, and other avenues ofrecourse available to Mr. Campana
to address the concern he has expressed, an alleged conflict ofinterest is not one ofthe grounds
upon which an appeal can be based.
Article 3, Division 3.5.3(C)(1)
Appellant's Statement: The Board at Mr. Campana's instigation, introduced new findings,
specifications and requirements that had never been an issue prior to
coming into the October 16, 2008 meeting. This caught everyone off
guard including the staff who stated that it was not an issue.
Staffs Response: Related to the Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use request,
it is unclear about the new findings, specifications and requirements that Mr. Whitman is
referring to based on the information in the minutes of the October 16, 2008 Planning and
Zoning Board hearing.
Staff, therefore,finds that the Planning and Zoning Board did not.fail to properly interpret and
apply relevant portions of the City Land Use Code and Charter.
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 1.3.4 Addition of Permitted Uses
2. Article 3 General Development Standards
3. Article 3, Section 3.5.1 Building and Project Compatibility
4. Article 4, Division 4.21 Commercial District"
284
December 2, 2008
City Attorney Roy explained the appeal process. He noted Council is reviewing, at the request of
the appellant, a decision of the Planning and Zoning Board which consists of reviewing the record
on appeal. No new evidence is admissible on an appeal, except in response to questions from the
Council. Presentations to Council are limited to parties-in-interest, which consist of the appellant,
persons who appeared before the Planning and Zoning Board or submitted written comments to the
Board or were within the notice area. Council's decision is to be based upon the record and the
relevant criteria in the City's Land Use Code and the presentation of the parties.
Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the request is to add recreational vehicle,boat and truck storage as
an addition of permitted use in the Commercial zone district, specifically for a portion of the
property at 209 East Skyway Drive. The property is partially developed at this time,with 2/3 of the
property located in the Commercial zone district and 1/3 in the Low Density Residential zone
district. Staff did recommend to the Planning and Zoning Board to allow the addition of permitted
use. The Board considered testimony of the applicant,affected property owners and staff and voted
to deny the request.
Mayor Hutchinson asked Council to disclose any site visits made and any relevant observations that
were made. No Councilmembers responded.
Rick Nelson, owner of a neighboring property, supported the appeal because the proposal will aid
the neighborhood by allowing convenient storage facility for the area. A storage facility will allow
owners of recreational vehicles to store those vehicles in a way that complies with covenants of the
neighborhood.
Randy Whitman, 209 East Skyway, appellant, stated he needed to expand his business in order to
remain in business and allowing an outdoor storage facility on his property is essential for that
expansion. The location of the storage facility on his property would be at the back of the property
and would not block the views from Skyway.
Rick Zier,322 East Oak,attorney representing Mr. Whitman,stated the Planning and Zoning Board
made errors of interpretation of the new procedures in the Land Use Code to add a permitted use to
the Commercial zone. Staff supported the addition of permitted use and no objections were raised
at the neighborhood meeting that was held on this issue. Two members of the Board did not
correctly apply the site-specific criteria in the new procedures. One Board member was never
persuaded this site-specific addition of permitted use would not be a precedent-setting procedure.
This should have been site-specific examination of the context of the area to add a use that is not
more deleterious to the area than any of the permitted uses in the zone. The Board member was not
convinced the Board would not be able to turn down a similar request that might come from a
Commercial zoned property. Staff confirmed this request was a site-specific analysis but the Board
member did not agree, which was an incorrect interpretation of the new procedure.
Another Board member compared the area along Aron Street to South Mason Street,behind REI and
Barnes & Noble Bookstore and stated an outdoor storage facility would not fit into such an area.
This analogy was incorrect because it was not the site-specific analysis called for in the Land Use
Code. The Board member stated the photos of the area around Mr.Whitman's property showed the
285
December 2, 2008
addition of permitted use would be a compatible use,but he felt it was not compatible with the Code.
Two Board members looked at the area and stated they did not think the use was compatible with
the area and voted against the addition of permitted use, but they did not give adequate reasons as
to why they believed it was not compatible. Mr. Whitman's application materials showed that the
location of the additional use on the property helped to mitigate any compatibility issues and those
materials were ignored by the two Board members in their analysis. The location of the storage
facility would be on a portion of the commercially zoned area which is farther to the south and west
to buffer the uses. The property to the south is zoned Urban Estate,but the property owner has not
objected to the proposed outdoor storage facility. The South College Corridor Plan has not yet been
adopted,but will recommend the Urban Estate zoning of that property be rezoned to a commercial-
type zoning district. When the Whitman property was rezoned to Commercial, it allowed outdoor
storage of recreational vehicles if the vehicles are for sale without any fencing or landscaping. The
addition of use requested by Mr. Whitman would not be any more damaging or incompatible than
any permitted use allowed. The storage would be confined to a small portion of the C-zoned area
and it will be amply screened by fencing and landscaping. Compatibility should not be an issue.
Andrea Whitman, 209 East Skyway, stated Council should take into consideration the amount of
time staff and the Whitmans have spent on this issue and compromises that have been made that
were acceptable to both staff and the Whitmans. She urged Council to overturn the Board's
decision.
Brian Schumm,7203 Woodrow Drive,voiced his opposition to the request for addition of permitted
use. Allowing open storage on the Whitman property will also allow open storage on neighboring
properties. When the property was rezoned Commercial, it was allowed to have enclosed storage.
A sewer line runs diagonally across the property and must be moved before any building can be
erected. If the sewer line would be relocated, enclosed storage could be built and be within the
permitted uses of the zoning. A U-Haul rental place is located next to the property,but it has been
grandfathered in and would not be allowed to be built under current regulations.
The vision for the South College Corridor is for the area to look very different in the future and
allowing open storage will not fit with that vision. The proposal calls for an 8-foot screening fence
and tree plantings to screen the storage facility from view. Most recreational vehicles are taller than
8 feet and will be visible above the fence. He urged Council to deny the appeal.
Randy Whitman,appellant,stated Mr. Schumm is the only person who has opposed this project. He
had contracted with the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District to relocate the sewer line but the City
process has taken so long that the Water District voided the contract and the sewer line will not be
moved. Other outside storage places are located near his property. Denial of the appeal will put him
out of business.
Rick Zier,attorney representing Mr.Whitman,stated the neighborhood meetings were held to allow
public comment and Mr. Schumm is the only person who has opposed the request. Two of the
Planning and Zoning Board members did not seem to understand or properly apply the use of site
specific in applying the Code criteria. Staff has agreed that vehicle and boat sales and leasing with
286
December 2, 2008
outdoor storage is a permitted use in the Commercial zoning. It is irrational to allow sales of
vehicles but not allow outdoor storage of vehicles.
Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive, stated the City has set standards for land development and
the requested exception to the standards is not appropriate. If too many exceptions to the standard
are granted, the standards will mean nothing.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why any addition of permitted use would be allowed.. Olt stated a
new procedure was adopted this year that permits an addition to a permitted use into a zoning district
where the use is not currently permitted. If there is a use that is permitted somewhere in the City but
is not permitted in a specific zone district,the new criteria in the Land Use Code allows an applicant
to request an addition of a permitted use that is not currently in that zoning district on a site-specific
basis.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for staff s perspective on the Board's decision. Olt stated staff had
recommended approval of the request to the Board and the Board did not agree. Staff still believes
the addition of the permitted use is appropriate for the property.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what the consequences were for a property owner who consistently
disregarded the regulations for land use and did not provide the required repairs necessary to bring
a property into compliance. Olt stated a cease and desist order could be issued and citations could
be issued if a business were in violation for a long period of time.
Councilmember Ohlson asked why an 8-foot fence would be considered an acceptable height to
screen recreational vehicles that are routinely much taller. Olt stated the property currently has
automobiles,boats and the recreational vehicles range in height from 9 to 11 feet stored on site and
the height of vehicles that would be stored there in the future is unknown. The fence would be a
solid, 8-foot high fence with deciduous trees and shrubs on the outside to screen the fence. Staff did
not feel the appearance would be detrimental or out of character for the area. The required deciduous
trees must be minimum of 2-inch caliper tree and within 5-10 years should have a significant crown
to provide screening and the type of tree is not specified in the landscape plan.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the Board had stated at its hearing that it was not allowed to consider
economic factors when making a decision. Olt stated from a Land Use standpoint, the Board or a
hearing officer is not allowed to consider economics when reaching a decision.
Councilmember Manvel asked if outdoor storage was only allowed in the I-Industrial zone. Olt
answered in the affirmative.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the U-Haul business would be allowed today if it were requesting
a permit. Peter Barnes,Zoning Supervisor, stated the C-Commercial zone allows equipment truck
and trailer rental establishments, so the U-Haul business would be permitted. Outdoor storage of
vehicles that do not move for more than 24 hours is required to be screened. U-Haul does not have
a fence or screening because of the rapid turnover of the equipment.
287
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Manvel asked if vehicles for sale needed to be screened from view. Barnes stated
vehicle and boat sale and leasing establishments are permitted within the C-zone and are not required
to have screening, but they do have other landscaping requirements.
Councilmember Troxell asked if allowing the addition of a permitted use would be the same as not
enforcing the current standards. Olt stated the criteria in the Land Use Code allows the director to
add a use to a zone as long as such use is not specifically listed as a permitted use or as a prohibited
use. This addition would be site specific and not applied to the entire zone. Staff evaluated the
addition of the permitted use, the nature and context of the use against criteria of the context of the
surrounding area, traffic generation, compliance with the governing overall development plan,
development standards. Standards were applied to the request and staffs recommendation to the
Board took those standards into consideration.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff considered the fact that this property was brought into the City
under the Southwest Enclave Annexation. Olt answered in the negative. The procedure to request
an addition to permitted use was adopted into the Land Use Code earlier this year and staff used that
procedure to develop its recommendation.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what compromises the City made in developing this proposed plan.
Olt stated many meetings were held between staff and the Whitmans to reach agreement as to what
would be necessary to comply with the Code. Staff did not compromise any standards set in the
Code but worked with the Whitmans to develop a plan that was agreeable to them and met the City's
standards.
Councilmember Roy asked staff discussed the concept of"site-specific"with the Board and why the
addition of permitted use would not be expanded to other properties. Olt stated staff made it clear
to the Board that the addition of permitted use would be specific to this particular site only on the
Commercial zone portion of the property. As staff evaluated the request, it looked at the nature of
the request,relative to other sites to the north and west of the property and determined the additional
use would be appropriate for that portion of the property. Staff did define the term "site specific"
to the Board and the Board understood the distinction but it did not agree with the staff
recommendation.
Mayor Hutchinson noted Council could choose to either uphold, overturn or modify the Board's
decision or remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board denying a request for an addition of permitted use to the Whitman
Storage Facility Addition of Permitted Use Project 1108B because the Board did not fail to properly
interpret and apply the provisions of the Land Use Code in denying the addition of a permitted use.
Councilmember Manvel stated the request seemed an appropriate use on the site since there are
buildings to the north of the site that would offer even more screening from Skyway Drive and would
be compatible with the area.
288
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated it appeared the Board held a fair hearing on the issue and he asked
if there were any other actions Council could consider. City Attorney Roy stated there is no
allegation of denial of a fair hearing. Council must consider whether it agrees with the way in which
the Board interpreted the Code provisions related to this situation and application.
Councilmember Ohlson asked ifthere were other measures that could be considered to minimize the
impact on adjoining properties. Olt stated other measures could be required by Council such as
raising the height of the fence or increasing the size of the trees. Staff determined an 8-foot fence
was tall enough to provide adequate screening and less intrusive than a taller fence. The landscape
plan calls for 40-foot spacing of trees in front of the fence, but Council could require a greater
number of trees or increase the size of trees.
City Manager Atteberry asked if any limit could be placed on the height of vehicles to be stored on
the site. Olt stated a height limit had not been discussed with Mr. Whitman. At the October 16
hearing, one Board member did suggest placing taller vehicles farther away from the fence line to
lessen the impact.
Councilmember Ohlson stated other measures need to be put into place such as more trees, larger
trees and a reasonable limit of the height of vehicles stored if the Board's decision is overturned.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if a decision to remand the issue to the Board was a possibility because
additional issues were being raised during the appeal. City Attorney Roy stated Council could
continue the hearing and give staff time to explore additional measures with the applicant and
affected neighbors and then bring the agreed-upon conditions back to Council. Council could choose
to remand the issue to the Board with directions to consider whether there are additional conditions
that might provide sufficient mitigation. If the appellant does not agree with the Board's decision,
he could file another appeal.
Mr. Whitman agreed to work further with staff to develop other measures to screen the storage
facility from view. He asked Council to consider that the east side of the property is already has
landscaped and that nothing can be seen from Skyway Drive at this time.
Mr. Schumm stated his opposition to allowing any outdoor storage as it is not an appropriate use for
the area.
City Attorney Roy noted if the appeal is continued, new evidence can only be admitted upon the
request of the Council. Council must be clear in its request for new evidence, such as evidence of
existing mitigation, when allowing new information.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the two lots to the south of the Whitman property would be granted
a similar addition of permitted use if they requested it. Olt stated each property must go through the
same process as the Whitman property and be evaluated on a case by case basis. Barnes stated one
criterion used would be that the request confirms to the basic configurations of the zone district and
the other permitted uses in the zone district. If the zoning on the two lots remains UE-Urban Estate,
the decision maker must find that recreational vehicle storage conforms to the other uses allowed in
289
December 2, 2008
that zone district. The C-zone does allow car sales and equipment rental operations and the UE zone
does not. He noted any limitation on the height of vehicles stored could pose an enforcement issue
that needs to be considered.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if allowing the requested addition of permitted use would allow the
adjoining properties to use the Council's decision as a basis to request a similar addition of permitted
use. Olt stated part of the process includes looking at adjoining properties and this property would
be adjoining those properties. To a degree,this use on the property would be considered to evaluate
any requests from adjoining properties. Deputy City Attorney Eckman stated the properties to the
south are in the UE-zone, a different zone district. Council should consider if the proposed use is
appropriate for the zone district the site is in. The C-zone district is different from the UE-zone.
Mr. Schumm stated the rezoning of the property was done at the request of staff and not the property
owner. The South College Corridor Plan proposes to zone the lots to the south as Commercial.
Once those lots are zoned Commercial, they will have the basis to request an addition of permitted
use for outdoor storage because it would allowed on the Whitman property.
Mr.Zier,attorney for the appellant,stated the Board disallowed any testimony regarding the possible
rezoning of the property to the south from UE to Commercial zoning. It was not a basis for the
Board's decision and Council should not be using that as a basis for its decision.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion to postpone the decision of the Council until January 6,
2009. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of
the Land Use Code.
The vote on the motion to uphold the Planning and Zoning Board's decision to deny an addition of
permitted use was as follows:Yeas: Hutchinson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: Manvel,Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy to suspend the rules and
conclude the agenda. Yeas: Hutchinson,Manvel, Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal by Randy Whitman
of the July 17, 2008 Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board
to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility—Request for a Modification
of Standard Set Forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use Code,
Planning and Zoning Board Decision Upheld
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
290
December 2, 2008
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 17, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing considering the
Whitman Storage Facility — Request for a Modification of Standard. The Board considered
testimony from the applicant, the public and Staff. The request was denied. Randy Whitman, the
applicant for the request, has appealed the Board's decision. The allegations are that the Planning
and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of the City Code,
particularly those relating to roads,sidewalks,fencing,setbacks,sight distance, nonconforming uses
and structures.
BACKGROUND
This is a commercial project known as the Whitman Storage Facility-Request for a Modification
of Standard. The subject property is located at 209 East Skyway Drive, approximately 500 feet east
of South College Avenue. The property is zoned C, Commercial and RL, Low Density Residential.
The Request is for a Modification of the Standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1)of the City offort
Collins Land Use Code (LUC) that requires fences or walls to be no more than four feet high
between the front building line and front property line. The request is to allow the existing six-foot
high chain link security fence to remain in place until such time as the ultimate street improvements
to East Skyway Drive are to be made.
ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
At the July 17, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, the Board made the
following findings offact and conclusions as stated on page 5 of the Staff Report:
A. The Requested Modification of the Standard to Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1) of the Land Use
Code for the Whitman Storage Facility-Request for a Modification of Standard is subject
to a Planning and Zoning Board(Type 2) review.
B. Granting the requested modification would be detrimental to the public good.
C. The Project Development Plan as submitted,showing the location and height of the existing
fence, will not promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is
requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for
which a modification is requested, as set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(1) of the LUC.
Based on the requirements set forth in Section 3.8.11 of the LUC the 6 foot high
chain linkfence should be located no closer to the north property line than the front
fagade of the existing "Repair Shop" structure. By City definition the fence is not
being used for screening purposes; therefore, ifcut down to 4 feet in height the fence
in its present location would be in compliance with the LUC.
The location of the fence, being just I feet off of the back of curb for East Skyway
Drive, will not allow for a standard 5 foot wide detached sidewalk with an 8 foot
291
December 2, 2008
wide landscaped parkway within a Collector street ROW. The Applicant is proposing
to construct a permanent 6 foot wide attached sidewalk.
D. The RequestforaModifcationofStandardto Section 3.8.11(C)(1)oftheLUC based onthe
Project Development Plan as submitted, is being justif ed by stating that the design life of
the improvements will not be reduced nor will additional maintenance costs be incurred due
to the granting of the modification. Section 2.8.2(H)(3)of the LUCstates(in part) "That by
reason of extraordinary and exceptional conditions, the strict application of the standard
sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such
difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act of the Applicant." The fence posts are
anchored in concrete. However, the nature of the construction of the fence, in its present
location, was caused by the voluntary act of the property owner(Applicant). Therefore,staff
has determined that the Requested Modification of the Standard is not supported by the
criteria set forth in Section 2.8.2(H)(3) of the LUC.
E. This request is onlyfor a modification ofthe specific standard in Subsection 3.8.11(C)(1)of
the LUC. The applicant has submitted a PDP proposal for review by the City that is
currently being reviewed by City staff and outside reviewing agencies. A determination of
the PDP will ultimately be made by the Planning and Zoning Board separate from this
request for a modification of standard.
The Board considered the testimony of the applicant, affected property owners and staffand voted
6-1 to deny the Request for a Model ication of the Standard set forth in Section 3.8.11(C)(1)relating
to the location of the 6 foot high chain link fence along the frontage of the property at 209 East
Skyway Drive.
ALLEGATIONS ON APPEAL
On August 19, 2008, a Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from Randy
Whitman, 209 E. Skyway Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80525.
The Appellant alleges that:
1. The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret and apply relevant portions of
the City Code. In particular, those relating to roads, sidewalks,fencing, setbacks, sight
distance, nonconforming uses and structures.
The Appellant specifically alleges:
• "The City is claiming that they have no plan to widen Skyway Drive. Since they are
not going to widen the road, there is no need for a detached sidewalk."
• "The City Engineer stated that she would likely approve a permanent 6 foot wide
attached sidewalk if the fence were allowed to remain in its present location. "
292
December 2, 2008
• "The surrounding neighborhood directly across from my property all has attached
sidewalks. "
• "A decision has not been made yet relating to the sidewalk, which when made could
materially impact the placement of the fence. "
• "The City would allow a 4 foot fence but not a 6 foot fence. For security purposes,
what good is a 4 foot fence and what difference does 2 feet make in the scheme of
things?"
• "If we move the fence back 7 feet, it is okay to be 6 feet. I do not understand the
thinking process related to this fact and the issue mentioned prior. "
• "The cost related to us to move the fence a few.feet back and install a detached
sidewalk is considerable. This cost seems to be asking a little much when it does not
seem to be a necessary factor."
QUESTIONS COUNCIL NEEDS TO ANSWER
1. Did the Planning and Zoning Board not properly interpret and apply relevant portions of
the City Code?
STAFF ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls
Section 3.8.11(C)(1), a subsection of Section 3.8.11, states:
• "Fences or walls shall be nor more than four (4)feet high between the front building line
and front property line."
The existing six(6)foot high chain link fence along the north side of the Whitman property
at 209 East Skyway Drive is located approximately 33 feet north of the closest building,face
on-site and is essentially right on the property line.
Responses to the Appellant's specific points of contention are:
Appellant's Statement: The City is claiming that they have no plan to widen Skyway Drive.
Since they are not going to widen the road, there is no need for a detached sidewalk.
Staffs response: The City does not have plans to widen Skyway Drive; however, the
Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards do require detached sidewalks in all locations
as part of development or redevelopment proposals. The requirement is primarily for
pedestrian safety reasons, although streetscape and snow removal issues are also
considered.
293
December 2, 2008
Appellant's Statement: The City Engineer stated that she would likely approve a permanent
6 foot wide attached sidewalk if the fence were allowed to remain in its present location.
Staff sResponse: Thispoint is moot because the Planning and Zoning Board denied the
Appellant's request for the fence to remain in its present location.
Appellant's Statement: The surrounding neighborhood directly across from my property all
has attached sidewalks.
Staff's Response: There are attached sidewalks in the surrounding neighborhood that
were approved and constructed under previous codes and standards. This does not exempt
the Appellant, as part of his development proposal,from complying with current standards.
Appellant's Statement: A decision has not been madeyet relating to the sidewalk, which when
made could materially impact the placement of the fence.
Staffs Response: The current standard for sidewalk location and alignment is to be
detached a distance of 6 feet from the back of curb along East Skyway Drive. The placement
of the fence was determined by the Planning and Zoning Board with their denial to allow the
6 foot high fence to remain in its present location. Therefore, the fence and sidewalk
locations must comply with the standards set forth in the Land Use Code.
Appellant's Statement: The City would allowa 4foot fence but not a 6foot fence.For security
purposes, what good is a 4 foot fence and what difference does 2 feet make in the scheme of things?
Staff's Response: A 4 foot high fence would be allowed in the present location of the 6
foot high fence. To comply with Section 3.8.11(C)(1), if the Appellant needs the 6 foot high
fence for security purposes it must be moved back to align with the north buildingface of the
existing repair shop.
Appellant's Statement: If we move the fence back 7 feet, it is okay to be 6 feet. I do not
understand the thinking process related to this fact and the issue mentioned prior.
Staff's Response: This is an incorrect statement. For the fence to be able to remain 6
feet in height it would have to be moved back approximately 33 feet to align with the north
building face of the existing repair shop.
Appellant's Statement: The cost related to us to move the fence a few feet back and install a
detached sidewalk is considerable. This cost seems to be asking a little much when it does not seem
to be a necessary factor.
Staff's Response: Staff recognizes costs associated with development and the need to
meet the City's development standards. Compliance with the requirements are consistently
applied and there was no misunderstanding by the Planning and Zoning Board.
294
December 2, 2008
Staff, therefore,finds that the Planning and Zoning Board did not fail to properly interpret and
apply the intent of Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls in the Land Use Code.
LIST OF RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS
1. Section 3.8.11 Fences and Walls
Fences and wall shall meet the following standards:
(A) If used along collector or arterial streets, such features shall be made visually
interesting and shall avoid creating a "tunnel" effect. Compliance with this standard may
be accomplished by integrating architectural elements such as brick or stone columns,
incorporating articulation or openings into the design.
Section 3.8.11(C) Fences and walls shall be:
(1) no more than four (4)feet high between the front building line and front property
line. "
Mayor Hutchinson reminded Council that its decision is to be based upon the record and the relevant
criteria in the City's Land Use Code and the presentation of the parties. It can uphold, overturn or
modify the Board's decision or remand the decision for further consideration of additional issues
raised on appeal.
Steve Olt, City Planner, stated the appellant has requested a modification of standard that requires
fences or walls to be no more than four feet high between the front building line and the front
property line. The existing fence is on the front property line along East Skyway Drive and is a 6-
foot, chain link fence. Staff recommended denial of the request to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if any Councilmember made a site visit and had any relevant observations.
No Councilmember responded.
Randy Whitman, 209 East Skyway, appellant, questioned the requirement to move his fence since
the request to allow outdoor storage was denied. He cannot afford to move the fence.
Rick Zier, 322 East Oak, attorney for the appellant, stated there did not seem to be a rational reason
why a 4-foot fence could be located at the front of the property but a 6-foot fence could not. The
Planning and Zoning Board discussion concerned City standards that require a detached sidewalk
and the fence will not allow for a detached sidewalk. The height of the fence is immaterial.
Brian Schumm, 7203 Woodrow Drive, stated both the County and the City have the same street
standards and the appellant did not coordinate with either entity when he built his fence. The fence
is located in the area that needs to be developed to the current street standards. The fence impacts
the placement of the sidewalk. The City's standards should be upheld and an exception should not
be granted.
295
December 2, 2008
Mr. Whitman stated his fence was approved by the County and does meet the County's standards.
The annexation of his property into the City has forced this issue.
Mr. Schumm stated the property has been rezoned and the City should enforce the standards in the
Land Use Code and the street standards which require the fence to be brought into compliance. Mr.
Whitman wants to further develop his property and this development requires that his property be
brought into compliance with the Code. If he made no changes, his fence would be grandfathered
in and allowed to stay.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if staff recommended denial of the modification of standard to the
Planning and Zoning Board and if staff still recommended denial. Olt stated staff did recommend
denial of the request and the Board voted to deny the request. A recommendation of denial requires
the property to comply with the Land Use Code. Currently, on site, the permitted uses are the
existing residence and the office-retail portion attached to the residential. The repair shop and
storage building were not approved uses for the Commercial zone. They required a development
proposal. With the development proposal, the applicant is subject to the rules, regulations and
requirements of the Code, which include the requirement that a fence in excess of 4 feet in height
be at or behind the front building line and not between the building and the property line, where it
is currently located. Staff believed the Code requirement for fencing and placement of a sidewalk
was appropriate. The Code requires a 5-foot detached sidewalk, separated from the curb by 6 feet.
The fence is approximately 11 feet from the curb and does not allow enough space for the sidewalk
to be built. A 2-foot separation must exist between the sidewalk and a fence for safety reasons.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the Whitmans' development proposal is for the addition of
permitted use that Council just denied. Olt stated a third proposal for this site,the Whitman Storage
Facility Project Development Plan,has been submitted that is separate from the addition ofpermitted
use. That Plan has been approved by the Board, with the condition that the fence would be moved
back 2 feet to accommodate a sidewalk.
Councilmember Manvel asked if the fence would remain at 6 feet in height. Olt stated Mr.Whitman
submitted a revised modification of standard that moved the fence enough to allow the detached
sidewalk. The Board approved the modification of standard to allow the 6-foot fence to be moved
13 feet behind the back of curb to allow the detached sidewalk and approved the Project
Development Plan.
Councilmember Troxell asked if the above-ground power lines will be placed underground as a part
of the development. Olt stated the City's Light and Power Utility will remove the poles,meters will
be moved on-site and the power lines will be placed underground.
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to uphold the decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the request for Modification of Standard because the
Board did not fail to properly interpret and apply the provisions of the Land Use Code in its denial.
Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
296
December 2, 2008
Items Relating to the Reappointment, Contract, and
Compensation of the Municipal Judge, Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2008-124 Reappointing Kathleen M. Lane as Municipal Judge and Authorizing
the Eighth Addendum to the Judge's Employment Agreement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 2008, Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
Resolution 2008-124 reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term to expire December 31, 2010
and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge's employment agreement to reflect
the change in term. The Resolution also increases JudgeLane's annual vacation leavefrom 26 days
to 30 days and changes the vacation accrual provision to reflect that there may be a different
number of bi-weekly pay periods in any calendar year.
Ordinance No. 157, 2008, establishes the 2009 salary of the Municipal Judge.
BACKGROUND
Article VII, Section 1 ofthe Charter provides that the Municipal Judge is to be appointedfor a term
of two years. Kathleen M. Lane was first appointed to serve as the City's Municipal Judge effective
July 1, 1989. Resolution 2006-127 reappointed Judge Lane for a two-year term ending on
December 31, 2008. Resolution 2008-124 reappoints Judge Lane for another two-year term to
expire December 31, 2010 and authorizes the Mayor to execute an addendum to the Judge's
employment agreement to reflect her new term of office and to state that her accrued vacation will
be prorated according to the number of bi-weekly pay periods in any calendar year.
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance. In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and
the Municipal Judge meet twice a year to discuss performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2008, the total compensation paid to the Municipal Judge included the following:
297
December 2, 2008
2008 SALARYAND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary (0.8 FTE) $ 86,958 Vacation (26 days per year)
Medical Insurance 9,240 Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance 600
Life Insurance 251
Long Term Disability 687
ICMA (457) 2,609
ICMA (401) 8,696
Total Monetary Compensation $ 109,040
The resolution establishing the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge, states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City
Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance insufficient time for the
change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year. The
Ordinance will amend the City Code to reflect Judge Lane's 2009 salary. "
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution
2008-124.
Councilmember Roy expressed his thanks to Judge Lane for her management of the Municipal
Court.
Mayor Hutchinson stated a judicial oversight committee has been established that has allowed
Council to be more involved in overseeing the Municipal Court. Judge Lane has shown excellent
judicial and administrative skills in her management of the Court and her communication with the
committee.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
157, 2008, setting the base salary of the Municipal Judge at $93,045 and the total compensation at
$115,987.
Councilmember Poppaw stated Judge Lane, City Attorney Roy and City Manager Atteberry do a
phenomenal job for the City and she had no complaints about their job performances. She did not
support any employee receiving a 7 or 8% salary increase in these uncertain financial times.
Councilmember Manvel stated the salary increases are based on the policy set by the City to bring
all positions in the City up to market value. The appropriate local, state or national job market was
reviewed to determine if the City was paying a fair market value for the position. It was determined
298
December 2, 2008
the City was paying below market value for the positions of City Manager, City Attorney and
Municipal Judge.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the City's policy is to pay employees at or above the average market
salary. These three direct employees have received stellar evaluations but are paid below or just at
average market pay. The proposed raises will bring these employees up to slightly above the average
market pay.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the City has a policy of paying employees at least an average salary and
Council made the commitment last year to bring the Municipal Judge, City Attorney and City
Manager to an average market salary,based on considerable data gathered from around the country
from comparable cities.
The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2008,
Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and Setting the Salary
of the City Attorney, Adopted on First ReadinE
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 18 and November 25, 2008 to conduct the
performance review of City Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 158, 2008, establishes the 2009
salary of the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Attorney meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2008, the total compensation paid to the City Attorney included the following:
299
December 2, 2008
2008 SALARYAND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary $ 152,500 Vacation (35 days per year)
Medical Insurance 9,240 Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance 600
Life Insurance 441
Long Term Disability 1,205
ICMA (457) 4,575
ICMA (401) 15,250
Total Monetary Compensation $183,810
The resolution establishing the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City
Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the
change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year.
Ordinance No. 158, 2008, establishes the 2009 salary of the City Attorney. "
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
158, 2008, setting the base salary of the City Attorney at $161,650 and the total compensation at
$194,294.
Councilmember Roy expressed his gratitude to City Attorney Roy for his representation of the City
and his high level of integrity and work.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the salary increase will put the City Attorney at slightly above market
average. City Attorney Roy has been a tremendous asset to the City and Council.
Councilmember Troxell thanked City Attorney Roy forhis excellent work and he noted the proposed
salary is at a fair and competitive rate.
The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Contract and Compensation of
the City Manager. Adopted on First Reading
The following is staff's memorandum on this item.
300
December 2, 2008
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2008-126 Approving a First Addendum to the City Manager's Employment
Agreement.
B. First Reading of Ordinance 159, 2008, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and Setting
the Salary of the City Manager.
City Council met in executive session on November 18 and November 25, 2008 to conduct the
performance review of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 159, 2008, establishes the
salary of the City Manager.
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2008, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
BACKGROUND
City Council is committed to compensating employees in a manner which is fair, competitive and
understandable. The goal as an employer is to attract and retain quality employees and to
recognize and reward quality performance.
In order to accomplish this goal the City Council and the City Manager meet twice a year to discuss
performance and set goals for the coming year.
In 2008, the total compensation paid to the City Manager included the following:
2008 SALARY AND BENEFITS ANNUAL NON-MONETARY BENEFITS
Salary $ 176,455 Vacation (30 days per year)
Medical Insurance 9,240 Holidays (11 days per year)
Dental Insurance 600
Life Insurance 510
Long Term Disability 1,394
ICMA (457) 5,294
ICMA (401) 17,646
Car Allowance 91000
Total Monetary Compensation $ 220,138
301
December 2, 2008
The resolution establishing the process for evaluating the performance of the City Manager, City
Attorney, and Municipal Judge states that any change in compensation for the City Manager, City
Attorney and Municipal Judge will be adopted by the Council by ordinance in sufficient time for the
change in compensation to take effect as of the first full pay period of the ensuing year.
Ordinance No. 159, 2008, will establish the 2009 salary of the City Manager. In addition, the
Council has agreed to consider amendments to the CityManager's employment contract that would:
• increase the amount ofannual vacation leave that can be converted to cash in a particular year
from 80 hours to 120 hours (without increasing the amount of annual vacation leave);
• state that the City Manager's rate of vacation accrual will be pro-rated on a bi-weekly basis
in accordance with the number of pay periods in each year;
• clarify that the City Manager's service as a member of the board of directors of community
organizations will be considered to be within the performance of his duties to the City; and
• clarify that, except as otherwise provided in the Employment Agreement, all benefits and
working conditions that apply to service area directors of the City shall apply to the City
Manager as well.
Resolution 2008-126 would approve these changes. "
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2008-126.
Mayor Hutchinson noted a complex process was used to determine the City Manager's average
market salary. Comparable cities with unique challenges,such as the presence of a university in the
city, were used in the survey. Council made a commitment last year to bring the City Manager's
salary up to average market value over a three year period because his salary was 20% below
average. City Manager Atteberry is a tremendous public servant and has managed the City and its
resources in a remarkable way,including presenting Council with a budget adjustment for 2009 that
puts $5 million into the City's reserves.
Councilmember Ohlson stated City Manager Atteberry has updated many City policies and managed
the City in an admirable way, always with total integrity.
Councilmember Manvel thanked the City Manager,City Attorney and the Municipal Judge for their
performances.
The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
302
December 2, 2008
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
159, 2008 and set the base salary of the City Manager at $190,571 and the total compensation at
$236,241.
Council thanked City Manager Atteberry for his willingness to work diligently and with integrity and
for his commitment to the City.
The vote on the motion was as follows:Yeas: Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adjourn to Tuesday,
December 9, 2008 at the conclusion of the work session for possible additional business. Yeas:
Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
303
December 9, 2008
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council-Manager Form of Government
Adjourned Meeting- 6:00 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday,December 9,
2008, at 10:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was
answered by the following Councilmembers: Manvel Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
Councilmembers Absent: Hutchinson
(Councilmember Brown has been excused from Council meetings from October 28, 2008 through
April 7, 2009, per Resolution 2008-104.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adjourn the
meeting to the end of the Urban Renewal Authority meeting. Yeas: Manvel Ohlson,Poppaw,Roy
and Troxell. Nays: none.
("Secretary's Secretary's note: Council adjourned into the Urban Renewal Authority meeting and reconvened
at 10:15 p.m.)
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Troxell made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to go into executive
session,as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(2)of the City Code for the purpose of meeting with the
City Attorney regarding potential litigation and to discuss related legal issues. Yeas: Manvel,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's note: The Council went into executive session at this point in the meeting.)
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
304
December 16, 2008
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, December 16,
2008, 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: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and
Troxell.
(Councilmember Brown excused from Council meetings from October 28, 2008 through April 7,
2009, authorized by Resolution 2008-104.)
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Ann Lane, Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association, presented two awards to the
Planning Department for its "Plan Van" and the Development Review Guide.
Citizen Participation
Eric Sutherland,631 LaPorte Avenue,stated the Green Energy Program allows wind and other forms
of renewable energy to be paid for through voluntary subscriptions but the Program does not comply
with City Code. He opposed the purchase of renewable energy credits to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Gail Zirtzlaff,2048 Manchester Drive,shared her complaints about the lack of response from Police
Services and to the treatment she had received from Police Services and the Larimer County
Sheriff s Department.
Vivian Armendariz, 820 Merganser Drive, stated she had concerns about the safety of using
wheelchairs in bike lanes and she asked that any ordinance that allowed wheelchairs in bike lanes
be very clear about the conditions that must be met to allow riding wheelchairs in the bike lanes.
She requested an expansion of Dial-A-Ride so riders can attend City public meetings when they are
held outside the Dial-A-Ride area.
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, stated the Transit Strategic Plan open house and the Transfort
route change meeting will be held simultaneously at CSU when students are gone for winter break
and not available to make comments on proposed route changes. She requested an extension of the
public comment time on the route changes and for one more public open house to be held.
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, requested the public comment period be extended on the
proposed Transit Strategic Plan and the Transfort route changes. She urged Council to expand the
transit system to create a regional system.
305
December 16, 2008
Yvonne Longacre, 1550 Blue Spruce, stated Transfort buses are not well labeled and the routes are
not easy to figure out which has led to difficulties when her family has used Transfort.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Green Energy Program does contribute to greenhouse emission control
but it is difficult to quantify the contribution. Platte River Power Authority is changing its policy
regarding renewable energy credits. He requested a memo from the City Attorney regarding the
compliance of the Green Energy Program with City Code.
Councilmember Roy asked for an extension of the public comment period for the Transit Strategic
Plan. City Manager Atteberry stated the Plan schedule will allow for an extension of time for the
public comment period.
Councilmember Ohlson asked that any advertising for City programs such as the Green Energy
Program contain only facts and no stretching of the truth. City Manager Atteberry stated staff
provides objective information in any advertising it produces.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the City Manager would be willing to meet with Ms. Zirtzlaff to
help address her concerns about her treatment from Police Services. City Manager Atteberry stated
he has met with Ms. Zirtzlaff and heard her concerns. He has spoken with the Police Chief about
the issues and he has received an audio tape of the interaction between her and the officer in
question, but he has not yet listened to it.
City Manager Atteberry stated the issue of wheelchairs in bike lanes has been debated in previous
years and the decision was made not to allow that practice. Council has asked staff to examine the
issue again and staff is in the process of that evaluation. Once the evaluation is complete, staff will
let Council know its determinations. It is not appropriate for any staff, including the Police Chief,
to respond before the evaluation is complete.
Work Session Held
At this point in the meeting, Council adjourned to the conclusion of the work session.
Council reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Item #10 Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins
Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series
2008A, now includes the principal amounts, listed on page 9, as $3,496,000 at an interest rate of
1.125%for 2009, 2010 and 2011. He recommended Item#28 Items Relating to the Gateway First,
Second and Third Annexations become the first discussion item.
306
December 16, 2008
CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143 2008 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Recreation Fund for General Operating Support of the Adaptive Recreation
Opportunities Passport Project Program.
The City was awarded an $88,811 grant from the Department of Education via a sub-award
from Colorado State University. This Ordinance,unanimously adopted on First Reading on
December 2, 2008, appropriates that grant money in the Passport Project Program.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144, 2008 Authorizingthe he Appropriation of 2009 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
The 2009 annual operating budget for the Airport totals $722,700 and will be funded from
Airport operating revenues, contributions from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland
($85,000 from each city), and interest earnings. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on
First Reading on December 2, 2008, appropriates the City of Fort Collins' contribution,
which is a 50% share of the 2009 Airport budget and totals$361,350. This Ordinance also
appropriates the City of Fort Collins' 50% share of capital funds, totaling$791,115 for the
Airport from federal and state grants,passenger charges,contributions from Fort Collins and
Loveland and the Airport General Fund.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No 145 2008 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
From the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Methamphetamine Initiative in the General Fund forthe Larimer County Drug Task
Force.
The City has received two grants for the Larimer County Drug Task Force. The first is from
the Office of National Drug Control Policy for January 1-December 31, 2009 in the amount
of $105,000. The second is from the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Methamphetamine Initiative in the amount of $133,280. This Ordinance, unanimously
adopted on First Reading on December 2,2008, appropriates the funds from the two grants.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146 2008 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between
Accounts and Projects for Police Services.
Police Services received federal funding to apply to the purchase an armored rescue vehicle
for the use of the Police Services SWAT Team. After the initial grant award notifications
were received, an additional $30,302 was awarded from the 2005 State Homeland Security
Program. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 2, 2008,
appropriates the unanticipated $30,302 for this purchase.
307
December 16, 2008
10. Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2008, Authorizing the Issuance of City of
Fort Collins,Colorado,Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the
Aggregate Principal Amount of$10,488,043, for the Purpose of Financing Certain
Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the
Downtown Development Authority Area; Providing for the Pledge of Certain
Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of and Interest on the
Bonds; Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Action
Previously Taken and Appertaining Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2008, Appropriating Proceeds from the
Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority
Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, for the Purpose
of Making Certain Capital Improvements,Capital Projects and Development Projects
Within the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations Between Funds and Appropriating Expenditures from the DDA Debt
Service Fund to Make the 2008 Payment on the Bonds.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 2, 2008, authorize
the issuance of$10,488,043 in Tax Increment Bonds and the appropriation of the proceeds
of the issuance to be used for projects and programs such as initiating a green building TIF
facade/grant program, the 2009 funding for Beet Street and additional improvements to the
downtown area.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2008, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
Article II, Section 3 of the City Charter directs that the compensation of Councilmembers
shall be adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the Denver/Boulder Consumer
Price Index. In 2008, Councilmembers were compensated $650 per month, and the Mayor
received $970 per month.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 2, 2008, amends
Section 2-575 of the City Code to set the 2009 compensation of Councilmembers at$675 per
month and the compensation of the Mayor at $1,005 per month, as required by the City
Charter.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2008 Authorizing a Revocable Permit to the Fort
Collins Fire Museum Foundation for Access to City-Owned Property at 330 North Howes
Street for up to Five Years.
The property at 330 North Howes Street (the "Car Barn") currently houses Poudre Fire
Authority ("PFA") and City Museum antique fire fighting equipment. This Ordinance,
308
December 16, 2008
unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 2,2008,authorizes a permit that allows
the Fort Collins Fire Museum Foundation continued access to the restoration equipment
stored in the Car Barn.
13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2008, Amending Chapter 9 of the City
Code and Adopting by Reference the 2006 International Fire Code, with Amendments.
The City of Fort Collins has historically adopted the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) as a model
for the identification, correction and prevention of fire safety hazards. Currently, the City
is administering the 1999 Edition. Adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code would
replace the now outdated 1999 UFC currently in use.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2008, Amending the City Code to Establish Marking
Requirements.
Markings can have a negative and lasting(up to several months)impact on the aesthetics of
a given area especially on decorative surfaces.This Ordinance is proposed as an addition to
Chapter 23, Article V of the City Code requiring the use of chalk-based paint in the Old
Town Area and on decorative surfaces throughout the city, except under certain conditions.
Markings are defined in the proposed ordinance to include any mark to show the location of
underground facilities or to mark other design or construction-related specifications,features
or limits. Markings made with water-based paint must be properly removed within forty-five
days of the request, except under certain conditions. In a situation that requires markings to
be made utilizing water-based paint, the person making the request through the Colorado
notification association will be responsible for their removal. If the person making the
request is unknown, such as when an engineering company contracts directly with a locate
company instead of through the notification association,then the person causing the marking
to be made will be responsible for removing the marking.
15. Resolution 2008-127 Makin Fg indings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Appeal by
Randy Whitman of the July 17, 2008, Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board to
Deny the Whitman Storage Facility- Request for a Modification of Standard.
On August 19, 2008, an appeal of the July 17, 2008 decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board to deny the Whitman Storage Facility — Modification of Standard was filed by the
Appellant Randy Whitman.
On December 2,2008,City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a
Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
16. Resolution 2008-128 Makin Findings indings of Fact and Conclusions Pertaining to the Appeal by
Randy Whitman of the October 16, 2008,Determination of the Planning and Zoning Board
to Deny the Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use.
309
December 16, 2008
On November 5, 2008, an appeal of the October 16, 2008 decision of the Planning and
Zoning Board to deny the Whitman Storage Facility—Addition of Permitted Use was filed
by the Appellant Randy Whitman.
On December 2,2008,City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning
Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a
Resolution making findings of fact and finalizing its decision on the appeal.
17. Resolution 2008-129A eeingtoActasaReviewingEntityforCommercial Non-profit and
Income-producing Residential Properties for the State Income Tax Credit Proeram for
Oualif nng Rehabilitation Projects.
This Resolution states the City's intent to act as a reviewing entity for State Tax Credit
projects involving commercial, non-profit and income-producing residential properties
within the city limits. The provisions of the State Tax Credit legislation require that each
Certified Local Government (CLG) adopt a resolution stating whether the CLG will act as
a reviewing entity, which remains in effect until it decides otherwise.
18. Resolution 2008-130 Adopting the Seventh Amendment to the City of Fort Collins General
Employees' Retirement Plan as Amended and Restated December 31 2001
By adoption of this Resolution, Council would incorporate mandatory technical tax law
changes from the final Treasury Regulations under Internal Revenue Code Section 415,
effective January 1, 2008 into the General Employees' Retirement Plan ("Plan").
The General Employees Retirement Committee("GERC")met on November 13,2008 and
held a discussion on this item. The GERC recommends that the City Council approve the
Seventh Amendment to the Plan.
19. Resolution 2008-131 Making Appointments to Various Boards Commissions and
Authorities of the City of Fort Collins.
Vacancies currently exist on various boards,commissions,and authorities due to resignations
of board members and the expiration of terms of members. Applications were solicited
during September. Council received copies of the applications and Council teams
interviewed applicants during October and November.
Section 1 of this Resolution makes 17 appointments to 14 boards and commissions to fill
current vacancies with terms to begin immediately. Names of those individuals
recommended to fill current vacancies have been inserted in the Resolution with the
expiration date following the names.
Section 2 of this Resolution makes 45 appointments to 24 boards and commissions to fill
expired terms to begin on January 1,2009. Names of those individuals recommended to fill
310
December 16, 2008
expired terms have been inserted in the Resolution with the expiration date following the
names.
***END CONSENT'
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 143, 2008,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Recreation Fund for General Operating Support of the Adaptive Recreation
Opportunities Passport Project Program.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 144,2008,Authorizing the Appropriation of 2009 Fiscal
Year Operating and Capital Improvement Funds for the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal
Airport.
8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2008,Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
From the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Methamphetamine Initiative in the General Fund for the Larimer County Drug Task
Force.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 146, 2008, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts Between
Accounts and Projects for Police Services.
10. Items Relating to the Issuance of City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority
Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 147, 2008, Authorizing the Issuance of City of
Fort Collins,Colorado,Downtown Development Authority Taxable Subordinate Tax
Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A, Dated Their Delivery Date, in the
Aggregate Principal Amount of$10,488,043, for the Purpose of Financing Certain
Capital Improvements, Capital Projects and Development Projects Within the
Downtown Development Authority Area; Providing for the Pledge of Certain
Incremental Ad Valorem Tax Revenues to Pay the Principal of and Interest on the
Bonds; Approving Documents in Connection Therewith; and Ratifying Action
Previously Taken and Appertaining Thereto.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2008, Appropriating Proceeds from the
Issuance of City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Downtown Development Authority
Taxable Subordinate Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2008A,for the Purpose
of Making Certain Capital Improvements,Capital Projects and Development Projects
Within the Downtown Area of Fort Collins, Authorizing the Transfer of
Appropriations Between Funds and Appropriating Expenditures from the DDA Debt
Service Fund to Make the 2008 Payment on the Bonds.
311
December 16, 2008
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 149, 2008, Amending Section 2-575 of the City Code
Relating to Councilmember Compensation.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 150, 2008, Authorizing a Revocable Permit to the Fort
Collins Fire Museum Foundation for Access to City-Owned Property at 330 North Howes
Street for up to Five Years.
23. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157,2008,Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the Municipal Judge.
24. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158,2008,Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
25 Second Reading of Ordinance 159, 2008, Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
28. Items Relating to the Gateway First, Second and Third Annexations.
C. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2008, Annexing Property
Known as the Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
D. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2008, Amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property
Included in the Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
13. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 160, 2008, Amending Chapter 9 of the City
Code and Adopting by Reference the 2006 International Fire Code, with Amendments.
14. First Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 2008, Amending the City Code to Establish Marking
Requirements.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt all items
on the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consent Calendar Follow-up
Councilmember Troxell noted many citizens were interviewed for the various board and commission
vacancies and he thanked the citizens for participating.
312
December 16, 2008
Items Relating to the Gateway First, Second and Third Annexations,
Gateway First Annexation Adopted on Second Reading, Gateway Second
and Third Annexations continued to January 6, 2009
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Gateway First Annexation
A. Resolution 2008-133 Rescinding Resolution No. 2008-111.
B. Resolution 2008-134 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Gateway First Annexation.
C. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 151, 2008,Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
D. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 152, 2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway First Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Gateway Second Annexation
A. Resolution 2008-135 Rescinding Resolution No. 2008-112.
B. Resolution 2008-136 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Gateway Second Annexation.
C. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 153, 2008,Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
D. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Second Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Gateway Third Annexation
A. Resolution 2008-137 Rescinding Resolution No. 2008-113.
B. Resolution 2008-138 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the
Gateway Third Annexation.
C. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 155, 2008,Annexing Property Known as the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
313
December 16, 2008
D. Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance No. 156, 2008,Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the
Gateway Third Annexation to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.
Resolutions 2008-111, 2008-112, and 2008-113 make findings that the petition for annexation,for
the Gateway Annexation, containing a total of approximately 256.3 acres, substantially complies
with the Municipal Annexation Act (the "Act'), the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan (City
Plan), the Larimer County and City offort Collins Intergovernmental Agreements, the City ofFort
Collins Land Use Code, and the Harmony Corridor Plan; that notice was duly given; and that a
hearing was held regarding the annexation in accordance with the Act.
These Resolutions were prematurely presented to, and adopted by, the Council on December 2,
2008, before the public hearing on the annexations had actually been held. For that reason, staff
recommends that Council rescind those Resolutions, hold the statutorily required hearing on the
annexations, and then consider new Resolutions making findings and determinations with regard
to each of the annexations.
The Ordinances, adopted unanimously on First Reading on December 2, 2008, will annex the
property into the City limits and place the property into the POL-Public Open Lands Zoning
District."
Ken Waido, Chief City Planner, stated the Gateway Annexation includes portions of the Arapaho
Bend Natural Area and portions of 1-25 and will be considered in three parts.
City Attorney Roy stated his recommendation that Council leave the hearing open for an hour, but
delay asking questions and taking Council action until later in the meeting, since staff intends to
recommend that Council continue consideration of Gateway Second and Third Annexations to the
January 6, 2009 meeting. The Mayor can request citizen input at that time.
Council left the item open and continued with the meeting.
Ordinance No. 157,2008,
Amending Section 2-606 of the City Code and Setting the Salary
of the Municipal Judge. Adopted on Second Readine
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 18 and November 25, 2008 to conduct the
performance appraisal of Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Lane. Ordinance No. 157, 2008, adopted
on First Reading on December 2, 2008 by a vote of5-1 (Nays:Poppaw), establishes the 2009 salary
of the Municipal Judge at $93,045.
314
December 16, 2008
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
158, 2008 on Second Reading.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the Council made a commitment two years ago to bring the compensation
of the Municipal Judge, City Attorney and City Manager to a level of average market value. Data
from comparable cities was used to determine the pay range for each employee and it was
determined the three employees were receiving below average pay compared to comparable cities.
The three employees are high performing employees and Council decided it was a fair and just
decision to bring their compensation to average market value. Average pay is measured against
comparable markets. The City Manager was measured against a nationwide market and the City
Attorney and Municipal Judge were measured against cities along the Front Range.
Councilmember Poppaw objected to the raises in view of the uncertain economy. She believed each
employee had been high performing but it was the wrong time to award a raise of this magnitude.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to the Contract and Compensation of the City Attorney,
Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 158, 2008,Amending Section 2-581 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Attorney.
B. Resolution 2008-125 Approving the Seventh Addendum to the City Attorney's Employment
Agreement.
City Council met in Executive Session on November 18 and November 25, 2008 to conduct the
performance review ofCi ty Attorney Steve Roy. Ordinance No. 158,2008, adopted on First Reading
on December 2, 2008 by a vote of 5-1 (Nays: Poppaw), establishes the 2009 salary of the City
Attorney at $161,650.
Resolution 2008-125 would approve certain changes to the City Attorney's employment contract.
BACKGROUND
This item presents for City Council consideration on Second Reading, Ordinance No. 158, 2008,
fixing the City Attorney's 2009 salary, as well as Resolution 2008-125, which would amend the City
Attorney's employment contract as follows:
315
December 16, 2008
• decrease the City Attorney's annual vacation leave to 32.5 days per year; and
• state that the City A ttorney's rate ofvacation accrual will be pro-rated on a bi-weekly basis
in accordance with the number ofpay periods in each year(without increasing the amount
of annual vacation leave).
Resolution 2008-125 would approve these changes."
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
158,2008 on Second Reading. Yeas: Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2008-125. Yeas: Brown, Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Roy and Troxell. Nays: Poppaw,
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance 159, 2008,
Amending Section 2-596 of the City Code and
Setting the Salary of the City Manager, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council met in Executive Session on November 18 and November 25, 2008 to conduct the
performance appraisal of City Manager Darin Atteberry. Ordinance No. 159, 2008, adopted on
First Reading on December 2, 2008 by a vote of 5-1 (Nays:Poppaw), establishes the salary of the
City Manager at $190,571. "
Councilmember Roy made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to adopt Ordinance No.
159,2008 on Second Reading. Yeas: Brown,Hutchinson,Manvel,Ohlson,Roy and Troxell. Nays:
Poppaw.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Consideration of the Appeal to City Council of the
Water Board's August 28,2008 Denial of the Floodplain
Variance for a School in the Poudre River 500-year Floodplain
The following is staff s memorandum on this item.
316
December 16, 2008
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 28, 2008, the Water Board considered an application for a variance from the City Code
to allow the change of use in the Poudre River 500-yearfloodplain for an existing structure, located
at 720 East Vine Drive, to a critical facility(a charter school)and to allow the same structure to be
expanded in the future on 720 East Vine Drive and onto 724 and 750 East Vine for the same use.
The Water Board unanimously denied the variance request.
The Appellants, representing the Nature School,filed an amended Notice of Appeal with the City
Clerk's Office on September 30, 2008,seeking redress of the action of the Water Board which is the
subject of this appeal.
BACKGROUND
The Rocky Mountain Raptor Program is proposing a school with an environmental curriculum in
an existing structure and that structure is anticipated to be expanded in the future as enrollment
expands. The property is located in the Poudre River 500 year floodplain.
• City Code Section 10-16 includes schools in the definition of critical facilities.
• City Code Section 10-81(a) prohibits critical Jcilities in the Poudre River 500 year
floodplain.
• City Code Section 10-81(b)prohibits the change of use of an existing structure in the Poudre
River 500 year floodplain to a critical facility.
• City Code Section 10-46(6) prohibits a change of use or the expansion of an existing
structure.for use as a critical facility.
ACTION OF THE WATER BOARD
At the August 28, 2008 regular meeting of the Water Board, the Board considered a request for a
variance to the City Code to allow a change of use in the Poudre River 500 year floodplain for an
existing structure located at 720 East Vine Drive to a charter school and to allow the existing
structure to be expanded onto property located at 724 and 750 East Vine Drive with a future
addition for use as a school. The Board considered the testimony of the applicants and staff and
voted 8-0 to deny the variance request.
ALLEGATIONS OF APPEAL
On September 30, 2008, an amended Notice of Appeal was received by the City Clerk's Office from
representatives of the Nature School.
The Appellants allege that:
1. The Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that evidence presented by staff was
substantially false or grossly misleading.
317
December 16, 2008
2. The Board failed to properly interpret and apply City Code as set out in Section 2-48(b)(1).
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ISSUES
Specific A llegations of Substantially False or Grossly Misleading Evidence,and Staffs Response:
The amended Notice oJAppealfrom representatives of the Nature School allege the following issues
and staff of the subsequent analysis and response based on the record:
Allegation #1
Data and photographs from other drainages, specifically Spring Creek, have no direct bearing on
the hydraulic conditions of the site in question. Yet, these photos were used to imply a greater level
of risk than we believe exists on our site. In fact, we used data and photographs supplied by the
SWU staff to demonstrate that, contrary to SWU's allegation, our site would NOT have been flooded
during the 1904 food.
Staff Response
The photos presented for Spring Creek (Slide 16 of staff presentation)showed the debris blockage
during the 1997 f ood and were presented as a relative situation that can result in a more complex
scenario at the proposed school site. As discussed on page 3 ofthe Staff Memo and on pages 22-25
of the hearing transcript, debris blockage at the College Avenue bridge on the Poudre River,similar
to what happened in 1997 at the College Avenue bridge at Spring Creek would result in more water
overtopping College Avenue and flowing down Vine Drive to the proposed school site. The debris
blockage scenario would result in increased depths and flows and therefore, increase the risk at the
proposed school site beyond what is shown in the official floodplain modeling and mapping.
Information related to flooding in other drainages, i.e., Spring Creek and the Big Thompson River,
shows that large flood events can and do happen in this area and that the proposed school site is
subject to the same types of large flood events. As stated in the Staff Memo on page 3 and as
discussed on pages 23-25 of the hearing transcript, this information was given as examples of the
possibility of large f ood events, their magnitude and their potential impacts.
On page 3 0l the Staff Memo, the Poudre River Flood History Handout (Attachment 3 of the Staff
Memo) and page 21 of the hearing transcript, staff discussed the flood history on the Poudre River
and showed an historic photograph with a high water mark on the homes as a result of the 1904
flood on the Poudre River. During the discussion of this photograph, staff made the statement that
it was "highly likely" that the proposed school site would have been flooded in the 1904 flood.
In response to the Appellants'assertion on appeal that these points werefalse and misleading, staff
has done additional historical research into the 1904 flood on the Poudre River. Newspaper
descriptions of the flood and the related property ownerships at the time that staff has identified in
this additional research strengthens the evidence that the site of the proposed school was
significantly impacted by the 1904 flood, which occurred on May 20, 1904.
318
December 16, 2008
A May 25, 1904, Fort Collins Weekly Courier article, which is provided with this Agenda Item
Summary as Attachment 9, provides a contemporaneous description of the 1904 flood, and
specifically describes flooding observations in the vicinity of the proposed school site. An historic
map denoting the property ownerships in the vicinity o] the school site in 1915 is attached as
Attachment 10, and provides a reference point for understanding some of the statements:
"The water covered and rushed over all the bottom lands from bluf to bluff, tearing
out culverts, headgates and carrying away almost every moveable thing that stood
in its way. The river at this point was over a mile wide. "
"The rush o]water was so sudden and unexpected that people had no time to think
of anything but personal safety, and are thankful that they were permited to make
their escape. A wall of water said to have been 10 or 12 feet high burst out through
Poudre Canaon about 4 o'clock in the afternoon and spreading out over the bottom
land farms swept away everything moveable.... These[bridges] were soon followed
by the College Avenue bridge and the railway bridge on the Wellington branch of the
C&S railroad. The northern approach to the Linden Street steel bridge was under
water and for a time fears for the safety of the structure itself were entertained. It
stood the test, however, and is standing today, as is the Chestnut street bridge. While
the flood was at its zenith communication between the north and south sides of the
river was entirely cut off "
"The Russian village near the sugarfactory was under water and all the inhabitants,
except one family, living in the old Judge Remington house, which stood on higher
ground, had to flee for their lives. The water flooded the lower floor of the
Remington house, but the occupants stuck to it and passed the night there."
"It is impossible at the present time to make a satisfactory estimate of the damage
caused, but it will not fall far short of a million dollars and may largely exceed that
sum.
"Water swept around the sugar factory and prevented the entire force employed
there now, including Manager Booraem, Superintendent Westein from getting to
their homes. Along in the evening they waded north to the bluff,finding shelter for
the night at William Lindenmeier's. " [Staf] note: see blue-shaded area on
Attachment 10 denoting William Lindenmeier property and green-shaded rectangle
denoting sugar factory location.]
"The beets on the Peter Anderson farm will have to be replaced. " [Staff note: see
pink-shaded area on Attachment 10 map denoting NE corner of Vine and LeMay.]
"Two Russian houses on the Lindenmeier place were washed into the middle of the
road.
319
December 16, 2008
"There were six inches of water in the sugar factory and eighteen on the north side.
The stored sugar escaped by only six inches. "
"The dancing pavilion in the grove on the north bank of the river collapsed and fell
into the raging flood and was carried away, taking with it a new piano which the
owner had just installed. "
Allegation #2
The city's use of the term 'flash flood" in this instance, is grossly misleading, when by the city's
own modeling, a 500 year event would appear as a relatively shallow sheet flow at low velocities.
Staff Response
On page 7 of the Staff Memo and page 21 of the hearing transcript, staff described the expected
characteristics of a flood at this site and addressed Section 10-28(e)(9) related to conditions for a
variance. A 500 year flooding event on the Poudre River would likely be from heavy rainfall or
rain-on-snow. A flash flood, resultingfrom the rainfall event, would typically be short in duration
and the rate of rise would probably be extremely fast and thus, there may be very little to no
warning. An event of this magnitude would also contain debris that would magnify the event.
When the term 'flash flood"is used, it does not indicate the depth of flooding, but rather the rapid
rate of rise. The National Weather Service describes a flash flood" as:
Flash floods occur within a few minutes or hours of excessive rainfall, a dam or
levee failure,or a sudden release of water held by an ice jam. (Source:Flash Flood
Safety - What You Need to Know NOW.t, National Weather Service,
www.nss/.noaa.govledulsafety/flashflood.html)
As described in the 1904 Courier article, cited above and attached as Attachment 9, the 1904
flooding illustrated this concept well. The rush of water was sudden and unexpected, and those
affected had little time to prepare, react or respond to the oncoming flood.
Staff used the term flash flood only once in the Staff Memo on page 21, and did not use the term
during the staffpresentation to the Water Board.
Allegation #3
SWU's description of the hydraulic mechanism at College Ave. and Vine Dr. during the projected
500 year event was speculative and imprecise.
Staff Response
The information concerning overtopping of College Avenue and Vine Drive presented in the Staff
Memo on pages 2-3 and in the hearing transcript on pagel8 and pages 22-23 is based on the
320
December 16, 2008
floodplain modeling and mapping. Staff described the College Avenue bridge as being undersized
since it cannot pass even the 100 year flood. The floodplain map (Attachments 4 and 5 of the Staff
Memo) was used to illustrate the overtopping location at the College Avenue and Vine Drive
intersection and staff described that the floodplain mapping and modeling makes the assumption
that the College Avenue bridge is fully open and functioning during a.flood. There is no debris
blockage assumed. Staff presented photos of the College Avenue bridge and upstream railroad
trestle (Slide 14 of staff presentation) to illustrate the possibility of debris blockage on both the
College Avenue bridge and the railroad trestle. Staffdescribed that, in the eventofdebris blockage,
additional water would overtop College Avenue and flow down Vine Drive toward the proposed
school. A photo of the low spot at the Vine Drive and College Avenue intersection was used to
illustrate this scenario (Slide 14 ofstaffpresentation).
The applicant presented no technical information contradicting the modeling and mapping presented
by staff.
Allegation #4
The City provided an approximate flood depth at the proposed school site, with no specific water
surface elevation reference, and provided no information regarding flow velocities,flood duration
or hydrographic timing.
Staff Response
As stated on page 3 of the Staf)Memo and on page 19 of the hearing transcript, staff reviewed the
flood information for the property. Staff stated on pagel9 of the hearing transcript, "The depth of
flow for the 500 year floodplain is approximately one foot based off the current mapping and
modeling." The 500 yearflows were described as being a total of 24,100 cubicfeet per second(cfs)
with approximately 1,100 cfs breaking out and going through the proposed school site. On page 7
of the Staff Memo, the hydrograph of a flood due to rainfall was described as typically being of short
duration with an extremely fast rate of rise. On pages 21-22 of the hearing transcript, staff
described the April 1999 flood that was a result of rain-on snow, as being of short duration—only
lasting one day.
Contrary to the Appellants'assertions, the floodplain depth of flow and mapping for the site was
provided to them by staffseveral months before the hearing.
Allegation #5
SWU alleged that no detailed structural analysis had been provided regarding the building at the
proposed site. Given the generalized nature of SWU's hydraulic information, the generalized
statement that the building appears to be structurally sufficient is appropriate.
Staff Response
Sections 10-28 and 10-29 of City Code outline the criteria the Water Board must consider when
approving a variance. Section 10-28(e)(3)addresses the susceptibility of the proposed facility and
321
December 16, 2008
its contents to flood damage and the effect ofsuch damage on the individual owner. On pages 2-3
of the applicant's variance submittal, the applicant addressed this section of code and made the
following statement:
"The building has the structural integrity to withstand the projected flooding event;
some items on the floor inside the building could potentially become wet. ... No
major damage is anticipated. "
On page 6 of the Staff Memo and on pages 30-31 in the hearing transcript, staff discussed the point
that the applicant has not provided any details or analyses to substantiate these claims and that no
design plans for the addition have been submitted. Staffstated on page 31 of the hearing transcript
that the risk of flood damage extends beyond just a single owner; it extends to the teachers and
students who will be occupying the school as well as the emergency responders and parents trying
to reach the school to help the children. Therefore, as stafffurther noted at the time, the impact of
building damage and life-safety issues are community issues that need to be considered.
Allegation #6
The applicant demonstrated that the risk to life and safety at the proposed site during a 500-year
flood event would be no greater, and in fact less, than the risk currently being accepted elsewhere
in the Fort Collins area for similarly classified facilities.
Staff Response
As stated on page I of the Staff Memo and pagel5 of the hearing transcript, Section 10-81(b) and
10-46(6)of City Code do not allow for a change ofuse ofany existing structure to a criticalfacility
so as to result in anew non-conforming structure or use. As stated on page 5 of the Staff Memo and
page 32 of the hearing transcript, staff explained that the purpose offloodplain regulations is to be
proactive by not creating new problemsfor thefuture by allowing new high risk development or uses
in the floodplain and that the critical facilities regulation is the epitome of these goals.
Allegation #7
SWU's use of information from other parts of the U.S. was grossly misleading by implying that a
500 year flood would occur considerably more frequently. Additionally, by making reference to
flood damage that occurred in otherdrainages,SWUimplied that the predictedflood risk at this site
would be considerably higher than their own data would indicate.
Staff Response
As documented on page 3 of the Staff Memo and on page 22 of the hearing transcript, staff clearly
stated that the probability of a 500 year flood is 0.2 %in any given year and that there is the same
probability each year of the event occurring. However, statistically speaking, this also means that
there is the possibility that two 500 yearfloods can occur back-to-back or that they can be stretched
out over a much, much longer period of time, On page 3 of the Staff Memo and page 24 of the
322
December 16, 2008
hearing transcript, staffpresented information to illustrate the risk associated with large floods.
This included information on the 1997 Spring Creek Flood in Fort Collins and the 1976 Big
Thompson Flood. As an example ofnot waiting 500 years between floods, it was discussed that the
some areas of the Midwest that were flooded this past year have had more than one 500 year flood
within a 10-15 year period.
On page 3 of the StaffMemo and on pages 22 and 23 of the hearing transcript, Staff explained how
debris blockage at the College Avenue bridge can affect the risk at the proposed school site. There
is a high probability of debris blockage at the College Avenue bridge or upstream railroad trestle,
which would result in more water overtopping the College Avenue bridge and heading down Vine
Drive. The ],100 cfs expected through the site in the 500-year flood may actually be a much greater
amount of water or this same scenario could occur in an even smaller event.
Allegation #8
The fact that the proposed site lies within the 500 year floodplain is not contested. However,
specific information mitigating the fact that the site is in the 500-year floodplain was not considered
by the Water Board, which was only interested in enforcing the code without due attention to the
merits of the request. The motion to deny the request for variance was passed without any
discussion of the technical merits ofthe variance request, or regarding the proposed school's value
to the community versus actual risk. We believe that the risk to life and safety during the projected
500 yr event was grossly overstated.
Staff Response
Appoints presented by the applicant in this appeal werepresented to and heard by the WaterBoard
during the variance hearing. The Water Board asked questions ofboth staffand the applicant prior
to making their motion to deny the variance request.
STAFFSUMMARY
Staff believes the Board did not fail to hold a fair hearing and that the Board did not consider
evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading.
Specific Allegations that the Water Board Failed to Properly Interpret and Apply the City Code
and staffs response:
The Appellant has offered no specific allegation or explanation regarding its claim that the Water
Board failed to properly interpret and apply the City Code, except to state that it resulted from the
failure of the Board to conduct a fair hearing and "the failure of staff to adequately inform and
prepare the Water Board about the issue. "
Options Available/StaffRecomm en dation/Possible Conditions of Approval
The City Code states that, after reviewing the grounds stated in the notice of appeal, the record on
appeal and the relevant criteria for considering these kinds of variance requests, the Council must
323
December 16, 2008
remand the matter to the Water Board,for rehearing if it finds that the Appellant was denied a fair
hearing. Ifthe Council finds that the Appellant received afair hearing, then the Council must decide
whether to uphold or overturn the Board's decision;provided, however, that the Council may also
remand the matter to the Board for rehearing to consider any issues raised on appeal that the
Council believes may warrantfurther consideration by the Board. (Because the Water Board denied
the application, the option of modifying the Board's decision is not available to the Council in this
case)
Staff continues to recommend denial of the variance request because of the life-safety riskassociated
with a school in the floodplain. It is staffs professional opinion that the only way to truly mitigate
the impact a flood has on a school is to locate it outside the 500 year floodplain. However, if the
Council believes that the variance request should be granted or that the mattershould be remanded
to the Board for rehearing in order for the Board to consider particular issues raised on appeal,
staff will assist the Board in evaluating any mitigation conditions the Board might develop and
recommend to be imposed upon any approval of the variance so as to help mitigate some of the risks
presented by locating this facility within the 500 year floodplain.
RELEVANT CODE PROVISIONS FOR COUNCIL REFERENCE:
Section 10-16 of the City Code defines critical facilities as:
"Critical facilities shall mean ... hospitals,nursing homes,group homes, residential
care facilities,congregate carefacilities and housing likely to contain occupants who
may not be sufficiently mobile to avoid death or injury during a flood; schools;
daycare facilities, ..."
Section 10-81(a) Critical Facilities. In any portion of the Poudre River 500 year floodplain orzone
X shaded area, critical facilities are prohibited.
Section 10-81 (b) Change of Use. No person shall change the use of any structure or property
located in the Poudre River 500 year floodplain or zone Xshaded area so as to result in a new use
or new nonconforming structure that is inconsistent with the requirements of this article.
Section 10-46(6).Noperson shall change the use ofan existing structure that is not a criticalfacility
to use as a critical.facility contrary to the provisions of Article H of Chapter 10 of this Article, or
change the use of a critical facility to another type of critical facility, or increase the physical area
in use for a nonconforming critical facility, contrary to the provisions of this article. "
City Attorney Roy explained the appeal process. He noted Council is reviewing, at the request of
the appellant, a decision of the Water Board and that review consists of reviewing the record on
appeal. No new evidence is admissible on an appeal, except in response to questions from the
Council. Presentations to Council are limited to parties-in-interest, which consist of the appellant,
persons who appeared before the Water Board or submitted written comments to the Board or were
within the notice area. Council's decision is to be based upon the record and the relevant criteria in
the City Code and the presentation of the parties.
324
December 16, 2008
Councilmember Roy stated he had received a voice mail from a citizen wanting to talk about the
appeal, but he did not listen to the message. He has also received an email from another citizen
regarding the appeal and he asked what the proper response should be to these types of contacts.
City Attorney Roy stated City Code has a provision that discourages ex parte contacts between
persons who may be interested in the outcome of the appeal and any individual Councilmembers.
Council is acting as a judge and not a legislative body and is to base its decision upon the evidence
and argument presented at the Board hearing so that all the parties-in-interest can hear and respond
to the information that is presented. Written materials are to be submitted to the City Clerk by noon
Wednesday before Council hears the appeal.
Marsha Hilmes-Robinson,Floodplains Administrator,stated the appeal concerns the location of the
proposed Nature School,to be located at 720-750 East Vine,which is within the Poudre River 500-
year floodplain. The request was for a City Code variance to allow a change of use at 720 East Vine
to a charter school and to allow the existing structure to be expanded onto property located at 724-
750 East Vine with a future addition to be used as a school. Staff recommended denial of the
variance to the Water Board based on the standards for floodplain variances found in the City Code.
The Board unanimously voted to deny the request.
The definition of"critical facilities" specifically includes schools. The Code states that critical
facilities are prohibited in the 500-year floodplain. The Code also prohibits a change of use to a
critical facility and does not allow a non-conforming critical facility to expand. The only regulation
required by City Code is the prohibition of critical facilities in the 500-year floodplain.
The existing building is currently leased by the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program. The request would
change the use of the building to a school. The future addition would be approximately 10,000
square feet. The 500-year floodplain for Poudre River extends north of Vine Drive and east of
Lemay Avenue and the proposed site sits within the boundaries of the River's 500-year floodplain.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if any Councilmembers have visited the site. Councilmember Manvel
stated he has visited the site since it is in his district. He has spoken with the appellants about the
project prior to the Water Board hearing but he did not learn any infonnation that has not been
presented in the appeal materials. City Attorney Roy stated any party-in-interest who believes
Councilmember Manvel's site visit or contact with the appellant will interfere with his decision
making needs to now speak. No one responded.
Mayor Hutchinson stated he visited the site two years ago but he did not learn anything significant
about the site at that time.
Judy Scherplez, Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, appellant, stated the
Nature School is a proposed charter school that would offer schoolchildren an environmentally-based
integrated curriculum and would allow the students to interact with nature and the Rocky Mountain
Raptor Program on a daily basis. At the time of the Water Board hearing,Board members expressed
their support for the project and suggested City Code might be excessively restrictive in this case.
A 500-year flood event at this site would be less than one foot of water at an extremely slow flow
rate. The one-foot depth at one foot/second is a common occurrence in the area with severe summer
325
December 16, 2008
thunderstorms and do not typically present unusual hazards. There is a 0.2%chance/year that such
an event will occur on the site. The site is outside the 100-year floodplain and the flood peak of 12
inches or less would recede quickly. The flood flows would not be deep or rapid. Parts of the
building would be above the maximum flood depth and the addition to the building would be above
the floodplain. The most common time for flooding is May through August and does not occur when
school is in session. The warning systems in the area would provide at least 2 hours notice in the
event of any flood event. The school building is 3000 feet from the Poudre River and is four feet
above the previously documented maximum flood elevation. Other schools within the Poudre
School District are located within the 100-year floodplain and are at greaterrisk but the risk has been
mitigated with emergency management plans. The City has a flood warning system that would give
at least two hours warning.
City Code gives mitigation guidelines for building in the 100-year floodplain but not for building
in the 500-year floodplain. The Nature School has developed its own emergency management plan.
An evacuation plan has been developed to remove the children from the building before floodwaters
would come. The building is structurally sound and would not be at risk. Any water that came into
the building would be a low depths and would recede quickly. The proposed project will not
endanger public health, safety or general welfare. An alternate location for the school is not an
option because much of the curriculum will be centered on the Raptor Program that adjoins the site.
Access to the property during times of flooding would not be an issue because the depths of water
would be one foot or less and high-clearance school buses and vehicles could maneuver through the
floods. The evacuation plans calls for the children to be removed from the site before the flood
waters arrive. The benefits of the proposed school outweigh any minor risks and does not add an
additional threat to public safety.
Mickey Willis, appellant, stated the only 500-year floodplain in Fort Collins is in the Poudre River
Basin. The request for a variance is to change the use of an existing building to a school. The
building has never been flooded. There is only a 0.2%chance that a 500-year flood will occur in any
given year and the plans developed by the school will provide a reasonable expectation of safety to
the public. There is no stormwater management plan for this part of Fort Collins so this proposal
should not be restricted simply because there is no plan. The Poudre School District has denied the
application for the Nature School because the school would be located in a 500-year floodplain and
he asked Council to overturn the Water Board's decision so the application for this charter school
could go forward.
Councilmember Roy asked if all the materials provided to Council for the appeal were within the
appeal guidelines. Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, stated some of the information given to
the Water Board was presented using different wording, but the basic points made and the
information presented now is consistent with the discussion held during the Water Board hearing.
The appellant has asserted that false and misleading information was considered by the Board, and
any additional information that goes towards answering that assertion would be permitted.
Councilmember Roy asked for clarification of the flooding history of the site. Hilmes-Robinson
stated in 1904,the Poudre River did flood the sugar factory, located south of the site,with 6 inches
326
December 16, 2008
of water and 18 inches of water were on the north side, closer to Vine Drive. Using newspaper
accounts of the flood, staff has determined that the site was flooded.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the transcript of the Board hearing notes the appellant did not have any
mitigation plans.
Councilmember Poppaw noted the appellant stated City Code gives mitigation guidelines for
building in a 100-year floodplain but staff had stated mitigation is not done for critical facilities.
Hilmes-Robinson clarified that the City Code does not give any mitigation guidelines for critical
facilities in a 100 or 500-year floodplain. Any type of building other than a critical facility does not
have any requirements for building in a 500-year floodplain. Critical facilities are not allowed to be
built in a 500 or 100-year floodplain because of the higher level of risk associated with those
facilities.
Councilmember Ohlson asked what other issues the Water Board should be directed to consider if
the appeal is remanded to the Board. Bob Smith,Water Planning and Development Manager,stated
mitigation consists of two components. One component is the structure,contents and the inhabitants
of the building. A new structure, such as the proposed addition can be elevated and an existing
structure can be flood proofed to keep the water out. Another component is the actions of the
inhabitants of the building and those attempting to reach the building and access becomes a critical
issue. In the event of a flood, Vine Drive would be wet and emergency personnel and parents
attempting to reach their children would be put at risk,trying to reach the building. If the building
is flood proofed,the recommendation is for the inhabitants to stay inside and not evacuate. Hilmes-
Robinson stated staff did not feel the risk associated with the school could not be fully mitigated.
Many unknowns exists with a flood event with how high the water will be,the amount of debris and
placing children in an area where a flood might occur is not advisable.
Councilmember Manvel asked if an office building could be built at the site with no mitigation
measures. Hilmes-Robinson answered in the affirmative. Adults would occupy an office building
and could respond in a safe manner. A school full of children poses an inherent risk because parents
would attempt to rescue their children, regardless of safety risks.
Councilmember Manvel stated Poudre School District has several schools located in a floodplain
and those schools have not been relocated. Hilmes-Robinson stated that information was incorrect
and there are no schools within a floodplain within city limits. Poudre School District has one
school, located in Larimer County, in the Poudre River 100-year floodplain. The standard in the
Code was adopted in 1995 as a proactive measure to try to mitigate future damages. There are
existing structures that do not meet the standards in the Code, but new buildings must meet Code
requirements to prevent losses.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if schools were added to the list of critical facilities after the 1997 flood.
Hilmes-Robinson stated schools were not originally on the list, but it was interpreted that schools
should be part of the list because of the clause concerning inhabitants that are insufficiently able to
evacuate on their own.
327
December 16, 2008
Councilmember Ohlson stated the City has allowed too many buildings to be built within the
floodplain in the past 25 years and this restriction seems extreme, since the major flood times are
months when the school will not be in session.
Councilmember Roy asked how many critical facilities have been allowed in the 500-year floodplain
since the standards were put into place.
City Manager Atteberry stated the proposed school would be a great addition to the community and
staff has spent considerable time trying to make this plan work. Hilmes-Robinson stated five years
ago, Wingshadow School requested to be located in the Dry Creek Floodplain and was granted a
variance. It was located in the City's mapped floodplain,not the FEMA mapped floodplain. The
Dry Creek diversion project was beginning and the floodplain was going to be eliminated in the near
future when the Wingshadow School requested its variance. The floodplain has been eliminated
from that site and Wingshadow School is no longer in operation. Other schools have looked at sites
located in a floodplain and have chosen alternative sites. Poudre School District consults with the
City when it is considering a new school site.Zach Elementary is one school built since the time of
the critical facilities regulation and the building is completely outside of the floodplain.
Councilmember Manvel asked if changes to the Poudre River since the 1904 flood would affect the
peak discharges projected in the event of a flood. Hilmes-Robinson stated FEMA published the
figures in 2006 and takes into account the existing operational features located along the River,
including water storage facilities and undersized bridges. The undersized bridge across the Poudre
at College and Vine is a critical breakpoint because the overflow that would take place as a result
of the blockage of the bridge would be magnified and cause additional water beyond what is mapped.
Councilmember Manvel asked if it is possible to build a building that contained the mitigation
measures required in a 100-year floodplain to protect the contents and people in the event of a flood.
Hilmes-Robinson stated it is impossible to build any building with absolute certainty that it would
be safe from a flood. The recommendation is for any buildings erected in the 500-year floodplain
to include all mitigation possible,but that mitigation is not required. The proposed addition to the
school could be built with mitigation measures included, but the existing building would not have
those measures. There are no stormwater projects planned that would remove the site from the
floodplain so the new building would still be within the floodplain. Elevating the structure would
not mitigate the access problems that would occur in the event of a flood because the approach roads
would be under water. Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering Field Operations Manager, stated the City
does have a flood warning system but staff is not comfortable relying on that system to notify private
entities that have based their mitigation measures on the City's warning system. The Wingshadow
School received its variance with the condition that it provide its own flood warning system with a
private provider so it was independent from the City. The Wingshadow School had an emergency
management plan written by an emergency management professional and had identified shelters and
transportation. The Nature School has not provided any information regarding its emergency
management plan.
Mickey Willis, appellant, stated Dunn Elementary School is in the middle of a 100-year floodplain
and would have no access in the event of a flood. The Waldorf River Song School bought a building
328
December 16, 2008
at 309 Hickory and operated from 2000 to 2005 and then sold the building to the Family Center, a
preschool that is currently operating on that site, which is in a floodplain. Those critical facilities
were approved through the City's process. The Nature School does have an emergency management
plan, based on the one developed by Wingshadow School. Mr. Willis noted that Mike Gavin,
Director of the Emergency Management Office of Fort Collins,has stated the denial of the variance
was ridiculous as the Poudre School District has an emergency management plan for each of its
schools that deals with response to flooding.
City Manager Atteberry stated he has received a letter from Mr. Gavin, supporting the staff s
position and opposing authorization of the variance. The letter was not entered into the record
because it was new evidence, but Mr. Willis has represented Mr. Gavin's position incorrectly to
Council.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, that Council finds
the Water Board conducted a fair hearing. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Manvel,to remand the matter
to the Water Board for further consideration by the Board of flood proofing the existing structure,
elevating and flood proofing any new structures,and examining emergency notification systems and
response procedures and evacuation plans. The Board is to determine whether to grant the variance
based on consideration of those factors and any other relevant information presented to the Board
in that proceeding.
Councilmember Manvel noted the Board discussed the fact that an emergency management plan was
not presented to the Board at the time of the hearing in August.
Councilmember Roy stated the school is a critical facility that should not be located in a floodplain
and any mitigation measures will not change that fact.
Councilmember Troxell stated the floodplain designation has been developed to safeguard people
and property and a critical facility should not be allowed in a floodplain.
Councilmember Manvel stated additional mitigation measures can development to greatly reduce
any additional threat to public safety. The Nature School could provide great benefit to the
community and minimizing any flooding threat with a plan would meet the criteria for allowing a
variance.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson,Manvel, and Ohlson,. Nays: Poppaw,
Roy and Troxell.
THE MOTION FAILED.
329
December 16, 2008
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw,to uphold the decision
of the Water Board, which held a fair hearing and did not consider substantially false or grossly
misleading evidence relevant to its findings and that the Board did not fail to properly interpret and
apply the provisions of the City Code in denying the variance.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
Nays: Ohlson.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Roy reminded Council that Item#28Items Relating to the Gateway First, Second and
Third Annexations is still pending and Council should return to discussion of that item. Staff
recommends adoption of the resolutions and ordinances relating to the Gateway First Annexation
and to postpone consideration of Gateway Second and Third Annexations to January 6, 2009.
Mayor Hutchinson asked for citizen input on Item#28 Items Relating to the Gateway First, Second
and Third Annexations. No citizens responded.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2008-133. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2008-134. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No.
151, 2008 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adopt Ordinance No.
152, 2008 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to continue the hearing
on Gateway Second and Third Annexation until January 6, 2009. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel,
Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
330
December 16, 2008
Suspension of Rules
Councilmember Manvel made a motion,seconded by Councilmember Roy,to suspend the rules and
extend the meeting. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, and Roy. Nays: Poppaw, Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
(**Councilmember Ohlson left at this point in the meeting.)
Resolution 2008-132
Documenting City Council's Comments on the North I-25
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of this Resolution does not create a financial impact for the City. The North I-25 DEIS
document includes mention of various funding options and strategies for funding the future
implementation of the various recommended improvements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is conducting the North 1-25 Environmental
Impact Statement for the Interstate 25 corridorfrom Northern Colorado to the Denver Metropolitan
area. CDOT released the draft North 1-25 EIS(DEIS)document for public comment on October 31,
2008 for a 60-day review period. Public comments can be submitted to CDOT on the DEIS through
December 30, 2008. City staff from multiple departments has reviewed the DEIS document and
provides the enclosed comments. Staffis requesting commentsfrom City Council on December 16th
to share with CDOT as part of the formal comment process on the DEIS.
City staffwill continue to work with CDOT during 2009 to provide additional input and comments
as part of Final EIS document process. In addition, City staff will conduct thorough outreach to
City Boards and Commissions in early 2009 to gather additional input and comments from the Fort
Collins community representatives. This on-going information and input from staff, City Boards,
Commissions, and Council will be forwarded to CDOT as part of the City of Fort Collins'overall
comments on the North 1-25 EIS document, including recommendations for preferred improvements.
Staff is not asking City Council to make a formal recommendation for a preferred alternative at this
time. Once staffhas received inputfrom the City Boards and Commission, they will bring this item
back to City Council in early 2009 for a formal action on the preferred alternative. There will be
another round offormal comment period for the Final EIS document, which is anticipated to be
released by CDOT in mid-2009.
331
December 16, 2008
BACKGROUND
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has commissioned the North I-25 Environmental
Impact Statement(EIS). The regional study area extends from Wellington at the north end to Denver
Union Station on the south, and from US 287 and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)
Railway routes on the west to US 85 and the Union Pacific Railroad(UPRR)routes on the east. The
regional study area spans portions of seven counties: Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver,
Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld. The regional study area includes 38 incorporated communities and
three transportation planning regions (TPRs): the Denver Regional Council of Governments
(DRCOG), the North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization(NFRMPO), and the Upper
Front Range Regional Planning Commission(UFRRPC).Majorpopulation centers in the regional
study area include Fort Collins, Greeley, Loveland, and the communities in the northern portion of
the Denver metropolitan area(Denver Metro Area). Please see Attachment]for a map of the study
area. The map of the study area is enclosed as part of the Executive Summary document.
The purpose of CDOT's North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)is to identify the type of
facility improvements that will meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro Area and the
rapidly growing population centers along the 1-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins - Wellington
area. To meet long-term travel needs, the project must improve safety, mobility and accessibility,
and provide modal alternatives and interrelationships. The need for the project is driven by the
following four categories:
• Increased frequency and severity of crashes
• Increasing traffic congestion leading to mobility and accessibility problems
• Aging and functionally obsolete infrastructure
• Lack of modal alternatives
The project needs relate differently to highway and transit components of the solutions. Highway
alternatives were evaluated in addressing all four of these needs. Transit alternatives were
evaluated in addressing two of the needs: increasing traffic congestion leading to mobility and
accessibility problems, and lack of modal alternatives. Specific measures were developed for each
of the needs in order to provide a means for evaluating the effectiveness of each alternative. The
alternative packages that address these stated needs are included in the"North I-25 EIS Executive
Summary" document (Attachment 1).
CDOThas involved many cities, counties, and other agencies that are stakeholders within the North
I-25 EIS study area. Since CDOT began the North 1-25 EIS process, City Transportation staff has
participated on the "Technical Advisory Committee" and City Council representatives have
participated on the "Regional Elected Officials Advisory Committee". CDOT staff and their
consultant team also held many public open house and meetings over the last several years of the
ElSprocess.
CDOT staffwill be submitting summary information from the last round ofpublic meetings on the
Draft EIS (DEIS) document prior to the City Council meeting on December l6th and they will be
332
December 16, 2008
available to give Council a presentation highlighting the DEIS document and next steps. CDOT's
website for the DEIS is: http://www.dot.state.co.us/North125eis/deis.cfm. A hard copy of the North
1-25 DEIS document has also been on displayfor public review during the public comment period.
Summary of Staff Comments
Overall, CDOT's DEIS document is very thorough and adequately addresses thepurpose and needs
identified during the scoping phase of the EIS process. The EIS determines the direction for the
future of transportation improvements for Northern Colorado.
Attached is a summary ofstaffcomments from multiple City departments on the DEIS document and
proposed packages ofhighway and transit improvements(Attachment 2). Please note that these are
high level, summary comments and not intended to serve as a detailed overview of the 1-25 EIS.
Staff comments address the pros and cons of each of the proposed CDOT packages and comments
include how well each of the packages compare with the City's adopted Master Plans and policy
documents. The City departments that have provided comments on the DEIS document include:
• Transportation
• Natural Resources
• Parks and Recreation
• Historic Preservation
• Regulatory and Government Affairs Division.
CDOT's DEIS document includes two packages of alternatives. Package "A" includes adding
general purpose lanes and interchange improvements along 1-25 from Mulberry/SH14 south to the
Denver Metro Area to increase traffic capacity and improve safety. To address transit needs,
Package A includes adding regional commuter rail service along the existing Burlington Northern
Santa Fe railroad corridorfrom Downtown Fort Collins to Longmont to connect with Denver's new
FasTracks commuter rail system as well as regional bus transit service between Fort Collins and
Windsor/Greeley. The regional commuter rail stations in Fort Collins would be located at the
Downtown Transit Center, Colorado State University, and the City's future South Transit Center.
The regional bus service would connect to the City's existing and/or future transit stops along
Harmony Road.
Package -B" includes adding "High Occupancy/Tolled Express Lanes" (HO/T or TEL)along the
center ofI-25 from Harmony Road south to the Denver Metro Area. These HOT lanes are designed
to improve travel time for carpools, vanpools, and transit service as well as employ the use of
congestion pricing, allowing people in single occupant vehicles to choose to pay the toll to drive in
the less congested lanes.Package B includes the same interchange improvements shown in Package
A. The transit improvements shown in Package B include regional Bus Rapid Transit service
beginning at the City's future South Transit Center and traveling east via Harmony Road to 1-25,
and then using the HO/T lanes to travel along the center ofI-25 to downtown Denver. Regional BRT
stations in Fort Collins would be located at the South Transit Center, intersection of Harmony and
Timberline roads, and at the Harmony and 1-25 Transportation Transfer Center(park & ride).
333
December 16, 2008
Transportation Planning
From a transportation perspective, there are many advantages of the proposed highway and
interchange improvements shown in the North 1-25 DEIS to address traffic safety and capacity needs
both for existing conditions and for the long-range future.
Package A 's general purpose lanes offer the mostflexibility for addressing,future traffic capacity
needs for all vehicle types (passenger cars, trucks, etc.), however Package B's High
Occupancy/Tolled Express Lanes support the use ofcarpooling, vanpooling, transit, and congestion
pricing opportunities.
Regardingfuture transit improvements, the regional commuter rail transit system shown along the
existing BNSFrailroad tracks in PackageA more effectively addresses community transit access due
to the proximity ofproposed rail service to the existing Fort Collins'population centers and major
activity centers such as Downtown and CSU. However, the regional Bus Rapid Transit service
shown in Package B is also workable due to the link it will provide to the City's existing and future
local transit system along Harmony Road and at the City's future South Transit Center. Both the
regional Commuter Rail and Bus Rapid Transit alternatives will greatly improve Fort Collins'
access via transit to the neighboring Front Range cities as well as to the Denver Metro Area.
Given the strong inter-relationship of land use and transportation planning, Transportation staff
is requesting that additional travel demand forecast modeling be completed by CDOT as part of the
determination ofa preferred alternative. This updated modeling analysis should factor in updated
land use data to reflect the various land use patterns, and changes in land use, that are expected
along each of the corridors based on the proposed transportation improvements shown in each
package of alternatives.
All of the proposed improvements (highway and transit) come at a steep price tag and CDOT,
FHWA, and FTA will need to work collaboratively with all ofthe North Front Range communities,
counties, and metropolitan planning organizations to strategize workable financing options for any
of these proposed future regional transportation infrastructure improvements.
Natural Resources
Natural Resources supports efforts to enhance multi-modal travel systems and supports the
Transportation Planning staffs 1-25 comments.
In terms of impacts to Natural Areas, the most troubling issue noted is the possibility ofa chain link
fence installation along the commuter rail through Natural Areas in the southwest portion of Fort
Collins. The fence would be highly disruptive to wildlife movement.
CDOT needs to update its EIS maps to accurately reflect the size and location of the City of Fort
Collins'Natural Areas and Parks. Also, there is concern regarding impacts to large trees, riparian
habitat, and other wildlife areas and corridors. Another area of concern is noise impacts to open
space areas and note that any efforts to mitigate road noise (barriers) should consider wildlife
334
December 16, 2008
movement(deer, antelope)and create wildlife crossings across 1-25 especially north ofFort Collins
and including the Wellington area. Any barriers within the more "metro" area should provide
occasional openings to permit the movement of wildlife across the interstate.
Water quality is another important area ofconcern in terms ofincreases to stormwater contaminant
loading within the Cache La Poudre watershed for both Alternatives A and B. Also, concerns
include impacts to foodplains and wetlands. For example, impacts to natural vegetation and
wetlands along Spring Creek and Fossil Creek need to be avoided or mitigated. Wetlands in these
areas are highly valued by wildlife including sensitive aquatic species. Natural Resources
recommends that more detailed analysis and site specific impacts, including analysis of threatened
species, need to be identified and revised, site specific mitigation plans for each drainage should be
conducted for the public and with input from appropriate stakeholders.
Regarding the Air Quality section of the DEIS, staff notes that a key issue for local air quality
improvement is to reduce the growth of vehicle miles traveled, which depends, in turn, upon land
use changes that support use of transit, cycling, and walking. For that reason, we believe that land
use densifeation and transit-oriented development should be a key criteria in deciding among the
alternatives.
Regarding greenhouse gases, several communities in the I-25 corridor DEIS study area, including
Fort Collins, Boulder, and Denver, have adopted policies and/orplans to reduce their contribution
to greenhouse gas emissions. The State of Colorado also has a Climate Action Plan. Regional
transportation planning and projects are one of the major avenues for reducing greenhouse gas
emission from the transportation sector. The reduction of transportation carbon emissions, which
is directly proportional to vehicle miles traveled, is critical to the success ofthese community efforts
and the EISshould identify how the selected package impacts carbon emissions and the stated goals.
Also, the DEIS refers to ozone designation inconsistently throughout the Air Quality chapter. All
text should reflect the November 2007 non-attainment designation area for the 8-hour ozone
standard. In addition the new, more stringent 8-hour ozone standard promulgated in March 2008
should be discussed. The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5,presumably because there
are no non-attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion ofparticulate matter
levels in the Affected Environment chapter(page 3.5-7)acknowledges that PM2.5 24-hour maximum
concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of
alternatives should be addressed.
Parks and Recreation
The only Parks and Recreation facility that is impacted by both Alternatives A and B is the Archery
Range located near 1-25 and Prospect Road. With Package A, the Archery Range impact is 0.09
acre and with Package B, the impact is 0.14 acre. Construction would need to be coordinated to
minimize impacts with the use of Best Management Practices(BMPs)to limit erosion,public safety
and City vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation
measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the preferred alternative are developed.
335
December 16, 2008
Regulatory and Government Affairs Division
Both Packages A and B are projected to increase stormwater contaminant loading by approximately
50%.for all modeled contaminants within the Cache La Poudre watershed above the current
situation or under the no-action alternative. Runoff intensity and volume and higher pollutant
loading are some issues commonly associated with increased imperviousness.
With Packages A and B, a much larger percentage runoff from the roads and other impervious
surfaces will be treated via water quality ponds or other BMPs than the current situation or the no-
action alternative.
Advance Planning—Historic Preservation Office
The City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office has reviewed those sections of the North I-25
Draft EIS document pertaining to historic properties within the Fort Collins Growth Management
Area. Staff concurs with the findings that there will be no adverse affects on any historically
designated or eligible properties arising from the implementation of the North I-25 project.
More detail ofstaffs comments on each of these areas is provided in the attached summary.
City staff will continue to be actively involved with CDOT, FHWA, and FTA throughout the
development of the final EIS document in 2009 and will make every effort to convey the input and
concerns from the Fort Collins' City organization, City Council, Boards and Commissions, and
community members to influence the final recommendations for these significant regional
improvements.
Based on recent staff discussions with CDOT, there will be additional opportunities for staff input
as well as input from City Boards, Commissions, and Council during the development of the Final
EIS document in 2009.
Next Steps
Staff will assemble all comments from City staff and Council and submit a report to CDOT by the
December 30, 2008 deadline. Based on the many staff comments from City departmentsit is likely
more comments will bereceivedfrom Council and the community. Consequently, there is much more
work to be done with CDOT and their partnering agencies as they develop the preferred alternative
by Spring 2009 and complete the final North I-25 EIS document by the end of 2009.
Staff will bring the North I-25 EIS information to City Boards and Commissions during the first
quarter of 2009 to gain their input and feedback regarding CDOT's DEIS document and the
proposed packages of improvements.
To date, CDOT's DEIS document is adequate in addressing the important transportation needs for
Northern Colorado's future. The document includes two packages ofpossible highway and transit
336
December 16, 2008
improvements to link Fort Collins to our neighboring communities within the North Front Range
as well as to the Denver Metro Area.
CDOT staff and their consulting team have incorporated input from City staff to ensure that the
proposed alternatives are coordinated with our local adopted land-use and transportation plans and
policy documents. However, CDOT needs to provide more detailed information regarding the
environmental impacts noted by City's Natural Resources and Regulatory and Government Affairs
staff.
Staff is committed to continuing to work with CDOT, FHWA, and FTA throughout the completion
process for the EIS in 2009 to ensure that Fort Collins concerns are addressed in the selection of
the preferred alternative and in the Final EIS document.
Timeline
December 30, 2008 — Public comments are due to CDOT on the DEIS document, including the
packages of highway and transit alternatives.
1st Quarter 2009—City staff present North I-25 DEIS, including packages of alternatives to City
Boards& Commissions. Local agencies work with CDOT to determine a preferred alternative.
2nd—4th Quarter 2009—CDOT finalizes preferred alternative and develops Final EIS document
for public review. "
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager, stated concerns had been expressed that the staff review of the
CDOT DEIS was not comprehensive. The CDOT process is different from the US Army Corp of
Engineers DEIS process for the NISP project that Council recently considered. Staff had not been
involved in the DEIS process for NISP before the DEIS was released. A technical advisory
committee,composed of staff,and a regional coordinating committee,composed of elected officials,
have been working with CDOT staff to develop the North I-25 DEIS. Earlier staff comments and
concerns are reflected in the DEIS. Other concerns are not included and work continues on the
analysis. The summary of comments provided by staff are general in nature and are not intended to
serve as a detailed overview of the DEIS at this point in time. A more detailed review is intended
to be presented to Council during the first quarter of 2009 and will culminate with Council's formal
comments on the final EIS in March 2009. Council's review this spring will also focus on reviewing
the package options and providing its recommendation as to a preferred package.
Kathleen Bracke,Director of Transportation Planning and Special Projects, stated CDOT has spent
years developing the DEIS and City staff has been involved with CDOT's technical advisory
committee for quite some time. More work is yet to be done and staff intends to include all
comments from staff,Council and the community. Staff will review the DEIS with the City's boards
and commissions the first part of 2009 and will present more information to Council in February.
Carol Parr, Project Manager for the CDOT North I-25 EIS project, stated the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement(DEIS)has been completed and it is out for public review until December 30th.
337
December 16, 2008
Work on the final EIS will continue through 2009 and it will go out for public and agency review
and a record of decision on one of the first phases of implementation will occur in mid-2010. The
project began in 2004 with many interchange and small group meetings held with different
municipalities and other groups. The purpose of the EIS is to address the long-term travel needs
between Denver and the north Front Range. Safety concerns, aging infrastructure such as the
interchanges, mobility and accessibility and modal alternatives were examined.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if Council was submitting comments on the Plan or choosing a preferred
package at this time. Pan- stated Council comments were all that were requested at this time.
Councilmember Manvel noted the resolution has been revised to allow staff and the City Manager
to make additional comments, if any, as may be needed to reflect Council direction and
Councilmember feedback prior to the December 30 deadline. These comments are to present
questions for CDOT to consider and are not intended to designate a preferred package. Bracke stated
all Council comments and questions received before December 30 will be submitted to CDOT.
Councilmember Roy asked if comments could be submitted after the first of the year. Parr stated
comments received after December 30 will not be considered as formal comments but they will be
considered.
Councilmember Roy asked what issues were considered in developing the EIS. Parr stated
community visions and values are taken into consideration,along with economic and environmental
issues.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if CDOT wanted to know at this point if Council greatly preferred
one package over the other. Parr stated CDOT will examine both packages,even if the Council was
definite in which package it preferred. Representatives from the communities can attend the
meetings and voice their community's preferences.
Councilmember Manvel noted he would be attending the meetings as Fort Collins representative and
wanted to know Council's preferences.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution
2008-132, as revised. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy,to adjourn the meeting
to the conclusion of the Wastewater Utility Enterprise Board meeting. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Council adjourned to hold the Wastewater Utility Enterprise Board meeting,then reconvened the
Regular Council meeting.)
338
December 16, 2008
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Poppaw made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to go into executive
session to meet with the City Attorney, City Manager and other affected members of City staff
regarding litigation and potential litigation and to discuss related legal issues, as permitted under
Section 2-31(a)(2)of the City Code. Yeas: Hutchinson,Manvel,Poppaw,Roy and Troxell. Nays:
none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's note: The Council went into executive session at this point in the meeting.)
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
339